Embryonic Stem Cells - Research Paper Example

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Science and Ethics Stem cell research is a polarizing political issue. It is difficult to separate scientific facts from the moral debate, even for scientists, because we have difficulty defining the point where the potentiality of cells has a good chance of becoming an actuality—in other words, when a pile of cells contains enough “life” to be something that should be protected, though it is not able yet to survive on its own. We carry our opinions of moral arguments around with us wherever we go, based on belief systems (whether scientific beliefs or religious beliefs). There is enough potential good in stem cell research that a well-thought, moral person can take a position in the debate, balancing science on the one hand and a strong belief in social justice and the sanctity of human life on the other hand. The answer to the debate is not “either-or,” it is somewhere in the middle. This essay examines just a little of the science which backs up the claim that there is so much more we could know about and do with stem cells, which would help millions of people who suffer from chronic diseases lead longer, more comfortable lives. It begins with an overview of current stem cell research, where stem cells are derived from, and the usefulness of embryonic stem cell lines derived from discarded in vitro fertilization patients. This is followed by a discussion of scientists’ viewpoints on potentiality and actuality of stem cells, which is where the main part of the moral debate lies. This essay purposely avoids discussions of religion and politics, but instead attempts to show that even someone with a strong religious tradition and conservative political beliefs can uncover an ethical compromise that serves the greater good. Sources of Stem Cells According to Marshak, Gardner, and Gottlieb (2001) and the National Institutes of Health (2006), there are several sources of stem cells. Mouse stem cells have been studied by scientists since the early 1980s, and form much of the background of information we have about how stem cells function and their uses. Scientists have also studied rhesus monkey and common marmoset stem cells. None of these non-human cells are suitable for actual use in humans. Umbilical cord blood is also useful to some extent; cord blood can be stored in banks and is typically used by the person who donated it. Adult human stem cells can be taken from an individual, coaxed into becoming another type of cell, and re-transplanted back into the body. However, the usefulness of adult stem cells is limited, because not all types of cells have been isolated, and they are difficult to isolate because they occur in minute quantities in adults. Embryonic stem cells are the most flexible, and can be turned into nerves, muscles, and blood, which can then be transplanted into a patient with heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, or leukemia, to name just a few of their potential uses. They can even be used in clinical drug trials to test the safety and efficiency of drugs. Unused embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments are the main source of embryonic stem cells for research (McLeod and Baylis, 2007; NIH, 2006; Marshak, Gardner, and Gottlieb, 2001). Embryos are tested for genetic viability, and it is the policy of IVF clinics to destroy those that test unsuitable rather than freezing them. Suitable embryos are frozen for later use if the implanted pregnancy doesn’t “take,” or destroyed as well. Some IVF clinics ask women to donate these viable embryos to stem cell research (McLeod and Baylis, 466). McLeod and Baylis argue that is against women’s best interest to donate viable embryos to stem cell research because this encourages the continued oppression of women, thus working against social justice. There’s no evidence to support the idea that stem cell researchers look upon women undergoing IVF treatment as embryo factories. It is true that IVF treatments are painful, lengthy, and often don’t result in women giving birth even after trying for years. The viable embryos, whether fresh or frozen, could be useful to stem cell researchers, and it is a woman’s choice whether or not she wants to donate them, not the researchers’ nor the clinicians’ choice. Potentiality vs. Actuality: What Is “Enough Life” From the moment of conception, the group of cells with the potential to become a human life goes through a series of changes that advance it toward that end. If the process is interrupted at any point along the way, even up to the moment of birth, the developing embryo or fetus (with the potentiality for human life) can cease to exist. Possibility merges into probability as long as the process advances. Biologists struggle with the moral and scientific definitions of possibility and probability, and through studying the development of embryos, have marked various stages as the one that is the beginning of realistic potentiality. Viable stem cells from a blastocyst become available four to five days after fertilization because no differentiation has taken place yet. In other words, the cells have not become recognizable as any particular kind of cell. If implantation does not take place, the cells can be grown and manipulated indefinitely in the laboratory (NIH, 2006; Marshak, Gardner, and Gottlieb, 2001). Another