The reason that I am reluctant to advocate stem cell research is that I am in doubt of the human ability to use this technology in a constructive manner. With my grandmother suffering from Alzheimer's Disease, I want to believe in the bright future of stem cells, but how can we ever be sure that this technology will always be used to cure illnesses? Can legislative restrictions or moral appeals check the improper use of stem cell technology? I want to say yes, but unfortunately history shows that often times the mankind's biggest enemy is no one but themselves. It seems to me that we are often too optimistic about the medical benefits of stem cells that we neglect to think about worse scenarios.
In midst of such uncertainty, allowing stem cell research on a legislative level is like crossing a river that we cannot go back. Since the potential of stem cells are limitless, scientists or investors will often be tempted to cross fine moral lines in order to make a progress in areas of technology that are not particularly beneficial to the mankind--in the worst case, harmful. And by then, it will be extremly hard to stop such deviations.
I do not oppose stem cell research; however, I do believe that as a pioneering generation of stem cell research we must understand our responsibility in establishing ethical guidelines simultaneously with the research itself.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Ethical Economy
Whether it’s politics, religion, ethics, or science, there will always be a conflict of interest. One opinion cannot be considered right or wrong as it's one persons personal views on the subject. There will always be pros and cons, there will always be disagreement, and there will always be a counter-argument. So how to we move forward towards the future of this issue? There has to be a line, a balance if you will, that needs to be found. Perhaps a compromise can be made in terms of pursuing a solution to this problem, because if we continue arguing and bickering about the ethics of this issue, no solution will present itself. We will never get anything done.
In terms of pros and cons from the viewpoint of a pharmacologist, the pros definitely outweigh the cons. As we all know, the research that the stem cell scientists have already completed has yet to yield a successful therapy, yet we remain hopeful. In terms of the economy, the search for a successful stem cell therapy procedure will automatically boost our country’s financial success 10 fold. Things like equipment expenditures and proposed capital will increase the economic activity throughout the industry, and throughout the country. Jobs will be created, and royalty payments due to state and local revenues will continue to add to our economy. The economic benefits to stem cell research are endless; we just have to put some energy into the research instead of the argument about ethics.
Other things that the country will gain from successful therapies are: lower health care costs, less job hours lost due to the diseases directly associated with these therapies, and more importantly, less premature deaths due to the main diseases that can and will be treated by stem cell therapies. The amount of animal testing will also be reduced because of the fact that embryos are a far better example of the human’s impact profile. Since we will be ultimately using these successful therapies on humans, the use of lab animals for inhumane animal testing will decrease exponentially.
As you can see, my viewpoint presented many positive benefits due to stem cell research. I can assure you that my views are, in a way, narrow-minded, and don’t take into account the other viewpoints people might bring up. In researching for the part of pharmacologist, the only downside that I came across would be spending all this money and not gaining a successful therapy. And as this is the only downside economically, I would say, let's get going!
In terms of pros and cons from the viewpoint of a pharmacologist, the pros definitely outweigh the cons. As we all know, the research that the stem cell scientists have already completed has yet to yield a successful therapy, yet we remain hopeful. In terms of the economy, the search for a successful stem cell therapy procedure will automatically boost our country’s financial success 10 fold. Things like equipment expenditures and proposed capital will increase the economic activity throughout the industry, and throughout the country. Jobs will be created, and royalty payments due to state and local revenues will continue to add to our economy. The economic benefits to stem cell research are endless; we just have to put some energy into the research instead of the argument about ethics.
Other things that the country will gain from successful therapies are: lower health care costs, less job hours lost due to the diseases directly associated with these therapies, and more importantly, less premature deaths due to the main diseases that can and will be treated by stem cell therapies. The amount of animal testing will also be reduced because of the fact that embryos are a far better example of the human’s impact profile. Since we will be ultimately using these successful therapies on humans, the use of lab animals for inhumane animal testing will decrease exponentially.
As you can see, my viewpoint presented many positive benefits due to stem cell research. I can assure you that my views are, in a way, narrow-minded, and don’t take into account the other viewpoints people might bring up. In researching for the part of pharmacologist, the only downside that I came across would be spending all this money and not gaining a successful therapy. And as this is the only downside economically, I would say, let's get going!
Monday, February 26, 2007
Therapeutic Cloning
Most bioethicists appear to have much stronger moral objections to the idea of obtaining embryonic stem cells through therapeutic cloning than to the idea of obtaining them from left-over IVF embryos. Clearly the first option would be better from a medical standpoint because the resulting stem cells would be less likely to be rejected by the patient's immune system, since the genetic makeup of the stem cells would be identical to that of the patient (being a clone), while with the second option that rejection would certainly be likely, and thus a major obstacle in treatment.
