Pros And Cons Of Stem Cell Research
WHAT ARE STEM CELLS?
Before I can explain the cons of stem cell research, I must explain what stem cells actually are. Stem cells are defined as essentially the beginning cells of a human being, which are capable of becoming all or many of the 210 different kinds of tissues in the human body. 1 These cells divide, generating two "daughter cells", one of which will become something new and another which will replace the original cell. That is where the term "stem" comes from, meaning stem cells give rise to other more specialized cells.2
Stem cells come in three basic types: totipotent, pluripotent, and multipotent. Totipotent means the cell's potential is "total."3 These are referred to as embryonic stems cells because they are found …show more content…
in the human embryo up to about the 4-day beginning stage.4 Pluripotent means that the cells can give rise to many types of cells but not all types of cells. These are referred to as fetal stem cells. 5 Multipotent cells are more specialized.6 These are also often referred to as adult stem cells. Now you know the basics of what stem cells are. It is not what they are, however, but how they are obtained that is immoral.
WHAT HAPPENS TO EMBRYOS USED IN RESEARCH?
There is nothing wrong with experimenting on stem cells, even embryonic stem cells, that is, if the cells could be obtained without intrusion. If that were the case, there would be no debate, because there is no moral value attached to a cell. The problem is that for embryonic stem cell research to take place, stem cells are extracted from an embryo, or should I say from a human bodies, and the extraction results in death.
Many who support human embryonic stem cell research adhere to the ethical position that it is okay to destroy a few human beings for the benefit of many. Others believe that since they are sentenced to death anyway (the human remains are flushed down the toilet) there is nothing wrong with bringing some good out of their deaths. Still others do not accept the embryo's humanity and justify themselves by pretending that humans are not persons until they are …show more content…
born.
The first argument is similar to a widely accepted principle, namely, that if we have to decide between losing two lives or saving one we should save one life.
However, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, we have no such situation. Even if we assume that the sick or injured person will die without such research, the embryo will not. The choice here is whether to pursue cures which do not involve the death of innocent lives or to sacrifice innocent lives for research which may or may not produce a cure. Utilitarian arguments that we should put the benefit of many over the lives of a few are what led bin Laden to destroy the World Trade Centers.
The second argument is convincing at first, but fails under analysis. "...if impending death were the criteria for being allowed to kill human beings, then we could also kill terminally ill patients, death-row inmates and military service personnel facing combat for their organs and stem cells too - for the 'greater good.'" Furthermore, I would like to add that these children should not be slated for death in the first place. These embryos are created under immoral conditions as well. There should be no "spare" embryos at
all.
The third argument is that of cloning. . "Therapeutic cloning" has also been proposed, but such cells would likely be abnormal. Not to mention the moral issues involved in cloning. How far do we go? Where will it end?
The last argument is common in the abortion debate, but it doesn't work here any more than it does there. We have no authority to bestow the rights of personhood on certain human beings and deny them to others arbitrarily. The word person is a synonym for human being, and embryos are scientifically recognized human beings.
WILL EXPERIMENTS WITH EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS YIELD BENEFICIAL RESULTS?
Perhaps some may be persuaded to oppose embryonic stem cell research simply because it isn't as promising as adult stem cell research. Maureen Condic, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, notes,
While the scientific advantages and potential medical application of embryonic stem cells have received considerable attention in the public media, the equally compelling scientific and medical disadvantages of transplanting embryonic stem cells or their derivatives into patients have been ignored.7
The Institute of Science in Society in London mentioned a specific example from Science Magazine:
An article published in Science earlier last year showed that mice cloned from embryonic stem cells by nuclear transfer suffered many genetic defects due to the genetic instability of the embryonic stem cells. The Washington Post reported that a key phrase referring to the genetic instability of the embryonic stem cells that might 'limit their use in clinical application', was removed days before the paper appeared in print.8
Condic lists three scientific arguments against the use of embryonic stem cells as a treatment for disease and injury.
1. There are profound immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one human being into the body of another. Stem cell transplants, like organ transplants, would not buy a cure, only time.
2. Many of the factors required for the correct differentiation of embryonic cells are not chemicals readily reproduced in petri dishes. Instead, they are structural or mechanical elements uniquely associated with the complex environment of the embryo.
