Moral dilemma of embryonic stem cells

I recently had one of those "ah-ha!" moments, so I posed this question to Reason over at Fight Aging!

The question is basic, but could be approached from different directions. I'm new to the anti-aging forums, so maybe this has been discussed, but I haven't come across these objections yet.

My question has to do with the moral dilemma of embryonic stem cell research. There are those who are opposed to all forms of stem cell research, but they are a small minority, and in my opinion, they can be ignored. But those who are opposed to embryonic stem cells in particular pose the following substantial moral dilemmas: 1) you are destroying a living human organism (i.e., murder), and 2) you are using the embryo as a biological tool, degrading it as though it were something non-human

So I have a few thoughts on how this could be avoided. I'm not a biologist, so I'm asking for a biologist experienced in the field if the following possibilities make sense.

First of all, from what I've read about embryonic stem cell research, it involves growing an embryo for a few weeks, until it is a clump of a hundred to two hundred undifferentiated cells. My question is, if the cells are undifferentiated, then would the embryo really miss one? At this early stage, would it be possible to remove a single stem cell (or two, or ten) without killing the embryo? If so, we could implant the embryo, and defeat at least the first of the two major dilemmas. I know harvesting a single stem cell isn't very much, but as I understand it, they can be reproduced readily, so it's really the number of stem cell lines, not the quantity, that's holding up research, right?

I have my doubts if this is possible, but I'd like to know for sure. Of course, this wouldn't help with cloned embryos, as that has its own set of societal taboos. (Note that I don't say moral dilemmas in this case, as I consider most of the moral objections to cloning to be due to a lack of education.)

So my second question is this. Why must the embryo be destroyed anyway? Even if removing stem cells from the embryo is fatal, why must we destroy it? Couldn't we freeze the embryo, and then repair it with thechnology available 10, 20, or 50 years from now, prior to implantation into a womb? I know that this argument doesn't hold weight with the opponents of cryonics, but that is because no human being has been successfully frozen to liquid nitrogen temperatues and then resuscitated. However, to the best of my knowledge, embryos are routinely frozen, then thawed, implanted, and carried to full term. So couldn't we in theory freeze what is essentially a "wounded" embryo, and then heal its injuries with the technology available to us in the future?

My third question is sort of a combination of the two previous questions. If removing stem cells, even just one or two, is fatal, then what about this: Remove the stem cells and freeze the embryo. Multiply the stems cells to a larger quantity (maybe two or three divisions), then thaw the embryo and replace the stem cells.

So, any thoughts?

Jay Fox

There are many ways to avoid this dilemma in the first place.

Please read my post to you here:
http://www.imminst.o...017

I should add that unless for a variety of possible reasons someone feels compelled to freeze their fertilized embryo, it is in general a pretty bad idea. This has been done but is not usually done with the fertilized ovum as much as the eggs and even more often with sperm, not eggs at all.

The tech is coming for this too but why try and save all those fertilized eggs?

Do you think you will find the women necessary to bring them all to term?

Why would they want to when they have their own eggs for the most part? Don't you consider this an unnecessary allocation of resources when there are children already alive that still need homes and families?

Every month a healthy woman passes eggs out that are destroyed as a part of menstruation. The only difference between that and the embryo used for harvesting stem cells is a short period of time after fertilization.

The wounding of the embryo at this phase increases the likelihood of some kind of impairment to the child if that fetus was brought to term. It seems to be a serious waste of resources to me and unfair to the children if they were carried forward into the future by this manner. They do not have any memories or experience that is being preserved and would likely be born by mechanical means in the future, not by women.

One ethical problem is that when you remove the cells from the embryo, those removed cells are viable to become an embryo. Ergo, chopping out some cells creates a clone, and altering that clone to become body-part is viewed as immoral.

I don't think this. I just know some people do.

I don't see how it is immoral to save lives. Steam cells hold the possibility of saving so many lives that the government should make researching them legal and give out grants.

I heard last night at the Dem Natl. convention there would be a speech calling for an "Apollo like" project to research steam cells. I think it was the Christopher Reeve Foundation that is giving the speech, but I am not sure.

