Should Human Embryonic Stem Cells Be Used in Scientific Research - Essay Example

Should Human Embryonic Stem Cells be used in Scientific Research Introduction Recent advances in medical sciencehave prompted new questions about medical ethics which are all but impossible to resolve. From debating the use of animals in medical science, we have now moved to debating the use of human fetuses. This essay will discuss four arguments on the ethics of using aborted human fetal cells in stem cell research: opposition on religious grounds, the question of whether or not using fetal tissue constitutes murder of the fetus, opposition on the grounds that human life is sacred and should not be exploited for experimental purposes, and finally whether or not the end result of such research justifies the means by which it is carried out. These arguments will be used to show that it should be considered ethical to use human embryonic stem cells in scientific research. First, a brief explanation of the science behind the ethics will be given, together with examples of potential applications of these cells in the treatment of human diseases. The Research More than 20 years ago, scientists discovered how to derive stem cells from mouse embryos (NIH 2005), but more recently the potential for using human stem cells has been realized. The use of stem cells in medical research hinges on the fact that stem cells have the potential to differentiate into any of the cell types within the body in response to chemical signals. Theoretically they are able to divide limitlessly until they do become differentiated. Extensive research is being carried out in various parts of the world to determine the specific combination of chemical signals that will induce stem cells to differentiate into brain and nerve tissue as well as an array of organ tissue, including heart, pancreas, and liver. Stem cells are a potential source of an unlimited supply of replacement cells and tissues which can be used in treatments and cures for human diseases, as well as to explore the causes of diseases. For example, stem cells could be induced to differentiate into insulin-producing pancreatic cells which could be used to treat diabetes. This year, a team of researchers at Johns Hopkins University derived embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos, and transplanted these into paralyzed rats (JHMI, June 20, 2006). With the application of a surprisingly small number of cells, the paralysis was entirely cured, and the rats were able to walk again. It goes without saying that regenerating nerve tissue is a remarkable achievement. This research has the potential to be developed into treatments which could substantially increase the quality of life for millions of people suffering from a diverse range of illnesses. According to Douglas Kerr, the neurologist who led the research team, treatments based on this research could one day repair the damage done by Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), multiple sclerosis, or traumatic spinal injury. With small adjustments, this approach could effectively treat Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease. The human embryos used in the first successful attempts to isolate stem cells for laboratory use were derived from unneeded in vitro fertilization procedures (NIH 2005), and were used with the informed consent of the donor. However, as stem cell research has become more popular and the potential for it has been more fully realized, the need for consistent sources of cells has become more apparent, and this need has become a hotly-debated source of contention. In the United States, for example, there has been considerable debate over the past five years as to whether the government should fund research using frozen human embryos which are stored by in vitro fertilization clinics. Embryos used in such research would be approximately five days old (Associated Press, 2006) and would be destroyed in the research process. Opposition to the use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells on Religious Grounds Opposition of the use of human embryonic stem cells is often based on religious grounds (Singer, 2000). For those who believe that humans - including unborn humans - have immortal souls, a human embryo is worthy of greater protection than an animal of any other species from the moment of conception. According to this belief, the existence of an immortal soul means it is ethically and morally wrong to use human embryos in research regardless of the age of the embryo or any other factors. Whether or not this is true is not relevant, because it is impossible to prove or disprove matters of faith. What is relevant is the question of whether or not we should allow religious beliefs to dictate what types of scientific research are conducted. If the entire world were all of one mind, with the same religious beliefs, worshipping the same god, it would certainly be natural to assume that religion might dictate in many areas of life, including science. However, the world is not that way. America, for example, is a multi-cultural, multi-denominational country, and the country's citizens have a diverse array of religious and ideological beliefs. It is wrong that one section of