The bioethicists who oppose therapeutic cloning claim that it is morally wrong because a human life is being created solely for the purpose of obtaining stem cells and then it is destroyed (quite different from a left-over embryo that would die anyway). But is this embryo really a human life? It might seem like a dumb question, because if everything is done correctly it would develop into a clone human being (if the technology was perfected). But think about how it is created: it isn't conceived naturally from a sperm and an egg, rather it is an egg with artificially inserted genetic material that is 'stimulated' to divide and form an embryo. If a human life is sacred, and for that reason it deserves respect, how can this cloned embryo be sacred if it is produced completely artificially, asexually in fact, and its really the scientist that's playing God to create it. Could it be considered a non-sacred, immitation form of life that is developed for medical purposes entirely, and thus does not deserve the respect and dignity of human life as we know it? Could then it be morally justified to create this embryo in order to destroy it, unlike what some bioethicists contend?
The bioethicists who oppose therapeutic cloning claim that it is morally wrong because a human life is being created solely for the purpose of obtaining stem cells and then it is destroyed (quite different from a left-over embryo that would die anyway). But is this embryo really a human life? It might seem like a dumb question, because if everything is done correctly it would develop into a clone human being (if the technology was perfected). But think about how it is created: it isn't conceived naturally from a sperm and an egg, rather it is an egg with artificially inserted genetic material that is 'stimulated' to divide and form an embryo. If a human life is sacred, and for that reason it deserves respect, how can this cloned embryo be sacred if it is produced completely artificially, asexually in fact, and its really the scientist that's playing God to create it. Could it be considered a non-sacred, immitation form of life that is developed for medical purposes entirely, and thus does not deserve the respect and dignity of human life as we know it? Could then it be morally justified to create this embryo in order to destroy it, unlike what some bioethicists contend?
Potential
An obvious argument for the affirmative is that fertilized embryos created in petri dishes are likely to be thrown out anyway, making them guilt-free usable for embryonic stem cell research. The counter argument by Right-to-Life advocates states that these embryos should not be thrown away, but given to surrogate mothers. They say that these embryos have rights due to their potential to becoming a human being. I would like to address this argument.
Fertilized embryos cannot develop into living fetuses if they remain in a petri dish. A scientist must actively implant the embryo into a womb to start the growth; the embryo is essentially dependent on the scientist to become a human. Similarly, the embryo is dependant on the scientist to become an organ. Without a trigger, it will not naturally grow into a liver, brain, kidney, pancreas, etc. The dependance, from the "perspective" of the embryo, makes it equally likely to develop into a human as it is to develop into a liver.
This is unlike an embryo conceived in the womb because, assuming a healthy pregnancy, this embryo can only become one thing - a human.
If something is equally likely to develop into many things, how can it be considered a specific one of those things? It can be a liver and a human, then it is neither. Therefore, I believe it is not a human but a manipulatable object that may be used for research.
Attack me if you must.
Fertilized embryos cannot develop into living fetuses if they remain in a petri dish. A scientist must actively implant the embryo into a womb to start the growth; the embryo is essentially dependent on the scientist to become a human. Similarly, the embryo is dependant on the scientist to become an organ. Without a trigger, it will not naturally grow into a liver, brain, kidney, pancreas, etc. The dependance, from the "perspective" of the embryo, makes it equally likely to develop into a human as it is to develop into a liver.
This is unlike an embryo conceived in the womb because, assuming a healthy pregnancy, this embryo can only become one thing - a human.
If something is equally likely to develop into many things, how can it be considered a specific one of those things? It can be a liver and a human, then it is neither. Therefore, I believe it is not a human but a manipulatable object that may be used for research.
Attack me if you must.
