Should We Kill Embryos for Stem Cell Research - Essay Example

SHOULD WE KILL EMBRYOS FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH? due: Table of Contents SHOULD WE KILL EMBRYOSFOR STEM CELL RESEARCH? 17 1 SHOULD WE KILL EMBRYOS FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH? 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 3 Support for embryonic stem cell research 5 Stem cells’ ability to differentiate into numerous cell types 5 Embryos are not equivalent to human life 7 Organizations dealing with rare diseases support embryonic stem cell research 9 Embryonic stem cell research increases efficiency in scientific research 10 Associated medical risks 10 Criticism to embryonic stem cell research 11 Recommendations and Conclusion 12 Open discussion between critics and scientists 12 Increase funding 13 Encourage controlled research 14 Informed consent 14 No reproductive intent 15 Table of Figures and Tables Figure 1: How human embryonic stem cells are obtained 3 Figure 2: The promise of stem cells 5 Table 1: Public and Private Funding for Stem Cell Research in Several Countries 13 Introduction Stem cell research has sparked a lot of controversies, especially with regards to the issue of destruction of embryos to obtain stem cells. Politicians, human rights activists, and religious associations are always in constant discussions whether stem cell research is ethically sound, based on arguments on the sanctity and protection of human life. The main argument is usually on the source of the stem cells, with many opposing the killing of human embryos to obtain the stem cells. The other side of the discussion concentrates on the probable advantages of stem cell research in medicine, especially where genetic disorders, cancers, and other degenerative diseases may become curable. Figure 1: How human embryonic stem cells are obtained (Yu & Thompson 2006, p.1) Based on the information available today, killing embryos for stem cell research is ethically sound. A critical analysis of the controversial issue of both sides of the debate reveals that stem cell research has got more pros than cons, and destruction of embryos may turn out to be a small sacrifice to make. The following sections explore the benefits of stem cell research, the associated risks and the counterarguments brought forward by the religious groups and other human rights associations. Support for embryonic stem cell research Stem cells’ ability to differentiate into numerous cell types Stem cells have a positive effect, as they can differentiate into any cell. Such capabilities promise major breakthroughs in the field of human medicine since it would be possible to replace defective cells with functional ones, regardless of the cell type. Defective cells are the cause for many diseases and other human disorders, including those with a genetic origin. Stem cell research provides a way through which scientists can safely substitute malfunctioning cells with normal ones and thus restore the functionality of the organs. Chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancers, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and muscular dystrophy among others will become curable. Stem cell research also promises major developments in the drug industry. It will be possible to develop cells of a target organ and the effects of the drug tested before being administered to animals or human beings (Scott, Peters & Dragan 2013, p.49). Efficiency in drug production increases significantly and expensive clinical trials involving other ethical issues may become unnecessary. Furthermore, much time and resources will be saved through such simple laboratory procedures. Figure 2: The promise of stem cells. (Yu & Thompson 2006, p.3) Apart from medicine, stem cell research will also provide developments in other disciplines including food and beverage production (Scott, Peters & Dragan 2013, p.49). For instance, since cultured cells are capable of differentiating as they would naturally; it will be possible to obtain animal products such as meat without having to kill any animals. Scientists have already tested this concept where cultured beef was used to make a burger, similar to one made from natural beef. The amount of resource savings in terms of water, land and energy are enormous when people adopt large scale production (Post 2012, p.298). However, the costs of producing the burger were very high, and this made it impractical. All the same, the potential benefits of adoption of this concept are undisputable. Given the potential benefits of stem cells, it is advisable to support research in this discipline. Statistics shows that the increasing population, food shortage, and disease burden are going to be major challenges in the near future (Steinfield et al. 2006, p.4). A better approach is, therefore, needed to counter these adverse effects that are almost inevitable. Embryos are not equivalent to human life Embryos only possess the potential of becoming, but are not equal to human beings. An embryo needs to be implanted in the uterus at the appropriate hormonal phase and provided with the necessary nutrients and conditions for a specific period for it to grow into a human being. In the case of embryos developed outside the uterus, what matters most is the intentions of the ones responsible. For instance, test tube babies can be (and have been) developed and nurtured until they mature into fully grown adults, as long as that is the intention of the scientist(s). Killing such an embryo, in any stage of its development, may then be considered as murder. However, an embryo developed for other purposes should not be regarded as a human being since it is only the stage of development that is common, but the end results are different. Killing such an embryo is, therefore, part of a totally different procedure that should not be likened to human reproduction. Several arguments have been put forward regarding when human life begins; some individuals are claiming it starts at