Stem cell research as a socially responsible medical practice

Stem Cell Research and the Future of Humanity

Stem cell research has become one of most controversial topics in recent medical history. With each new medical discovery in stem cell rises, questions arise regarding the value of human life and the possibilities that it entails. Arguments surrounding stem cell research go beyond the science. It is not a matter of what we could do, it is a matter of whether or not we should do it. The topic of stem cell research reaches beyond medical science and into academics areas such as ethics, philosophy, psychology, sociology and religion. There are many questions, but not as many answers to be found. This research will support the position that stem cell research is a blessing and should be continued because it has the potential to extend life for those who need it. It will support stem cell research from the standpoint that is a socially responsible practice that will make miracles possible in the future for patients who need it.

History of Stem Cell Research

The history of stem cell research began with the advent of the microscope in the 1800s. Invention of the microscope led to the knowledge that cells were the building blocks of life and that cells could regenerate and produce other cells (UK Stem Cell Foundation). In the early 1900s it was discovered that the various types of blood cells, white, red, and platelets, all came from a certain type of cell dubbed a "stem cell." This led to the use of bone marrow transplants in patients receiving radiation and chemotherapy in the 1950s. However, in 1963, researchers McCulloch and Till found that transplanted mouse bone marrow cells had self-renewing qualities (UK Stem Cell Foundation).

Research in the 1980s and 1990s opened the door for modern stem cell research. During this time, researchers were able to target and alter human genetic material. They also developed methods for growing human cells in the laboratory (UK Stem Cell Foundation). In 1998, a breakthrough in this technology allowed James Thomson to remove cells from spare embryos in fertility clinics (UK Stem Cell Foundation). This launched a stream of controversy by certain religious groups, as these embryos were considered to be the beginnings of life. It was argued that one could not destroy one life for the sake of science without dire moral and ethical consequences.

Just as there were those that were against stem cell research, there were also those that were in favor of it. To date, over 2,000 scholarly articles have been published on stem cell research (UK Stem Cell Foundation). Critics of stem cell research could not stop the flow of progress and techniques. Embryonic stem cells are yet to be used in clinical trials. However, adult stem cells are now used to treat over 100 diseases, including may deadly forms of cancer and heart disease (UK Stem Cell Foundation).

The possibilities that lie in stem cell research are just beginning to be uncovered. Research is currently under way to use stem cells to produce replacement tissues, organs, or to repair defective or diseased organs. In the distant future, there is a possibility of using stem cells to regenerate severed limbs from the patient's own cells. Many of this research is far in the future, but the possibilities have entered the minds of the research community and will likely pave the way to the future.

3.0 the Controversy

Stem cell research holds many possibilities for the future of man. No one will argue that this research holds the key to unlocking and curing many diseases and conditions that were once thought to be incurable. No one is arguing that research should be pursued that holds the possibility for the cure of deadly diseases. The controversy surrounding stem cells arises from use of embryonic stem cells. Thee cells are the most valuable in stem cell research because they are the most widely adaptable to a number of circumstances. However, harvesting them requires the destruction of a human embryo. This has been compared to opponents of stem cell research to committing abortion or murder, as it stops a potential human life (Kinsley).

The debate over the embryonic stem cell issue is a highly emotionally charged topic. Opponents of the research claim that this research crosses a more boundary where one life is exchanged for another (George and Berg). The topic of stem cell research revives the age-old debate over whether life begins at conception or at some point after the embryo becomes a fetus. Some opponents of stem cell research purport that the means cannot justify the end. They contend that even if the research does lead to cures for many dreaded diseases, it is still not justified by the end of another potential life (George and Berg).

However, if one is to takes this standpoint, then one could argue that in vitro fertilization is wrong because in the process a number of potential embryos are developed, a majority of which is destined for destruction or freezing, where they will never become human life. In order to alleviate this problem, researchers are now working on methods of harvesting cells that do not destroy the embryo at the blastocyst level (Cowan, Klimanskaya, and McMahon et al. 1353). Other techniques are being developed in an attempt to induce adult cells to revert to an undifferentiated state. Stem cells produced by this method are called induced pluripotent stem cells (Fox). Opponents of embryonic stem cell research are mixed regarding research regarding new harvesting techniques.

According to Michael Bellomo, fears regarding stem cell research are not what is happening now, but the possibilities of what could happen in the future (198). Critics of stem cell research, such as Bellomo rely on science fiction style conjectures and paint scenarios of worlds to come. However, the debate over stem cells is a highly public debate, and as such, it is likely that constraints will be placed on the progress and use of this technology. Fro instance, in David Novak's the Sanctity of Human Life, the differentiation is made between a pre-embryo and an embryo (2). A pre-embryo is the fertilized cell that has not yet been planted into the human host. Once the pre-embryo is implanted into the female host, it is assumed that it will grow and develop into a human being. The pre-embryo is not the same as the embryo, it is simply the raw material.

A national bioethics committee has been assigned the duty of exploring these issues and making recommendations that will shape future public policy (Eiseman 71). This committee will help to assure that research using embryonic stem cells proceeds in an acceptable direction.

4.0 Future of the Issue

Regardless of the emotional issues and personal opinions regarding the use of embryonic stem cells in research, and eventually, in the cure of many diseases, stem cell research continues at an increasing rate. A search in PubMed reveals over 23,000 studies that mention stem cells or stem cell research. Stem cell research holds the potential for the promise of a cure for many currently incurable conditions. Much of the current body of research concentrates on finding the mechanisms the control stem cell regeneration and the ability to grow new tissues.

Currently, the first clinical trials are getting underway to help search for the cures to diseases such as acute lympohblastic leukemia (ALL) (Brentjens, 375) and other metastatic gliomas (Gonia, Goldsby, and Matthay et al. 4162). Due to the controversies over embryonic stem cells, many of these trials use adult harvested stem cells that cause no harm to the donor. However, it is not known if these cells are as good as undifferentiated embryonic stem cells. The verdict is far away and will be a long time coming. If embryonic stem cells are found to be superior to adult harvested stem cells, then researchers and ethics analysts will have to decide if it is right to deny a person the life-saving treatment that they need because a "potential" human being may lose their life.

The debate over embryonic stem cell research becomes complicated when one must tell an adult that their life is not worth as much as a few cells from an embryo that "might have been." This is the heart of the debate and a scenario that is currently being played out. It is difficult to justify denying potentially life-saving treatments to someone who has been a productive member of society and whose life has an impact on the many other lives that they touch. The emotional appeal argument works both ways. The key point is that embryonic stem cell research already has the potential to save lives.

It is arguable whether the stem cells used for embryonic research represent "human life." They are as of yet, undifferentiated and it has not been determined that they will develop into a human being. They were not chosen for implant because they were not considered to be the most viable for the in vitro fertilization process. That is not to say that a human produced from them would be anything short of a miracle, it is doubtful whether they would have developed into a human being at all.

Emotional appeals set aside, the real question is whether it is wrong to impede the pace of research and the search for cures to currently incurable diseases. Understanding the history and basics of human stem cell research provides a better understanding from which to form an opinion. Right now, research is on the cusp of some amazing discoveries regarding the use of stem cell research, Medical breakthroughs are likely to come that will change people's lives. Support for stem cell research should continue to be supported, regardless of the minority that is currently opposed to it. There is simply too much at risk to do otherwise.