In 2003, Dolly the Sheep became a worldwide science-lab celebrity, giving the media a headline that brought the world’s attention to the topic of stem cell research.
But, instantly, by way of backlash, superstitions of human cloning arose. Strong feelings towards drawing a red line on stem cell research were developed in the fear of what was – and still is – largely fiction: human clones. It could be argued that human clones already exist: anyone ever heard of identical twins? Yeah. But as for genetically modified clones, I don’t think we’ve anything to worry about. There’s nothing really there to fear. The chances of anyone cloning a conscious human in the near future is extremely unlikely and is, to my thinking, something that will remain as a pipe dream for the time being.
The more prevalent ethical debates over stem cell research mainly stem from the harvesting techniques of stem cells, as well as how the knowledge gained from further research could be abused for unethical means. The possibilities surrounding the use of stem cells include: advanced medical treatments, for cancers, diseases such as type-one diabetes, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, and much more.
However, disputes over limits on stem cell research remain. With that in mind, all those aforementioned health research areas in mind, it really is paramount that people keep making the argument for the pursuit of stem cell research, making sure that it keeps on allowing us to open new doors for the advancement that society needs. The key is simply to make sure that, whilst doing all this, we also remember to maintain a respect for human life too.
There are two main types of stem cells: tissue stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Both types have their different advantages and are valuable to scientists for their research.
Tissue stem cells can only differentiate into a limited, set variety of specialised, functioning cells of its tissue type. Embryonic stem, however, can differentiate into any types of specialised functioning cells. Some people object to stem cell research due to the unethical destruction of young embryos during somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Traditionally, embryonic stem cells are harvested from blastocysts (4-5 days old embryos) resulting in their termination. It is this procedure, where potential human life is sacrificed, that kindles the inherent conundrum: is the destruction of blastocysts immoral to the extent that embryonic stem cell research should be restricted? Despite the medical advances, this argument is a challenge for medical advocates.
Often assertive religious groups object to SCNT, claiming it to be equivalent to murder because of the belief that human life starts straight after fertilisation. To argue that the destruction of a blastocyst - which has no conscious knowledge of its own existence - is the same as the homicide of a conscious human being, though, seems to many to be a misapprehension of sanctity. However, the fact that SCNT destroys potential life is indeed an ethical controversy wavering on the boundaries of what is moral.
Stem cell research can ultimately save lives, one method being through organ transplants. In June 2015 a German boy was admitted to hospital with a critical skin condition where 80% of his skin was open and bleeding. Tobias Hirsch, a surgeon, transplanted skin to him that had been grown, thanks to stem cell research, in a scientific laboratory.
Surely, a heart-warming example like this tips the scales of opinion, deeming it to be worth the sacrifice of blastocysts for the life changing medical treatments that can save lives. It boils down to the question: is it moral to suppress the development of life-saving techniques over the sacrifice of unconscious blastocysts which are unaware of their own existence?
All that discussed, supporters of stem cell research would argue that abortion is legal in many countries – so why worry so much worry about stem cell research when the embryos destroyed in abortion are more anthropomorphic, and therefore perhaps more at issue. Surely, if this practise is legal, then so should the destruction of blastocysts which is relatively, by contrast at least, a minor issue?
However, a substantial argument is that discarding potential human life, even though the outcomes are very positive, devalues human life. Certainly, for now, the benefits of stem cell research outweigh this notion, yet it is argued that this theory of devaluing human life creates a slippery slope for further, more ominous scientific processes pertinent to stem cell research in the future, something that we must guard against.
One method of gathering tissue stem cells is from the umbilical cord of a newborn baby. In this area, stem cell research has the potential to greatly extend life expectancy. Online websites advertising services to preserve a newborn baby’s umbilical is a fairly new medical practice. The tissue stem cells obtained from the umbilical cord can be used specifically on the baby it came from in the future. There is also a 25% chance that the stem cells from the cord could be used on a sibling, and a good chance of matching with parents too. This effectively acts as a life insurance for the child, and possibly some of their family members, as it provides accessible stem cells matched to them so that, if they contracted a condition, they could be treated in the future. The stem cells could also be used for any medical developments in the future.
There are bones of contention over possibilities of couples having babies purely to obtain the stem cells from the umbilical cord, having planned to orphan or abort the child. However, this plausible conundrum cannot hold stem cell research responsible for making it a possibility. Surely, it is the fault of the child’s unethical parents, no? In February 2010, the American Academy of Paediatrics issued a policy statement which introduced tight rules on the birth of children for this purpose, showing that authorities will intervene in the future to prevent unethical proceedings.
On the contrary, some argue that, as well as being a provocation to the poor, such seemingly innocent medical advancements could act as veneer over future immoral life preserving techniques. Techniques feared include speculation of human cloning, which is a lot more advanced than people have been led to believe because of Dolly the sheep. The fear is that society’s moral compass will change to accept moral discords once rejected.
The problems with these arguments are that, firstly, free cord blood banks are available through the NHS to those who need them and the ethics of wealthy and poor in conjunction with medical services has always been and will continue to be a commonly vexed issue. However, suppressing medical advancements is not the way to solve this entirely different debate. Also, life preserving techniques such as organ transplants are already being utilised - medical research shouldn’t be hindered by such superstitious ideologies of human cloning.
Human cloning as a result of stem cell research could, one day, be possible; however, what market could possibly demand such an unethical product?
The medical advancements and possible life saving treatments parallel to the social and economic benefits outweighs the associated moral problems of this issue. Pioneering the possible treatments from adult stem cells through techniques such as umbilical cord harvesting, as well as furthering our understanding of human life through embryonic stem cell research is the key to discovering the future. In the meantime, it seems sensible to leave as many avenues of research as are possible to leave open, ajar for the meantime. They may well prove useful for our future selves, and maybe even our future cells.
Lewis MacKinnon 5K
Comments