Stem Cell Argumentative Essay

EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IS ETHICAL 2

Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Ethical

According to the 2010 statistics of the World Health Organization, worldwide 5.7 million

people die of Alzheimer’s disease and 10 million people die of Parkinson’s disease each year.

Both Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease are currently incurable – there are a few drugs

to treat the symptoms but no therapies to cure them exist. Thus, once you are diagnosed with

Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s disease, the verdict is – death. Moreover, 7.6 million people

die of cancer and 30% of the world population dies of cardiovascular diseases annually.

Although there are advances in the treatment of cancers and cardiovascular diseases, most of the

types of cancers and cardiovascular diseases cannot be cured completely. But a special group of

cells might just have the potential to cure all of the above mentioned diseases and more! They

also have the potential to correct brain disorders and can be used to replace any damaged tissue

of the body without the fear of “tissue rejection”. We call these cells “stem cells”, also known as

“master cells” in the scientific community and “miracle cells” in the media. Stem cells are an

undifferentiated group of cells that have the potential to develop into any of the 220 different cell

types found in the human body. The best source of stem cells happens to be 5-14 day old human

embryos, termed blastocysts. However, the fact that a human embryo is being used as a

“laboratory hamster” raises some serious ethical issues and many people believe that Embryonic

Stem Cell Research is unethical and should not be allowed to pursue. But, Embryonic Stem Cell

Research is ethical because embryos under fourteen days lack most of the human characteristics

and aborted embryos are going to die anyways and also because embryonic stem cells have the

potential to cure several lethal diseases that will relieve the sufferings of millions of people and


increase life expectancy and finally embryonic stem cells are superior to any other sources of

stem cells.

The “moral status” of an embryo is the centre of the Embryonic Stem Cell Research

ethical debate (Strong, 2002). Many religious groups hold the belief that – “life begins at

conception”. They deem every human life sacred. To them a 5 day old embryo is a tiny human

being. Many of these people see no difference between embryonic stem cell research and

abortion - both are seen as murder. Culturing embryos in a Petri dish and then destroying them

for extracting stem cells is considered unethical because it involves the termination of a potential

human life to save an existing one. They express strong objection to such uses of human

embryos as the embryos are rendered to the status of “laboratory rats” or “laboratory hamsters”.

They also reckon that by using human embryos in this way the scientists are “playing God”,

experimenting with the very fabric of life and creation. They point out that scientists are treating

life more like a puzzle to be solved than something to be held sacred. For these reasons they

regard Embryonic Stem Cell Research as a modern day “Pandora’s box” and believe that it is

better kept “shut”. Opening the Pandora’s Box, that is allowing embryonic stem cell research to

pursue, might have unforeseen disastrous consequences for mankind as it may incur the wrath of

God.

However, human embryos have an intermediate moral status. A five day old embryo is

actually called a blastocyst, which is just a cluster of undifferentiated cells. This blastocyst lacks

many characteristics that make a person morally significant, such as the ability to think, feel pain


or pleasure (Dresser, 2005). At this early stage of development, the embryos are not even clear

individuals and do not have a nervous system and it is at this stage that embryonic stem cells are

usually extracted from human embryos. Moreover, discarded embryos from In-Vitro Fertilization

(IVF) Treatment clinics and the aborted embryos are going to die anyways. Nearly 400,000

frozen embryos are currently stored in IVF facilities across the U.S. Many of these will

eventually be destroyed or discarded (Mahowald, 2004). So, using them for research purposes

that might save millions of lives is ethical. In fact, using them to treat existing individuals can

mean that they are still living! These potential entities would never die in the first place because

they would live on in the patients they healed, as well as living immortally in their

undifferentiated stage in Petri dishes. Moreover, since embryos themselves are not being used,

but just cells derived from them, the embryos are not really becoming the “laboratory hamsters”.

And as far as the accusation of scientists trying to “play God” is concerned, one can argue that

God has made these 5-day old embryos as the best sources of stem cells and also endowed man

with the knowledge of how these stem cells can be used to cure many of the diseases and so this

can mean that God wants mankind to utilize and benefit from embryonic stem cells. Finally, not

all religious groups are against Embryonic Stem Cell Research. “Jewish law has been interpreted

to hold that an embryo has no status outside a woman’s body. Embryos created in the laboratory,

via In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) or cloning cannot move beyond embryonic stages unless

transferred to a woman’s womb. Since these embryos lack ordinary developmental capacity, they

lack the same moral status as children or an adult or even a fetus in later stages of pregnancy”

(Dresser, 2005). As to the group of people who believe that life begins at conception, they should


consider the fact that termination of one potential life to save many other existing lives is more

ethical than not utilizing a potential life, which is going to die anyways (the discarded embryos

from IVF and the aborted embryos), to save lives. Using unwanted IVF embryos to advance

medical knowledge is more ethical than discarding them or storing them indefinitely (Dresser,

2005). These embryos can be better put to use in research instead of just throwing them in a bin!

