The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

 

Colleen A. Lee RN

Molloy College

 

There has been substantial debate in recent years over the question of human embryonic stem cell research.  The opposing sides have argued many points on this issue including whether a human embryo is entitled to the same rights as a fully developed human being; and if so, how to protect those rights.  This paper will explore the question of whether it is morally permissible to conduct research on human embryonic stem cells.  In so doing, consideration will be given to arguments both for and against human embryonic stem cell research.  Ultimately, this paper will seek to prove that human embryonic stem cell research is not only morally permissible, but that it is necessary for the maintenance and survival of humankind through the eradication of degenerative and fatal diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, cancer and heart disease.

 

In order to discuss human embryonic stem cell research, and the goals it seeks to accomplish, it is first necessary to provide definitions of some terminology specific to this subject.  Stem cells are cells present in every human being which have the ability to differentiate into specific body tissues.  deWert and Mummery (2003) provide a definition of the two types of stem cells as follows:

 

embryonic stem cells which can only be derived from pre-implantation embryos…have a proven ability to form cells of all tissues of the adult organism (termed ‘pluripotent’), and ‘adult’ stem cells which are found in a variety of tissues in the fetus and after birth and are…more specialized (‘multipotent’) with an important function in tissue replacement and repair.  (p. 672)

 

The versatility of embryonic stem cells is what makes them such attractive candidates for use in treatments which have become the ultimate goal of stem cell research such as cell replacement therapy, or regenerative medicine.  Until recently, adult stem cells were thought to be less versatile than embryonic stem cells.  However, new developments have shown that adult stem cells may have more versatility than originally thought.  This will be discussed later in the paper. 

 

One of the most exciting potential uses of human embryonic stem cells is in cell replacement therapy, or regenerative medicine.  In this type of treatment injured or non-functioning cells would be replaced by “functional cells to restore the normal functions of the tissues or organs” (Doss, Koehler, Gissel, Hescheler, Sachinidis, 2004, p. 466).  Because of their known ability to differentiate into any type of tissue, human embryonic stem cells are significant in the development of this type of therapy.  Cell replacement therapy using human embryonic stem cells has become an exciting prospect in many areas of medicine including the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, myocardial infarction, diabetes and liver failure.  According to Doss et al. (2004), “embryonic stem cells will prove to be the potential versatile source of the cellular transplants to be used in cell replacement therapy to treat a number of degenerative disorders” (p. 471).

 

If cell replacement therapy employing human embryonic stem cells is such a promising future alternative to current therapies, why is there such strong opposition to conducting research on human embryonic stem cells in the present?  The answer to this question is the main point of the debate on stem cell research; and it concerns the ontological status of human embryos.  Those who oppose human embryonic stem cell research often base their argument on a belief that embryos have the same rights as fully developed individuals.  Those who defend this belief argue that the embryo is a potential person and therefore, should not be treated merely as a means to an end.  Landry and Zucker (2004) make a rather convincing argument against this way of thinking by pointing out that in the absence of brain or central nervous system function, a fully developed human being can be considered dead and subsequently, can be taken off life support.  They argue that at five to seven days gestation, a human embryo is still weeks away from even developing a central nervous system.  It is therefore difficult to grant the same rights to a five to seven day embryo which cannot feel pain or suffering as to a fully developed human being based on the stage of physiological development of the embryo.

 

One puzzling inconsistency in the argument against using human embryos simply as a means to an end is apparent in the quite socially acceptable reproductive practice of in vitro fertilization.  In vitro fertilization, a common treatment for infertility, requires that several hundred embryos be created outside of the mother’s womb.  At the designated time (usually five to seven days gestation), a few of these embryos are implanted into the woman’s uterus in the hope that one or two or three will implant and survive to birth.  The several hundred other embryos that were created are simply discarded.  As Gilbert (2004) points out:

Public policy and broad public support for this practice reflects the general sentiment that the ability to create and bring to term one life that would otherwise not exist outweighs the cost of losing many lives (discarded embryos) all of whom would also not otherwise exist. (p. RA101)

One must ponder the question of why this practice would be socially and morally acceptable when it provides no humane end result for the embryos which are to be discarded; and in fact, grants lower moral status to the embryo.  In support of embryonic stem cell research, it should be noted that using discarded embryos from IVF to conduct research would potentially allow for great good to come out of an otherwise questionable practice (that is of discarding unused embryos simply because they are no longer of use to the couple being treated).

