Question #6 -- Stem Cell Ethics and Cloning Conundrums?
March 5th 2007 20:24
Here's two topics that are sometimes lumped together. In reality, they are quite different discussions. But, since they are often discussed together, and to save myself the trouble of doing two different posts, I'll address them both here. Today's question is: what are the truths and ethics of stem cell research and cloning technology?
Let's start with the current political hot potato, stem cells. For years debates have raged over the ethics, efficacy, techniques, etc. of using stem cells to treat disease. Stem cells are seen by many researchers as having the potential to change modern medicine. They can divide many, many times without suffering from damaging mutations or degeneration, unlike regular cells. They can become practically any type of tissue that is desired. It has been speculated that stem cells may be used to treat diseases* such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis (*as indicated on the National Health Institute's website). This sounds amazing, doesn't it? We stand on the threshold of a new medical age, where the treatment of ailments previously thought to be beyond our ability to cure may be possible. So, everyone must be thrilled about this, right? Applauding and anticipating research results? Not quite.....
There is a giant wall of opposition raised up that impedes our progress. That wall has been created by groups so outraged by the idea of where stem cells come from that they are willing to arrest further research. The controversial source: human embryos, or as the religious right likes to call them, human life. Now, let me be perfectly clear (even though most people already know this): embryos ARE NOT HUMAN LIFE. An embryo is a tiny mass of fairly undifferentiated tissues that will become a baby over time. In the early embryonic stage, this tissue is completely incapable of any sort of feeling, thought, etc. There are no nerve endings. There are no muscles. There is no head, never mind a brain. Referring to an embryo as "human life" is like calling a stack of untreated lumber a house. But it is not by accident that the opposition uses this term. It is a carefully chosen, evocative phrase that makes an instant emotional appeal to the audience. Opponents of stem cell research frequently trot out another phrase, namely the "sanctity of life". The arrogance and ignorance of appending this phrase to the stem cell debate is staggering.
Stem cell research opponents cite the "sanctity of life" as justification for denying federal funding for research. They decry the use of human embryos, and paint vivid, lurid pictures of science murdering legions of would-be children for the cold, passionless pursuit of knowledge best left to God. By making these arguments, SCR opponents rip down their own case. How is it possible to indulge in the hypocrisy of defending the "sanctity of life" when that defense involves "saving" embryos and condemning sick people with families to death? How does one enter into the circular logic of preventing "abuse" to embryos, when the embryos proposed for use are those created as "extras" for in vitro fertilization that will either languish in freezers or face disposal as biohazardous waste? Isn't the true abuse allowing the embryos to serve no purpose at all, rather than use them to aid in research that could extend life? How is it wrong to employ therapeutic cloning, which creates embryos for stem cell extraction, but right to allow diseases for which we might find a cure to go untreated? The tragedy here is that we've allowed certain groups to define an embryo, a few cells not much larger than a pencil tip, as an entity that is equally or more worthy of life than an actual human being with something to lose. How many people will die as a result of this lunatic assertion? Best we never know the answer.
New research suggests that it may be possible to use adult stem cells to achieve some of the same results. The trouble is, these adult stem cells lack what is called "plasticity". That is to say, they can only become a certain type of tissue, as opposed to replicating any type needed. Adult stem cells are much more difficult to manipulate, and have a much more narrow scope of usefulness. Cord-blood-derived stem cells are extracted from the umbilical cord fluids present at birth. In initial tests, these cells have shown themselves to be more pliable than adult stem cells, although not to the extent of embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells and cord-blood stem cells offer some advantages to embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells sidestep any potential "rejection" issues, as they are derived from the patient. Cord-blood stem cells are in abundant supply (if harvested as a by-product of birth) and offer more flexibility than the adult cells. Both are free from the ethical issues raised by embryonic stem cell opponents. And yet, embryonic stem cells are still the clear winners when it comes to the scope of their usefulness. They are the easiest to manipulate, and we have the most understanding of them thus far (although we still have much more to learn). I am certainly not opposed to studying other means of obtaining stem cells. What I am opposed to is the manner in which the government, at the behest of the religious right, has denied any real support to scientists researching embryonic stem cells. Because of the imagined evils of the research, we are years behind where we should be.
Cloning technology enjoys similar distrust and misguided persecution. Not as widespread, and not as notably from the religious right, but persecution nonetheless. Or perhaps "mis-perception" is the better term. Cloning (I'm not going to discuss the basics of what it is -- I think everyone knows. Click here if you don't) has many potential applications. Therapeutic cloning, as noted above, is used to create embryos for stem cell extraction (which is why the two topics have become so inextricably linked). Cloning could be used to generate drugs for disease treatment. Animals could be engineered to produce a certain protein or compound in their milk, for example, and produce it in copious amounts for a fraction of the current cost in a lab. Cloning could help save species' from the brink of extinction. In the future, it has been speculated that by "cloning" our own organs, we could have organ transplants free from the difficulties of finding a donor or dealing with organ rejection. Already we have crops engineered to be resistant to disease or pests, or enhanced with additional nutrients, etc.