Patents
I recently read an article in the European Wall Street Journal covering the Microsoft vs. AT&T patent case. I couldn't find a link to the specific article (because I read the article in print... how old-fashioned) but essentially, the case is arguing a technicality in patent law. AT&T holds a patent on a certain type of software (voice compression technology, if you're interested). Microsoft says it would be okay to ship a "golden disk" which has a copy of that patented software on it overseas, where it could be replicated. Those duplicate disks could be used to install the software on computers manufactured outside the US then redistributed to the US and elsewhere. The dispute is in the fact that Microsoft contends the "component" which has been patented is the physical disk, whereas AT&T contends that the "component" is the software itself, no matter what medium it's on. What struck my interest was when the article stated "This issue could have implications for other high-tech products that can easily be duplicated, such as bioengineered organisms." Technically an idea or a principle can't be patented - but is source code an idea or a component? The law is going to have a hard time keeping up with new technology and intellectual property issues surrounding it. I honestly don't know enough about the technology behind stem cell research to directly apply this to our discussion, but I thought it was an interesting concept.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Embryos are Humans Too
As a representative from the right to life side of this issue I would like to raise several critical points regarding embryonic stem cells. First, it is important to actually think about what you are doing when you kill an embryo. You are in effect killing a human being that is slowly moving forward in the standard progression we all followed to become who we are today. Would you kill a baby in the third trimester of pregnancy? Probably not. So what makes an embryo any different. Is it consciousness? Most certainly not because we treat a mentally retarded person as an equal human being so why not an embryo? Is it the physical attributes? Of course not because physical deformities in adults do not prevent us from thinking of them as human beings. So I ask...why is an embryo not a human being and how is killing an embryo for its stem cells not murder?
To further drive this point home, I would like to ask you why spend the money to consciously murder embryos when we have new technology at our fingertips that provides the equal potential as embryonic stem cells? Specifically, a recent report published by "Nature biotechnology" cites the extraordinarily promising results with amniotic stem cells. You can find an abstract from this study on PubMed.gov under the name Isolation of amniotic stem cell lines with potential for therapy. This study demonstrated that amniotic stem cells are multi-potent and were able to differentiate into cells types that represented all germ layers. These cells are easy to grow and like embryonic stem cells are non-tumorogenic and resist telomere erosion. If there exist such cells as these that do not require the murder of human beings then why not focus our resources on these. Federal funding should not be focused towards murder but the proactive solution such as amniotic stem cells.
To further drive this point home, I would like to ask you why spend the money to consciously murder embryos when we have new technology at our fingertips that provides the equal potential as embryonic stem cells? Specifically, a recent report published by "Nature biotechnology" cites the extraordinarily promising results with amniotic stem cells. You can find an abstract from this study on PubMed.gov under the name Isolation of amniotic stem cell lines with potential for therapy. This study demonstrated that amniotic stem cells are multi-potent and were able to differentiate into cells types that represented all germ layers. These cells are easy to grow and like embryonic stem cells are non-tumorogenic and resist telomere erosion. If there exist such cells as these that do not require the murder of human beings then why not focus our resources on these. Federal funding should not be focused towards murder but the proactive solution such as amniotic stem cells.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Superhumans?
"Whereas tissue engineering and bioartificial organs have remained relatively uncontested, xenotransplantation and, in particular, therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research have given rise to heated debates in Europe and in the United States. What some interpreted as a "medical revolution," others saw as an attempt to create "superhumans," as a revival of Nazi eugenics in new clothes, or as a potential public health disaster."
[This was stated by Herbert Gotweiss in his article "Stem Cell Policies in the United States and in Germany: Between Bioethics and Regulation"]
It sounds ridiculous to many, but the development of a superhuman race as a result of therapeutic cloning, etc. is a relevant possibility.
With little, if any, funding for stem cell research coming from the federal government, a significant portion of money comes from venture capitalists hoping to profit from the potential development of life saving and improving techniques.
If these techniques become viable, they will be expensive, and therefore only accessible to the wealthier classes. As recipients of these treatments reproduce with each other (as people in similar segments of society often do) a new, more genetically "perfect" (I use that term loosely) race may emerge, one that is -- more capable? more qualified for jobs? Could this perpetuate economic divisions already present in society today, or worse?
What do people think about this? Is it ridiculous, unfounded science fiction or a plausible scenario? What could the implications be?
[This was stated by Herbert Gotweiss in his article "Stem Cell Policies in the United States and in Germany: Between Bioethics and Regulation"]
It sounds ridiculous to many, but the development of a superhuman race as a result of therapeutic cloning, etc. is a relevant possibility.
With little, if any, funding for stem cell research coming from the federal government, a significant portion of money comes from venture capitalists hoping to profit from the potential development of life saving and improving techniques.
If these techniques become viable, they will be expensive, and therefore only accessible to the wealthier classes. As recipients of these treatments reproduce with each other (as people in similar segments of society often do) a new, more genetically "perfect" (I use that term loosely) race may emerge, one that is -- more capable? more qualified for jobs? Could this perpetuate economic divisions already present in society today, or worse?
What do people think about this? Is it ridiculous, unfounded science fiction or a plausible scenario? What could the implications be?