In addition to criticizing scientists for the use of human embryos, many critics are

skeptical about the potential of Embryonic Stem Cell Research for curing diseases. They think

that many of the promises are being blown out of proportion by the proponents of Embryonic

Stem Cell Research. “Moreover, similar claims for cures and therapies of Parkinson’s disease,

Huntington’s disease Alzheimer’s disease, etc are also made by genetic engineering and drug

development. Therefore the claim that we must have Embryonic Stem Cell Research in order to

achieve medical advance is in itself questionable” (Schultz, 2002). Cancer treatments are

advancing each day with the development of newer and more effective drugs. Recently, the field

of nanotechnology is equipping scientists with the tools to deliver drugs only to the cancerous

cells, so that the nearby healthy cells remain unaffected. Scientists have also found a way of

treating Parkinson’s disease using genetic engineering. Parkinson’s disease causes loss of motor

control of the body. Laboratory mice are mutated to develop Parkinson’s disease and then their

nerve cells are genetically engineered to become light sensitive. When these nerve cells are

exposed to light, then nerve impulses travel along them and the mice are again able to move their

bodies. Scientists are thus speculating that Parkinson’s in humans can also be cured in a similar


manner. One group of critics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research reckon that these promising

advances in drug development and genetic engineering negate the need of pursuing embryonic

stem cell research.

However, embryonic stem cells do have the power to develop into any of the 220 different

types of cell found in the human body. This is known as pluripotency. These stem cells, found in

five day old blastocysts, ultimately differentiate into all sorts of body cells, like brain cells, heart

cells, blood cells, etc., that make the embryo a complete human being. “Embryonic stem cells

have the potential to be applied for a wide range of therapeutic purposes” (Hurlbut, 2005). They

could, in theory, be used to replace any damaged tissue they come across. Thus, damaged heart

tissues, blood vessels, and even whole damaged organs can be replaced using stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells, therefore, has the potential to cure almost any disease mankind has ever

heard of. The current hurdle is that scientists do not know how to switch on and off particular

genes so that a stem cell develops into a heart cell instead of a brain cell, for example. But with

adequate research it is possible to figure that out. Genetic engineering and drugs have their

limitations. In genetic engineering the biggest problem is scientists not being able to deliver the

particular gene to the target cell or organ and even if it is delivered there is no guarantee that the

faulty gene will be replaced by the healthy one and the disorder will be corrected. The vectors

used in genetic engineering, such as bacterial plasmids and viruses, to deliver the healthy gene to

the target cells, might trigger immune response of the body so that the vector is destroyed even

before the gene can be delivered. There is also a possibility that the foreign gene will be

incorporated at the wrong place in the DNA and harmful mutation can occur. Even though

scientists have not yet figured out how to coax embryonic stem cells into their desired type of


cells, with the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells there is no danger of mutation. On the

other hand, drugs aim to treat the symptoms of the diseases and do not correct the underlying

faulty mechanisms that give rise to the diseases in the first place. Embryonic stem cells will not

merely treat the symptoms, they can cure these diseases. Once they can be induced to grow into

specific cell types, they can also be used to create spare organs. “Damaged organs can be

replaced without the fear of tissue rejection. Thus the lives of many people, who are victims of

incurable diseases or tragic accidents, can improve greatly by the applications resulting from

Embryonic Stem Cell Research” (Capron, 2002). Without extensive research, the true potential

of embryonic stem cells can never be explored and proved. Thus the research should be allowed

to pursue.

Among the opponents of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, there are many who are aware

of the enormous benefits of stem cells. They thus advocate the research on stem cells derived

from other sources than human embryos. They think that this will help avoid the ethical

controversies centering around the use of human embryos and also help scientists to come up

with ground-breaking solutions to many of the deadly diseases Stem cells can also be obtained

from umbilical cord which is discarded after birth and are also present in small numbers in the

bone marrow of humans. Bone marrow transplants have been happening since 1957 as a

treatment for sickle cell anemia and leukemia and this is an early example of stem cell therapy in

action. These are known as adult stem cells. Furthermore, some fully differentiated adult stem

cells can be induced to become stem cells and these cells are then known as induced Pluripotent

Stem Cells (iPSCs). Adult stem cells and iPSCs have the enormous benefit of not giving rise to

any sort of ethical controversies. Thus many people think that funding of adult stem cells instead


of embryonic stem cells will be the best move because mankind can benefit from the research

and at the same time it will be possible to eliminate all ethical questions concerning the research.

