Stem Cell Research

[Mike Windu]

*thread bump* This is well, not the most quality essay from me (yay all nighters)... but I feel it has a few good points and might be worth a read. We had a Socratic seminar on stem cell research about two weeks ago...

 

I lost my works cited... but the quotes in the essay are pretty much common sense anyway...

 

(that bit in the beginning about the line not being clearly defined I give credit to you Skin )

 

Well, without further ado...

 

On Stem Cells

What is the definition of life? As the stem cell war rages on, more and more people must ask themselves this question. The hype about stem cells comes from their ability to become any kind of body cell, from bone marrow to blood to skin cells. Such adaptability opens doors to incredible new possibilities to treat diseases. Stem cell research could also lead to organ and bone regeneration. Unfortunately, the public focuses on the destruction of embryos in stem cell research. Stem cell research does not limit itself to embryonic cells. Stem cell research includes adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood as well as embryonic cells, though most of the argument lies in whether using embryos for research is morally right. The use of stem cell research shows a promising future- a future that should not fall victim to moral conjectures.

 

The stem cell debate begins with the moral complexities of the value of human life. The Fifth Amendment guarantees every individual the right to life, liberty, and property. However, is an embryo a human life? Is an embryo an individual? Though it will become a human, does human life begin from the moment of conception? Critics of stem cell research reason that “life starts at conception whether that conception is done the natural way or done in a Petri dish” (Cohen 1). No clear answer exists as to where human life officially begins, though defenders of stem cell research argue that “a five day old cluster of cells” has not yet become and individual, and thus, a human being (Bush 2). Though many critics resent this view as rash generalization, it holds some reasonable merit. A difference exists in an embryo of two days and a fetus of eight months. Although no definitive line exists between human and cell, at some point in the early embryonic stages, a sentient being did not exist. Thus, the destruction of an embryo does not automatically equal the destruction of an innocent, defenseless life. Regardless of critic’s opinions, however, the destruction of a frozen pre-embryo does not equal the destruction of a life. The frozen pre-embryo “requires active intervention” to hold the similarities of true potential life.

 

Religion plays a large part in the opposition to stem cell research. Many religions, such as Judaism, forbid “the taking of one life to save another” (Eisenberg 1). The basis of this heated debate lies in the individual interpretation of life. To many people, “fetuses and embryos are assuredly innocent” (Outka 3). However, an alternative solution exists for those who resent the destruction of an embryo for research. In a process called in vitro fertilization, an infertile couple uses an embryo made in labs to create their child. The remaining embryos from the lab, which have never seen the inside of a woman’s uterus, lie “in liquid nitrogen” because the couple no longer requires their use (Cohen 1). A utilitarian view of the stem cell debate reasons that the embryos would go to waste floating in liquid nitrogen. Currently, “approximately 100,000 ‘excess’ frozen pre-embryos” remain from early in vitro fertilization attempts. (Eisenberg 2). Thus, scientists may use these embryos for research, which could help millions of people around the world. This “utilitarian calculus” emphasizes making use out of something that would otherwise waste away (Hollinger 4). Through the use of these leftover embryos, no scientist destroys a “life” in the process of researching. Through this “nothing is lost principle” (Outka 1), researchers could indeed make great strides in stem cell research. The potential for success in embryonic stem cell research becomes equal to the potential curing of ailments that affect so many people. Even so, critics continue to reason that the destruction of an embryo holds no just result.

 

What then, is just cause for a means? Life. The benefits of stem cell research could help millions of people who suffer from diseases ranging from “Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, et. al.” (Outka 1). This in itself should justify the use of stem cells for research. Many critics fear the word “promising” as it applies to stem cell research. What research lacks promise? What research lacks risk? Some of these critics wish to expand the risk of failure to make stem cell research seem implausible. Without reason, however, the ruse falls flat. Adult stem cells have already helped a number of patients. Most scientists, however, feel that embryonic stem cells possess “the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues of the body” (Bush 1). This difference in ability between different stem cells makes the need for embryonic stem cells even greater. Most critics of stem cell research oppose funding from the government towards stem cell research with the intent of stopping stem cell research. Unfortunately, this only slows the progress of stem cell research down and increases the chances that research must use more embryos to achieve the same progress. The end goal of research lies in the betterment of human lives, which “is regarded as the ‘greatest good‘” (Hollinger 1). Opposition to the use of frozen pre-embryos left over from in vitro fertilization seems ridiculous when compared with the amount of human suffering that the research could potentially alleviate. With such a surplus of these embryos, some of which “will not survive during long storage” (Bush 1), no real reason exists to waste them. However, the use of these pre-embryos must not careen out of control, either. The creation of new embryos specifically for stem cell research seems logical, but this would “cheapen the value of human life” (Eisenberg 3). Reasonable use of pre-embryos must continue until researchers can isolate and create stem cells without creating embryos. This approach to embryonic stem cell research should appease the mild opponents who only desire to keep the research in check.

 

The debate on embryonic stem cell research draws focus away from what scientists must accomplish. The best aid to stem cell research currently lies in the frozen pre-embryos. Most would agree that these pre-embryos possess no aspect of humanity until placed in a womb. Thus, their destruction for the greater good holds high potential for success. These pre-embryos resemble heroes in that they hold the potential to heal. The world has already seen evidence of the power of stem cells in adult stem cells and cord blood. The embryonic stem cells hold far greater potential than these lesser versions of the stem cell. Eventually, stem cells might allow patients to repair damaged organs and bones, or have new ones. Unfortunately, the time spent debating on the morality of embryonic stem cells pushes the other kinds of stem cells into the background. Legislation acts focus on embryonic stem cells and disregard cord blood cells, which also hold some potential to save lives. The focus must shift to stem cell research as a whole if researchers will progress the potential of stem cells. Contrary to the beliefs of many opponents, stem cell research possesses a side that no one can mistake for morally reprehensible. With the public’s fears that hold no logical ground, the scientists that research stem cells today might not make the progress needed. Scientists require public support, too. The future of medicine may very well depend on the scientist’s research on stem cells of today.