3. We simply do not have sufficient evidence from animal studies to warrant a move to human experimentation. To date there is no evidence that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safely transplanted into adult animals to restore the function of damaged or diseased adult tissues.9
Supporters of the research have proposed solutions to remedy these problems, but alas their proposals are also flawed. The proposed solutions to the first argument "are either scientifically dubious, socially unacceptable, or both." To overcome the problem of immune systems, some have proposed large scale genetic engineering of embryonic stem cells to alter their immune characteristics. There is no current evidence, however, that such a task could ever be accomplished. " Scientists may hope to replicate in petri dishes the nonmolecular components of the embryonic environment, but such technology is not currently available, nor is it likely to be in the near future. Condic states, "Even in very small numbers, embryonic stem cells produce rapid growing and frequently lethal tumors." Finally, regardless of the hype there is not even enough evidence from animal studies to warrant this morally questionable research. Before even asking people to accept morally reprehensible research, ample research on animals should first be carried out.
ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES?
As previously mentioned, there are three types of stem cells: embryonic, fetal, and adult. Also mentioned was the fact that adult stem cells are more promising for further research. Dr. Irving argues against using embryonic stem cells. Her reasons are:
· Fetal blood cells have already proven successful
· The use of adult stem cells from the same ill patient would by-pass the medical crisis of immuno-incompatibility
· Even foreign adult stem cells can be treated with drugs (like embryonic stem cells are) to "hide" the guilty antigens
· New drugs like telomerase can keep adult stem cells growing in culture indefinitely
· New hormones are being successfully used to encourage cell specialization
· Even adult stem cells can be "coaxed" to become less specialized (differentiated)
· Adult stem cells are already closer to the kinds of cells that patients already need 10
Adult stem cells do not form rapidly growing and frequently lethal tumors. But despite all this, some researchers would still prefer to use embryonic stem cells.
They make the following points:
1. Embryonic stem cells are 'pluripotent', i.e., they can make every cell type of the body, while adult stem cells are 'multipotent' and can make many, but not all cell types. Consequently, adult stem cells may be immensely useful for treatment of some human disease, but unable to make certain cell types required for treatment of other unspecified, diseases.
2Adult stem cells, unlike those derived from the embryo, cannot be expanded in culture without losing developmental potential.11
It is yet unclear at this point whether adult stem cells are, in fact, more restricted than their embyronic counterparts. Even if adult stem cells are unable to generate the full spectrum of cell types in the body, this is likely an advantage. A patients rarely go to the doctor needing a full body replacement. If a patient with heart disease can be cured using adult cardiac stem cells, the fact that these 'heart-restricted' stem cells do not generate kidneys is not a problem for the patient.12 Another doctor said that he wouldn't want toenails growing in his brain. As far as the second objection goes, improving the proliferation rate of cells in culture is a technical problem that will likely be overcome. Furthermore, treating patients with their own cells would eliminate the need for large numbers of cells.
CONCLUSION
Despite the media's attempts to persuade the general population otherwise, there are serious scientific challenges to the use of embryonic stem cells as a medical treatment of disease and injury. Additionally, the use of these cells requires the death of an innocent human being. Human embryonic stem cell research is both unethical and unnecessary, and does not deserve the public's support. Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, holds out nearly as much promise without the ethical problems. We all want to find cures to disease. Some of us, however, would like to avoid sacrificing innocent lives in the process. As Hypocrites stated, "As to diseases, make a habit of two things, to help, or at least do no harm. References
1. Irving, Diane N. Stem Cell Research: some pros and cons. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_19stemcellprocon.html
2. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
3. National Institutes of Health Stem Cells: A Primer http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm
4. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
5. National Institutes of Health. Stem Cells: A Primer. http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm
6. Irving, Diane N. Stem Cell Research: some pros and cons. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_19stemcellprocon.html
7. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
8. Institute of Science in Society. Hushing up Adult Stem Cells. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HUASC.php
9. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
10. Irving, Diane N. Stem Cell Research: some pros and cons. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_19stemcellprocon.html
11. Institute of Science in Society. Hushing up Adult Stem Cells. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HUASC.php
12. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
Before I can explain the cons of stem cell research, I must explain what stem cells actually are. Stem cells are defined as essentially the beginning cells of a human being, which are capable of becoming all or many of the 210 different kinds of tissues in the human body. 1 These cells divide, generating two "daughter cells", one of which will become something new and another which will replace the original cell. That is where the term "stem" comes from, meaning stem cells give rise to other more specialized cells.2
Stem cells come in three basic types: totipotent, pluripotent, and multipotent. Totipotent means the cell's potential is "total."3 These are referred to as embryonic stems cells because they are found …show more content…
in the human embryo up to about the 4-day beginning stage.4 Pluripotent means that the cells can give rise to many types of cells but not all types of cells. These are referred to as fetal stem cells. 5 Multipotent cells are more specialized.6 These are also often referred to as adult stem cells. Now you know the basics of what stem cells are. It is not what they are, however, but how they are obtained that is immoral.
