Ethical Considerations of Stem Cell - Research Paper Example

Ethical Considerations of Stem Cell Research Stem cell research is one of the many sources of controversy in the medical field recently. It has sparked many oppositional views coming from “Pro-Life” groups when, in fact, there should be no debate at all in moving stem cell research forward because of the basic reason that stem cell research IS pro-life because it actually prolongs lives and has a great potential of saving many more lives in the future. Basically, stem cell research is pro-life because it provides a deep insight into human development, it provides an excellent venue to study diseases and how they develop, and it shows great promise for regenerative medicine. Proponents of stem cell research clamor for the general acceptance (and consequent funding) of stem cell research as a legitimate means of finding ways to treat a variety of illnesses and disorders. Researchers can essentially use stem cells in finding out how the complex processes of human development (Efrat, 2009) are able to change undifferentiated stem cells into differentiated cells that develop into the human body’s vital tissues and organs. This is crucial in understanding the mechanisms of genetic developments, which generally unlocks the explanations to the occurrence of detrimental medical conditions such as birth defects and cancer (Robinson, 2010). Scientists argue that if they are able to trace how these developments happen, they will be able to control these processes right from the beginning and prevent the proliferation of these serious medical conditions. Stem cells are unspecialized cells that are capable of renewing themselves through cell division, sometimes after long periods of inactivity (Kelly 2007). More importantly, stem cells are capable of developing into different cell types in the body during early life and growth, either through physiological or experimental means. As such stem cells can actually be induced to become cells that serve a particularly specific action. For example, stem cells have the ability to regenerate themselves. Thus, they may be used effectively in replacing worn out or damaged tissues of different organs of the body. Simply put, most knowledge about human development has been obtained through studying model organisms, such as fruit flies, worms, frogs and mice. Human embryonic stem cell lines, which can be cultured and differentiated into a variety of cells and tissues paralleling the earliest events in the development of the embryo offer a unique window into human development. Because of this, stem cell research enables medical practitioners and researchers to take primitive human cells and develop these into almost any of the 220 varieties of human cells, including brain cells and blood cells (Panno 2005). It is for these reasons that scientists and researchers look into the promising opportunities that stem cell research can offer in terms of studying diseases and how they develop. Through stem cell research, scientists are uncovering treatments and even cures for a multitude of diseases, from diabetes and heart disease to Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, birth defects, spinal cord injuries, replacement or repair of damaged organs, reduced risk of transplantation, and cancer. In addition, stem cell research offers the possibility of testing out new drugs that were developed to cure ailments such as cancer (Kelly, 2007). This development is deemed a great improvement from merely utilizing “lab rats” since these cells actually represent human life and so effects of different medications on human stem cells will largely be the same as their effects on humans themselves. Thirdly, stem cell research shows great promise in regenerative medicine. Replacing diseased cells with healthy cells, an approach called regenerative medicine, is a promising application of stem cells (Efrat, 2009). Currently, researchers are investigating the use of adult, fetal and embryonic stem cells as a resource for various, specialized cell types, such as nerve cells, muscle cells, blood cells and skin cells that can be used to treat various diseases. In theory, any condition in which there is tissue degeneration can be a potential candidate for stem cell therapies, including Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, heart disease, Type 1 diabetes, muscular dystrophies, retinal degeneration and liver diseases. Truly, there is endless potential for scientists to learn about human growth and cell development from studying stem cells. The use of adult-derived stem cells, from blood, cord blood, skin and other tissues, known as iPS, has been demonstrated to be effective for treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical-cord-derived stem cells (obtained from the cord blood) have also been isolated and utilized for various experimental treatments (Humber & Almeder, 2004). Another option is use of uniparental stem cells. Although these cells lines have some disadvantages or shortcomings compared to embryonic cell lines (they are shorter-lived), there is vast potential if enough money is invested in researching them further, and they are not technically considered individual living beings by pro-life advocates (Bellomo, 2006). However, while most researchers and scientists look at stem cell research as one of the most amazing developments in 21st century medical practice, stem cell research is likewise receiving criticism and opposition from different sectors of society. Not surprisingly, the most daunting obstacle that stem cell research has on its path to universal acceptance is religion, specifically, Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church (Robinson 2010). These opposing arguments are, at the very least, baseless and self-serving. There are two major ethical concerns in the exploration of stem cell research. The first concern is the potential that stem cell research offers in pursuing human cloning and the second is the harvest of stem cells from embryos, which, anti-stem cell research proponents claim to already be human life (Shannon & Walter, 2003). Thus, those opposing stem cell research generally anchor their arguments on the issue that human cloning is inappropriate and that embryos, or pre-embryos as referred to by others, are already living creatures, and thus, must not be violated in any way (Robinson, 2010). Essentially, the opposition argues that humans are not in the position to manufacture, manipulate or destroy another human life. In considering the first argument about human cloning, one needs to realize that there are actually two kinds of cloning in the medical world – therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning is a laboratory technique that uses somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to make embryonic stem cell lines (Cibelli, 2002). In SCNT, the nucleus of an unfertilized donor egg is extracted and replaced with the nucleus from an adult cell, such as a skin cell. Given the proper signals, the egg can be tricked into repeatedly dividing. The resulting nuclear transfer product is allowed to develop