The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Revised

7/31/2019 The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Revised

1/9

1

The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In a world of advancing technologies and methods, regenerative medicine is becoming a

new way of looking at medicine. Embryonic stem cell research is blooming out of these new

methods. Embryonic stem cells are self-renewing cell lines that are the basis for all the cells and

tissues in the body. These embryonic cells are pluripotent, which means they can become any

cell or tissue in the body. Even though they are embryos, they cannot develop into whole animals

or humans. The embryos are in the in cleavage stage, which means they are not differentiated

cells. The embryos have developmental plasticity. Their plasticity allows the embryo to be

separated into two halves or two whole cells to be merged together and still develop and grow

normally. It is because of their plasticity that scientist can derive stem cells from these embryos.

With the derived stem cells, scientists can culture and grow them into tissues or cells that can

replace bad or damaged cells in a patient with an incurable disease. Stem cells have the potential

to correct heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimers,Parkinsons, cystic fibrosis, stroke or spinal

injuries, etc. (Baharvand 1-10). Embryonic Stem Cell research holds great promise in therapeutic

medicine.

Pre 1975, there were moratoriums on embryonic stem cell research in the areas of study

and finance. After the 1973 Roe vs. Wade case that ruled a fetus is not a person, Congress

established a national commission, which provided guidelines for fetal research in 1974. In July

of the following year, the moratorium was lifted. Regulations stated that the research had to

provide biomedical information that cannot be obtained another way. However, the agreement in

1975 elapsed and was not renewed in 1980. When President Reagan was elected, he ended

federal funding for the research. In 1993, the moratorium on federal funding was lifted.

However, three years later a new congress was elected and again banded federal funding for this


2/9

2

research. In 2001, Bush granted limited funding on human fetal research not including many

areas of research (Fletcher 27-34). Currently, stem cell research is legal and funded due to the

overturning of this rule by President Obama.

Despite the legal restriction and promising potential future of stem cell research, many

people are not enthusiastic about the recent advancements. With growing advancements, there

has been growing opposition. Many opponents believe it is immoral to use potential human lives

for conduct experiments. Some of the embryos used in experiments are from aborted fetuses

(Fletcher 30-31). Critics are concerned that doing research on embryos from aborted fetuses will

encourage women to have abortions. Others question the method of freezing embryos not being

used immediately (Herold 119-120). In addition, there is debate on the possibility of cloning

being a byproduct of so much research and advancements (McCartney 90). Despite the debate

and accusations, the research is morally permissible and greatly beneficial on many grounds.

Embryonic Stem Cell research is morally permissible when it will improve a human life, when it

improves our existing methods for testing, and when it enhances our knowledge.

When considering the moral permissibility of embryonic stem cell research, one must

consider the risks and benefits of Utilitarian ethics. Embryonic stem cells in the blastocyst-stage

are undifferentiated and are used by scientists for research. When in in-vitro culture systems, the

stem cells are allowed to grow and be observed in a controlled way. In these culture systems,

scientists have been about to study human genetic disease, gene function, and developmental

biology (Baharvand 1-3). Through these studies scientist and doctors have found ways to cure

heart disease, Alzheimers disease, Parkinsons disease, cystic fibrosis, retinitis, organ failure,

and other incurable diseases (Schuklenk 30). Embryonic stem cells have the potential to fix any

medical problems involving the loss of a particular kind of stem cells. Most of these illnesses


3/9

3

have no other means of a cure. Embryonic stem cells hold a great potential for the future of

medicine and curing diseases. When looking at the risks or harm factor, it is minimal (Baharvand

1-10). There will always be a risk of abuse, as there is with many things in life. In this case, the

benefit will largely outweigh the risks. Therefore, embryonic stem cell research is morally

permissible by Utilitarian ethics.

Another argument for embryonic stem cell research is that scientist can do research for

new medicine on the tissues and cells made from cultured systems rather than conduct animal or

human testing. Animal and human testing can cause complications in the human or animal. In

the animals case, it can even cause death (Thomson 21-22). The method of using cultured

tissues and cells from embryonic stem cells can improve our existing methods, and in this case,

provide less harm. Since the embryos are alive but not human lives themselves, it is morally

permissible to tests on the tissues cultured from them. Additionally, since embryos are not

persons but rather potential persons, the overall harm is less, which improves and advances our

technology and methods (Thomson 15-24). Therefore, embryonic stem cell research is morally

permissible because it enhances old methods into newer more effective ones.

The pluripotency of the embryonic stem cells have allowed scientist to make tremendous

advancements in modern medicine. Adult human stem cells are limited to forming only certain

kinds of cells. The plasticity and pluripotency of the embryonic stem cells have give rise

significant gain of knowledge. Doctors and scientists have been able to make drug discoveries

and other advancements (Thomson 15-20). When conducting experiments, scientists were able to

observe how cells grow and develop. Scientists have been able to target and better understand the

enzymes that help fetuses age. Differentiation is also a major area of study. Scientists are

observing what happens in differentiation, maturation, and commitment of the cell (Baharvand 1-


4/9

4

10). With this gain in knowledge, they are hoping to be able to grow whole organs for

transplantation. Scientists look confidently at the future of embryonic stem cell research.

Because of all the knowledge that can be gained, embryonic stem cell research is morally

permissible. It provides us a better understanding of the human body.

Even though embryonic stem cell research has many benefits, some people disagree with

it. Most of the time embryos are obtained from aborted a fetus, which raises a lot of debate.

Critics believe that women will be more inclined to get abortions, justifying it by saying it is

going to a good cause. They believe that by using these fetuses for research that can cure

diseases women will feel that it makes the abortion okay. Critics believe that abortion is

already a very controversial subject and that encouragement to get them would corrupt our

society even more (Fletcher 29-32). Under these conditions, embryonic stem cell research is

morally impermissible.

