While universities and private companies have advanced stem cell technologies with largely private funding, some medical researchers are hoping possible new federal research grants will help spur the next wave of breakthroughs in medical treatment and cures.

What's needed first, however, are more extensive ethical guidelines for conducting such research, particularly with human embryonic stem cells, says Dr. E. Albert Reece, vice president for Medical Affairs at the University of Maryland and Dean of the School of Medicine.

President Barack Obama issued an executive order in March lifting the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Reece, a member of the Spencerville Seventh-day Adventist Church in Spencerville, Maryland, has a chance to help shape those guidelines -- he serves on the National Academies Human Embryonic Stem Cell Advisory Committee.

He emphasized that his views expressed in this article are his own and not those of the National Academies or the Stem Cell Guidelines Committee.

Stem cells, the building blocks of body tissue, offer the potential to cure many debilitating diseases and heal various injuries, such as burns and wounds, scientists say. Although adult stem cells are already being used for these purposes, treating some conditions, such as neurological diseases, may require human embryonic stem cell to be effective. Previously, this would have required the destruction of an embryo. However, new research, though in its infancy, offers the possibility of using embryonic stems without harming an embryo.

In a phone interview from his Baltimore office, he broke down in simple terms the debate over stem cell research from embryos, which are extras left over after in vitro fertilization, and typically would be discarded.

His extensive qualifications include a medical degree from New York University, Residency at Columbia University, a fellowship at Yale University where he subsequently served as a faculty member, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica, and an MBA from The Fox School of Business at Temple University in Philadelphia. The Jamaican native is also a world-renowned expert on the complications of diabetes during pregnancy, and serves as this year's chair of the national council of deans of America's 130 medical schools.

Reece, 59, is described by many colleagues as humble. Some researchers brag about the dozen papers they've written. Some colleagues say Reece rarely reveals that he has written or co-authored more than 500 journal articles, chapters and abstracts, and several books. Excerpts from the interview:

Adventist News Network: Why did you take this post?

Dr. E. Albert Reece: I enjoy leadership. I think it gives me an opportunity to have a direct, yet comprehensive impact on healthcare not only from a clinical perspective, but also by focusing on research. The University of Maryland is number seven among 75 public medical schools, which focuses on research, and I am able to continue my own research here. I am also involved in many activities that require me to be in Washington, D.C. very often, so the location is strategic.

ANN: How would you classify your leadership style?

Reece: I use the term "collegial leadership" to describe my style. I believe that by using that approach, people will cooperate because they want to. I've tried to show them that it's good to be part of the team of colleagues, trying to make a difference, or trying to find a cure. We work together as a team of colleagues, while I set the tone.

ANN: Do you think your faith restricts your functioning in any way?

Reece: No, I don't.

ANN: The Adventist Church doesn't have a statement about stem cells. Why do you think the church is ambivalent about that issue?

Reece: There was an ad hoc group, on which I served, which discussed the whole stem cell scenario. The church did not incorporate it or reject it. We're dealing with a world church, with varying perspectives, so that may possibly explain the neutral stance. I certainly know the scientific community within the church has a general understanding of what is ethical, appropriate, reasonable and consistent with the Adventist doctrines.

ANN: In your opinion, can a potential benefit to other humans justify the destruction of a human embryo?

Reece: Well, this is what we [the church's ad hoc group] said: we could not support, endorse or encourage the creation of embryos for the express purpose of destroying them to do stem cell research. However, if spare embryos are going to be destroyed and discarded, using those embryos for research, which are destined for destruction, would be appropriate. This research could improve quality of life for some people and save the life of others.

ANN: What do you think of President Obama's executive order to lift federal funding limits on embryonic stem cell research?

Reece: I think it's a reasonable decision. What needs to happen, however, is the creation of reasonable guidelines. I serve on the National Academies' stem cell guidelines committee, and in fact one of the things I was hoping to do was to present an Adventist official position, which we do not have to date. The Catholic position has already been presented. So I was very eager to present our Adventist position, but I guess I can't. At this time, I think the first step the President has taken is reasonable. Our committee will help to make important guidelines for the scientific community.

ANN: To what degree of certainty can you say that stem cell technology might offer some cures?

Reece: Well, we can say it with a high degree of certainty. Even now, stem cells are used for certain types of therapy, certain types of leukemias or blood cancers. A lot of gains have already been made using what's called autologous, stem cells which are the person's own stem cells. There is a great deal of experimental work showing some benefit of embryonic stem cell for spinal cord injury. In fact, the FDA has just approved the first-ever clinical trial using stem cells for spinal cord injury. The University of Maryland will be part of the national clinical trial. So I think, based on the experience of using adult stem cells and based on the experimental work using embryonic stem cells, or even adult stem cells that have been induced to become more like embryonic stem cells, there's a lot of hope that benefits will be derived in future years.

ANN: What is the core of the moral debate about stem cells?

Reece: The moral debate is really focused on human embryonic stem cells. It's about the concept of an embryo at any stage considered to be a life. Some will say they're just cells that are starting to coalesce. Others will say such cells represent a life that's already begun, and using those cells shouldn't be done. That's the debate. However, there are scientists who've actually shown that they can remove just one cell and allow the others to develop into human life. So essentially, you would not have disrupted the development of a human life. My point is there is a healthy, moral debate, and this has forced scientists to come up with creative ways to be responsive to those arguments. The other issue relates to embryos that will be thrown in the garbage. Some believe that using them for research is a better option than discarding them.

ANN: Some people speculate that expanding research will create a market for extra embryos. How do you respond?

Reece: Well, it's sort of like anything that goes on in the world -- these ills and vices should not occur. My response is that it's not appropriate or fair to hinder ethical, reasonable research that would have true human benefit because [it could happen]. We need to have the appropriate guidelines and restrictions and safeguards to make certain these things don't eventuate into these adverse outcomes.