The Promise of Stem Cell for Solving Complex Medical Problems - Research Paper Example

?Running head: STEM CELL RESEARCH The Promise of Stem Cell Research for Solving Complex Medical Problems Affiliation Research involving embryonic stem cells lines is a rapidly growing field that is confronting ethical challenges. The ethical challenge depends on the idea that the costs of violating the alleged dignity of human embryos outweigh the costs of not researching and providing potentially life-saving treatments based on embryonic stem cells. So far, researchers have attempted to give a firm answer to that question through empirical research. However, attempts by the public to undercut stem cell research make it difficult to empirically test and verify the “promise” of stem cells as they apply to clinical treatments. The Promise of Stem Cell Research for Solving Complex Medical Problems If the public listens to scientists and trusts them as authorities, stem cell research might seem to be a catch-all solution to a myriad of clinical problems. If the public listens to certain corners of the bioethics field, stem cell research might seem to be a scientific solution that comes at a great cost to human life. Of course, most approaches to stem cells contain far more nuance than “for” and “against” embryonic cell research; however, it is a polarizing subject that is divisive even among researchers in the field. The purpose of this paper is to define some of the challenges—both ethical and scientific—posed to embryonic stem cell research, which includes looking at possible future directions for clinical practices, research agendas, and ethical systems that might oppose the use of embryonic stem cell lines. Overall, the “promise” of stem cell research includes not only the potential for benefiting mankind with novel kinds of treatment for painful and debilitating diseases, but also the potential for creating these treatments in ways that do not harm human dignity. First, a distinction should be drawn between embryonic and adult stem cells, particularly with regard to differences in their potentials to grow and regenerate tissues. Stem cells in general are a rare subset of primitive cells that, at the single-cell level, can self-renew as well as give rise to mature, differentiating daughter cells (Weissman, 2005). According to the NIH (2011), embryonic stem cells are grown easily in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues. Accordingly, isolating these cells from an adult tissue is difficult, and methods to develop more cells in cell culture have not yet been developed. This distinction is significant insofar as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies. In other words, adult stem cells cannot provide a sufficient level of coverage for stem cell research, let alone stem cell treatments on a public level. Therefore, stem cell research is normally biased toward the use of embryonic stem cells. Such stem cells are taken from embryos that are fertilized in vitro. The development of cells in a laboratory setting is known to scientists as “cell culture.” Embryonic stem cells are grown by transporting cells from a pre-implantation embryo into a culture environment that holds a nutrient-rich base known as a culture medium. Over the process of development, the cells divide and coat the surface of the dish into which they were transported. Once a cell line is developed, the original stem cells can produce millions or perhaps billions of embryonic stem cells for researchers to utilize in making discoveries and potentially treating diseases. Stem cells that proliferate in a cell culture of an extended period of time but have not differentiated into a specific kind of cell are known as “pluripotent” (meaning, literally, not constrained toward a specific developmental pathway). These cells are truly useful because they can be manipulated in any way a researcher needs in order to make discoveries. Also, the stem cell lines are useful in research because they can be frozen and shipped to other laboratories for other applications. However, the prospect of creating embryos is particularly troubling for ethicists and members of the public who believe that life begins at conception. If life originates at the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, then in vitro fertilization for the purpose of extracting embryonic stem cells and developing a stem cell line is tantamount to killing a living being. The problem with making broad spectrum judgments, such as the idea that developing stem cell lines from embryonic stem cells is inherently wrong, is the situational factors at play in where the embryos themselves come from. One distinction to be drawn is the moral value of donated embryos versus creating embryos for the purpose of research (McLaren, 2001). While some ethicists would admit the value of putting donated embryos to work for some purpose (other than letting them go to waste), others stand by the inherent dignity of embryos, donated or not. The primary ethical question that must be answered then is whether the value that stem cells offer outweigh the costs they take on violating the dignity of human embryos that are created in order for fully pluripotent stem cell lines to exist. For the most part, the answer to this question falls outside of the jurisdiction of the public, and belongs to scientists who work with developing stem cells for clinical research. Guhr, Kurtz, Friedgen and Loser (2006) testify that hESC (human embryonic stem cell) research is a rapidly developing field, especially within the range of 2003 to 2006. However, the overall number of stem cell lines being used to conduct research in the field is falling, with most publicized research having been performed with cell lines derived before 2001 (Guhr, Kurtz, Friedgen, & Loser, 2006, p. 2191). In addition, United States research has begun to lag behind research on stem cells being conducted by other countries, which may due in part to increasing resistance to hESC on ethical premises. An important caveat to that finding is that more “collaborative research” is being conducted between international laboratories, which emphasize the transportability of embryonic stem cell lines. Scientists may have a problem answering the ethical worries of the public, but the importance of stem cells in clinical settings is clear. For instance, Johansson, Svensson, Wallstedt, Janson and Frise’n (1999) surveyed how stem cells in the brain continuously generate new neurons in response to disease and trauma. The lateral ventricle wall and the hippocampus are two regions of the brain in particular that harbor self-renewing cells that are capable of generating neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes. In clinical terms, this means expansions to neural stem cell lines and inducing differentiation before transplantation could possibly relieve neuronal problems in adult human beings. The purpose of Johansson (1999) and others’ research in this area is to stimulate interest in the subject and to add to an answer to the question of whether the benefits outweigh the costs. The promise of stem cell research originated in 1998 when University of Wisconsin researcher James Thomson announced that he had derived and cultured human embryonic stem cells. Past the rampant speculation about the promise of this discovery, political and ethical objections to the process slowed clinical trials of stem cell treatments on humans to a halt. In January 2009, the first clinical trials on humans were approved, but they were delayed until August 2009. With all of the ethically and politically motivated delays to progress in deriving stem cell treatments, Raup (2011) identifies a recent trend that she calls “stem cell tourism,” which is the act of seeking treatment for untreatable conditions at international institutions that have surpassed the United States in terms of their knowledge about how stem cells work and how they can be used to treat patients. Even if these kinds of treatments work in curing patients’ ailments, it is symbolic of a desperation that many patients have struggling with the same question that ethicists and researchers are grappling with—do the costs of using embryonic stem cells outweigh the costs of not preventing or treating ailments? While researchers who are dependent on federal funds to conduct their research of embryonic stem cells are quick to highlight its benefits, commentators such as Schwartz (2006) highlight the need to play down the promise of stem cell research the public. As was the case with James Thomson and his development of embryonic stem cells, there is a general public fascination with the promise of regenerating cells. But it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty that such research will produce anything of clinical value within the foreseeable future (Schwartz, 2006, p. 1191). In addition, it is not clear from current research whether adult stem cells can be a viable alternative to embryonic stem cells, which are mostly or completely pluripotent. Consequently, even though stem cell research cannot point to any certainty about treatments, “it is an endeavor that is eminently worth pursuing” (Schwartz, 2006, p. 1191). Just like with global warming and other 21st century scientific ventures in the public spotlight, a public response arrives before definite conclusions are possible, and it minimizes risk to act now (even if stem cell research produces nothing) than to not act at all and lose out on the potential treatments offered by embryonic stem cell lines. The promise of stem cell research is something that has not yet been decided and is an issue up for debate by researchers, ethicists, and the public. Current research on stem cells has not revealed truly groundbreaking, novel conclusions about diseases and disorders; however, research has revealed the important role that stem cells play in the human body for development. In addition, current research is being slowed and halted by political and ethical challenges to the process of developing human embryos strictly for the purpose of extracting stem cells. For example, stem cells in the brain are responsible for generating new neurons that could provide an entirely new perspective on treating disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia. In the 21st century, researchers and physicians will need to decide for themselves whether patient welfare will supersede the ethical objections to using stem cells in treatments or whether stem cell research can be conducted in a safe, regulated manner. References Guhr, A., Kurtz, A., Friedgen, K., & Loser, P. (2006). Current state of human embryonic stem cell research: An overview of cell lines and their use in experimental work. Stem Cells, 24 , 2187-2191. McLaren, A. (2001). Ethical and social considerations of stem cell research. Nature, 414 , 129-131. NIH. (2011). Stem cell basics: What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? Retrieved January 11, 2012, from Stem Cell Information: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5 Raup, C. (2011, March 16). Stem cell tourism. Retrieved January 10, 2012, from Marine Biological Laboratory: http://stsrepository.mbl.edu/bitstream/handle/10776/1033/ConStemCellTourismCR.pdf?sequence=1 Schwartz, R. (2006). The politics and promise of stem-cell research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 355 , 1189-1191. Weissman, I. (2005). Stem cell research: Paths to cancer therapies and regenerative medicine. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 294 , 1359-1366. Read More