conception while others allow certain duration after conception. Most religious organizations oppose the creation, use and destruction of the human embryo stem cells in research, regardless of the stage of development, while some support the research to a certain extent. It is worth noting the various opinions of the religious groups, although we cannot conclude that a certain religion is superior to another. The Catholic Church, Orthodox Christians, and other Protestant churches believe that human life begins at conception and should no one should compromise it for whatever purposes, whether good or bad. Islam and Judaism believe that human life begins 40 days after conception and therefore any research involving the destruction of embryos below that duration is not considered unethical (Hug 2006, p.111). For Hinduism and Buddhism, harm to sentient embryos is considered wrong. Thus, only destruction of embryos more than 14 days old is prohibited (Walters 2004, p.23). The intentions of the research are also important in Buddhism. If the intentions are to improve the quality of human life, then the research is ethical as opposed to studies aimed at making money (Walters 2004, p.22). Countries also have their legislation on abortion, based on the viability of human embryos (defined as the stage at which an embryo can survive outside the uterus, at least with artificial assistance). The average period before one can consider embryo termination as abortion is 24 weeks, depending on the country’s biomedical and technological capabilities (Breborowicz 2001, p.49). Embryos used in stem cell are clearly below this period and hence cannot be considered humans or their destruction similar to abortion. The various phases of development of the embryo also provide evidence as to why embryos in their 5th or 7th day are not equal to human beings. Before the 14th day after fertilization, an embryo is totipotent and has the potential of splitting to form two or more babies or fail to develop at all. Furthermore, the central nervous system has not yet developed at this stage. Therefore, the embryo does not have senses. If it is considered ethical to take organs from patients declared brain dead, then using cells from embryos with no central nervous system should not be considered any different (Hug 2006, p.109). Embryos also do not have any moral status and should be regarded just as organic material similar to other body parts. Unless they have reached a level where they are autonomous and independent, human embryos cannot be considered human beings. They are merely the property of those from whose bodies the embryos came (Holm 2004, p.3). Destruction of the embryo before implantation cannot be considered harming it because it does not possess beliefs, interests or expectations. It is, therefore, logical to kill human embryos to acquire stem cells that can be used to increase the quality of life of mankind. Other arguments put forward also claim that the moral status of a human increases as the fertilized egg develops to become more human-like. People should not hold the loss of an embryo before implantation with such high regard as compared to a human foetus or born baby. The degree of value attached to a life depends on the stage of development, beginning from implantation to birth. Furthermore, almost half of all fertilized eggs are lost naturally or fail to implant and we do not consider this murder or violation of the right to life of the embryo (Sander 2004, p.208). The loss of embryos in stem cell research should not, therefore, be regarded as any different. Sander (2004) notes that the reaction to the loss of an embryo (even in the religions that regard human life highly) is not the same as the death of a child (p.208) Organizations dealing with rare diseases support embryonic stem cell research Several organizations dealing with specific chronic diseases recognize the importance of stem cell research. The Muscular Dystrophy Association supports and funds human embryonic stem cell research in a bid to find cures for the disorder. Several experiments have been conducted under their watch, involving research on therapies for dysfunctional muscle and nerve cells (Stimson 2003, para 56). Some of the findings indicate that compared to other methods of stem cell therapy, human embryonic stem cells provide more capabilities in terms of efficiency, availability, and plasticity. However, adult stem cells have the advantage of bypassing rejection caused by different genetic composition of the embryo cells and the patient (Stimson 2003, para 56). Many other similar organizations have supported embryonic stem cell research since they understand the medical significance of this concept. The challenges, that face embryonic stem cell research, provide motivation for support. The earlier we eliminate them, the better the chances for saving more lives and increasing the quality of life of those living with ‘incurable’ diseases (Stimson 2003, para 56). Embryonic stem cell research increases efficiency in scientific research Most critics of embryonic stem cell research oppose the idea of creating embryos only to use and kill them. However, these cells can be obtained through other means that do not involve the creation and subsequent destruction of embryos, such as using the remnants of in vitro fertilization destined for destruction. Since we cannot use the fertilized embryos for other purposes, it is not ethically incorrect to utilize them for research that will improve the quality of life of humans. Discarding them would be a waste of valuable resources, given the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research. Most countries, including the Jewish majority state, Israel, also support this argument. Associated medical risks There are several challenges associated with embryonic stem cell research that have slowed progress in this facet of medicine. First, embryonic stem cells are capable of differentiating into very many types of cells in the human body, but