Ron Reagan Jr. will be speaking at the Democatic National Convention in what he has said will be an educational and "apolitical" presentation on stem cell research. I've seen Mr. Reagan on Hardball a number of times and he is a very articulate man. I think that his appearance at the convention could be huge, especially if the Democrats decided to advance the priority status of stem cell on their platform.

It is my contention that the Republican's have made a major miscalculation on stem cell. First, the millions of individuals, and families of individuals, who could benefit from SC research are probably one of the most passionate voting constituencies you can find in America right now. Second, even many religious people, if properly educated on the issue, have come to support SC research.

I have managed to convince my mother (a VERY religious person) that SC research, if properly conducted, should go forward and be supported by the government. If I can get my mother to support stem cell research despite the "moral dilemmas", then the Republicans are in serious trouble on this issue.

Here's a link with more details about Ron Reagan Jr. and his crusade to open the flood gates for the funding of stem cell research.

USA-TODAY

Segment of transcript from Larry King interview with Ron Reagan Jr.

CALLER: I was just wondering if, Ron, are you going to take a more public stand now with stem cell research if your mother doesn't come out so much in public, will you?

REAGAN: I may well. I may well. It's a very important issue. Some people may not realize how important it is, but this is a huge, huge medical breakthrough.

KING: What do doctors and researchers tell you?

REAGAN: Doctors and researchers, as I said, can't believe we're still having this discussion. This is like not believing Darwinian evolution, or something, which many people in this administration also don't believe in. You know, just by the by. It is so profoundly anti-intellectual and inhumane. I mean, we are talking about cells, undifferentiated cells, in petri dish. No fingers, no toes, no brain, no spinal cord, no feelings, no pain, no nothing. These are just cells. And we're talking about the potential to save real, living human beings. Children with diabetes, for instance.

KING: The feeling is it will lead to this kind of research using the embryonic stem cells, will quickly bring about, will speed up...

REAGAN: Here's the potential for this. Imagine 10 years from now, you have -- something goes wrong with you. You can extract cells from your own body, create embryonic stem cells with those cells, and then reinject those stem cells that are now genetic match to you, so there's no, you know, fussing around with rejection or tissue rejection or anything nothing like that, and repair an internal organ. Repair your heart from the inside out using your own cells. You know, stem cells generated from your own body.

KING: So you can take the Alzheimer's.

REAGAN: Hopefully. Hopefully.

KING: And replace it.

REAGAN: That's possible. Alzheimer's, ironically, may not be the best test case for this sort thing. Heart disease, diabetes, may be better. The brain is such a complex thing. The mechanism of Alzheimer's may not lend itself to embryonic stem cell research. It may, we don't know that.

KING: Muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis.

REAGAN: Parkinson's. The list of things that could be helped by this just goes on and on. And that we are playing politics with this, I'll say it again, is shameful.

"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," he said during a recent interview with Salon. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."

salon.com

I was talking with a woman who protested against stem cell research before. She said using stem cells from aborted fetuses encourages abortion. I do not think anyone alive has a perfectly healthy and wanted pregnancy and then decides, 'Well, this creating a life thing is good... but let's go help stem cell research!'. I told her she was misinformed, but she said I was the one that was misinformed. Pretty unfortunate.

The following is a transcript of a speech by Ron Reagan Jr. at the Democratic National Convention:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

A few of you may be surprised to see someone with my last name showing up to speak at a Democratic convention. Let me assure you, I am not here to make a political speech, and the topic at hand should not -- must not -- have anything to do with partisanship.

I am here tonight to talk about the issue of research into what may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime: the use of embryonic stem cells -- cells created using the material of our own bodies -- to cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries, and much more. Millions are afflicted. Every year, every day, tragedy is visited upon families across the country, around the world.

Now, we may be able to put an end to this suffering. We only need to try. Some of you already know what I'm talking about when I say "embryonic stem cell research." Others of you are probably thinking, hmm, that's quite a mouthful, what is this all about?

