“The scientific process of experimentation, …affeldt3/stemethics/pdf/LifeNoworLif… · Web viewThe use of these embryonic stem cells, as well as non-controversial alternatives

Affeldt, Jodoin, MacDonald, Smith 1

Life Now, Or Life Later? :The Promise of Stem Cells

By

Douglas Affeldt

Shannon Jodoin

Allen MacDonald

Ashley Smith

WRA 110, Sec. 4

Michigan State University

April 12th 2007

Word Count: 2,896


Life Now, Or Life Later?:The Promise of Stem Cells

The scientific process of experimentation, repetition, discussion,

review, and approval is a notoriously slow one—and in the case of

promising new medical therapies with the potential to ease great

suffering, this process can be and often is a frustrating one,

particularly when it is coupled with questions of morality, religion,

politics, and community standards. (Shoemaker 104)

The process of which Leigh Shoemaker, who holds masters in philosophy

and information science, speaks is that of stem cell research. It is a process

engulfed in controversy, for there is no clear answer of how to proceed. Many

promises have been made by scientists about the use of stem cells as medical

treatments, yet limited tangible results have been produced. However, as

Shoemaker goes on to point out, “important work is being done—regardless of

whether current generations will benefit from its conclusions —and this work

must be both encouraged and allowed to continue. And that is the promise of

stem cells kept” (104).

Despite ethical arguments against moving forward with human embryonic

stem cell research, the potential for the improvement of human life and society is

much too great to be overlooked. Researchers have procured embryonic stem

cells for research that may produce cures for diseases. The use of these

embryonic stem cells, as well as non-controversial alternatives such as adult and

Fig. 1. Deriving Stem Cells. 2003. From Science In Africa. 4 April 2007 <http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za>.

Embryonic stem cells are the result of removing the

inner cell mass from a blastocyst.


umbilical cord blood stem cells, must be explored for the betterment of all

mankind.

The debate surrounding stem cell research is no secret, yet many are

unclear how the debate came to light. Human embryonic stem cells were first

researched in 1998, by John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University, who was

searching for a better way to understand Down’s syndrome (Easterbrook par. 1).

That same year, James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin performed

similar experiments; both men were able to separate stem cells from human

embryos and induce the embryos to multiply (par. 2-3). Little did these men

know at the time, but their actions would throw the nation into political havoc,

deeply dividing the country based on interpretations of one of America’s

inalienable rights: the right to life.

Human embryonic stem cells are derived in two ways: the first is through

the destruction of donated in-vitro fertilization embryos-- the process generates

excess embryos which would

otherwise be discarded (Ryan

297). These embryos are

classified as being in the

blastocyst phase (See Fig. 1.),

being four or five days old, and

contain an inner cell mass which

is harvested and then cultured to

produce useable stem cells

Fig. 2. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. From National Institutes of Health. 4 April 2007 <http://stemcells.nih.gov/>.

Theoretically, a patient would be injected with stem cells which

have been created by initially replacing the nucleus of the donor

egg cell with a nucleus from one of the patient’s body cells.


(“Stem Cell Basics” sec. 3). Embryonic stem cells can also be derived from

primordial germ cells (pre-gametes) found in fetuses which are generally

obtained through abortions. To maximize compatibility of stem cell treatments,

human embryonic stem cells can be tailored through the process of somatic cell

nuclear transfer (See Fig. 2.). This is a process in which the nucleus of an egg

cell is replaced with the nucleus of a would-be patient’s cell, thus creating cells

compatible with the patient’s DNA. It is these processes which are at the heart of

the research debate, for it is through the destruction of an egg or an embryo that

scientists are able to harvest potential treatments for the living. This view is

eloquently described

by Michael Novak,

alluding to philosopher

Immanuel Kant --

human life should not be

violated “as means for

even the noblest of ends”

(par. 5).

