A huge debate in stem cells ethics is the use in vitro fertilization in human embryos to produce a steady supply of stem cells for research. One of the biggest concerns is the proposed need to create and then destroy human embryos for the culture of stem cells. 14 days after the egg of a female cell is fertilized, the embryo begins cellular differentiation. These 14 days have sparked huge debates and issues in the scientific world. The moral status of the embryo has raised questions on the justifications needed to destroy them and whether their moral status as a human embryo outweighs these justifications. In the United Kingdom, the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology has written a report on the general population’s opinion of this view, called the Warnock Report. The Report concludes that experiments on embryos older than 14 days should be banned. However, churches and human life protesters have argued that life begins the ‘moment of fertilization’ and that further research should be banned entirely. In contrast, others argue that the embryo has no rights at all and are no different from a cell or tissue, while others say the embryo gains status over time. These arguments are at a standstill, as neither were fully addressed in either abortion
Question: How are stem cells similar to cancer cells? Answer: They both have the characteristic of proliferation. Proliferation is the ability of a cell to quickly duplicate itself, part of the reason why cancer is so life-threatening. This common quality has given ail to many scientists who have done research in stem cell therapy. Research done from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders has shown that embryonic stem cells and cancer cells both have and use a protein called nucleostemin. Although the function of the protein is not clear, it is hypothesized that this is the protein that is in charge of cell division. This knowledge could help in developing safer stem cell therapies and even an alternative approach to controlling cancer. (Citation 24)
• Signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, in which Jay Dickey and Roger Wicker argued against funding research in which human embryos were created and then destroyed for the purpose of stem cells.
• In 2001 President George Bush passed an executive order further limiting research on stem cells by preventing the creation of additional embryonic stem cell lines to add to the 22 in existence at the time. Federal funds were confined for use only in stem cell lines already in existence.
• In 2009 our current President, Barack Obama had authorized a new executive order highlighting three conditions to be fulfilled for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
According to How Stem Cells Work, by Stephanie Watson and Craig Freudenrich, these three conditions were:
1) The cell line was one of the 22 in existence during the Bush administration or was created from embryos that had been discarded after in vitro fertilization procedures.
2) The donors of the embryos were not paid in any way.
3) The donors clearly knew that the embryos would be used for research purposes prior to giving consent.
Another controversial topic in this field of research is the use of clones to provide pluripotent stem cells for treatments. Due to the stem cells being derived from a person’s clone, there would be no possibility of rejection, leading to safe and reliable stem cell operations. This also provides an unlimited resource for embryonic stem cells for research and cures. However, many people are against cloning in general, especially religious authorities, who believe it goes against the will of god. In addition, some believe it is unethical to use federal funding for cloning embryos for stem cell research, when so much of the American population is undecided to whether this method is ethical or not. (Citation 11) (Citation 12)
Arguments toward the usage of leftover embryos from in-vitro fertilization have also risen. Many who are against creating embryos solely for stem cell research believe that there is more ethical justification in the use of spare embryos for research. Not much has been debated over the use of this, but this possibility must be kept in mind.
Another massive debate is associated with whether the use of cell nuclear replacement
techniques to create stem cells be permitted. Debators argue that permission to do so will eventually lead to reproductive cloning, another hot topic issue. The initial proceses of creating stem cells and reproductive cloning is the same, and would be tempting to some scientists. (Citation 14)
If new stem cell technologies were released into the public, it would have to follow many policies to be most beneficial to both the producers and the consumers.
Søren Holm, author of Going to the Roots of the Stem Cell Controversy states that “ We do know (some of) the characterisitcs that the therapeutically optimal stem cell should display:
1. No immunological rejection
2. Immediate availability
3. Availability in large numbers
4. Controlled differentiation to desired cells
5. Controlled integration into existing tissues and biological niches leading to normal function
6. No other biological risks” (Søren Holm)
If the use of embryonic cells is further banned from use as research along with spare embryos from IVF, there is no other choice than using women’s ova. Although the number for initial ova needed for research will be insignificant, moving into research on stem-cell therapy; there will be a great need for ova. This is an issue because of the need to regulate and not exploit the ova donors, which would either sell or provide them. However, it can be argued that these ova aren’t of the same moral status as humans, because these aren’t true human embryos.
