Stem Cell Research and Cloning: Ethics, Science & Promise

Introduction: Human Cloning and the Stem Cell Debate

From the science fiction of the 1950s to the scientific technology of the 21st century, the idea of stem cell research and human cloning has captured audiences the world over. Debates have raged regarding the ethical considerations, commercial implications, and familial concerns surrounding the process itself (Andrews, 1999). Like any other medical or sociological phenomenon, human cloning has its advocates and proponents, as well as those who oppose and condemn such research. Right or wrong, the scientific investigation into stem cell research is in the hands of those who — with or without material, ulterior, or concealed motive — are faced with the fact that human cloning carries with it massive moral responsibility.

This paper examines an area of human cloning that is greatly misunderstood and oftentimes rejected: stem cell research (Andrews, 1999). Unfortunately, the process of human cloning is all too often thought of as an end result rather than a process of multiple complexities and diverse opportunities in medical and scientific venues. All concerned individuals — those for and those against — must begin to realize that human cloning also includes the ability to create a single human cell that can be used for purposes other than creating a complete human being.

In order to objectively evaluate the process of human cloning, this paper reviews an article in which stem cell research is used as a reproductive medical therapeutic tool for the purpose of improving the quality of life (QOL) of disease-afflicted and organ-damaged patients, rather than for the purpose of creating a new life. The article is evaluated not only on the topical issue of stem cell research but also on whether its format is research-sound, data-supportive, and topically appropriate and sustainable.

Investigative Research Requirements

Research activities — whether case study based, clinical trial based, experimental, or historical — must exhibit and command interest, enthusiasm, and passionate commitment. It is vital that the researcher capture the essential quality of excitement that comes from research well done if expected results are to be gained. The first step in attaining a research goal is to develop a scientific approach toward the phenomenon being evaluated. Once the research goal is identified, the investigator must abandon all forms of bias and approach the research situation as a controlled, rational process of reflective inquiry.

Second, the structure of any research investigation must always include an identifiable problem, a methodology, the reporting of results, and the interpretation of results along with the drawing of conclusions. The research report itself is not, by virtue of its design, an attempt to convince the reader of the virtue of the research. At all times, the research report should be written so that the reader can adequately draw his or her own conclusions as to the adequacy and validity of what is being reported.

Third, research is not always a laboratory study, a case analysis, or a statistical comparison between independent and dependent variables. Research can also take the form of qualitative historical reporting. Simply because a research endeavor does not present a testable null hypothesis or statistical data analysis does not mean that the investigation is not viable, credible, or content-useful. A great deal of meaningful research can be found in the form of reporting information gathered by others. This type of research is often labeled documentary analysis, through which the state of a present situation is reported. In developing a documentary analysis of an existing phenomenon, theory, or situation, the research investigator is bound by the critical examination of source materials. Documentary studies cannot produce useful findings if the research report is based on erroneous sources.

Article Overview and Problem Statement

Rosenthal and Lanza's (June 2004) article entitled "The Stem Cell Challenge" presents an excellent opportunity to clearly understand the benefits of stem cell research with respect to diseases that currently lack a cure — namely Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and cancer. According to the authors, if one disregards the current debate on the moral and ethical issues surrounding this treatment modality, stem cell research offers hope to millions of afflicted individuals and successful applications could substantially lower treatment and healthcare costs. Their position is further supported by the National Institutes of Health (2000), which promotes the process on the basis of its promise for new treatments and cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries.

Although not specifically stated, the authors would likely feel that the NIH's confirmation of the process is important because it ties the need for appropriate ethical standards to the scientific application (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2003). Accompanied by strictly enforced regulatory compliance, researchers' ability to take a primitive embryonic stem (ES) cell and coax it into any of over 200 other cell types is a significant accomplishment toward treating life-threatening medical illnesses, according to the authors.

Rosenthal and Lanza go on to explain that in the stem cell process, stem cells are generally extracted from surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures. Once extracted, the cells can be grown in a laboratory and subjected to medical application. In addition to the frozen embryo procedure, stem cells can also be extracted from adult tissue without any harm to the patient. These stem cells are matched to the damaged neurological or organ tissue of disease or spinal cord injury patients for regenerative purposes. Because these cells have the potential to develop into almost all types of tissue — of which there are 210 types in the human body — the authors suggest that introducing healthy cells into an at-risk body might restore organ function. What is most significant in stem cell replacement therapy is the cell's ability to divide continuously throughout its life and take the place of damaged, lost, or dead cells. In essence, these new cells effectively contribute to the human body's ability to repair and renew damaged tissues — a quality vastly different from mature cells, which cannot change, renew themselves, or create new cells.

Conclusion

Scientists believe that stem cell research could prove to be one of the greatest revolutions in modern medicine, surpassing even such landmark discoveries as penicillin and the Salk vaccine. Therefore, medical science, morality advocates, government agencies, and others who oppose this research must put aside their differences, work together, and provide those who can no longer provide for themselves an opportunity to regain the dignity they once possessed (Andrews, 1999).

References

Andrews, L. B. (1999). The clone age: Adventures in the new world of reproductive technology. Henry Holt and Company.

Meilaender, G. (1999). Remarks on human embryonic stem-cell research. Paper presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

National Institutes of Health. (2000). NIH guidelines for stem cell research. Washington, DC.

Robertson, J. A. (2000). Ethics and policy in embryonic stem cell research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 9(2), 109–136.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). NIH Publication No. 03-3431. Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging.

Rosenthal, N., & Lanza, R. (2004, June). The stem cell challenge. Scientific American.