The possibilities of the stem cell research are undeniable, yet what the

process entails is slightly more complex. According to the National Institutes of

Health (NIH), human embryonic stem cells are characterized by their “remarkable

potential to develop into many different cell types in the body” (“Stem Cell Basics”

sec.1). In addition to this significant factor, embryonic stem cells have the ability

to replicate exponentially (“Stem Cell Basics” sec.1). It is these defining


properties which have spurred so much hope among citizens—it appears stem

cells may be the miracle treatment which can cure the ailing and heal their loved

ones. Dr. Kenneth J. Ryan describes the possibilities: “In addition to potentially

treating a range of diseases, the application of stem cells could also reduce the

need for organ transplants and, when stem cells are created using somatic cell

nuclear transfer, treating patients with stem cells eliminates the need for a

lifetime regimen of immunosuppressants,” or drugs that prevent the body’s

immune system from activation (292).

The controversy of embryonic stem cells has engulfed Washington, D.C.

— politicians’ stance on this issue does not necessarily have any correlation with

individual or parties’ traditional values. In 2001, President George W. Bush

announced he supports government funding only for existing stem cell lines,

where the “life and death decision has already been made” (Berger par. 1). This

decision had debilitating effects on embryonic stem cell research; with limited

functional stem cell lines in existence and no government funding to come, many

scientists relocated to Britain, where stem cell research has been approved

(Henderson and Kay 75). The alternative to relocation has been to seek funding

in the private sector. Some organizations which have supported stem cell

research privately include large corporations involved in biotechnological

research, various universities around the country, and non-profit establishments

whose sole purpose is to provide funding, such as the Stem Cell Research

Foundation (Donohue par. 6; “About SCRF” par. 3).


Still, there are those that feel embryonic stem cell research should not be

allowed to proceed. There is essentially one reason why certain groups and

individuals feel that allowing embryonic stem cell research to continue should not

occur, which is ethics. The most common issue that society has with embryonic

stem cell research is that it involves the destruction of a live embryo or an egg

cell which has the potential to foster life. People are not against embryonic stem

cell research because they do not want to see diseases cured. Cardinal Egan of

the Catholic Church argues, “We are 100 percent in favor of any medical

research that doesn't jeopardize the life of an innocent human being” (Parry par.

8). One thousand Catholics stood behind Cardinal Egan as he spoke out against

embryonic stem cell research (par. 2).

The main argument that the opposition has to embryonic stem cell

research is that it is morally unacceptable, yet this position is taken to varying

degrees. John Donohue, an associate editor for America, believes that

“[Biologists] might not agree on the definition of life, but they would agree that if

this embryo were to nest in a womb, it would normally grow into a baby ready for

birth” (par. 4). This is where the thin line is drawn-- the definition of life. The

whole argument of embryonic stem cell research revolves around this idea. In

“The Stem Cell Debate” written by Donna Walter, law professor Sandra Johnson

is paraphrased. According to Johnson, the period at which it is generally agreed

embryos obtain some level of intrinsic value is somewhere between conception

and birth (par. 37). Whether or not one opposes human embryonic stem cell

research directly correlates to the subjective point at which one believes this


intrinsic life value begins. It is the right of all people to have their own set of

values. Therefore, no matter how advanced embryonic stem cell research gets,

there will still be critics.

The debate over stem cell research is not a simple question of whether or

not one is pro-life. Although many arguments against stem cell research overlap

with those of the abortion debate, many reason that allowing research on fetuses

produced through abortion would encourage more abortions to take place (Ryan

297). This logic is refuted by researchers who claim “the embryonic research will

not increase abortions, but will provide scientists with a greater understanding of

various diseases,” such as Parkinson’s disease (“NIH” par.7).

