Therapeutic Stem Cell, Research Paper Example

It was not long ago that extensive cell research and cloning were only conceivable in science fiction. As the science closes ground quickly on the fiction, no one is laughing now. Rather, it seems that the uncertainty is triggering a panic of sorts within the philosophical, religious, and scientific communities. Scientists specializing in stem cell research are not feared as crazy anymore; they are feared as modern-day scientific geniuses in the mold of fiction’s Doctor Frankenstein.

Stem cell research has been controversial since its conception. (No pun intended.) One of the more outspoken groups opposing any form of stem cell research is called the bio-Luddites, a pro-death group who have frantically contacted every bioethics department possible in recent years to support their allegations that stem cell research should not be done (Dvorsky 1). Some objectors say that it is nothing more than an effort to play God. Clinical testing is likely to lead to more miscarriages. McGee also labels this type of reproduction as repugnant and adds that- as is common with fertilization procedures- the conception of twins is particularly common and puts an undue strain on the survival of both children (McGee 1).

Perhaps that was the reasoning behind the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s [CCST] investigation into the facts at hand, and those facts are that stem cell technology hurts no one. The concerns are based upon fear and religious objections, but my mom always said that “fear keeps you honest”. Critics of stem cell research desire that fear become the prevention of prevention, because a countless number of ill people (and animals used in testing, we might add) could be saved by breakthroughs in medical science. According to John Woodward, speculation puts the smart money on its value being in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and cancer (Woodward 1). Besides the fact concerning the harmlessness of stem cell research, another fun fact is that two of the sixty-seven intellectual authorities who signed the “Rifkin” anti-cloning petition have since had a change of heart- figuratively, of course. If they literally had heart complications, then the Rifkin brigade might have been singing a different tune.

Types of Cloning

Woodward clearly distinguishes between somatic and therapeutic stem cell research [SCNT] (2). He equates even therapeutic and somatic stem cell research as both being contributors to the ole end of the world bit and criticizes both types of research with “efforts to reduce human life and its various parts and processes to the status of mere research tools, manufactured products, and utilities” (Woodward 2). Rather it seems that Woodward uses the topic of stem cell research in general to intrigue science fiction readers and religious traditionalists and to spread his fear of any technology with roots in human life (2). However, any medical progress and technology will be achieved only at the expense of some form of life. Such a doomsday argument places the rights of even the testing animals above the human life that he claims to revere, because medical advances cannot be achieved without risk and fear.

Furthermore, to lump SCNT with somatic research is grossly prejudicial. Somatic stem cell research [SCS] starves DNA cells, removes the nucleus, chemically manipulates the cell receptors, and then implants them within the womb. The Mammalian form of SCS has lower rates of full-term pregnancy and higher rates of birth defect (McGee 2).

Benefits of SCNT

In the 1800’s the use of chloroform during childbirth was considered a religious aberration because it interfered in the natural and religious experience as ordained by the Christian god. It was not long ago that any aggressive form of treatment was seen as a challenge of a supreme God’s will and power over life and death (Konner 1). Still, there are other supporters of stem cell research who believe that if God has power over everything, surely He could smite a little research if so inclined. Generally speaking, there is no religious consensus because- while the methodology employed has come under fire- the underlying intent to save and preserve lives (Zoloth 1).

The depiction of reproductive and therapeutic stem cell research as the same ignores important facts. Therapeutic stem cell research does not alter genes, pose a significant risk to the cell donor, and does not inject any cells into the womb- but does currently receive regular federal monitoring and supervision. The therapeutic research studies the development of diseased and healthy cells- without attempting to take the large and sometimes painful or risky samples typical of anatomical research (Woodward 2).

Rifkin may have been excited about his sixty-seven, now sixty-five signatures opposing stem cell research, but it still pales in comparison to the statement of forty Nobel Laureates that they support SCNT (Woodward 3). The resources of current organ donors are often incompatible with those patients who most need the organs. Stem cell research uses cells from the body for the body, research that is “universally available, replicable and scaleable” to the individual needs and regulations of the country, the hospital, the specific circumstances, etc. Although the death of a limited number of cells is necessary to SCNT, it destroys far fewer healthy cells than would any of the diseases which the research is intended to heal (Zoloth 1).