this is usually mediated by certain signals and conditions. In the wrong conditions, embryonic stem cells will differentiate into unwanted types of cells and may become cancerous, putting the patient at risk rather than benefiting them (Stimson 2003, para 56). Second, embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, are from an allogeneic donor and are faced with possible immune rejection. The already established cell lines may, therefore, assist only a handful of individuals if more will not become available. It is important that lines be established from a wide range of donors to allow more patients to receive human leukocyte antigen-matched stem cell transplants. The lack of access to new embryonic stem cell lines posed by the restrictive measures in some countries might hinder the progress towards the transplantation based on stem cells. Governments and other relevant organizations should encourage support for embryonic stem cell research to hasten the process and make the theoretical benefits practical. Third, being a relatively new field, there is limited knowledge available on embryonic stem cell therapy. A lot of the practice carried out so far is still experimental, and no country has adopted mainstream use of stem cell therapy. Many studies must be carried out at an intensive level to overcome these problems. Such research will most probably result to destruction of more embryos, but the outcomes are far much beneficial. Furthermore, other ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without having to destroy them may be invented through the research. Therefore, it is worthwhile to destroy a few embryos to come up with more efficient ways of handling stem cell applications in the future. Criticism to embryonic stem cell research Although there are several risks involved in the use of embryonic stem cells in medicine, opposition is based mainly on ethical considerations. The major issue of controversy is on protection of life. Some religious groups and pro-life movements insist that the life of a human being begins immediately after conception, and, therefore, killing embryos to get stem cells is similar to murder. The Roman Catholic Church actively opposes embryonic stem cell research. They also oppose most forms of in vitro fertilization and any procedure that results to the loss of human life irregardless of the stage of development (Oakley 2002, p.228). However, more recently, the Catholic Church declared it will support research on adult stem cells but not embryonic stem cell research (Myers 2012, para 9). In the Europe, various countries either oppose or accept embryonic stem cell research to a certain extent. Countries such as Belgium, U.K, Sweden and Finland permit embryonic stem cell research, derivation of new stem cell lines from supernumerary in vitro fertilization embryos and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Others, such as Denmark, Holland, Iceland and Greece permit research and use of supernumerary in vitro fertilization embryos but prohibit somatic cell nuclear transfer. Italy, Germany, Austria, and Ireland permit research but only using imported embryonic stem cells. Slovakia, Malta, Poland and Lithuania, on the other hand, prohibit any research related to human embryonic stem cells (EuroStemCell 2014, para 1). In other nations, for instance, the United States, research in this field was recently permitted, lifting numerous limitations that the previous government had imposed (Gold 2004, p.5). Apart from religious institutions and governments, human rights organizations have also contributed to the debate on the use of human embryonic stem cells. Human Genetics Alert is an example of such an organization, which campaigns against human genetic engineering and cloning. According to them, the creation and use of human embryonic stem cells is regarded as non-reproductive cloning and is ethically wrong (Human Genetics Alert 2000, para 9). They maintain that killing of the embryos for whatever purpose is wrong and so is their use in genetic engineering and manufacturing embryonic stem cells. They cite several disadvantages of the practice such as inadequate knowledge and expensive research, yet oppose further research into the field, which is the only way to overcome most of these shortcomings. However, they support the use of adult stem cells derived from the patients (Human Genetics Alert 2000, para 9). Recommendations and Conclusion Open discussion between critics and scientists Recommendations and concluding remarks for this topic are triggered by the presence of debates shows that people take the issue of stem cell seriously; which is a good sign. However, if there will be no solutions formulated in the long run, then all the discussion is pointless. Supporters of the research need to consider the concerns of the critics since a thorough analysis shows that they may have a point, even though it may be based solely on beliefs and morals. The critics also have a responsibility to consider the arguments of the supporters too. Stem cell research has numerous potential benefits and can be applied in many disciplines apart from medicine. Disease burden and food shortage are among the major challenges of the world today and application of stem cell research can provide viable solutions to these problems. It would be wise to put aside their differences and concentrate on improving the quality of life of humans, since that is what they seem to have in common. Increase funding Curtailing funding from the government only impedes progress in the field of stem cell research. Most governments are skeptic on funding this research, especially that concerned with the destruction of human embryos. Currently, most of the research done is funded by non-governmental organization and other private institutions in the majority of countries. Availability of resources will facilitate progress and maybe the major ethical issues may be ironed out with the invention of new methods of obtaining stem cells. Some