Federal Funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell - Research Paper Example

Proposed Plan of Action on the Federal Funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Introduction Human embryonic stem cell research encompasses the manipulation of a stem cell extracted from an embryo. The embryo becomes destroyed before the stem cells could be extracted. The research involves the removal of embryonic cells from an embryo and culturing them in the laboratory for research on human diseases (The Witherspoon Council on Ethics and the Integrity of Science 129-133). The significant capacity for stem cells to develop into different body cells forms the basis for scientists conducting this research. Embryonic stem cell research continues to provoke serious controversies in the religious, political, and ethical domains since its initiation. However, stem cell research remains an extensive phenomenon that also involves the extraction of embryonic stem cells as well as adult stem cells. The use of adult stem cells does not provoke controversies since it does not involve dehumanizing acts. The main controversy exists on the embryonic stem cell research that involves sacrificing of human life, which stands as unethical since the embryos used for the research do not survive (Family Research Council Web; James 8-9; Robertson 193-195). This paper seeks to propose an action plan that outlines the need for government officials to withdraw federal funding and ban human embryonic stem cell researches. Problem description During the reign of President Bush, federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research stood banned since the administration opposed the practice. Even though the federal government does not fund research that involves the creation of embryos for purposes of research, President Obama’s administration lifted the ban. The federal government funds researchers that make use of embryos created in vitro fertilization but have stayed unused. However, the move by the federal government to provide funding for human embryonic stem cell research encourages other unethical practices such as abortion. Since these scientists remain prohibited from creating embryos for the research, they would turn to other alternatives of obtaining embryos. The justification used for the research would be that embryos couldn’t be considered human. This justification is likely to be used by unethical practitioners to support their misdemeanors, for instance those conducting abortion. Causes of the problem James Thomson initiated the human embryonic stem cell research in 1998. Several reasons became presented for the initiation of this research on the basis that stem cells have the potential to save lives. One such cause for embryonic stem cell research would be the development of rubella and polio as a resource for developing national policy and for local institutional review boards. This became founded on the premise that the research would develop considerable biomedical knowledge not obtainable by other methods. This problem intensified due to the impact of laws on the situation stem cell research developed. The Congress under President Reagan’s reelection in 1993 nullified the requirement for approval by the Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) on embryonic stem cell research. In addition, the Congress lifted a moratorium on federal funding of embryo research, which later became banned by the 1996 Congress (Holland et al. 27-29). The problem became enhanced through arguments presented by the Human Embryo Research Panel in 1994 regarding federal funding. They raised two objections namely moral compliance preceding abortion as well as researchers taking responsibility for women undertaking abortions. The three responses made by National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) caused further issues regarding federal funding. The first response mandated that no information should relay that embryonic research contributes to increased abortion since it would reduce claims of abortion attributed to this research. Secondly, the requirement that researchers take the moral responsibility for women undertaking abortions became withdrawn on the premise that other people who encourage women to take abortions would also be held responsible. Thirdly, legal, safety measures also offer protection to women who provide consent prior to any requests of embryonic research. These causes stood projected as rightly considered on the principles of doing noble, as well as avoiding harm (Holland et al. 31). NBAC, on certain instances, took a moral position concerning the use of embryos as subjects of research. This especially occurred when an analogy broke up on the subject of embryonic research and permissible abortion. Later on, moral compromise disappeared when NBAC made the move recommending the permission for federal funding on the use of embryonic stem cells from unused in vitro embryos. Reasons provided to support this permission ranged from avoiding industry based researches to the significance of science on the need for federal regulation and support. It becomes evident that NBAC never allowed for moral reasoning of compromise to guide its choices and recommendations regarding federal funding (Holland et al. 32-33). Plan of action Moral judgment should be upheld and appropriately applied to the ethics of extracting human embryonic stem cells for the purposes of research as a cell replacement therapy. The extraction of human embryonic stem cells for research remains the most disputed and sensitive debate as regards the status of embryos for in vitro fertilization. Human embryonic stem cell research involves the destruction of embryos to extract embryonic stem cells; as opposed to adult stem cell research. The main controversy exists on whether the research should be fully funded by the federal government. Parallel research on alternatives remains significant with the need for serious support. A ban on research on human therapeutic cloning remains justified. Hence, research needs to be conducted into the potential alternatives for therapeutic cloning, which do not require the use of human embryos. The donation of embryos for in vitro fertilization should be carried out and monitored when a childless couple puts a request. This should be so because the use of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) raises arguments in the intention of fertilization. The goal of ART should be to provide a solution to couples who remain involuntary childless, and this would make the loss of any embryo a risk worth calculating (de Wert and Mummery 680). Human embryonic stem cells do not exist as the only possible source for stem cell therapies. It would be possible to incorporate adult stem cells into differentiated cells that do not associate with their functional state. The injection of embryonic cells into the blastocyst of a mouse could contribute to the development of tissues in various ways. First, adult stem cells could be directly administered either systematically or locally to a patient. Prior to the transplantation, the adult stem cells would be cultured, differentiated and selected for a target organ. Recent advancements in tissue engineering would involve the use of biodegradable skeletons to create three-dimensional structures to be sealed with cells, cultured, and thereafter grafted into the target organ. In addition, endogenous stem cells of the patient could be stimulated with by administering growth elements on the premise that self-repair could be augmented or induced (Wobus and Boheler 666-667). Ethical principles should be allowed to govern human embryonic stem cell research through government regulation that bans the federal funding of such research. Some of the ethical considerations should entail principles relating to respect for human dignity, and