    

Another popular argument against human embryonic stem cell research is the “slippery slope” theory.  Proponents of this theory believe that allowing embryonic stem cell research will lead to the acceptance of such undesirable practices as reproductive cloning and abortion for the procurement of stem cells.  As noted by deWert and Mummery (2003), acceptance of one practice does not automatically imply acceptance of another practice.  If human embryonic stem cell research were to lead to therapeutic cloning, a way of creating stem cells from an individual’s own cells, there would most certainly be a way of regulating or even prohibiting reproductive cloning (Gilbert, 2004).  The other aspect of the “slippery slope” theory regarding abortion seems nearly impossible to take seriously as the logistics of it do not make sense.  In order for embryonic stem cells to be procured at the ideal time, an abortion would have to take place at five to seven days gestation, a time several days, or even weeks, before even the most sensitive pregnancy tests could detect a pregnancy.  Therefore, there is no way that abortion for procurement of embryonic stem cells could become an acceptable norm.

    

The final argument against human embryonic stem cell research, which was alluded to earlier, is that there are other, less ethically questionable alternatives being researched.  These alternatives include xenotransplantation, human embryonic germ cells, and adult stem cells (deWert and Mummery 2003).  Xenotransplantation involves the possibility of implanting animal stem cells into human beings.  This is the least feasible of the three alternatives as it poses questions of animal ethics in addition to being a public health hazard (deWert and Mummery 2003).  Research on mice has shown that human embryonic germ cells have shown little promise as an alternative as they have developed abnormally when implanted making them less preferable to embryonic stem cells (deWert and Mummery 2003).

    

Research in the field of adult stem cell transplantation is growing rapidly.  There is much excitement over the use of stem cells from bone marrow in the treatment of mice with Parkinson’s disease and myocardial infarction because in both cases there has been improvement in the mice with these conditions after transplantation of adult stem cells occurred (deWert and Mummery 2003).  Research in this field is ongoing and very important.  However, in support of embryonic stem cell research, much of the literature has noted that in order to advance the field of adult stem cell research, there must be a driving force behind it.  The implication is that a competition, so to speak, is necessary in order for researchers in each field to reach their goals, and to see which truly is the better alternative.  Only when it has been proven that adult stem cells are a preferable and effective alternative should embryonic stem cell research cease (deWert and Mummery 2003).  Until that time, research in both areas must continue.

    

There are many facets to the debate on embryonic stem cell research.  All sides involved have valid points that must be considered in order for a fair and morally permissible solution to be found.  Fear of abuse propagated by certain religious and cultural groups as a valid reason for denying potentially life-saving techniques from being developed must not be allowed to prevail.  Embryonic stem cell research promises to “revolutionize medicine in the near future offering therapeutical alternatives for treatment of severe degenerative disorders” (Doss et al. 2004).  It seems puzzling to consider the motives of certain government and religious officials when they appear so dichotomous.  How can certain procedures which manufacture many potential lives in order to produce only a few actual lives be deemed acceptable?  Why would certain government and religious groups seek to intervene to prolong life at all costs, while at the same time blocking funding for research into the very treatments that could potentially greatly improve not only the quantity but the quality of such lives?  It is the answer to these questions which must be seriously considered in order to prove that human embryonic stem cell research is not only morally permissible but absolutely necessary.   

 

SOURCES

 

Beauchamp, T.L. & Walters, L.  (2003). Contemporary issues in bioethics (6th ed.).  United States: Thomson-Wadsworth.

 

deWert, G. & Mummery, C.  (2003). Human embryonic stem cells: research, ethics and policy.  Human Reproduction, 18(4), 672-682.

 

Doss, M.X., Koehler, C.I., Gissel, C., Hescheler, J. & Sachinidis, A.  (2004). Embryonic stem cells: a promising tool for cell replacement therapy.  Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 8(4), 465-473.

 

Gilbert, D.M. (2004).  The future of human embryonic stem cell research: addressing ethical conflict with responsible scientific research.  Medical Science Monitor, 10(5), RA99-103.

 

Landry, D.W. & Zucker, H.A.  (2004). Embryonic death and the creation of human embryonic stem cells.  The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 114(9), 1184-1186.