WHAT HAPPENS TO EMBRYOS USED IN RESEARCH?
There is nothing wrong with experimenting on stem cells, even embryonic stem cells, that is, if the cells could be obtained without intrusion. If that were the case, there would be no debate, because there is no moral value attached to a cell. The problem is that for embryonic stem cell research to take place, stem cells are extracted from an embryo, or should I say from a human bodies, and the extraction results in death.
Many who support human embryonic stem cell research adhere to the ethical position that it is okay to destroy a few human beings for the benefit of many. Others believe that since they are sentenced to death anyway (the human remains are flushed down the toilet) there is nothing wrong with bringing some good out of their deaths. Still others do not accept the embryo's humanity and justify themselves by pretending that humans are not persons until they are …show more content…
born.
The first argument is similar to a widely accepted principle, namely, that if we have to decide between losing two lives or saving one we should save one life.
However, in the case of embryonic stem cell research, we have no such situation. Even if we assume that the sick or injured person will die without such research, the embryo will not. The choice here is whether to pursue cures which do not involve the death of innocent lives or to sacrifice innocent lives for research which may or may not produce a cure. Utilitarian arguments that we should put the benefit of many over the lives of a few are what led bin Laden to destroy the World Trade Centers.
The second argument is convincing at first, but fails under analysis. "...if impending death were the criteria for being allowed to kill human beings, then we could also kill terminally ill patients, death-row inmates and military service personnel facing combat for their organs and stem cells too - for the 'greater good.'" Furthermore, I would like to add that these children should not be slated for death in the first place. These embryos are created under immoral conditions as well. There should be no "spare" embryos at
all.
The third argument is that of cloning. . "Therapeutic cloning" has also been proposed, but such cells would likely be abnormal. Not to mention the moral issues involved in cloning. How far do we go? Where will it end?
The last argument is common in the abortion debate, but it doesn't work here any more than it does there. We have no authority to bestow the rights of personhood on certain human beings and deny them to others arbitrarily. The word person is a synonym for human being, and embryos are scientifically recognized human beings.
WILL EXPERIMENTS WITH EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS YIELD BENEFICIAL RESULTS?
Perhaps some may be persuaded to oppose embryonic stem cell research simply because it isn't as promising as adult stem cell research. Maureen Condic, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, notes,
While the scientific advantages and potential medical application of embryonic stem cells have received considerable attention in the public media, the equally compelling scientific and medical disadvantages of transplanting embryonic stem cells or their derivatives into patients have been ignored.7
The Institute of Science in Society in London mentioned a specific example from Science Magazine:
An article published in Science earlier last year showed that mice cloned from embryonic stem cells by nuclear transfer suffered many genetic defects due to the genetic instability of the embryonic stem cells. The Washington Post reported that a key phrase referring to the genetic instability of the embryonic stem cells that might 'limit their use in clinical application', was removed days before the paper appeared in print.8
Condic lists three scientific arguments against the use of embryonic stem cells as a treatment for disease and injury.
1. There are profound immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one human being into the body of another. Stem cell transplants, like organ transplants, would not buy a cure, only time.
2. Many of the factors required for the correct differentiation of embryonic cells are not chemicals readily reproduced in petri dishes. Instead, they are structural or mechanical elements uniquely associated with the complex environment of the embryo.