Considering this, some who identify with conservative values can still see

the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells. One such person is Republican

Senator Orrin Hatch, who is outspoken against abortion, yet feels “life starts in

the womb, ‘not in a petri dish’” (Donohue par. 1). This logic exhibits that the

ideals of stem cell research do nearly parallel the ideals of abortion, yet there is

one distinct difference. The abortion debate considers the mother’s rights in

relation to her fetus, while the stem cell debate takes into account the rights and

status of the undeveloped fetus alone (Ryan 297). Thus, even if one’s ideals are

against abortion, one can still recognize and favor the benefits of stem cell

research.

However, just because some are against embryonic stem cell research,

does not mean they are against stem cell research altogether. Many who

oppose the destruction of embryos completely stand behind adult stem cell


research, which reveals the lack of ethical boundaries in the use of adult stem

cells. This alternative to embryonic stem cells is productive, as noted by

Donohue, “research on adult stem cells has produced some therapeutic

experiments that do work” (par. 7). Increased research on adult stem cells has

occurred and produced results; the New England Journal of Medicine “reported

a study that found that adult stem cells from patients’ own bone marrow has

improved those patients’ cardiac function after a heart attack” (par. 7). If

scientists can find cures through adult stem cells, albeit possibly a more difficult

path, those against embryonic stem cells wonder why the moral obstacles cannot

be avoided altogether?

These positive results from alternative forms of stem cell research may be

due to the restraints on embryonic stem cell research. In order to avoid the

controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research, scientists seem to be

deliberately taking less productive approaches, working with the more difficult

and less malleable adult and cord blood stem cells. Massive amounts of time

and money are being spent to find alternatives that will offer lesser, or at most

the same, benefits as embryonic stem cells (Shoemaker 102). Adult stem cells

are found in the human body and are extracted from many different organs, such

as the heart, the brain, and the lungs (“Stem Cell Basics” sec. 4). Scientists point

out that the main problem with adult stem cells is that they are limited to certain

tissues in their transforming capabilities, while embryonic stem cells can

transform into any tissue. Because of this, adult stem cells cannot produce as

many different cell types as embryonic stem cells (Weiss 2).


In addition to their work on adult stem cells, scientists have reached

positive results using umbilical cord stem cells. Doctors take the blood after the

birth of the child and send it to a blood bank to be frozen for future use

(“Collecting” sec. 5). These stem cells are able to transform themselves into a

variety of different cell types in the body and do not cause any harm to the donor

mother or child. Keone Penn, a sufferer of sickle cell anemia, was injected with

donated stem cells from umbilical cord blood (Marin 80). Despite the uncertainty

surrounding the experimental treatment, the young Penn saw results which gave

him the opportunity to live a longer, more fulfilling life, such as playing basketball

like his peers (81). Penn, however, is not cured of all ailments; “he has arthritis,

walks with a limp, and will need joint replacement in his hips and knee,” all of

which are the result of his umbilical cord stem cell transplant (81). Thus, at first

umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells appear to be decent replacements for

human embryonic stem cells, but it seems a lot of time and money is being

fruitlessly invested to get them to work as quickly and as well as their embryonic

counterparts.

Much of the moral argument against human embryonic stem cell research

involves aversion to the thought of harming one human being to benefit another.

However, distaste for this prospect must not prevent scientific progress. Not all

people consider these embryos to have a human status at this point in their

development. The embryos which scientists research on are “no larger than the

dot at the end of this sentence” (Donohue par. 3). Although these cells have the

ability to grow into a human form, in the state that they are extracted there exists


no thought, no feeling, and no ability to continue existence independently. Also,

as Ryan eloquently states, “We never have and are unlikely ever to grant full

citizenship and personhood to the fertilized egg or contingent life before viability”

(298). Some will still consider this cell cluster human and continue to oppose

stem cell research. Yet, if there exist embryos which will be destroyed, should

the inevitable destruction of these embryos not be used for some good?

Creating an embryo simply for research is hard for many with strong moral

backgrounds to justify, yet it is hard to argue with the point, “embryos that are no

longer needed and would otherwise be discarded could be used for research to

advance knowledge in reproduction and benefit humankind generally” (297).