Many argue that federal funds are needed to research stem cells. Stem-cells up until now 2007 have been the result of private investors. However, there is no oversight for research done by these investors. What happens “behind closed doors” is something the public can feel uneasy about. The ethics associated with federal funding is what makes it a strong argument. Although (sentence about whether atm there is a vast majority of federal funding or private funding now) In addition, stem-cell therapies produced by private investors will most likely be incredibly expensive, while federal funding can guarantee reasonable prices. (Citation 15)
If stem cells provide all that it claims to do, what happens when stem cell lines fail to function for even a short period of time? Will our society be so dependent on the use of stem cell technology that it will fail to function when there is a mishap on any step of the stem cell process? Questions such as these must be addressed to also further to use of stem cell technologies.
Robert J. Blendon of The New England Journal of Medicine states that "A majority of Americans express pro–stem-cell-research views in response to all four of the questions we considered. About 6 in 10 Americans (62%) believe that medical research involving stem cells obtained from human embryos is morally acceptable, whereas 30% believe it is morally wrong (Gallup 2011). Similarly, 62% favor the conducting of medical research that uses stem cells from human embryos, whereas 31% are opposed (VCU 2010). When asked in the context of stem-cell research whether they agreed or disagreed that “research involving human embryos should be forbidden, even if it means that possible treatments are not made available to ill people,” 60% of Americans said that such research should not be forbidden; 31% thought it should be forbidden (HSPH 2011). A majority (55%) believe the federal government should fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos; 41% believe the federal government should not fund such research (CNN-ORC 2010). "
Stem cells are arguably the most controversial science technology to date. Although stem cells offer revolutionary advancement in medicine and therapies, there are many controversial areas. (FIGURE 63)
Stem cells are arguably the most controversial science technology to date. Although stem cells offer revolutionary advancement in medicine and therapies, there are many controversial areas. (FIGURE 63)
This issue also affects the status of women, as it could be seen as derogatory or beneficial. One possible, but somewhat unreasonable (find a better word) is to use the ova from other species of animals, which would have to be functionally and immunologically the same as a stem cell derived from a human ova. This technique has already been patented by the American firm Advanced Cell Technology, and there is some speculation about it. (Citation 14)
Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues
When an Embryo is considered a Human
debates nor assisted reproductive technology debates; no new arguments are being produced as of now. In addition, no legislation pertaining to the moral status of embryos nor the amount of moral status an embryo has been made. Future governments will have to address it at some point, and that is when this issue will move on.
(Citation 24) (Citation 14)
Cancer and Stem Cells
Legality of Stem Cells
Deborah White states that President Obama observed on March 9, 2009, when he lifted the ban: "Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work...
"Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that.
"But I can promise that we will seek them -- actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground." (Citation 13) (Citation 16)
Cloning and Stem Cells
Association with Cloning
How stem cell research is presented to the public who need treatment from its various cures can also be an issue. Stem cell researchers have promised to release actual therapies and treatments within 5-10 years of its beginnings, however, it has been much longer than 10 years without any results. Patients who are critically ill may have already passed away while waiting for these technologies to become released to the public. (Citation 14)
Stem Cell Publicity
The Spare Embryo
Women and the Ova
Public Policy
However, Søren Holm also states that even before stem-cell therapies can enter the market massively, the questions of
1) agreement about the value of the goal of a particular kind of research (i.e. the creation of effective stem cell therapies)
2) genuine scientific uncertainty about exactly what line of research is most likely to achieve this goal
and
3) disagreement about the ethical evaluation of some of these lines of research but not about others
Must be answered first. (Citation 14)
Federal Funding
Dependence of Stem Cells
Public Opinion
(Figure 77)