A Rough Approximation of the Alternative Perspective
In the spirit of being fair to both sides, I think it is important that someone play devil's advocate and bring up the alternative point of view, namely that of the right-to-life advocates. While I personally do not agree that stem cell research should be prohibited, I do believe these advocates bring up a valid viewpoint which we must weigh against the argument that stem cell research should be continued for the 50% or so of Americans who might potentially benefit from the research. That being said, because I do not personally hold these views, I can only hope that my rough approximation is somewhat accurate. (Please feel free to add more information or edit any inaccuracies.)
The crux of this argument lies in determining when life starts. I'm sure we all agree that a baby is alive when it is born. Most of us agree that a minute before, the baby is also alive. So reasoning inductively, we can say that a minute before that, the baby is alive, and so on. This pattern could continue indefinitely, but that would become slightly ridiculous. Thus, as a logical stopping point, we agree that life starts at conception, when an egg becomes an embryo.
Now if we accept this premise, we accept that the process of harvesting stem cells from an embryo is murder; destroying an embryo destroys a life. In current stem cell research, federal funding does not support research conducted on newly developed stem cell lines, taking the conservative viewpoint that this would be killing more embryos. If therapeutic cloning were to become standard practice, each time we harvest new stem cells, this would be ending a life, even if it were that of a clone of the person who would ultimately receive the new stem cells. [Then we proceed to argue about whether it is better to allow this embryo grow--reproductive cloning--or to harvest its stem cells--murder.]
We must then ask ourselves: is murder ever justified? Do we have the right to take the life of a being who has no say for him/herself? How can one justify telling someone that his/her life isn't worth the same as someone else's? Granted, people on Earth are suffering in the now, but does that justify this form of murder? What if it were your life at stake?
Whether or not anyone agrees with anything in the last three paragraphs, I think we must all decide where to draw the line between an obsessive quest for life and a graceful death. Right-to-life advocates certainly draw this line at killing an embryo, but those of us who do not agree that harvesting stem cells is murder still need to make this decision. The idea of being so medically advanced that we can heal arthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, and other diseases that are so commonly linked to old age is a bit unnerving to me. At first glance, finding cures for these diseases appears to be rather positive; when I think more, however, I wonder whether this truly benefits society. Certainly, the potential benefits of stem cell research are undeniably positive when considering a nine-year-old girl with leukemia, but what about an eighty-year-old man with Alzheimer's? My perspective may change over time, but for the moment, I believe that as difficult as it is to let someone go, there is a natural stopping point in life--a point at which we, as seventy- and eighty-year-olds, ought to resign ourselves to the "inevitable" (and I use this term loosely here) and gracefully bow out. Not everyone will necessarily choose to live indefinitely, but I think some would, if given the opportunity and a means to relieve themselves of chronic problems curable through stem cell therapy. And ultimately, the idea of anyone extending his/her life indefinitely is a scary prospect for me.
[Sorry for the long post; I have no idea how to hide part of it.]
The crux of this argument lies in determining when life starts. I'm sure we all agree that a baby is alive when it is born. Most of us agree that a minute before, the baby is also alive. So reasoning inductively, we can say that a minute before that, the baby is alive, and so on. This pattern could continue indefinitely, but that would become slightly ridiculous. Thus, as a logical stopping point, we agree that life starts at conception, when an egg becomes an embryo.
Now if we accept this premise, we accept that the process of harvesting stem cells from an embryo is murder; destroying an embryo destroys a life. In current stem cell research, federal funding does not support research conducted on newly developed stem cell lines, taking the conservative viewpoint that this would be killing more embryos. If therapeutic cloning were to become standard practice, each time we harvest new stem cells, this would be ending a life, even if it were that of a clone of the person who would ultimately receive the new stem cells. [Then we proceed to argue about whether it is better to allow this embryo grow--reproductive cloning--or to harvest its stem cells--murder.]
We must then ask ourselves: is murder ever justified? Do we have the right to take the life of a being who has no say for him/herself? How can one justify telling someone that his/her life isn't worth the same as someone else's? Granted, people on Earth are suffering in the now, but does that justify this form of murder? What if it were your life at stake?
