The ethics and media framing of stem cell research

Stem Cell Research

Since the stem cell was first isolated in the 1980s, is when the controversy began about its role in modern medicine. The main reason is there are deep seeded divisions between the different sides in the debate. At the heart of the issue, was if aborted fetuses should be used in the process to create clones of cells, organs or people. This has fueled the debate within society as to what is considered to be moral and ethical. A good example of this can be seen with possible concerns about how the embryos (from aborted fetuses) could be deliberately destroyed in some labs. For right to life supporters, this has stoked fears about how the process is creating another avenue of unethically terminating life. Whereas many proponents of stem cell research will argue that the entire process is designed to prevent these kinds of incidents. (Plunkett, 2007) to show how proponents of stem cell research are correct requires comparing the viewpoints of both sides. This will be accomplished by looking at the press coverage, the use of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and how new techniques can avoid ethical debates. Together, these different elements will offer specific insights as to how the use of stem cells is an ethical practice that does not intentionally destroy embryos.

Press Coverage

The press coverage of stem cells is receiving mixed reviews depending upon the source. What is happening is various authors, publications or news broadcasts will focus on different areas of interest (i.e. liberal and conservative). This is based on each entity tailoring content that is entertaining for their audience. When any kind of news is received, all organizations will take the information and they will tailor it towards the primary demographic of viewers, web traffic or readers. The way that this occurs is through a process known as journalistic reframing. This is when journalists will take specific scientific information and they will refit it into the larger context of the story. The basic idea is to use these facts to sway the viewpoints of the audience. This is when the writer will create content that will agree with audience and challenge their thinking. (Snyder, 2009, pp. 64 -- 68)

In the case of stem cells, the different kinds of coverage are based upon scientific evidence that is being released in journals and working papers. When a news organization is researching the topic they must find points that will keep everyone entertained. The best way that this can be accomplished is by taking some kind of irrelevant fact about stem cells and then combining it with other areas. (Snyder, 2009, pp. 64 -- 68)

For example, one journalist (who is in favor of using of stem cells) could take a scientific study to show how the process is safe and effective. This is accomplished by using the different kinds of research and illustrating how they are helping to provide potential treatments for a number of conditions. A few of the most notable include: spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and cancer. This is supposed to sway the views of audience by helping them to see how stem cell research could provide effective remedies. Over the course of time, this kind of coverage will sway the opinions of the audience. This is when they will support actions that will encourage scientists to continue with this research in the future. (Snyder, 2009, pp. 64 -- 68)

While on the other side of spectrum, are journalists who are considered to be pro-life and are against stem cell research. When any kind of scientific study is conducted, is the point that they will use the research to highlight the potential risks of what may be happening. Such as: stating how the government is supporting stem cell research using live embryos. Then, adding that during all scientific experiments is when everyone will inadvertently destroy something during their project. In the case of live embryos, scientists could intentionally destroy some when conducting research. It is at this point that the journalist will argue that stem cell research is a violation of basic morals (by allowing human life to be destroyed). This angers supporters to the point that they are willing to protest and speak out against what is happening. When in reality the practice will occur in one way or another based on the nature of the research. (Snyder, 2009, pp. 64 -- 68)

Evidence of this can be seen by looking no further than in-vitro fertilization clinics. These are locations where couples will go who are trying to conceive a child and are having difficulty of their own. The basic approach is to take the egg of the woman and artificially inseminate it with a donor sperm or that of the husband. However, during the process is when there will be a number of sperm cells and embryos destroyed. This is because the odds of seeing successful conception with this procedure have low success rates of 20%. As a result, the majority of embryos and sperm are destroyed most of the time with this procedure. (Pence, 2007, pp. 71 -- 73) (Snyder, 2009, pp. 64 -- 68)

This is significant, because it is showing how the coverage of stem cells is often changed based upon the organization and the audience that they are reaching out to. During the process of talking about the issues is when journalists will take scientific facts and reframe it. This is when they will cite the information from these studies to illustrate their point.

In the case of pro-life supporters, they are taking this approach to illustrate their arguments and stir emotions about the possible destruction of human life. When in reality, embryos are destroyed every day during in-vitro fertilization. The difference is that there is no coverage of this practice (based on the fact that it is widely accepted). As a result, this is an indication that the use of the press is helping to fuel anger about the potential ethical challenges of stem cell research. While the realization is that scientists are not attempting to intentionally destroy embryos. Instead, any kind of destruction will be avoided as much as possible to ensure the accuracy of the study. This means that many of the more conservative journalists are using different scientific facts to highlight possible ethical issues that are non-existent. (Snyder, 2009, pp. 64 -- 68)

How New Techniques can Avoid Ethical Debates

There are a number of techniques that will allow scientists to conduct stem cell research without violating any kind of ethical standards. This is because the approaches that were discussed earlier (i.e. iPSC and adult) will not harm embryos. For both sides, there is no ethical argument about the use of this process during the course of conducting any kind of research. As a result, the only issue that will be debated is how these kinds of therapies can be developed and integrated into modern medicine.