However, although stem cells may be derived from adults as well as from embryos, embryonic

stem cells are more conducive to the proliferation and differentiation desired for therapeutic uses

(Mahowald, 2004). As compared to embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have a limited

capacity to divide outside the body. Thus it is hard to generate large number of adult stem cells

in a cell culture in a laboratory. This lack of quantity and lack of regeneration makes adult stem

cells hard to study and thus slows down the research process. In addition, adult stem cells are not

as versatile as embryonic stem cells. Stem cells found in adults are capable of producing only a

few types of cells. For example, stem cells found in the bone marrow can differentiate to form

only three kinds of cells- red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. The biggest problem

with using adult stem cells is that there is a problem of rejection. The patient’s body will reject

stem cells from a donor whose DNA is incompatible with his. It is very difficult to find two

persons with compatible DNA, which means that a patient has to wait around for years before a

suitable donor is found. With embryonic stem cells, using the therapeutic stem cell cloning

technique, stem cells are harvested that have the same DNA as that of the patient and thus

treating the person with these stem cells will pose no risk of rejection. Thus in all respects,

embryonic stem cell are much superior to adult stem cells. iPSCs have their drawbacks too, the

prime one being the increased tendency of these cells to become cancerous. Mutated mice treated

with iPSCs were seen to develop cancer after a few months. Considering all these facts it is

reasonable to conclude that embryonic stem cells are superior to all other sources of stem cells.


In addition to the use of aborted fetuses and spare embryos from IVF clinics for stem

cell research, creating embryos purely for research purposes is ethical as well. In both cases the

embryos are created with a purpose – in case of IVF treatment, the embryos are created to help

infertile couples and if created in the laboratory the embryos will be used to advance scientific

knowledge that might help patients in the future (Dresser, 2005). As long as the intent in right

the research should be allowed to pursue. Just because nuclear power can be used to create mass

destructive weapons that can annihilate all life forms on Earth, a ban was not imposed on nuclear

research for generating electricity. Today, many countries are benefitting from the use of nuclear

energy to generate electricity and nuclear energy stands as a useful alternative to fossil fuels.

Likewise, just because there is a fear of “designer babies” and human clones being created if

stem cell research is allowed, a ban on the research is not justified. Knowledge acquired from

embryonic stem cell research can equip scientists with powerful tools with which they can cure

almost every disease on Earth. “The benefits of embryonic stem cell research outweigh the moral

concerns.” (Hurlbut, 2005). Thus it would be rather unethical not to allow embryonic stem cell

research to be conducted as by doing so we will be depriving millions of patients around the

world of potential extra years to their life. However, to ensure that embryonic stem cell research

is not being used for wrong purposes such as cloning humans or making designer babies,

international laws and regulations need to be formulated and strictly implemented.

Thus we can conclude that Embryonic Stem Cell Research is ethical because the

embryos used have an “intermediate moral status” and using the ones that are going to be

destroyed anyways, to advance scientific knowledge, is more ethical than just throwing them in

the trash and culturing human embryos in the laboratory is also ethical because at the expense of


a few embryonic lives sufferings of millions of people around the globe can be relieved. The use

from embryos in Stem Cell Research is also ethical because they are superior to any other

sources of stem cells and stem cells derived from them have a wide range of therapeutic uses.

There is a prevalence of “moral pluralism” in the society – for any given issue there are

sufficiently many different views held by many people. Thus it is difficult for extreme positions

winning out. With regard to stem cells, consensus should be built around the middle-ground

position (Strong, 2002). While Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be allowed for the

enormous potential benefits it has, there should be a well-defined “do’s and don’ts” code created

that would respect the thoughts of the majority of the people and also help prevent the

application of knowledge gained from the research for wrong purposes, such as human cloning,

that can cause a moral havoc.


References

Hurlbut, W.B. (2005). Altered nuclear transfer as a morally acceptable means for the

procurement of human embryonic stem cells. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48 (2), 211-

228.

Mahowald, M.B. (2004). Self preservation: An argument for therapeutic cloning, and a strategy

for fostering respect for moral integrity. The American Journal of Bioethics, 4 (2), 55-56.

Strong, C. (2002). Those divisive stem cells: Dealing with our most contentious issues. The

American Journal of Bioethics, 2 (1), 39-40.

Capron, A.M. (2002). Stem cell politics: The new shape to the road ahead. The American

Journal of Bioethics, 2 (1), 35-37.

Schultz, D.S. (2002). Stem cells and the metaphysics of choice: A rationale or ruse for genetic

research? The American Journal of Bioethics, 2 (1), 1-2.

Dresser, R. (2005). Stem cell research: The bigger picture. Perspectives in Biology and

Medicine, 48 (2), 181-194.

Documents

Stem Cell Argumentative Essay