Whether or not anyone agrees with anything in the last three paragraphs, I think we must all decide where to draw the line between an obsessive quest for life and a graceful death. Right-to-life advocates certainly draw this line at killing an embryo, but those of us who do not agree that harvesting stem cells is murder still need to make this decision. The idea of being so medically advanced that we can heal arthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, and other diseases that are so commonly linked to old age is a bit unnerving to me. At first glance, finding cures for these diseases appears to be rather positive; when I think more, however, I wonder whether this truly benefits society. Certainly, the potential benefits of stem cell research are undeniably positive when considering a nine-year-old girl with leukemia, but what about an eighty-year-old man with Alzheimer's? My perspective may change over time, but for the moment, I believe that as difficult as it is to let someone go, there is a natural stopping point in life--a point at which we, as seventy- and eighty-year-olds, ought to resign ourselves to the "inevitable" (and I use this term loosely here) and gracefully bow out. Not everyone will necessarily choose to live indefinitely, but I think some would, if given the opportunity and a means to relieve themselves of chronic problems curable through stem cell therapy. And ultimately, the idea of anyone extending his/her life indefinitely is a scary prospect for me.
[Sorry for the long post; I have no idea how to hide part of it.]
Monday, February 12, 2007
History of Stem Cell Legislation
It turns out Bush is the first president under whom any funding has gone to stem cell research, but Clinton, not Bush, was the first president to endorse funding. The first grant applications to the NIH for embryonic stem cell research were submitted under a technicality of the then-active ban on government funding for any research which results in the destruction of an embryo. The NIH offered grants as long as all work with embryos was done using only private funds.
Legislation regarding the killing of embryos was enacted soon after Row v. Wade, so government research funding for production of stem cell lines never happened. From a legal standpoint, this is an important precedent. Also important is that these laws have never been outright bans, but merely refusals of government funds.
Due to the necessity of human eggs for embryonic stem cell research, the primary motivation for this ban was the fear that human eggs would become commoditized. Examples of potentially unethical resulting scenarios include women in financially desperate situations trading eggs for cash.
This information was taken from the following sources, all three of which provide good insight into the legislative history of the issue.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/crs_stem_cell.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches/050413.html
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v9/n11/full/3301744a.html
Legislation regarding the killing of embryos was enacted soon after Row v. Wade, so government research funding for production of stem cell lines never happened. From a legal standpoint, this is an important precedent. Also important is that these laws have never been outright bans, but merely refusals of government funds.
Due to the necessity of human eggs for embryonic stem cell research, the primary motivation for this ban was the fear that human eggs would become commoditized. Examples of potentially unethical resulting scenarios include women in financially desperate situations trading eggs for cash.
This information was taken from the following sources, all three of which provide good insight into the legislative history of the issue.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/crs_stem_cell.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/dispatches/050413.html
http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v9/n11/full/3301744a.html
Friday, February 9, 2007
Things to consider...
A few questions to consider to start things off:
Doc Eh
- Even though we said we weren't going to entertain discussion about reproductive cloning - are there situations under which reproductive cloning should be permissible? To save endangered species? To clone a pet? To allow single parents to have genetically related children?
- Should the federal government pass legislation allowing for the development of more ES cell lines to be produced?
- Should congress pass legislation restricting ES cell research until more is known about its true potential?
- Should researchers be investing more into the development of methods and techniques that may not require developing an embryo to harvest stem cells (such as reversine or parthenogenesis)?
- Is it morally acceptable to create an embryo with the explicit intent of destroying it? Should these embryos be accorded the same legal status as adults?
- If legislation is passed further restricting ES cell research, might the US fall behind other nations in terms of this field of medical research?
- What should be the source of eggs when and if therapeutic cloning and stem research reaches the point that they may be used therapeutically?
- Are there other questions you have that we should entertain around these topics?
Doc Eh
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Summary of some of the pros and cons of stem cells and therapeutic cloning
lCons:
- ¡ The scientific progress is slow, and many aspects of stem cells and cloning are poorly understood.
- ¡ There are many problems in identifying ES stem cells, and coaxing them to differentiate into specific tissues. The development of these tissues in embryonic development is complicated, and whether it can be replicated in a lab is unknown.
- ¡ Questions around what the source of eggs will be when and if stem cell therapies become a reality.
- ¡ For those who believe life start at conception, there are many issues around destroying an embryo to harvest stem cells.
- ¡ Many new advances in research on reversine, parthenogenesis & amniotic stem cells may reduce our need to pursue aggressive research into ES cells.
lPros:
- ¡ There is enormous potential to cure many debilitating and fatal diseases for which no cure currently exist
- ¡ The cloning aspect reduces or eliminates problems of tissue rejection
- ¡ Research is ongoing with many regular breakthroughs
- ¡ New embryos are not being created for stem cell research; the source of embryos for research is currently from IVF clinics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)