justice, in addition to improvement and protection, of health. Freedom of research should be balanced on considering other essential principles and the availability of other acceptable alternative methods. The principle of respect of privacy, confidentiality of personal information and informed consent should also be considered. Since scientific research, outcomes on human embryonic stem cells develop so quickly, bioethical laws and regulations on human embryonic stem cell research should be reviewed on a regular basis (Wobus and Boheler 667). Arguments for the plan of action Dehumanization of humans at any stage of development remains a wrong endeavor. Scientist makes use of several terms to cover up the cruelty involved in human embryonic stem cell research. They make use of the term such as embryonic bodies, cluster of stem cells, and blob of tissue whenever they are discussing the controversial issue of embryonic stem cell research. However, use of decent terms to refer to the practice of destroying human embryos does not make the research virtuous. Although scientists want to make us believe that embryos are not humans, they have done studies to demonstrate that development of humans starts from fertilization to adulthood. This depicts that though embryos may not be rational they represent a stage through which all humans must pass and without which no human would be in existence (Family Research Council Web). Every scientific study requires the adherence to certain ethical principles. One such principle is that it should work towards raising the human dignity. In the case of embryonic stem cell research, there exists pronounced disregard for human life. The argument that an embryo cannot be considered a human has already been disapproved by cloning, which has shown that life begins at conception. Therefore, treating embryos that are below fourteen days old as non-humans is unethical. The pre-embryo and post embryo distinctions provided to validate the practices of stem cell researchers remain unjustifiable (“The Witherspoon Council on Ethics and the Integrity of Science” 132-135). The stem cell research stays surrounded by many ethical questions. The main ethical question regards the morality of destroying human embryos that have the potential of developing into independent beings. Although supporters of this research argue that the embryos used for research do not become obtained from the human uterus, but produced in the laboratories, the research remains unethical. Creating life to destroy it remains a wrong endeavor (Family Research Council Web). The opponents of embryonic stem cell research have argued that its federal funding would lead to an increase of dehumanizing actions such as abortion. Aborted embryos act as a source of embryos for the stem cell research (James 8). It may be believed that federal funding the research will encourage many people to procure abortions. This would be due to the notion that embryos do not exist as humans making women not to feel guilty while procuring abortion. Additionally, the argument by scientists that embryos do not exist as humans would lead to irresponsible scientific research (Robertson 195-198). Another reason why embryonic scientific research stands as a definite problem would be that the research is against religious belief. Most people in United States remain religious and believe in the sanctity of human life. Federal funding embryonic stem cell research would continue against the wishes of many Americans. This would be because funding of such research would enable researchers to obtain federal funding. The funds used would be obtained from taxes paid by all citizens including those opposing the practice. Thus, it would be unethical to force Americans to pay for a research that most of them oppose (Family Research Council Web). Support of government on human embryonic stem cell research can be equated to desensitization of the public over killing of embryos (James 8-10). However, researchers argue that the embryos used, are not obtained from the unused embryos produced through in vitro fertilization. The fact that the practice involves creating human life to destroy it does not change. The use of the embryos undermines human dignity. Although the government does not fund embryonic stem cell, research that makes use of embryos created specifically for the research, it encourages the practice. Federal funding, therefore, should be banned (Family Research Council Web; Robertson 193-196). Irrespective of the identified negative effects of embryonic stem cell research, the research continues. There exist certain reasons that have led to continuity of the controversial research. The main reason would be that the federal government agreed to fund most of the stem cell undertakings. Although previous administrations were reluctant to fund the controversial research, Obama’s administration promised to support the research. This is likely to encourage scientist to ignore the ethical concerns associated with the research. Approval of the federal government makes the research appear noble. Additionally, the media have displayed biases while addressing this issue. Most debates sponsored by the media have focused on the positive benefits associated with stem cell research. This has led to support of research by voters in States such as California and Massachusetts allowing federal funding of research. The public remains less informed of the negative and ethical questions raised by embryonic stem cell research due to the use of emotional appeal in media advertisements. The obfuscation of language used in reference to embryonic stem cell research is another cause for the continuance of unethical research. Most people outside the scientific field remain unaware of the unethical practices involved in stem cell research. This could be attributed to the confusing terminologies used by researchers when discussing the unethical practices. They have thus managed to dissuade much criticism from the public. Conclusion The issue of human embryonic stem cell research has been under debate since the start of the research. Those in support of the research argue that it possesses significant potential in revolutionizing human medicine. Opponents of the research argue that it results in devaluation of human dignity. As opposed to adult stem cell research, human embryonic stem cell research entails the destruction of embryos to harvest embryonic cells. The main controversy exists on whether the research should be fully funded by the federal government. Parallel research on alternatives remains significant with the need for serious support. A ban on research on human therapeutic cloning remains unjustified. Hence, research needs to be conducted into the potential alternatives for therapeutic cloning, which never, involve the use of human embryos. Works Cited de Wert, Guido, and Mummery, Christine. "Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Research, Ethics and Policy." Human Reproduction 18.4 (2003): 672-682. Family Research Council. At the Podium. 17 April 2002. Web. . 14 Nov 2012. Holland, Suzanne, Lebacqz, Karen, and Zoloth, Laurie (Eds). The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press, 2001. Print James, Charles. An Ethical Debate on Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Human Dignity Or Research Freedom? New York: GRIN Verlag, 2009. Print. Robertson, John. "Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy." Law, Science, and Innovation: The Embryonic Stem Cell Controversy (2010): 191-203. The Witherspoon Council on Ethics and The Integrity of Science. "The Stem Cell Debates: Lessons for Science and Politics." The New Atlantis (2012): 129-146. Web. . Wobus, Anna M., and Boheler, Kenneth R. "Embryonic Stem Cells: Prospects for Developmental Biology and Cell Therapy." Physiological Reviews 85.2 (2005): 635-678. Read More