Let me try and paint as simple a picture as I can while still doing justice to the incredible science involved. Let's say that ten or so years from now you are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. There is currently no cure and drug therapy, with its attendant side-effects, can only temporarily relieve the symptoms.

Now, imagine going to a doctor who, instead of prescribing drugs, takes a few skin cells from your arm. The nucleus of one of your cells is placed into a donor egg whose own nucleus has been removed. A bit of chemical or electrical stimulation will encourage your cell's nucleus to begin dividing, creating new cells which will then be placed into a tissue culture. Those cells will generate embryonic stem cells containing only your DNA, thereby eliminating the risk of tissue rejection. These stem cells are then driven to become the very neural cells that are defective in Parkinson's patients. And finally, those cells -- with your DNA -- are injected into your brain where they will replace the faulty cells whose failure to produce adequate dopamine led to the Parkinson's disease in the first place.

In other words, you're cured. And another thing, these embryonic stem cells, they could continue to replicate indefinitely and, theoretically, can be induced to recreate virtually any tissue in your body. How'd you like to have your own personal biological repair kit standing by at the hospital? Sound like magic? Welcome to the future of medicine.

By the way, no fetal tissue is involved in this process. No fetuses are created, none destroyed. This all happens in the laboratory at the cellular level.

Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never be implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should be ashamed of themselves. But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it.

But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?

It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings -- that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person-a parent, a spouse, a child.

I know a child -- well, she must be 13 now -- I'd better call her a young woman. She has fingers and toes. She has a mind. She has memories. She has hopes. And she has juvenile diabetes.

Like so many kids with this disease, she has adjusted amazingly well. The insulin pump she wears -- she's decorated hers with rhinestones. She can insert her own catheter needle. She has learned to sleep through the blood drawings in the wee hours of the morning. She's very brave. She is also quite bright and understands full well the progress of her disease and what that might ultimately mean: blindness, amputation, diabetic coma. Every day, she fights to have a future.

What excuse will we offer this young woman should we fail her now? What might we tell her children? Or the millions of others who suffer? That when given an opportunity to help, we turned away? That facing political opposition, we lost our nerve? That even though we knew better, we did nothing?

And, should we fail, how will we feel if, a few years from now, a more enlightened generation should fulfill the promise of embryonic stem cell therapy? Imagine what they would say of us who lacked the will.

No, we owe this young woman and all those who suffer -- we owe ourselves - - better than that. We are better than that. A wiser people, a finer nation. And for all of us in this fight, let me say: we will prevail.

The tide of history is with us. Like all generations who have come before ours, we are motivated by a thirst for knowledge and compelled to see others in need as fellow angels on an often difficult path, deserving of our compassion.

In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter.

Whatever else you do come November 2nd, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research. Thank you for your time.

I do not think anyone alive has a perfectly healthy and wanted pregnancy and then decides, 'Well, this creating a life thing is good... but let's go help stem cell research!'.

Evidently you didn't see the South Park about stem cell research [tung]


Seriously. I can't see any dilemma about stem cell research, moral or otherwise. A fetus at best is equal to a mouse, and I just heard the mousetrap go snap in the kitchen and I’m not getting teary eyed about it.

Unless you are religious and think that a little clump of cells already has a human soul this shouldn't even be the slightest issue. Nor do I see a problem with abortion as a method of birth control (within the first trimester)

A fetus at best is equal to a mouse

Unless you are religious and think that a little clump of cells already has a human soul this shouldn't even be the slightest issue. Nor do I see a problem with abortion as a method of birth control (within the first trimester)

(my emphasis added)

Well, let's be clear what we're talking about here. I don't remember what the exact delineation between a fetus and an embryo is, but a fetus is more than a clump of cells. The embryo is the clump of cells, and short of a religious or (by current scientific understanding) paranormal explanation, that clump of cells could be equated to being "at best equal to a mouse".

However, the word fetus is a loaded term, because until birth (or Ceasarian extraction), a 40 week full-term baby is still a "fetus". Saying that a "fetus at best is equal to a mouse" isn't just going to get the religious mad at you, it's going to get even sensible atheists mad at you. If you find that you have to use the word fetus in regards to destroying a developing, potential future baby, please try to qualify how late in the process you would actually allow such a destruction.

