At what point is
something considered human? Is the potential of life more important than saving a life? What level of protection and respect is
required for what stages of embryonic development? These are some of the questions the National Bioethics Advisory Commission had to ask in order to determine whether or not embryonic stem cell
research is moral or ethical.
 |
| Areas where adult stem cells can be found |
Stem
cells can be found in many places in the body and can be used to study
diseases, test new drugs, identify how undifferentiated cells become
differentiated, and generate cells and tissues that could be used for
cell-based therapies. There are three types of stem cells that scientists
understand. Adult stem cells are
differentiated cells that can be found in the brain, heart, and bone
marrow. They can renew themselves and
yield some or all of the major specialized cell types of tissue or organ in the
human body. Their primary role is to maintain and repair the tissues in
which they are found. This means that stem cells found in the heart are
differentiated to repair heart muscle cells whereas stem cells found in the leg
are differentiated to repair leg muscle cells. The second type of stem
cell is induced pluripotent stem cells.
These stem cells are adult cells that have been genetically reprogrammed
to an embryonic stem cell-like state through the forced expression of genes and
other factors important for embryonic stem cells. The last type of stem cell is embryonic stem
cells. Embryonic stem cells have the
capacity to become any cell in the human body. They are entirely
undifferentiated (pluripotent). They are easier to grow in a culture than
adult stem cells and offer opportunities to learn about the differentiation of
cells and the growth of human embryos. This could pave the road for
research in genetic diseases and birth defects. Embryonic stem cells are
derived from embryos. Most are derived from fertilized eggs (in vitro)
that were donated for research purposes. They are NOT derived from
fertilized eggs in a woman's body. Once the eggs are obtained, they must
be grown until about five days after fertilization when the blastocyst has
formed and is filled with inner cell mass (embryoblast), the cells that are
then used in embryonic stem cell research. In order to obtain these
cells, the blastocyst must be broken and the ethical dilemma arises.
 |
| Blastocyst with inner cell mass in upper right. |
Despite the
scientific advances embryonic stem cell research could have, the ethical
dilemma forces us to choose between two moral principles:
- The duty to prevent or alleviate
suffering
- The duty to respect the value of
human life
This is because in order to obtain the
cells, the embryo has to be destroyed, thus destroying a possible human life,
despite its potential to alleviate the suffering of thousands of people.
Therefore, the moral question behind embryonic stem cell research is at
what point does a human embryo count as a human life and what degree of respect
and protection is required at different stages of development? Some examples of the arguments include the
moral status from fertilization onwards and whether or not the embryo has increasing
status as it develops.
Arguments against Embryonic Stem Cell
Research:
|
Arguments for embryonic stem cell
research:
|
“Development from a fertilized egg
into a baby is a continuous process and any attempt to pinpoint when
person-hood begins is arbitrary.”
|
· It
has not yet been implanted into the uterus
· Does
not have the psychological, physical, or emotional properties associated with
being human
· The
embryo does not have the opportunity to become a child without being
implanted into a woman’s uterus. Something with such a low
probability of becoming a person should not be treated as if it already were
|
· If
we judge the moral status of the embryo in order to determine it human-hood,
we make an arbitrary decision about who is human. If human-hood
was defined as the formation of the nervous system, we still would not
believe that someone who had lost nerve to be any less human.
· If
we cannot determine whether or not an embryo is human than we should not
destroy it. “A hunter does not shoot if he is not sure whether his
target is a deer or a man.”
|
· Tons
of fertilized eggs are lost because of natural causes so what does it matter
if we use some for research?
|
After much deliberation of the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission, it was decided that while the research
was ethical, restrictions needed to be set in place in order to provide the
public with the assurance that the research would be conducted within an
accountable and rigorous system of oversight and review. The restrictions that were recommended were
that first, the research should be limited to using only “cadaveric fetal
material” and embryos remaining after infertility treatments. Second, sponsorship should only occur on an
appropriate system of national oversight.
In conclusion,
while the board was unable to determine when human life truly began or what
stages of development require what levels of protection and respect, it was
decided that embryonic stem cell research was, in fact, moral as long as it
followed the guidelines they set.
I really like that you posted on this topic, because I think it's very interesting. Personally, when I heard about the stem cell debate, I was actually confused about the argument against it. In my mind, stem cells are a great discovery and have the potential to change and save many lives! I do appreciate that you posted several opinions on both sides of the argument, because it facilitates understanding of the different perspectives.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post. You really hit it on the nose in terms of providing factual evidence that supported both sides of an extremely heated debate. In my opinion, your post was just as informative as Dr. Mayhew's presentation! Keep up the great work :)
ReplyDeleteI think that part of the debate surrounding stem cell research is due to lack of knowledge. Often when dealing with such a touching topic, it is hard to acknowledge the other side of the argument. Stem cell research is something that people talk about, but even for me before Dr. Mayhew’s presentation it was somewhat of an elusive topic. I support stem cell research but I think it is important to understand where the other side of the debate is coming from because it can allow a deeper perspective on the situation and provide areas of consideration when dealing with other issues. What I enjoyed about your blog post is the attention to both sides of the argument and then context of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission’s decision. Even if one doesn’t hold the same opinions, it is important to acknowledge and respect their view.