for several days. Then some of the cells are removed and placed in a laboratory culture dish, where they grow into an embryonic stem cell line that can be used for research. On the other hand, in reproductive cloning, SCNT is used to create a nuclear transfer product that is then implanted into a uterus to generate a pregnancy (Levine, 2009). These nuclear transfer products rarely develop normally and are rarely able to establish a pregnancy. Nonetheless, this is the process used to create Dolly the famous cloned sheep — after hundreds of unsuccessful attempts. A human being has never been cloned, and it is, in fact, the overwhelming consensus among U.S. scientists that human reproductive cloning should be banned (US Congress, 2010). In other words, it seems that those opposing stem cell research are going way ahead of everybody else. Indeed, human cloning is a possibility and it will be hypocritical to deny the fact that there are indeed groups and individuals who are pursuing such a field. But once again, they are arguing in vain because the very people who actually have the knowledge to advance human cloning ARE NOT DOING SO. Thus, this fear is truly unfounded and baseless, to say the least. Another controversy surrounding aspects of stem cell research comes from the way some of the stem cells are acquired. Some stem cell researchers get the cells from human embryos that are but a few days old while others take them from fetus tissue over 8 weeks in development. The objections are strong from those who feel this is taking a life in the name of science. This second argument against stem cell research primarily attacks embryonic stem cell research wherein stem cells are taken from embryos. These “Pro-life” thinkers argue that embryos are already living creatures and thus, it would be morally wrong to “take their life away.” What these oppositionists do not understand is that embryonic stem cell research utilizes excess embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization and ended up not getting used. To put it quite bluntly, these embryos are the “leftovers” that are left in fertility clinics that will eventually get discarded sooner or later. Thus, while embryos have the potential to be a living being when placed inside a woman’s womb, they are technically not even persons yet. That is, they were not placed in a womb in order to fully turn into an actual human being. With such an inevitable fate, why waste these non-living material when they can actually be put into good use by preserving and prolonging an actual human life? Especially when this human life could still have many years filled with happiness left? More importantly, what we have to remember here is that while stem cells may be valuable to the sustenance of life and/or the curing of diseases, embryonic stem cells are not the only kind. There are also stem cells from bone marrow and from umbilical cords, neither of which require the termination of life. In addition, researchers have also moved on to what may be considered by many as a “more ethical” study method, which is Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS). iPS are artificially derived from a non-pluripotent cell, such as adult somatic cells. This is an important advancement in stem cell research, since it allows researchers to obtain pluripotent stem cells, which are important in research, without the controversial use of embryos (Humber & Almeder, 2004). Still, researchers need to continue with embryonic stem cell research because other approaches, such as adult and reprogrammed stem cell research may have serious limitations. The standard technique to creating non-embryonic stem cells uses viruses to transfer the reprogramming genes into the skin cells. The viruses cause genetic defects that predispose the reprogrammed cells to cancer. With that, it should be noted that scientists have made great strides recently in finding clever ways to deliver the reprogramming genes without using viruses, then removing the inserted genes afterward — an approach that appears to hold great promise. However, even the virus-free approaches have the potential to create genetic defects that predispose the reprogrammed cells to cancer, so more work is needed to evaluate potential safety issues. Researchers also need to determine whether the reprogrammed cells really can give rise to specialized cells that are indistinguishable from the specialized cells formed by embryonic stem cells. Because of these uncertainties, virtually all stem cell scientists advocate continued research on all types of stem cells: adult, reprogrammed and embryonic. The medical field has always been ripe with all sources of controversy especially when it comes to ethical considerations that revolve around medical experiments and researches. These medical experiments and researches have sparked oppositions for a variety of ethical reasons. Among the multitude of medical controversies that have caught the public’s attention recently is stem cell research. Despite the ongoing arguments however, it should be noted that stem cell research is actually legal in the United States (Marzili, 2006) and is in fact, well-funded by private institutions. However, with the strong opposition that stem cell research is faced with, one wonders whether this activity will indeed continue to be legal for long. In conclusion, I truly wish that people would start to be more open minded and accepting of change especially when this change promises so many benefits for the human race. There is truly no doubt that advancements in stem cell research are for advancements in life. Stem cell research provides a deep insight into human development, it provides an excellent venue to study diseases and how they develop, and it shows great promise for regenerative medicine. All the arguments that go against stem cell research simply stem from a lack of understanding and unacceptance for the change and possibilities that new science has to offer. Indeed, stem cell research paves the way for prolonging and preserving human life, and in that, there should be no debate at all. References Bellomo, M. (2006). The stem cell divide. New York, NY: AMACOM Books. Cibelli, J. (2002). Principles of cloning. Academic Press. Efrat, S. (2009). Stem cell research for diabetes. Springer Books Ltd. Humber, J., & Almeder, R. (2004). Stem cell research. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc,. Kelly, E. (2007). Stem cells. Greenwood Publishing Group. Levine, A. (2009). Cloning. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group. Marzili, A. (2006). Stem cell research and cloning. Infobase Publishing. Panno, J. (2005). Stem cell research: Method applications and ethical controversy. Infobase Publishing. Robinson, B. A. (2010, December 31). Human stem cell research. Retrieved March 12, 2011, from Religious Tolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/resstemover1.htm Shannon, T. A., & Walter, J. (2003). The new genetic medicine: theological and ethical reflections. Rowman and Littlefield Publications. US Congress. (2010). Congressional record, Vol. 151. Government Printing Office. Read More