Yet, when you look a little further, it is clear that there are other approaches that are used in stem cell research (parthenogenesis) which are creating controversy. Parthenogenesis is when scientists are using an unfertilized egg to harvest the stem cells. The basic idea is that this can offer scientists another approach of conducting research without having to destroy any kind of embryos. However, the problem is that an unfertilized egg is being destroyed (which pro-life supporters will argue is terminating human life). This is adding to the overall conflicts about stem cell research.

Despite these issues research is continuing to occur on a regular basis. In many cases, scientists have found that this is another avenue of being able to create stem cells outside of the three methods. The effectiveness of this approach is that it can be able to mirror the same kind of results as embryotic stem cells. A good example of this can be seen in a study that was conducted by Qingyun (2007) who wrote, "Parthenogenesis is one of the main, and most useful, methods to derive embryonic stem cells (ESCs), which may be an important source of histocompatible cells and tissues for cell therapy. Short Tandem Repeat (STR) results demonstrated that the hPES lines were genetic matches with the egg donors, and gene imprinting data confirmed the parthenogenetic origin of these ES cells. Genome-wide SNP analysis showed a pattern typical of parthenogenesis. All of these results demonstrated the feasibility to isolate and establish human parthenogenetic ESC lines, which provides an important tool for studying epigenetic effects in ESCs as well as for future therapeutic interventions in a clinical setting." This is significant, in showing how parthenogenesis is effective in being able produce stem cells. (Qingyun, 2007, pg. 1008)

When it comes to the ethical issues under parthenogenesis the therapeutic techniques that are used is the most controversial. This is when scientists are extracting the egg and will alter it to contain the desired genetic information. In all cases, the donors are chosen from women who are not menopausal. However, the problem is that during this process is when the egg will more than likely be changed in some way. This is causing a conflict from the need to create possible therapy techniques and with the altering of the egg. To make matters worse, a host of studies are being published showing how this approach can improve the ability of scientists to isolate and treat a variety of conditions. (Qingyun, 2007, pp. 1008 -- 1019)

Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Chad (2004) he observed, "The data indicates that the human embryonic stem-cell lines reproducibly differentiate in vitro and in vivo into cell types from all three embryonic germ layers. The 17 new cell lines described here should facilitate our understanding of the mechanisms by which differentiation of embryonic stem cells may be controlled to produce cell types for drug development and for transplantation in the treatment of disease. Under current regulations, the HUES cell lines cannot be used in research that is funded, even in part, by federal funds. The cells are being made available to researchers by Dr. Melton's laboratory under a Material Transfer Agreement." This is important, because it is highlighting how this form of stem cell therapy can be used in drug treatment and for transplants. While at the same time, scientists feel as if they are restricted in their research based on the politics and ethics surrounding this issue. The aforementioned is in spite of the fact that eggs are destroyed during in-vitro fertilization. The only difference is that pro-life supporters are not taking a similar kind of stance on the issue in comparison with stem cell treatment. (Chad, 2004, pp. 1353 -- 1356)

Conclusion

Clearly, stem cell research is considered to be an ethical practice. This is because many of the techniques that critics are complaining about (i.e. The destruction of embryos and eggs) are considered to be terminating human life. However, when you look beneath the surface journalists will often frame the issue in a way to reach out to their intended audience. This means that they will take various scientific facts and use them to highlight how this is creating a problem. In the case of many pro-life journalists, they will take these facts to show how human life is being destroyed.

Yet, beyond the spin there is evidence to support how this practice occurs during in-vitro fertilization. At the same time, scientists have identified other ways of extracting the cell from different parts of the body. These approaches do not cause any kind of controversy. This is important, in showing how the risks to human life are exaggerated by many pro-life supporters. Instead, the process has been politicized based on the fact that various kinds of treatment could use an embryo. This has impeded progress in areas of potential therapies from the opposition. Even though many of these procedures will occur at fertility clinics, and no one will say anything about what is happening. As a result, this is evidence of how many journalists have taken a scientific issue and spun it to the point that no one understands what is really happening.