In the scientific domain, research has always intended to better human life. Minor sacrifices have been made in order to achieve major goals. Labs are the norm, and in the scientific world, everything is within method. Yet, some current researches bring up questions. One such investigation is stem cell research, or the research of undeveloped cells in embryos. In order to search for answers, there are some instances where the embryos are disposed of after use. Many wonder if humans should have the power to destroy life for the sake of science.
In many cases, stem cells are a miracle to behold,gripping the power to further life. What exactly are stem cells? Stem cells are cells within an embryo that have the possibility to differentiate into a number of diverse cell types, otherwise known as having a high plasticity(NIH Stem Cell Information). This potential can serve as a repair system in the body( such as for liver cells) and can divide without a limit in its living environment. A stem cell’s potential to renew themselves continually, coupled with the possibility of being induced to become cells with special functions, makes them of utmost importance. Scientists use stems cells found from primarily two sources in humans and animals: Embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells derived from a 5-day preimplantation embryo, while adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found in a differentiated tissue that can renew itself and differentiate to a limit. Human embryonic cells can be created from human embryos produced through in vitro fertilization, a way of producing embyros in a laboratory, and also through therapeutic cloning(refers to the cloning of an embryo for the purpose of deriving stem cells for therapeutic uses). Stem cells may be isolated from embryos, umbilical cords, and adult tissues(Panno xi-xii). The importance of stem cells comes from the fact that they give rise to the cells that become the heart, lungs, skin, and other important tissue (NIH Stem Cell Information). In addition, they have the potential to cure a wide array of diseases by coaxing stem cells into producing cell types that may be used to cure diseases such as cardiovasculars ailments, spinal cord disorders, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimers, and some cancers (Panno, xi-xii). In fact, stem cells have been proved to cure and calm down disease symptoms, most prominently leukemia and paralysis(Panno 36).
Despite it’s many advantages, ethic questions do arise, mostly in concern to therapeutic cloning of human embyros solely for the purpose of research. People all over the world question the morality of stem cell research. As a result, stem cell research faces many obstacles. While inquiries continue, scientists find it extremely difficult to find funding for their research. Numerous researchers have turned to private financing and funding other than from the government, including the National Institute of Health, which has donated 28 million dollars over two years ( Nano). Producing stem cell lines, or a family of constantly-dividing cells used for research, is expensive and can come in at 5,000 dollars each, becoming a huge block for scientists. Since 2001, President Bush has placed a restricting policy on funding for stem cell research. In June 21,2007, Bush renewed this policy and explained that he would continue blocking legislation to permit federal funding for such research based on a moral case. According to Bush “If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embyros. I made it clear to congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line” (Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Funding). Nevertheless, Bush permitted funding to continue only to those cell lines already in existance (Nano).
The morality in the previous quote issued by Bush presents two major difficulties in the name of ethics. There are a multitude of people in the world who disagree with stem cell research, claiming that it is murder to kill a human fetus, especially for research purposes. Therapeutic cloning, a main source, harvests embryonic stem cells and disposes of the embryo. This is a large piece of the ethical puzzle, putting forward the morality of destroying embyros or human life for scientific gain. The so-called murder challenges basic human rights and is compared to the “cruel experiments that prisoners were found to endure at the hands of the Nazis during World War II”, a topic discussed in the Belmont Report (Panno 72). The Belmont Report is a kind of ethical guideline for biomedical researchers to use in order to avoid abuses similar to those in Nazi Germany. These fetal murders are also compared to the American trial, the Tuskegee Study, in which 600 African-American males participated in a study dealing with syphilis, 400 of which had contracted the disease. With disregard to human rights, the researchers involved in the study did not disclose the information to the afflicted individuals, who had wives and children that had most likely contracted the disease. Many of the ’subjects’ suffered fatal symptoms and died without knowing the cause and leaving family members behind(73).