ReplyDeleteYour blog post had a great blend of the science of stem cells as well as a complete, unbiased discussion about both sides of the heated stem cell debate. I wonder if such a debate applies to extracting stem cells from other developing embryos such as chimps, apes, etc, who are, evolutionarily, very closely related to humans...
ReplyDeleteThe question about the start of life is something that is really interesting to think about. Is it conception? How about implantation into the uterus? What about the development of vascular? It seems that most people tend to agree that if it looks like a neonate, it is life...that is to say, if it has hands, fingers, toes, facial features, etc. Does life start at the point of autonomous viability, later in pregnancy? This topic cross sections with the larger debate about abortion and the related ethics. I think the reason that stem cell research is/was so controversial is the misunderstand and cross-reference between abortion and stem cell research.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I loved your post on the debates over stem cell research. It did a great job of summing up the arguments of both sides, which I think is very important. I must ask though, What was the National Bioethics Advisory Commission thinking? If I read your post correctly, they did not answer the question of whether life begins at conception, or at some time afterwards, however they did go ahead and condone stem cell research. I, personally find this insane. An individual's opinion on this matter probably depends on when they personally think life begins, however the conclusions, or lack thereof, of the commission seem grossly irresponsible to me. It seems that they were unwilling to cause controversy by deciding whether the embryos were alive or not, however they were perfectly willing to authorize their destruction, possibly murder. The commission was unwilling to take the political backlash for their decision so they didn't make one, at least not explicitly. They should have picked the side they believed in, made hard and fast rules governing when life begins, and then and only then allowed or banned human stem cell research based on that decision. If new evidence surfaced the rules could always be changed, so they don't have that excuse either. A jury would never refuse to give a guilty or innocent verdict, but then give jail time, and this is essentially what the commission has done; skipped the first question, but then answered the second, when it should depend on the first. Sorry for the long comment, this just got me a little angry.
ReplyDeleteI think that the debate on stem cell research is always a topic that can spark a lot of controversy but I really enjoyed the explanation and evidence that you have provided in this post. Many people around the U.S. and even the world are very uneducated on the topic and make untrue assumptions about the research that scientists are doing on stem cell research. I think that the facts that you have provided here give a great explanation and have really opened up my mind to this important topic in our scientific culture.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very well written post. The explanation and arguments behind both sides of such a controversial topic are essential to formulating a definitive and informed decision. However, I agree with Joe's statement that the NBAC seemingly cowered away from defining where life begins, but had no problem justifying that the termination of an embryo, of which they never stated was alive or not, was legal and moral. This seems irresponsible and spineless in my eyes. In a country where the judicial system is centered on due process and the need for overwhelming evidence in order to prove something, I feel as though the NBAC said "well there is evidence supporting each one, so we won't say whether or not they are innocent or guilty", and then determined the incarceration or freedom of the suspect right after the fact. If you are going to make a choice in a controversial area, at least stand firm with the decision you choose. With that said, I understand that the benefit of stem cells to medicine and research was overwhelming and undoubtedly beneficial. All I ask is for the NBAC to stand by their decision in all aspects, and to not shy away from the controversial issues that may mar their image.
ReplyDeleteI think the stem cell debate is a fascinating one, both from a logical and ethical side. My opinion on the accompanying debate on the start of life is simply this, if something can die, then it was living. However, I do agree with the decision from the NBAC to allow further research into stem cells. Even though you may be using stem cells from embryos that are living, I do believe it should be OK to harvest stem cells from them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I would favor the research argument but there are still some questions we still need to consider. If we consider things with no psychological, physical and emotional properties are not "living things", then it is fine to use the embryo since there will be no suffering . However, How about mice? We still use them to do research all the time. Does the large population of mice make them any different from the eggs?
ReplyDeleteAnother question is should we postpone all the discoveries and advances because we still consider embryonic cells human? There are people dying everyday because of genetic disease, why don't we take them to account instead of embryonic cells?
I like the way you pose a question in the introduction of the article. Is the potential of life more important than saving a life? The article provides both sides of the argument with their points, and it is unbiased. It is very informative as well. Many people are not having information about stem cells and are arguing blindly.The facts provided by the article will be very helpful in educating people about stem cells. The question about the point when something is considered human is also very interesting. There are many different definitions, and viewpoints. In my opinion, I think that saving a life is more important in this case because of the low probability of becoming human of these embryos.
ReplyDeleteI believe the reason the National Bioethics Committee didn't make a decision about when life began is because it's not their decision to make. They were advised to determine if embryonic stem cell research was ethical, not when life began, despite that question being a huge divider between supporters of the research and protestors. When life begins, I believe, is a question for the supreme court and relates to the legality of abortion as opposed to the morality of stem cell research.
ReplyDelete