stage of development which could be considered a cut off point is gastriculation, which occurs around the fourteenth day after the egg is fertilized. This is not to say that at the fourteenth day, an embryo IS a person; just that an important physical moment has occurred which sets the embryo on the path of greater potentiality. This begins to address, scientifically, the argument that even a fertilized egg has the proper amount of potentiality and so should not be destroyed by human intervention. Lizza (2007) attempts to define “realistic and ethically relevant” potentiality (380). He acknowledges that there is a moral argument, and attempts to establish boundaries based on empirical evidence, not emotional or moral evidence. Given the appropriate conditions, any pile of stuff has the potential to become something else; the cells produced in the laboratory, or multiple fertilized eggs produced through IVF treatments, do indeed have the possibility of becoming people endowed with will and intellect. However, Lizza continues, the probability of these blastocysts reaching this potential is not realistic. Thus, it is morally permissible to use cells which otherwise would be destroyed, as long as they will not be brought to their full potential. By the very fact that they are slated to be destroyed, their potential is eliminated. The blastocysts were not created with the intention of producing dozens of humans; they are created as a kind of backup plan until the infertile couple either succeeds in having a baby or gives up on the process. Finding the Middle Ground in Support of the Greater Good On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an executive order which allows the government to support “responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law” (NIH, 2009, 10667). Guidelines from the NIH are forthcoming, but the executive order sets aside 8 years of conservative political policy and opens the door for regulated research to commence (or continue, in some cases). We should not expect explosions of knowledge and miraculous cures to appear suddenly just because research can be conducted, but we can expect theories of stem cells’ known effectiveness to expand, and to explore many uses only previously theorized. In a somewhat ironic way, studying the properties of these discarded embryos could lead to discoveries that would help solve the puzzles of infertility, pregnancy loss, and birth defects (NIH, 2006). By understanding the intricate details of development, scientists can discover clues as to what causes these conditions to occur. Little is known in detail about the early development of embryos, and watching animal stem cells develop in a petri dish does not translate directly into what happens for humans. So, infertility and pregnancy problems must be counted in addition to other potential diseases discarded IVF embryos could be used to treat. Rhetorical arguments setting the potentiality at the moment of conception, or demonizing stem-cell researchers, are simply not based in scientific fact. It’s not that there is no argument; medical professionals have to be extra-careful to interpret research without putting personal agendas into the interpretations, whether those personal agendas are at one extreme or the other. We must remain reasonable, above all, and use the best knowledge we have available to make decisions that impact the lives around us. Allowing stem cell researchers to use freely donated embryos from IVF treatments helps further the causes of the research. There is some validity in the argument that there is a potential person contained in a blastocyst; that potential must be examined for its reasonableness. If using donated embryos is unethical, then creating multitudes of embryos for in vitro fertilization treatments should also be unethical, and should be outlawed as well. While there may be some who would agree with this, most do not—most importantly, lawmakers and doctors, and infertile couples. Each of us must balance our moral beliefs with our politics and find reasonable, well-thought-out conclusions. Cloning and custom-ordered children are beyond the scope of reasonable, just as completely banning potentially lifesaving research is beyond the scope of reasonable. The greater good calls us to help the people who are actually here and are suffering, and not be caught up in a black-and-white moral debate about the sliver of potential life contained in IVF embryos which would be destroyed if they were not donated to stem cell researchers. Works Cited Lizza, J. “Potentiality and Human Embryos.” Bioethics, 21(7): 379-385 (September 2007). Accessed 6 May 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. Marshak, Daniel R., Gardner, Richard L., Gottlieb, David (eds). Stem Cell Biology. Woodbury, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 2001. McLeod, C., and Baylis, F. “Donating Fresh versus Frozen Embryos to Stem Cell Research: In Whose Interests?” Bioethics, 21(9): 465-477 (November 2007). Accessed 6 May 2009 from Academic Search Premier EBSCO host. National Institutes of Health. “Regenerative Medicine 2006.” Electronic report (2006; updated 2007). Accessed 6 May 2009 from http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/2006report.htm>. National Institutes of Health. “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” Federal Register, March 11, 2009. Accessed 6 May 2009 from . Read More