Nevertheless, three objections make the abortion argument invalid. First, the use of the

embryos from aborted fetuses has shown no increase in abortion rates. The claim that they will

be more okay with the abortion may be true, but a woman would not get an abortion solely

because the fetus could be used in research, but rather for other reasons as well. Secondly, legal

stipulations have been in place since 1993. A doctor or scientist cannot request the permission to

use aborted fetal tissue until the procedure has taken place. In addition, there can be no payment

to the mother or alterations in the methods used to abort the fetus. Thirdly, if the scientists

working on the stem cells are to be held responsible for the womans choice in getting an

abortion then others too should be held responsible. For example, those who encourage

education of women would too be held responsible for women who choose their career over the


5/9

5

child (Fletcher 29-32). These three points weaken the opposing objections and strengthens the

case in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

Another worry of the opposing party is that cloning could be a byproduct of so much

research in the subject. Cloning is defined as an individual grown from a single somatic cell

nucleus of its parent that has been implanted into an egg cell from which the nucleus has been

removed; then this enucleated cell containing the implanted nucleus taken from the somatic cell

is stimulated electrically and cell division and production of a new embryo begins to take place

(McCartney 90-91). For example in February 2003, Dolly, a sheep, was cloned from a sheep

that died prematurely by this method. In terms of embryonic stem cell research, cloning is

defined as creating a genetic identical. The Advanced Cell Technologies has been able to do

human cloning and parthenogenesis (development of an egg into an embryo without fertilization)

through a few cell divisions. Critics believe that these discoveries are like playing God. People

should not try to recreate life and that it goes against the nature of life (McCartney 90-92). On

these grounds, oppositionists believe embryonic stem cell research is impermissible.

Cloning is something to be concerned about; however, in the case of embryonic stem cell

research, it should not be a concern. Advanced Cell Technologies claims that the research and

development of clones and parthenogenesis is solely for the purpose of research and study and

nothing else. The normal way of deriving stem cells from embryos destroys the outer membrane

of the blastocyst inhibiting it from becoming an entire organism; therefore making it pluripotent

rather than totipotent. The largest thing that the pluripotent can form is an organ (McCartney 90-

92). Therefore, rules and regulations can be put in place to outlaw methods that can produce

whole organisms. In addition, one must consider that everything has a risk and that abuse is

evitable. The question would be do the benefits outweigh the risks. As mentioned earlier, the


6/9

6

benefits do indeed outweigh the risks. Hence, cloning is not a concern and embryonic stem cell

research is still morally permissible.

Lastly, objections against the research also claim that is not morally sound to keep

embryos in large embankments kept at a temperature of minus 320 degrees. They argue that

those embryos are human lives and should be treated with the same respect as fully developed

human beings. These critics make the point that we would not keep toddlers frozen in

embankments in the thousands, so we should not keep the embryos locked up (Herold 119-

123). To these critics a life begins at conception, and therefore believes it is morally unsound to

keep embryos frozen in embankments.

Since there has been so much debate over whether it is ethical to keep the embryos

frozen in embankments, questions have been raised on what makes a human life a human life,

and at what stage is it considered a human life. Many people are confused on the difference of an

embryo and a fetus. Opponents use the two terms interchangeably when there are very important

distinctions. Embryos are considered to be in the developmental stage between two weeks after

conception and six weeks. After six weeks, the embryos are now referred to as fetuses. However,

the embryos used in stem cell research are in the blastocyst-stage embryo, which is viewed as the

pre-embryo stage. This means that the embryos used in research are indeed alive, but they are

not human lives and do not deserve the same kind of respect as a developed human. In addition,

one might consider that embryos that are not immediately used or frozen are otherwise discarded

(Herold 120-122). It is better to freeze an unused embryo and use it later on for research rather

than discarding it all together. On the basis that blastocyst-stage embryos are not regarded as

human persons, stem cell research is morally permissible.


7/9

7

Embryonic stem cell research can provide our society with many cures and treatments to

diseases and illnesses for which we currently do not yet have a cure. For a suffering patient with

organ failure, this can mean the world to them. Along with this research comes astonishing new

methods and knowledge. We have gained a great deal of knowledge and there have been

significant drug discoveries through stem cell research. As we increase our understanding about

cell differentiation and growth, treatments, cures, and solutions, other medical problems can be

solved. Because of the advancements that can be made in medicine to improve human life, the

good to be gained outweighs the bad and, therefore, makes stem cell research morally

permissible.


8/9

8

Works Cited

Baharvand, Hossein. Embryonic Stem Cells: Establishment, Maintenance, and Differentiation.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Ed. Eric V. Grier. New York: Nova Science Publishers,

Inc., 2006. 1-64. Print.

Fletcher, John C. The Stem Cell Debate in Historical Context. The Human Embryonic Stem

Cell Debate. Ed. Suzanne Holland, Karen Lebacqz, and Laurie Zoloth. Cambridge: The

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2001. 27-34. Print.

Herold, Eve. Stem Cell Wars. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006. Print.

McCartney, James J. Recent Ethical Controversies about Stem Cell Research. Stem Cell

Research. Ed. James M. Hunter and Robert F. Almeder. Totowa: Humana Press Inc.,

2004. 90-92. Print.

Shucklenk, Udo, and Jason Lott.Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. USA Africa

Institute. 1:2 (2003): 30-34. Print.

Thomson, James A. Human Embryonic Stem Cells. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate.

Ed. Suzanne Holland, Karen Lebacqz, and Laurie Zoloth. Cambridge: The Massachusetts

Institute of Technology Press, 2001. 15-26. Print.


9/9

9

Morgan Lepley

Section 006

Jeff Cervantes

Documents

The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Revised