To Kill the Embryo – Who Will Be Next?
Many scientists around the world want people to believe that there is no means to do research on human stem cells other than to destroy human embryos. Indeed, an embryo is a perfect source of human stem cells, because, in actuality, the stem cells are the embryo. But who can precisely determine where the boundary between an embryo and a human being is? And, does this boundary exist at all? People don’t know. But this tiny living thing consisting of only about one hundred cells at its age of five days is what everybody was some time ago in his/her life. The belief that life begins at conception raises ethical issues, which have turned into a very inconvenient legislation for those who look at things from a utilitarian point of view in different countries. However, a civilized society should never forget that the similar pragmatic approach to human life once cost millions of lost lives during the World War II. Therefore, when many nations decide that killing embryos is wrong, this should matter for all humanity. Further, studies show that other sources of human stem cells exist and have even more potential to cure diseases than embryonic stem cells. Thus, civilization has every opportunity to develop new stem cell remedies for cancer, spinal cord injuries, neurological and heart diseases without sacrificing its essential principle that every human life is invaluable.
The researchers’ hopes to conquer incurable diseases are based on the unique feature of stem cells. They are not specialized (differentiated) cells and under certain conditions may develop into any kind of cells, tissues, or organs, which can be used for the repairing of diseased tissues. The four major types of stem cells are: embryonic stem (ES) cells, derived from embryos; embryonic germ (EG) cells, derived from fetuses; adult stem (AS) cells, isolated from adult tissues, such as bone marrow; and umbilical cord stem (UCS) cells, found in umbilical cord blood. Growing human organs from embryonic stem cells has become the reality today. For example, the April 2006 issue of Urology Times reports that Australian scientists have grown a human prostate capable of producing hormones ("Embryonic"). The ability to differentiate into different kinds of cells is called plasticity, and it depends on whether the cells are originated from an embryo or an adult organism. Studies on mice and rats showed the remarkable plasticity of embryonic stem cells (Panno 5). This fact along with the comparative easiness of isolating stem cells from embryos caused particular scientific interest in this kind of stem cells around the world.
Ethical and legal issues concerning stem cell research arose after human stem cells were first collected and successfully cultured in 1998 by two different American research teams, headed by Dr. James Thompson at the University of Wisconsin and Dr. John Gearhart at John Hopkins University. Dr. John Gearhart’s team isolated embryonic germ cells "from two-to-four-months-old fetuses obtained after elective abortions" (Panno 18-19). Dr. James Thompson’s team derived embryonic stem cells from the embryos donated by in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. The in vitro fertilization procedure involves taking eggs from the mother and sperm from the father with the following insemination in a test tube. In cases of abnormal sperm function the fertilization is carried out under the microscope with the help of microinstruments. Then the fertilized eggs (embryos or blastocysts) are implanted into the mother’s womb ("In Vitro"). IVF has become a widespread solution for couples suffering from infertility since 1978, when the first "test tube" baby, Louise Brown, was born in the United Kingdom (Panno 81). Since some of the blastocysts die in the procedure, doctors usually fertilize more eggs than necessary. Unutilized, or so-called "leftover" embryos can be donated by their parents to other infertile couples or for scientific research. The latter option enjoys an active support of many researchers for they gain access to a virtually unlimited source of easily obtained ES cells. However, many people in the world call the research on human embryos murder because every one of those tiny living beings has the potential to become a child.
Some researchers even developed a procedure known as therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the sole purpose of which is to create human embryos for harvesting stem cells from them (Panno 31). Although SCNT has been met with support from some patient advocate groups, it generated even more objections than use of "leftover" embryos as sources of stem cells. Obviously, the patient supporters in this situation were misled by those researchers who pursue a therapeutic miracle by any means. The embryonic stem cells are not the last resort; moreover, there are more promising sources of stem cells. Nevertheless, the following two situations continue to be debatable ethical and legal issues around the world: harvesting stem cells from embryos donated by in vitro fertilization clinics and therapeutic cloning. Both those methods involve destroying living human embryos.
The legislation regulating stem cell research in different countries reveal at least three opposing opinions on those controversial methods. The United Kingdom, the first country to develop laws in this field, permits both the use of embryos leftover in IVF clinics, and the therapeutic cloning, although under strict rules for research purposes (Panno 81-84). The central question that legislators had to answer was when an embryo becomes human. Panno reports in his book Stem Cell Research, some scientists, such as Dr. John Caplan, noted science ethicist, stated that cloned embryos are not truly human. However, other scientists believe that the genome, or hereditary information, of an embryo defines its belonging to human race, the same way as the first cloned animal, Dolly the sheep, was a sheep because of her sheep genome. The discovery of the human genome, which was accomplished in 2003, had a special impact on the understanding of human nature (Panno 75-76). The genetic information that is contained in every cell of the body makes people what they are, shaping their appearance, bodies, and intellect. Consequently, an embryo that contains human genome should be considered a human being at the very beginning of his/her life. Nevertheless, the British legislators established the fourteen-day limit, the age, up to which a human embryo can be subjected to the murderous research. The age of fourteen days was chosen for it is characterized by the development of primitive streak, the anatomical feature that marks the start of formation of the central nervous system (Panno 81-82). Did the legislators seriously assume that embryos at age of fourteen days and older are more human than their younger companions? Evidently, they needed a glib excuse to justify the research on the potential human beings.