Opposition to this argument—believing one should not gain from another’s loss—

would thus have to include all related procedures, such as the widely-accepted

practice of posthumous organ donation.

There are many diseases that may be treated or even cured by

researching embryonic stem cells. These include “Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

diseases, diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord injury, and metabolic disease in

young children” (292). For example, those who have Parkinson’s disease do not

develop enough dopamine, which “is a chemical that provides coordinated

movement of the muscles” (Kim J.H. et al). According to an article in the The

National Library of Medicine, Parkinson’s disease could be treated by developing

embryonic stem cells into dopamine neurons, and adequate dopamine levels

would allow the patient’s symptoms to subside (Kim J.H. et al). Thus, embryonic

stem cell research is critical for making advances in fighting degenerative


diseases like Parkinson’s (Kinsley 1). As the head of the NIH, Harold Varmus,

said, “this research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine”

(Easterbrook par. 6).

In recent procedures involving the medicinal use of embryonic stem cells,

scientists have shown evidence that although this research has not been

guaranteed in humans; the results from animal tests have shown great potential.

For example, research involving the use of adult mice is attempting to develop

procedures that use one’s own cells to treat degenerative diseases (Dunham

par.1). Even when the treatment cells have low compatibility, the results of

research are still very promising. In July, 2001, scientists released a tape which

shows paralyzed mice “once again able to move their limbs, bear their own

weight, and even move around after injections of human embryonic stem cells in

their spinal cords” (Henderson and Kay 74).

In addition to these results, Dr. John McDonald, director of the spinal cord

injury unit at Washington University School of Medicine, conducted an

experiment with hopes to find a cure for one of his paralyzed patients which

would enable him to walk again. “McDonald gave rats a similar injury [to his

patient], then injected some with stem cells” (Cohen 1). After a period of six

weeks, scientists analyzed the results of the treatment. They discovered the rats’

legs were able to function once again. Christopher Reeve (See Fig. 3),

McDonald’s paralyzed patient, said of the results, "Never before has there been

such a powerful tool, such a resource that can give so much hope. And to have

it just sitting here right in front of us, ready to go while all this debate rages on, is

Fig. 3. Christopher Reeve. From “In Pictures: Christopher Reeve.” BBC News. 11 October 2004. 4 April2007. <http://news.bbc.co.uk>.

Photo of the late Christopher Reeve,

a strong advocate of stem cell

research, and wife. Reeve’s

paralysis could have been improved

through stem cell treatments.


really, really frustrating” (1). Many patients

like Reeve did not have the time for

scientists to find an alternative to embryonic

stem cell research, and thus research on

embryonic stem cells should no longer be

held back. The experiments with embryonic

stem cells show possibilities of being very

beneficial for mammals and could in turn

create the same benefits for humans.

Some humans have already

experienced the potential benefits of human

embryonic stem cells through experimental

treatments. Anders Björklund and fellow neuroscientists in Sweden have been

treating their Parkinson’s disease patients with fetal neuron grafts for ten years

(Barinaga 93). According to Björklund, this research is “proof of principle that cell

replacement actually works” (93). These fetal grafts are extremely rare, which

leads to little hope of developing widespread treatments for similar diseases (95).

Applying these techniques using embryonic stem cells, however, could establish

medical breakthroughs for many debilitating conditions (96). In addition to this

hope of further developing the technology there is an exhibition of success in

those who received the grafts. Bjorklund’s patients experienced “up to a 50

percent reduction in their symptoms” (95). Thus, this research demonstrates the


benefits which humanity could reap if stem cells were to be extensively applied

as medical treatments.

Though embryonic stem cell research has its critics, in order to improve

the well-being of society, it is necessary to look beyond the ethical standards of a

few, to benefit all. These medical advancements are moving forward despite the

obstacles set by the opposition; this has happened numerous times in the past,

and in time has proven to be beneficial to mankind. Thus, it is difficult to uphold

concerns against moving forward with the technology when such a promising

future lies ahead. If the rewards of this technology are certain to be unlocked in

the future, then should the American people not be supporting the research now?


