"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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
While the potential dangers of successful stem cell research like the creation of a "superhuman" race and a situation where treatment is only available to the upper class may be valid, I don't believe this merits a termination of research and funding. It seems to me that these issues are only worth addressing after/if stem cell research has been proven successful and lives are already being saved.
Separate from my previous point, I also have issues with those that oppose stem cell research on the basis of it furthering the divide between people of different socio-economic status. Although it might seem too easy for me to say this coming from a position of privilege in our society, but isn't the lives of the wealthy being saved better than having no one benefit at all? I know this statement comes across as selfish, but this is truly not my intention. I see treatment being available at only a high cost being an unavoidable first step from which further progress can be made, progress that will ideally reduce the price and make it obtainable to a larger percentage of the population.
To add on to the previous comment it important to note that Stem cell research is still in its preliminary stages and the discovery of embryonic stem Cells is relatively recent. Stem Cells research provides a glimmer of hope for the goals of regenerative medicine and with over 1000's of different specialized cell types in the body we will need to learn how to successfully trigger stem cells to change into the right type of cells.
Technology and science works in the sense that once an advance and expensive product is created the prices of production decrease over time. If we learn how to efficiently work with stem cells then the hope of using regenerative medicine for all people will one day become a reality.
Many people naturally have a fear of the unknown and in their minds create ludicrous scenarios often being the worst possible. It is important to properly educate people about stem cells and the benefits of regenerative medicine. Only then will we progress faster in stem cell research as to understand stem cells better.
There are two ways to look at this. In reference to Vasilly's post in the main blog, each embryo used for stem cell research isn't made traditionally with a sperm and an egg. Personally, I believe that the use of embryos of this kind (one's that are completely artificial) is entirely legitimate. This would outline one end of the spectrum. The other end would be finding a line to draw between creating something that can be used for scientific research, and creating a species whose traits are superior to our own. Again, I personally believe that manipulating an embryo for one purpose (harvesting stem cells), is far better than manipulating an embryo for something as trivial and superficial as superhuman qualities.
I agree with Luke however, in that this issue should only be tackled after a successful therapy is produced.
"I agree with Luke however, in that this issue should only be tackled after a successful therapy is produced."
I feel that this statement touches on one of the biggest dilemmas of stem cell research. Should we proceed with research now despite moral concerns at the present in order to find out if the resulting understanding can lead to a feasible effective medical treatment? The problem here is whether or not it is justifiable to loosen our moral responsibility so to speak for the purpose of hastening our attainment of the desired knowledge. One reason for that haste is the fact that medical patients with the particular diseases are dying right now as we restrict our research. We don't know if they have any reason to hope for the treatment, in fact, because we don't know the feasibility of potential stem cell technology, with so many unresolved obstacles. The counter-argument would point out that our temporary deemphasization of moral responsibility (is that even a word?) would have serious long term implications (aka slippery slope argument). Personally I would agree with you guys and support research now, and informed ethical decision after we know if the technology is feasible. My reason is that I have faith in our social commitment to morality in regards to human life and that we will not be corrupted by this research in the sense that we take a temporary leave from it. Could this temporary leave be justified? I am actually unsure now as I write the question. In a sense the research might be unethical, and does that mean that we absolutely cannot do it, knowing to what good it might lead in the future? This reminds of an interesting point Sol brought up in class discussion, when he mentioned that sometimes sacrifice in the present is needed for the long-term good. It is basically an utilitarion idea, that the end justifies the means. I think in this case I would lean more towards it, although I am definitely uncertain.
Post a Comment