Cloning suffers from a great deal of public distrust, stemming from a lack of understanding of the details of the process, as well as of the motives of science. The public is alarmed by genetically modified foods, but that isn't the real problem as I see it. I believe that there is real fear that cloning technology could be abused, that science will "play god" and run amok with no supervision. I have heard all sorts of insane ideas, involving cloned humans existing in "organ farms", cloning dead babies as "replacements" for grieving parents, or living forever by transferring consciousness to a clone of oneself. All of these ideas are patently ludicrous. The public would be right to fear them, if there were any reputable threat of any of it being possible. Obviously, cloning human beings for organ removal would be repugnant -- not to mention being 100 times more difficult than simply cloning the necessary organs themselves. "Replacing" a baby? The idea is insane. There is no precedent for the psychological impact of such an event on either the parents or the cloned child, but I fear that it would not be good. The idea falls far outside of the ethics of any trained physician, and the notion that such a course would seriously be pursued by qualified researchers is extremely far-fetched. As for transferring consciousness, the idea is good for comic books and sci-fi movies, but hardly practical science. Of course, none of this has stopped the Raelians from claiming to have cloned a human, and announcing their intent to continue to clone more. This claim has never been verified and is very highly dubious. They have been quiet about it for a couple years now, although who knows when they'll shove themselves back into the spotlight.
When all is said and done, both of these technologies offer the next step in scientific advance for humanity. Is the early research perfect? No. Does the potential for abuse exist? Absolutely, as it has for every other technological advance mankind has made, starting with fire. With new territory comes risk, and, inevitably, someone will exploit it for personal gain. However, when the potential benefits to society are as tremendous as those offered by these technologies, the only real crime is in sticking our heads in the sand.
Let's start with the current political hot potato, stem cells. For years debates have raged over the ethics, efficacy, techniques, etc. of using stem cells to treat disease. Stem cells are seen by many researchers as having the potential to change modern medicine. They can divide many, many times without suffering from damaging mutations or degeneration, unlike regular cells. They can become practically any type of tissue that is desired. It has been speculated that stem cells may be used to treat diseases* such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis (*as indicated on the National Health Institute's website). This sounds amazing, doesn't it? We stand on the threshold of a new medical age, where the treatment of ailments previously thought to be beyond our ability to cure may be possible. So, everyone must be thrilled about this, right? Applauding and anticipating research results? Not quite.....
There is a giant wall of opposition raised up that impedes our progress. That wall has been created by groups so outraged by the idea of where stem cells come from that they are willing to arrest further research. The controversial source: human embryos, or as the religious right likes to call them, human life. Now, let me be perfectly clear (even though most people already know this): embryos ARE NOT HUMAN LIFE. An embryo is a tiny mass of fairly undifferentiated tissues that will become a baby over time. In the early embryonic stage, this tissue is completely incapable of any sort of feeling, thought, etc. There are no nerve endings. There are no muscles. There is no head, never mind a brain. Referring to an embryo as "human life" is like calling a stack of untreated lumber a house. But it is not by accident that the opposition uses this term. It is a carefully chosen, evocative phrase that makes an instant emotional appeal to the audience. Opponents of stem cell research frequently trot out another phrase, namely the "sanctity of life". The arrogance and ignorance of appending this phrase to the stem cell debate is staggering.
Stem cell research opponents cite the "sanctity of life" as justification for denying federal funding for research. They decry the use of human embryos, and paint vivid, lurid pictures of science murdering legions of would-be children for the cold, passionless pursuit of knowledge best left to God. By making these arguments, SCR opponents rip down their own case. How is it possible to indulge in the hypocrisy of defending the "sanctity of life" when that defense involves "saving" embryos and condemning sick people with families to death? How does one enter into the circular logic of preventing "abuse" to embryos, when the embryos proposed for use are those created as "extras" for in vitro fertilization that will either languish in freezers or face disposal as biohazardous waste? Isn't the true abuse allowing the embryos to serve no purpose at all, rather than use them to aid in research that could extend life? How is it wrong to employ therapeutic cloning, which creates embryos for stem cell extraction, but right to allow diseases for which we might find a cure to go untreated? The tragedy here is that we've allowed certain groups to define an embryo, a few cells not much larger than a pencil tip, as an entity that is equally or more worthy of life than an actual human being with something to lose. How many people will die as a result of this lunatic assertion? Best we never know the answer.
New research suggests that it may be possible to use adult stem cells to achieve some of the same results. The trouble is, these adult stem cells lack what is called "plasticity". That is to say, they can only become a certain type of tissue, as opposed to replicating any type needed. Adult stem cells are much more difficult to manipulate, and have a much more narrow scope of usefulness. Cord-blood-derived stem cells are extracted from the umbilical cord fluids present at birth. In initial tests, these cells have shown themselves to be more pliable than adult stem cells, although not to the extent of embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells and cord-blood stem cells offer some advantages to embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells sidestep any potential "rejection" issues, as they are derived from the patient. Cord-blood stem cells are in abundant supply (if harvested as a by-product of birth) and offer more flexibility than the adult cells. Both are free from the ethical issues raised by embryonic stem cell opponents. And yet, embryonic stem cells are still the clear winners when it comes to the scope of their usefulness. They are the easiest to manipulate, and we have the most understanding of them thus far (although we still have much more to learn). I am certainly not opposed to studying other means of obtaining stem cells. What I am opposed to is the manner in which the government, at the behest of the religious right, has denied any real support to scientists researching embryonic stem cells. Because of the imagined evils of the research, we are years behind where we should be.