Works Cited

“About SCRF.” Stem Cell Research Foundation. 2006. Stem Cell Research

Foundation. 2 April 2007 <http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.com>.

Barinaga, Marcia. “Fetal Neuron Grafts Pave the Way For Stem Cell Therapies.”

Pynes and Ruse 93-97.

Berger, Elini. “Research Avenue Adds Fuel to Stem Cell Controversy.”

CNN Health July 2001. 14 March 2007 <http://www.cnn.com/>.

Cohen, Elizabeth. “Stem Cells Help Heal Parlayzed Rats.” 12 August 2001.

CNN.com. 26 March 2007. <http://www.cnn.com>.

“Collecting Cord Blood Stem Cells.” 10 December 2006. Cord Blood Registry. 2

April 2007. <www.cordblood.com>.

Donohue, John W. "The Stem Cell Debate" America. 13 Nov 2006. ProQuest.

Michigan State University Libraries. 20 Mar.

2007 <http://www.proquest.com>.

Dunham, Will. “Researchers Spur Growth of Adult Brain Cells.” Reuters. 15 Nov.

2006. 31 Mar 2007. <http://www.reuters.com>.

Easterbrook, Gregg. "Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning: An Overview."

Medical Ethics. Ed. James D. Torr. Current Controversies Series. San

Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Thomson Gale. Michigan State University Libraries. 15 March 2007

<http://find.galegroup.com>.

Henderson, Mark and Katty Kay. “Paralyzed Mouse Walks Again as Scientists

Fight Stem Cell Ban.” Pynes and Ruse 73-75.


Kim J.H. et al. “Dopamine Neurons Derived from Embryonic Stem Cells Function

in an Animal Model of Parkinson's Disease.” 20 June 2002. The National

Library of Medicine. 3 April 2007. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>.

Kinsley, Michael. “If You Believe Embryos Are Humans.” 17 June 2001. TIME.

26 March 2007. <http://www.time.com>.

Marin, Carol. “60 Minutes II, Holy Grail.” Pynes and Ruse 77-81.

“NIH Seeks More Stem Cell Research.” 25 July 2001. CNN.com. 26 March 2007.

<www.cnn.com >.

Novak, Michael. “The Stem-Cell Slide.” Human Life Review 27.3 (Summer

2001): 74-78. ProQuest. Michigan State University Libraries. 15 March

2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/>. pdf.

Parry, Marc. "1,000 Catholics Lobby at Capitol: Cardinal Leads Drive Against

Stem- Cell Research and for Tuition Deductions." Knight Ridder Tribune

Business News 14 March 2007. ABI/INFORM Dateline. ProQuest.

Michigan State University Libraries. 20 March

2007 <http://www.proquest.com/>.

Pynes, Christopher A. and Michael Ruse, eds. The Stem Cell Controversy.

2nd ed. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006.

Ryan, Kenneth J, M.D. “The Politics and Ethics of Human Embryo and Stem Cell

Research.” Pynes and Ruse 291-299.

Shoemaker, Leigh. “The Promises of Stem Cells Kept.” Pynes and Ruse 99-104.

“Stem Cell Basics.” 20 December 2006. National Institutes of Health. 15 March

2007 <http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/defaultpage.pdf>.


Walter, Donna. “The Stem Cell Debate.” St. Charles County Business Record 1

Nov 2006. ProQuest. Michigan State University Libraries. 29 March 2007

<http://www.proquest.com/>.

Weiss, Rick. “The Power to Divide Stem Cells.” National Geographic. July 2005.

21 March 2007. <www.nationalgeographic.com>.

“The scientific process of experimentation, …affeldt3/stemethics/pdf/LifeNoworLif… · Web viewThe use of these embryonic stem cells, as well as non-controversial alternatives

Documents