society should be allowed to dictate the scientific course of the country as a whole, and it is certainly wrong that George Bush has vetoed a bill already passed by both Congress and the Senate on the basis of his own personal religious beliefs (Zakaria and Kenen, 2006). As President of the United States, Bush has the power of veto; however it is wrong to allow political and scientific decisions which affect an entire country, and ultimately the world, to be influenced by the personal beliefs of one man, regardless of how powerful he may be. Bush's ethics are flawed in another way. In August 2001, Bush announced that Federal funding would be allocated to stem cell research only if it used human embryonic cell lines that already existed as of 9pm, August 9, 2001 (WHPR, August 9, 2001). This meant that after this date, federally-funded stem cell research could not create any new cell lines from embryos stored by fertility clinics. In this matter Bush is ethically inconsistent for two reasons. First, he has arbitrarily chosen a date to divide the ethical use of stem cells and the unethical use - apparently, it was ethical to destroy embryos before 9pm August 9, but not after. Secondly, he has withdrawn Federal funding but still allows private companies to use human embryonic stem cells in research. It is obviously not his intention to apply an inconsistent set of ethical standards to this research, however he has done exactly that, in creating a situation in which some research is permissible and some is not, for reasons which have nothing to do with the research itself. There is a larger issue at stake, however. If we cannot prove that religious beliefs are based on fact - if we cannot prove the existence of the immortal soul - what right have we to use religious beliefs as the basis for making such important decisions It is impossible to prove that a fetus has an immortal soul from the moment of conception, and therefore it is logically incorrect to use this argument as the basis for opposition to human embryonic stem cell research. Furthermore, it is ethically wrong to use an unproven religious argument as the basis for squelching scientific research in this field. Does the use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells Constitute Murder The only compelling argument against the use of human embryonic stem cells is simply that nobody knows exactly when a fetus becomes sentient. Everyone has their opinion, but nobody actually knows. Those who are opposed argue that a fetus is a living, innocent person from the moment of conception (Singer 2000) and that therefore using stem cells derived from embryos is murder. This is often a religious argument related to the belief in an immortal soul that exists from the moment of conception, but these two concepts are not inseparable, and removing religion from the equation does not invalidate the argument. Regardless, it is more true to say that nobody knows when a fetus becomes sentient, and it is quite possible that nobody ever will. Given this, another argument against the use of fetal cells in medical research is that since it is impossible to know when sentience begins; using a fetus from any stage of growth could be murder - since we do not and can not know it is better to not do it at all. The other side of the argument is that it is impossible for what amounts to a few cells (an embryo contains less than 120 cells at the five-day-stage) to be considered a person or a life, when it does not have a brain or a functioning nervous system. It is simply impossible for the fetus to be considered a person at such an early stage of development - at most it is a 'potential life', rather than a life. In fact, from the moment of conception, it is at least two weeks before the fetus is implanted in the uterus, and cell differentiation begins (Dawkins, 2002, p10). Until this implantation occurs, the fetus is simply a collection of identical cells - stem cells - with no function other than division. This means that it is impossible to consider that the moment of conception is the moment at which a person is created - because it is not until cell differentiation starts that, for example, the cell division leading to the creation of identical twins occurs. During those first two weeks after conception, the fertilized egg still has the potential to become one, two, three, or more separate entities - so how can it have an immortal soul if it is still capable of becoming more than one fetus How can it suffer when no bodily systems have even begun to be formed How can the use of embryonic stem cells constitute murder when they are derived from a collection of identical cells which are not yet alive It is biologically impossible for the unimplanted fetus to suffer in any way, and the fetus is a 'potential life' rather than actually being alive. Therefore the use of human embryonic stem cells cannot be considered murder. The Sanctity of Human Life Opponents of the use of fetal stem cells believe that it degrades the sanctity of human life. This argument relies on the belief that the lives of humans are sacred or special at any age including before birth, and it is not necessarily a religious argument, although it often is (Dawkins, 2002, p 10). Few of the people