of the major critics, such as the Catholic Church, have offered support for stem cell research although embryonic stem cells still remain a heated topic. However, this is the initial move, pointing to that path, and they should be encouraged to consider more ways of supporting this worthy cause. Below is a table showing the extent of both public and private funding in various countries. Table 1: Public and Private Funding for Stem Cell Research in Several Countries Country/State Program Funding/Time Frame Australia National Stem Cell Research Centre US$110 m./until 2011 California Proposition 71 US$1.7 b./until 2015 Germany Funding by Public Research Funding Foundation GBP48 m./2000-2007 Florida Initiative “Floridans For Stem Cell Research and Cures US$200 m./until 2015 United \kingdom Various single programs GBP25 m./2004/5 Israel MIT Stem Cell Consortium GBP15 m./until 2008 Illinois Initiative USD568 m./until 2015 Japan Stem Cell Research Centre US$45 .m./until 2008 Canada Canadian Stem Cell Network GBP18.8 m./annually Korea Government funding GBP1.03 m./in 2004 New Jersey Stem Cell Program US$216 m./until 2015 Sweden Swedish Stem Cell Opportunities GBP19 m./2003-2008 Singapore Stem Cell Research Program GBP13-15 m. annually Spain Prince Felipe Research Centre Valencia GBP274 m. Wisconsin Stem Cell Program US$213 m. /up to 2015 Adapted from Du & Minger, 2004 Encourage controlled research Although stem cell research is rewarding to the medical field, it needs to be controlled manner so as to maintain the values and morals of human life in the society. Arbitrary destruction of human embryos should not be recommended. According to Sanders (2004), the fear that embryonic stem cell research may lead to exploitation and abuse is the main reason most governments are hesitant to provide federal funding (p.209). It is a genuine concern that should be addressed in ways other than curtailing funding. He recommends enacting legislation to regulate stem cell research. Such measures include banning reproductive cloning, use of research embryos older than 14 days and establishing a stem cell bank to prevent monopolization by private investors (p.209). Informed consent Informed consent is important to consider when handling stem cell research, especially when destruction of embryos is involved. Those, who donate the gametes, as well as the recipients of the stem cell therapy, should be adequately informed on the potential risks involved prior the commencement of any procedure is done. Moreover, such data has to be made easily accessible to the public so that they make decisions based on facts and also in line with their beliefs and values. No reproductive intent Embryonic stem cell research is not recommended on embryos intended for reproduction. When sexual reproduction is the main intention, the research becomes similar to cloning that is widely accepted as unethical. Cloning also has got many potential negative outcomes that can be used in destructive ways. Research should, therefore, be allowed within certain limits, for people to enjoy the benefits while avoiding any adverse aftermath that may be caused by selfish people. Ruining of human embryos, with intent to harvest stem cells, should, therefore, be considered not as murder but as a clear and right path to the future of biomedical technology, as long as it is done for the right purposes. Bibliography BREBOROWICZ, G. H. (2001). Limits of fetal viability and its enhancement. Early pregnancy (Online), 5(1), 49-50. DU, J., JOHNSTON, G., & MINGER, S. (2004). Stem cell mission to China, Singapore and South Korea. Kings College London: UK Department of Trade and Industry. p, 68. EUROSTEMCELL (2014). Regulation of stem cell research in Europe. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.eurostemcell.org/stem-cell-regulations GOLD, R. B. (2004). Embryonic Stem Cell Research—Old Controversy; New Debate. Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 7(4). HUMAN GENETIC ALERT. (2000). Briefing on Non-reproductive Cloning. Retrieved january 8, 2015, from http://www.hgalert.org/topics/cloning/cloningBrief.htm HOLM, S. (2004). Stem cell transplantation and ethics: a European overview. Fetal diagnosis and therapy, 19(2), 113. HUG, K. (2006). Therapeutic perspectives of human embryonic stem cell research versus the moral status of a human embryo--does one have to be compromised for the other. Medicina (kaunas), 42(2), 107-14. LEI, T., JACOB, S., AJIL-ZARAA, I., DUBUISSON, J. B., IRION, O., JACONI, M., & FEKI, A. (2007). Xeno-free derivation and culture of human embryonic stem cells: current status, problems and challenges. Cell research, 17(8), 682-688. MYERS, S. (2012, January 23). Catholic Church Declares Support For Adult Stem Cell Research. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/01/23/catholic-church-declares-support- for-adult-stem-cell-research/ OAKLEY, J. (2002). Democracy, embryonic stem cell research, and the Roman Catholic church. Journal of medical ethics, 28(4), 228-228. POST, M. J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat science, 92(3), 297-301. SANDEL, M. J. (2004). Embryo ethics-the moral logic of stem-cell research. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE., 351, 207-208 SCOTT, C. W., PETERS, M. F., & DRAGAN, Y. P. (2013). Human induced pluripotent stem cells and their use in drug discovery for toxicity testing. Toxicology letters, 219(1), 49-58. STEINFELD, H., GERBER, P., WASSENAAR, T., CASTEL, V., ROSALES, M., & HAAN, C. D. (2006). Livestocks long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). STIMSON, D. (2003, February). MDA / Quest Vol 10 No 1 / From Steriods to Stem Cells. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://static.mda.org/publications/quest/q101steroids.html WALTERS, L. (2004). Human embryonic stem cell research: an intercultural perspective. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 14(1), 3-38. YU, J. & THOMSON, J. A. (2006). Regenerative Medicine 2006. National Institutes of Health. Read More