Cloning technology enjoys similar distrust and misguided persecution. Not as widespread, and not as notably from the religious right, but persecution nonetheless. Or perhaps "mis-perception" is the better term. Cloning (I'm not going to discuss the basics of what it is -- I think everyone knows. Click here if you don't) has many potential applications. Therapeutic cloning, as noted above, is used to create embryos for stem cell extraction (which is why the two topics have become so inextricably linked). Cloning could be used to generate drugs for disease treatment. Animals could be engineered to produce a certain protein or compound in their milk, for example, and produce it in copious amounts for a fraction of the current cost in a lab. Cloning could help save species' from the brink of extinction. In the future, it has been speculated that by "cloning" our own organs, we could have organ transplants free from the difficulties of finding a donor or dealing with organ rejection. Already we have crops engineered to be resistant to disease or pests, or enhanced with additional nutrients, etc.
Cloning suffers from a great deal of public distrust, stemming from a lack of understanding of the details of the process, as well as of the motives of science. The public is alarmed by genetically modified foods, but that isn't the real problem as I see it. I believe that there is real fear that cloning technology could be abused, that science will "play god" and run amok with no supervision. I have heard all sorts of insane ideas, involving cloned humans existing in "organ farms", cloning dead babies as "replacements" for grieving parents, or living forever by transferring consciousness to a clone of oneself. All of these ideas are patently ludicrous. The public would be right to fear them, if there were any reputable threat of any of it being possible. Obviously, cloning human beings for organ removal would be repugnant -- not to mention being 100 times more difficult than simply cloning the necessary organs themselves. "Replacing" a baby? The idea is insane. There is no precedent for the psychological impact of such an event on either the parents or the cloned child, but I fear that it would not be good. The idea falls far outside of the ethics of any trained physician, and the notion that such a course would seriously be pursued by qualified researchers is extremely far-fetched. As for transferring consciousness, the idea is good for comic books and sci-fi movies, but hardly practical science. Of course, none of this has stopped the Raelians from claiming to have cloned a human, and announcing their intent to continue to clone more. This claim has never been verified and is very highly dubious. They have been quiet about it for a couple years now, although who knows when they'll shove themselves back into the spotlight.
When all is said and done, both of these technologies offer the next step in scientific advance for humanity. Is the early research perfect? No. Does the potential for abuse exist? Absolutely, as it has for every other technological advance mankind has made, starting with fire. With new territory comes risk, and, inevitably, someone will exploit it for personal gain. However, when the potential benefits to society are as tremendous as those offered by these technologies, the only real crime is in sticking our heads in the sand.
| 59 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Wendi
As for the stem cell research, I'm torn. On one hand, I thought I knew for sure that the cells came from aborted babies -- then, in a discusson in another forum, I learned that wasn't entirely true. I don't know enough about the facts, so I try to resist forming an opinion.
I do know that if we manage to find cures and solutions for every disease or condition known to be fatal to mankind, we'll be facing some serious over-population issues (not that we aren't already). I'm not suggesting we don't look for cures or anything, but there is a natural order to things now that would be seriously thwarted if we began curing everything, and cloning animals for better genetically engineered foods would only add to that problem, I think.
I just have to follow my gut on these issues and accept that to me, they feel unnatural and potentially detrimental. That being said, I'm not a scientist or a doctor, so I don't know what benefits exist that may outweigh the risks. So, I bow out of this one gracefully, knowing all too well it is not my arena.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Your point about population is well taken. It's a legitimate concern, no doubt. It's probably about the only issue surrounding medical advances that really gives me pause. Doctors, though, have taken an oath to heal, not to control population. Their only choice, really, is to continue to pursue cures for disease. As for other over-population concerns, food needs might be addressed by some of the cloning procedures mentioned above. Even that probably isn't enough to compensate for the growth rate. It's truly an issue without a solution. Is it moral to withhold aid for people now, because of how it may or may not affect resources, etc., in the future? Damn, that one is too tough for me to handle.....
Welcome back, by the way!
Comment by Wendi
Hey, what if the end of the world turned out to be the result of over-population? *SMIRKS*
Thanks for the welcome back, it's good to be home!
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I don't think any scientists favor embryonic stem cell research purely for the sake of destroying embryos. Scientists follow the data. If the data says that ESC's yield the best results, that's where the focus will be. If the data is wrong, they'll move on. That's how science works.
Thanks for the input, I will look more deeply into the emerging adult stem cell research.