Criticisms of SCNT

According to Woodward, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that therapeutic cloning “offers great promise for treating diseases…. Closing these avenues of research may have real costs for millions of people who now have these diseases” (Woodward 3). One legitimate concern presented by Rifkin is that embryonic stem cell research is taken from infants when the viable stem cells of consenting adults are also available, especially when the differences in embryonic and adult stem cell research have not been sufficiently proven or disproven (3).

Once again, fear rears its ugly head. One objection to the use of any stem cell research- therapeutic or otherwise- is that successful cloning on any level reduces the mystery, complexity, and unique aspects of human life. The essay “No Threat to the Individual” disagrees: “People who fear that cloning will remove all human individuality are wrong. They assume that a clone will be an exact replica in every way of the being from which its original cell came”. (“No Threat to Individual” 1). In a satirical- but legitimate- response to these concerns about individuality Time Magazine’s Robert Wright calls the majority of the population clones, because any person can have a strong resemblance to a neighbor without sharing any familial ties and also adds that looks do not make the man or woman. Genetic relation is a common basis for the encouragement of interpersonal relationships, but in the nature versus nurture debate, the illustration of separated identical twins illustrates the unalienable influence of nurture in personal development (as cited in “No Threat to Individual” 1).

Another common fear is that the upper classes will clone themselves in a desperate attempt to permanently subjugate the lower classes. Once again, this argument underplays the value of the nurture component in the psychosocial development. If the clone of a ruthless dictator wielding biological weapons (the anti-cloning “Rifkin” brigade should like that example) were to be raised by a proactive, genuinely stable family environment, there is no information to disprove the assumption that he could just as easily be the next Catholic Saint- instead of a ruthless tyrant (“No Threat to Individual” 2).

Freddie Mercury, the vocalist for the music band Queen, once asked “Who wants to live forever?” Although George Dvorsky utilizes this quote to illustrate the demand for such controversial medical innovations in research as SCNT and SCS, being a fan of Queen myself, there is an obligation to recognize the possibility that Mercury was referring to the quality of life, that live-like-you-are-dying mentality.

Although the Bush Administration’s bioethicist, Michael Sandel, generally disapproves of stem cell research and cloning, he does so in the spirit of competition. He says what many of us are thinking: adults will try to exploit their own eugenic agendas. Parents will line up to make their fetus a boy or girl with certain traits, and the spirit of competition will be lost in the reality that, as the film the Incredibles put it, “You don’t have to have powers to be super” (Konner 2). As we discussed earlier, the necessity and individuality of each life has been a surprisingly-forceful discussion of conflict in the consideration of stem cell research.

Summary

The following excerpt was intended as a statement of complete support for SCNT, but it is an accurate account of both the possibilities and drawbacks of therapeutic stem cell research:

[The] main point in scientific research [is that] one idea sparks another, and every time we set out to accomplish a new goal, it leads to countless other findings…. Think about the first time we put a man on the moon. True, the actual event probably didn’t benefit you directly. But you needn’t look any farther than your own car to find extralight, extrasafe metals that are just one of the everyday benefits derived from NASA’s research. Likewise, pursuing the study of human cloning may spin off … [breakthroughs] as yet undreamed of (“No Threat to Individual” 2).

The philosophical questions of what can be done, what should be done, and what is possible are ageless. My guess is that the debate over therapeutic stem cell research will never be over. Even if some great health risk or negative social implication is discovered in the future, there will be supporters doing the research with or without government approval and regulations. Thus it is advisable to consider its banning negligent. These supporters represent a population who ironically revere the individuality that they are criticized for destroying; they offer hope- the hope that each person is so loved that unnecessary death due to disease will be fought.

Works Cited

“No Threat to the Individual”. Gale, Cengage Learning, EJ3010089240.

Dvorsky, George (2004) “Bio-Luddite Nation,” Retrieved July 12, 2010 from <http://www.longevitymeme.org>

McGee, Glenn. (n.d.) University of Pennslyvania. Center for Bioethics. Retrieved from <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tab            ID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010028219&source=gale&userGroupName=buffalostate&version=1.0>.

Konner, Melvin (2007). “Our Bodies, Our Choices,” American Prospect, vol. 18, May 2007,        pp. 37-41. The American Prospect, Boston, MA.

Woodward, John. 2005. “Therapeutic Cloning Can Save Lives.”At Issue: The Ethics of Human Cloning.  Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. College at Buffalo.   13 July 2010.

Zoloth, Laurie. U.S. Senate testimony, Washington, D.C. 29 Sept. 2004.