who object to the use of fetal tissue in research are vegetarians, so they apparently have no qualms about the suffering of animals. Many people eat meat, wear leather or fur, and use drugs or cosmetics which have been tested on animals. There is no doubt that very often, these animals do suffer both psychologically and physically. It is biologically impossible for a five day old embryo - the age at which they would be used in scientific research - to suffer either psychologically or physically. However, people object to the supposed suffering of an embryo which has no brain or nervous system, but have no objections to using products derived from or tested on animals which do suffer. There has been no similar ethical debate over the use of embryos of any other species. The basis of the objection of the use of human embryos, therefore, is simply that they are human. When couples undergo in vitro fertility treatment, many more embryos than can be used are created and then stored, to ensure that plenty of embryos are available to be used. Unused embryos are stored indefinitely. However, embryos in storage do not remain viable indefinitely, and while it is true that viable embryos are sometimes donated by one couple to another, many more than this are stored until they become unusable, after which they are discarded. There is little or no moral and ethical debate surrounding this practice. Why, then, is there so much debate over the fact that unneeded embryos could be used in what may be some of the most significant medical research in history If it is ethical to destroy an embryo by storing it until it is unusable and then discarding it, how is it unethical to destroy an embryo by using it in research which has such enormous potential Surely it is more degrading to human life to waste it when the alternative is to use it to save human lives or alleviate human suffering If human life is sacred, why is the 'potential life' of a five day old embryo which does not suffer more sacred than the life of a child with muscular dystrophy, a middle-aged man with Parkinson's Disease, or a young woman who receives spinal injury and becomes paraplegic Do the Ends Justify the Means Even if we accept the above arguments - if we decide that destroying a five day old embryo is murder, if we decide that all humans have immortal souls, if we decide that human life is sacred - can we still justify the use of embryonic cells in research All of the arguments against this practice also rely on the belief that the potential benefits of treatments and research that use stem cells are less important than the ethical considerations. However, the potential benefits of such research are enormous. Thousands of people die every year in America while waiting for suitable donor organs (Wertz, 1999), and stem cell research could provide a means of growing organs in the laboratory. Millions of people world-wide suffer from Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, paralysis, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease and countless other diseases which may one day be treatable or even curable using stem cells. Our priority should be towards humans that are alive and suffering, rather than those five day old embryos that are not yet alive, and cannot suffer either physically or mentally. Conclusion The ethical issues surrounding the use of human embryonic stem cells may never be fully resolved. These are emotive issues and as with other such issues, including abortion, human cloning, and genetic screening of embryos, the line between those who agree and those who don't is very clearly marked, and it represents a wide gulf between the two groups. It is all but impossible that there will be agreement upon issues that are based not upon scientific validity but on human emotion and faith. For the most part arguments against this research are based on religious or personal beliefs rather than fact, and when there is such a diverse array of beliefs in the world, it is unethical to allow personal belief - religious or otherwise - to interfere with science to such an extent. If we strip away the ethical issues and consider only the facts we are left with the knowledge that research with enormous potential is being halted on the basis of arguments that are impossible to prove. Works Cited Associated Press. Vatican criticizes EU stem cell decision. July 25, 2006. July 26, 2006. Dawkins, Richard. Homsap: Elixir of Holiness. Free Inquiry 22. p9-12. Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, Inc. 2002. Johns Hopkins Medical Institute (JHMI) Press release: Johns Hopkins scientists use embryonic stem cells, new cues to awaken latent motor nerve repair. June 20, 2006. July 26, 2006. . National Institute of Health (NIH). Stem Cell Basics. August 12, 2005. July 26, 2006. . Singer, Peter. Stem Cells and Immortal Souls. Free Inquiry Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, Inc. Spring, 2000. Wertz, Dorothy C. Human Embryonic Stem Cells: A Source of Organ Transplants. Gene Letter February 1999. White House Press Release (WHPR). President discusses stem cell research. August 9, 2001. July 26, 2006. . Zakaria, T., and Kenen, J. Bush Casts his first veto on stem-cell bill. July 19, 2006. July 26, 2006. . Read More