 

Stem cell research possesses the potential to heal the world. However, stem cell research does not cast away the morals of the world in order to make progress. What is progress if the process disposes of human ethics? People should learn to understand the entirety of stem cell research, for only then will they understand the moral viewpoint of its researchers. In true progress lies communication.

 

Thoughts?

[rccar328]

From what I've heard/read, embryonic stem cell research has not shown the promise that was expected of it. The initial excuse for this was that it was not funded by the government to the extent that it could show promise (though if it was all that everyone said it would be, it should be able to survive in the marketplace without being subsidized), but that is no longer the case: California and Illinois subsidize embryonic stem cell research. Researchers have found great promise in work with adult stem cells; I've yet to hear anything about embryonic stem cell research showing anywhere near the same kind of promise. In fact, I heard an interview with a researcher a few weeks ago, in which he said that they have yet to develop a viable line from embryonic stem cells - the stem cell lines they have developed thus far have become cancerous, and had to be discarded.

 

Disregarding completely the moral & ethical questions about embryonic stem cell research (which are both abundant and valid, imo), embryonic stem cell research makes no practical sense whatsoever. Adult stem cell research is where the action is. Researchers across the world (primarily in the US and Australia) have found great promise in adult stem cells, and have been able to develop viable lines.

 

The problem with this debate is in the politics of it, mainly having to do with supporters of embryonic stem cell research refusing to acknowledge just what it is they're doing. When the bill to subsidize embryonic stem cell research came before voters in California, it was extremely noticeable to me that the word "embryonic" was absent from anything having to do with the bill. For all the voters knew, the bill was for adult stem cell research, or it could have been stem cells from pigs or camels. Now, I'll admit, California is such a liberal state that the bill probably would've been passed regardless, but the amount of dishonesty surrounding this debate astounds me...and it extends through every aspect of the political debate.

 

In my mind, this is not just a moral debate, it's a practical debate. Most liberals are willing to ignore the moral/ethical questions surrounding embryonic stem cell research in the name of medical research, but the practical objections are even greater, and cannot be denied (without defying logic itself). Scientists have tried, and, no matter what John Edwards says, it just hasn't panned out. Adult stem cells have shown great promise, and the way I see it, that's where researchers should be focusing.

[SkinWalker]

From what I've heard/read, embryonic stem cell research has not shown the promise that was expected of it.

 

Pluripotent stem-cell lines can be derived from early embryos before they implant in the uterus. These cells are called embryonic stem cells (Weissman 2002; 2006) "[E]xperiments in animals have shown that nuclear transplantation for the production of embryonic stem-cell lines can be accomplished with mature cell nuclei, including nuclei containing medically important genetic defects and mutations. There is already evidence that these embryonic stem-cell lines can help unlock secrets of developmental and pathogenic events that might not be revealed otherwise. The technology is ready for the production of human embryonic stem-cell lines from diverse members of our society, from somatic cells of patients with heritable diseases, and from diseased cells (for example, all cancers) whose nuclei are a repository of the history of inherited and somatic mutations that caused these diseases. The method has the potential for producing cells for the treatment of a variety of diseases..." (Weissman 2002).

 

"The derivation of embryonic stem (ES) cells by nuclear transfer holds great promise for research..." (Meissner et al 2006).

 

"The goal of our work was to demonstrate the feasibility of correcting a genetic defect in somatic cells of an affected individual using a combination of reprogrammed somatic cell therapy [...] homologous recombination in the ntES cells corrected the genetic defect in the donor Rag2 mutant mouse strain" (Rideout et al 2002).

 

 

References:

 

Meissner, A. & Jaenisch, R. (2006). Generation of nuclear transfer-derived pluripotent ES cells from cloned Cdx2-deficient blastocysts. Nature 439, 212–215

 

Rideout, W. M. III; et al (2002). Correction of a genetic defect by nuclear transplantation and combined cell and gene therapy. Cell 109, 17–27

 

Weissman, I. L. (2002). Stem Cells — Scientific, Medical, and Political Issues. New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 1576–1579

 

Weissman, I. L. (2006). Politic stem cells. Nature, 439, 145-147

[Kurgan]

How do you mean, even wealthy couples? Last time I checked, only those who are quite well of could afford IVF treatments.

 

Forgot to respond to this, sorry. I meant that the wealthier couples are going to be the ones who can adopt children the easiest. Look at Rosie O'Donnel, she got to adopt a kid (or two?) despite the fact that she was single, just because she had the dough, apparently. My point was that these folks ought to be adopting to help out those poor kids "nobody wants" and instead in many cases they're just going for the fertility treatments because they have this desire for "real" children.

 

This may be a gross generalization, of course, so anyone is free to correct me on this perception.

 

Btw, as long as we're doing a thread bump, what's been the deal with stem cell research lately? Ever since that South Korean scientists was disgraced for providing fraudulent results and other crap, it seems to have dropped from the headlines. Did they string him up by his thumbs yet? What happened...

 

The research prior to that about harvesting stem cells without destroying the embryos they were extracted from sounded promising, though I don't think that discovery was tied to his research, so it might still be a viable process. Anyway, I'll have to dig up that thread...

 

Ah yes, Here it is! Read up, guys...