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research believe it is wrong to use human embryos for any kind of research or medical therapy, and have characterized the practice as ‘high tech cannibalism’(Panno 74-75). It also intertwines with the very emotional and highly politicized issue of abortion, which has been around since it’s very beginning, and both pose the same billion dollar question- When does an embryo or fetus become human? This question has been debated by any who came across it for over 2,000 years. The famous greek philosopher, Aristotle, set across a theory towards the answer to this question. He believed that life arose in three stages, which he characterized as vegetative, animate, and intellectual. Immediately after conception, the embyro is in a vegetative state, followed by an animate stage when muscles differentiate and limbs begin to move and finally, the individual develops an intellect. The first two stages take place within the womb, while the last stage occurs outside. Thus, in the minds of many , an embryo did not become human until after birth. Back to the question of therapeutic cloning, a good portion of scientists believe that cloned human embyros are not acutally human. However, the other portion of scientists suppose that now, upon the completion of the human genome project(a research effort to identify all of the genes in human DNA), humans have access to the information that makes them who they are, a process which begins as the embyro. (75-76)
A successful experiment that is used as an example for proving a species genes define what it becomes is Dolly the sheep. Dolly was a product of cloning and in vitro fertilization. Regardless of how she came about, scientists classify her as a sheep. This led to the belief that like Dolly, cloned embyros are what their genes are. According to the same logic, “If an embryo has a human genome, regardless of how it got it, that embryo is human”(Panno 78). This further supports the conflicting views about when an embryo becomes human. Everywhere, no one is sure on how to go about the issues and countries are trying to figure out a set of laws on the matter. UK parliament banned experiments on embryos older than 14 days, for example, and the EU concluded that experiments on embryos from in vitro fertilization should be allowed. Religious members are also taking a big part of this ethical question. Roman Catholics agree that the early embryo must be treated as a person. Others argue that the status of a person is something that develops over time and is not acquired at fertilization. Such a view is supported by the fact that parents are more likely to grieve the loss of a newborn child than the loss of an embryo or fetus. There is no public mourning for the natural loss of a fetus or surplus embryos disposed of at in vitro clinics(77-79). In the United States Supreme court case Roe V. Wade, the court filed that embryos can not be aborted once they become ‘viable’, or able to live outside the womb. Again, another source of belief for people in search of an answer.
There are many interpretations for when an embryo becomes a human, but a good portion support alternatives stem cells(Allman 99).Some are adamant in their positions, such as the Vatican, who strongly oppose embryonic stem cell research, and have instead been active in promoting adult stem cell research as an alternative. In 2000, the Vatican issued a statement:
The possibility, now confirmed, of using adult stem cells to attain the same goals as
would be sought with embryonic stem cells…indicates that adult stem cells represent a
more reasonable and human method for making correct and sound progress in this new
field of research and in the therapeutic application which it promises. (Allman 99)
It is proving quite difficult for scientists to change people’s opinion on the matter. Some become persuaded and some seek alternatives. Prominent figures, who had an ultimate stance, are changing their opinion in favor of stem cells. Former first lady Nancy Reagan, whose husband suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, is a vocal supporter of stem cell research and explains “Ronnie’s long journey has finally taken him to a distant place where I can no longer reach him,” she said. “Because of this I’m determined to do whatever I can to save other families from this pain”(CBSNews). Senator Orrin had once been inflexible on his opinion regarding stem cells, but after doing a bit of research, sided with science. Initially opposed, he once stated that he ‘could not support anything that destroyed human life”(Allman 98-99). In 2003, he heard from multiple accounts of suffering among people with serious diseases, and this prompted a philosophical journey that changed his mind. He explained “I came to the conclusion that, yes, the fertilized egg is a living human cell, but it has absolutely zero chance of becoming a living human being unless it is implanted in a womb. It was difficult arriving at this point at which I could make a decision. But once I got there, it was easy”.
Irving Weissman, the director at the Institute of Stem Cell Biology at Standford, agrees that “you can’t say the word embryo without people thinking of a fetus that has arms, legs, a head and so on”(Allman 36).There is truth in his words. Embryos at the preimplantation blastocyst stage have no recognizable body parts or organs whatsoever, and have only about 60 cells in the inner cell mass which bears no resemblance to any cell in an adult tissue or organ. Weissman states “There’s no kidneys, there’s no hearts; I mean there’s nothing”. Why then, do people argue that it is a living human? An embryo doesn’t look like one, nor does it think like one. With all the evidence supporting the ethnicity of stem cell research, it is clear that sacrificing what some see as a human life for the sake of science may be more morally correct than we think. At the expense of one embryo, science grows. More cures become available for more people and more diseases become nothing more than simple irritations. In the destruction of one, possibly nonhuman embryo, thousands upon thousands are saved. As a matter of fact, those that stand in the way of stem cell research look as criminal, costing a legion of humans the right to health. Every three minutes and 20 seconds, someone who could have benefited from stem cell research dies of cardiovascular diseases(Heart Disease Facts). Every year, more than half a million Americans die of cancer, some which could have benfited from stem cell research(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). A wise person once said “With great sacrifice comes great rewards”.Is it ethical, then, to save the life of one embryo or the lives of thousands?