3. We simply do not have sufficient evidence from animal studies to warrant a move to human experimentation. To date there is no evidence that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safely transplanted into adult animals to restore the function of damaged or diseased adult tissues.9
Supporters of the research have proposed solutions to remedy these problems, but alas their proposals are also flawed. The proposed solutions to the first argument "are either scientifically dubious, socially unacceptable, or both." To overcome the problem of immune systems, some have proposed large scale genetic engineering of embryonic stem cells to alter their immune characteristics. There is no current evidence, however, that such a task could ever be accomplished. " Scientists may hope to replicate in petri dishes the nonmolecular components of the embryonic environment, but such technology is not currently available, nor is it likely to be in the near future. Condic states, "Even in very small numbers, embryonic stem cells produce rapid growing and frequently lethal tumors." Finally, regardless of the hype there is not even enough evidence from animal studies to warrant this morally questionable research. Before even asking people to accept morally reprehensible research, ample research on animals should first be carried out.
ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES?
As previously mentioned, there are three types of stem cells: embryonic, fetal, and adult. Also mentioned was the fact that adult stem cells are more promising for further research. Dr. Irving argues against using embryonic stem cells. Her reasons are:
· Fetal blood cells have already proven successful
· The use of adult stem cells from the same ill patient would by-pass the medical crisis of immuno-incompatibility
· Even foreign adult stem cells can be treated with drugs (like embryonic stem cells are) to "hide" the guilty antigens
· New drugs like telomerase can keep adult stem cells growing in culture indefinitely
· New hormones are being successfully used to encourage cell specialization
· Even adult stem cells can be "coaxed" to become less specialized (differentiated)
· Adult stem cells are already closer to the kinds of cells that patients already need 10
Adult stem cells do not form rapidly growing and frequently lethal tumors. But despite all this, some researchers would still prefer to use embryonic stem cells.
They make the following points:
1. Embryonic stem cells are 'pluripotent', i.e., they can make every cell type of the body, while adult stem cells are 'multipotent' and can make many, but not all cell types. Consequently, adult stem cells may be immensely useful for treatment of some human disease, but unable to make certain cell types required for treatment of other unspecified, diseases.
2Adult stem cells, unlike those derived from the embryo, cannot be expanded in culture without losing developmental potential.11
It is yet unclear at this point whether adult stem cells are, in fact, more restricted than their embyronic counterparts. Even if adult stem cells are unable to generate the full spectrum of cell types in the body, this is likely an advantage. A patients rarely go to the doctor needing a full body replacement. If a patient with heart disease can be cured using adult cardiac stem cells, the fact that these 'heart-restricted' stem cells do not generate kidneys is not a problem for the patient.12 Another doctor said that he wouldn't want toenails growing in his brain. As far as the second objection goes, improving the proliferation rate of cells in culture is a technical problem that will likely be overcome. Furthermore, treating patients with their own cells would eliminate the need for large numbers of cells.
CONCLUSION
Despite the media's attempts to persuade the general population otherwise, there are serious scientific challenges to the use of embryonic stem cells as a medical treatment of disease and injury. Additionally, the use of these cells requires the death of an innocent human being. Human embryonic stem cell research is both unethical and unnecessary, and does not deserve the public's support. Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, holds out nearly as much promise without the ethical problems. We all want to find cures to disease. Some of us, however, would like to avoid sacrificing innocent lives in the process. As Hypocrites stated, "As to diseases, make a habit of two things, to help, or at least do no harm. References
1. Irving, Diane N. Stem Cell Research: some pros and cons. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_19stemcellprocon.html
2. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
3. National Institutes of Health Stem Cells: A Primer http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm
4. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
5. National Institutes of Health. Stem Cells: A Primer. http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm
6. Irving, Diane N. Stem Cell Research: some pros and cons. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_19stemcellprocon.html
7. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
8. Institute of Science in Society. Hushing up Adult Stem Cells. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HUASC.php
9. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
10. Irving, Diane N. Stem Cell Research: some pros and cons. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_19stemcellprocon.html
11. Institute of Science in Society. Hushing up Adult Stem Cells. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/HUASC.php
12. Condic, Maureen L. The Basics About Stem Cells. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html