For example, I am religious currently, but even when I was agnostic/atheist, I didn't think that a fetus with a functioning brain, CNS, and ANS should be destroyed. Ironically enough, I haven't really changed my position too much; I still don't have a problem with embryos being destroyed, although now that I am religious, I oppose such action if it is used merely as a primary means of birth control (as opposed to being used as a secondary means, e.g. in conjunction with the pill or condoms, in that 1% or 3% of the time that such birth control fails).

However, even having said that, I admit that that opinion is mostly a socially based one, based on my valuation of other peoples' "poor" life choices. Since I also acknowledge that other people should be allowed to have widely different life choice patterns, I admit that if they don't have a problem with abortion as a primary means of birth control, then I can disagree with them, and at best I can even try to educate them as to why I think they are wrong, but I should NOT try to constrain them to follow my beliefs.

However, the word fetus is a loaded term, because until birth (or Ceasarian extraction), a 40 week full-term baby is still a "fetus". Saying that a "fetus at best is equal to a mouse" isn't just going to get the religious mad at you, it's going to get even sensible atheists mad at you. If you find that you have to use the word fetus in regards to destroying a developing, potential future baby, please try to qualify how late in the process you would actually allow such a destruction.

Alow me to clarify. I was speaking about a fetus within the first trimester. I did mention the first trimester in my post but I suppose that was not clear.

Actually, I believe there's a pretty easy way to avoid the dilemma, although it begs the question (sorry). Fetal stem cells are present in large numbers in fetal umbilical cord blood, and they are very transplantable and very viable, and the newborn patently doesn't need them- they are usually thrown away.

See: http://www.marrow.or...tion_basic.html

This should be no more controversial than any other blood donation.

Speaking as a neurobiologist and a budding bioethicist, there is absolutely no moral dilemma. The justification for it being immoral would be if there was a soul present in the embryo. The only possible rational evidence for a soul is if you correlate it with consciousness. Consciousness absolutely cannot occur without the presence of a nervous system. So from what we know from developmental neurobiology, there is absolutely no moral reason that the use of an embryo for research up to 6 weeks from conception should not be ethical. The religious viewpoint that there is a soul from conception is simply fabricated out of thin air and has no rational basis.

The arguement from the potential of human life standpoint also does not stand up to an ethical analysis, because all human cells can potentially be used to create a new human. Even allowing the idea that only the natural (In Utero) fusion of sperm and egg can create a soul does not change the analysis, because you would essentially have to argue that people should not be allowed control of any decision to procreate, i.e. that people should mate whenever the urge strikes them becuase you dont want lose the potential of human life. This brings you to the ridiculous conclusion that masturbation is a sin because you are destroying potential human life

In sum, there is no moral or ethical argument against stem cell research, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand ethics. What needs to be overcome is gut reaction 'yuck factor' to research being done on human tissue. Human tissue alone is not a human, and shouldn't be considered as such. The threshold for when ethics comes into play is when you are talking about agents with consciousness. Ethics can not apply to things that dont have it.

The religious viewpoint that there is a soul from conception is simply fabricated out of thin air and has no rational basis.

What, a religious concept with a rational basis?

Don't get me wrong, religious concepts can be rational, but they have a divine basis, not a rational one. Therefore, being rational is only the icing on the cake, it's not a necessary property of religious concepts.

And from what I understand of it, some religionists, who know they cannot win on the issue of the rational basis of whether an embryo has a soul before six weeks, resort to using the concept of human potential and whether creating a human life to destroy it is justifiable (e.g. in the debate against therapeutic cloning). Again, irrational when picked apart, but it doesn't need to be rational. It only helps further obfuscate the issue.

Hence, my attempt to frame something which would be permissible under their skewed view of the world, even though technically it's far less humane. At first it was a serious attempt to bridge the gap, but after posting and discussing I realized that it only further points out the immorality and hypocrisy of the religious right's perspective.