The European Union adopted the British model concerning the research on the embryos leftover in IVF clinics. However, it "strongly disagrees with the UK on the issue of therapeutic cloning" (Panno 84). The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine prohibits "the creation of human embryos for research purposes" ("Convention"). Moreover, some European countries resolutely limited embryonic stem cell research. For instance, Germany in 1991 adopted The Embryo Protection Act, which banned any use of human embryos other than for the reproduction purposes ("The Embryo"). The German Stem Cell Act bans the import and use of human ES cells, besides those that were obtained before 1 January 2002 (Roos).When in 2006 The European Union agreed to finance human stem cell research, Annette Schavan, Germany's research minister, said: "There should be no financial incentives for the destruction and killing of embryos" (Bilefsky). Five countries, "Austria, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovakia voted against" funding the research that is considered "both immoral and unethical" (Bilefsky). Thus, many countries in Europe object to any kind of research on human embryos taking on a moral responsibility to civilization.
The Bush administration also adheres to a balanced policy in stem cell research. In the US, federal funding is available only to support the researchers who work with the twenty one existing cell lines, which were derived from embryos before 2001 ("Fact"). On July 19, 2006, President Bush vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would give federal financial support to researchers who now pursue creating new cell lines by destroying embryos ("Stem"). At the same time, President Bush’s Administration is expanding funding of alternative techniques that do not require destruction of embryos ("Fact"). Thus, the US supports and encourages those stem cell research methods that do not endanger the moral principles of the civilization. Exactly those methods have turned out to be very promising for the developing successful therapies. These techniques involve use of adult and umbilical cord stem cells.
The adult and umbilical cord stem cells have much more potential to cure diseases than embryonic stem cells because of one serious problem that emerges with use of embryonic cells: immune rejection or host-versus-graft disease. As transplanted organs are rejected by the body if they are not genetically compatible with it, the embryonic stem cells would be rejected because they were taken from a genetically foreign embryo. The life prognosis of people with transplanted organs is very poor. Even with immunosuppressant therapy, their immune systems gradually destroy foreign organs. Approximately half of all patients live less than ten years after the transplant surgery that used allografts – transplants that were taken from other individuals (Panno 61). The discovery of adult and umbilical cord stem cells can solve this grave problem in future stem cell therapies because those cells can be derived from the same patient who would need the therapy.
Although adult stem cells have some disadvantages, such as relatively low plasticity and the difficulty of isolating them from tissues, scientists have made remarkable progress in studying this kind of cells. Stem cells from bone marrow are easily obtained, and a research team headed by Dr. Catherine Verfaille at the University of Minnesota has shown that after special stimulation they can differentiate practically into every type of cells (Panno 61). In this way, doctors can provide every patient with readily available genetically identical stem cells for curing diseases or growing organs for transplantation without prompting immune rejection.
Even more promising is research on umbilical cord stem (UCS) cells. It has been found that blood from umbilical cords contains easily obtained stem cells. Drs. Juliet Barker and John Wagner at the University of Minnesota discovered two outstanding features of UCS cells: they have versatility equal to that of embryonic stem cells, and, strikingly, they do not stimulate immune rejection (Panno 63). Thus, not only can every person now have his own stem cells spared after his birth, but also some portion of umbilical blood could be used to cure other people. Many parents have already taken advantage of the opportunity to save their babies’ stem cells in case they ever need this kind of therapy. In the near future, valuable tissue banks will be created (Panno 63). The use of these banks will prevent host-versus-graft disease and any ethical controversies. Thus, civilization has the opportunity to advance stem cell science successfully in a decent and humane way.
Stem cell research has great potential for developing new medical therapies that may overcome incurable and severe diseases. But, modern society should be particularly vigilant not to yield to the temptation to override its present values for the sake of future good. The right to life is the major value of the community that should be secure. Ignoring demands of conscience and the utilitarian approach to human life are the great danger that threatens civilization from within. "The devaluation of humans at the very commencement of life encourages a policy of sacrificing the vulnerable that could ultimately put other humans at risk, such as those with disabilities and the aged…" (Young). The scientific community has to remember in all circumstances essential principles of civilization require avoidance of any kind of abuse to preserve the dignity and life of human beings no matter in what stage of their development they are.
Works Cited
Bilefsky, Dan. "EU to finance stem cell research." International Herald Tribune 25 Jul. 2006. 8 Nov. 2006. <
"Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine." Council of Europe. Oviedo, 4 Apr. 1997. 27 Nov. 2006. <http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/164.htm>.
"Embryonic stem cells used to grow human prostate." Urology Times 34.4 (2006) 6-6. Consumer Health Complete. EBSCOHost Web. 16 Nov. 2006. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;amp;db=cmh&AN=21351107&site=chc-live>.
"The Embryo Protection Act of 13th December 1990." Federal Law Gazette, Part I, 69 [Bonn] 19 Dec. 1990: 2746. 16 Nov. 2006. <http://www.thehumanfuture.org/topics/humancloning/german_embryo_protection_act.pdf>.
"Fact Sheet: President Bush's Stem Cell Research Policy." Office of the Press Secretary 19 Jul. 2006. 27 Nov. 2006. <" target=_blank>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-6.html>;.
"In Vitro Fertilization: IVF." American Pregnancy Association. May 2006. 16 Nov. 2006. <http://www.americanpregnancy.org/infertility/ivf.html>.
Panno, Joseph. Stem Cell Research. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005.
Roos, Ursula. "Germany’s Stem Cell Act." Biotechnology, Medical & Life Sciences R&T Note 007.03. 24 Jan. 2003. 16 Nov. 2006. <http://www.britbot.de/en/embassy/r&t/notes/rt-note03.2007_dfgFirstHumanesCellProject.html>.
"Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)." 109th CONGRESS S. 471. 16 Nov. 2006. <" target=_blank>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.471:>;.
Young, Frank E. "A Time for Restraint." Science 287.5457 (2000) 1424. Consumer Health Complete. EBSCOHost Web. 27 Nov. 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;amp;db=cmh&AN=2981175&site=chc-live.
No comments:
Post a Comment