What's New in Life Science Research is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them Those of you who know me from my own blog will know that I look at ethical issues in the practice of science and in the overlap between the tribe of science and the larger society in which scientists are imbedded. There are some scientific research projects that seem so esoteric, so far removed from practical issues about which non-scientists care, that the public can't seem to muster enthusiasm, interest, or even awareness.
And then there's stem cell research.
Stem cell research commands the attention of non-scientists, partly owing to its potential for delivering cures to diseases that are currently incurable, and partly owing to the fact that human embryos seem the best source of stem cells with which to develop these cures. In considering stem cell research, people simultaneously gaze at their own mortality (and the prospects for holding death at bay) and at their beginnings as humans, at what science might change and at what might be fundamental to our being. Scientists doing stem cell research will be aware of the larger society and its interests in a big way -- especially given that these interests may manifest themselves in regulations about what kinds of research can be funded with public money, and even what kinds of research can be conducted legally.
Given that there are so many ethical questions we could take up here, I want to identify some distinct questions that sometimes get tangled. As well, I want to note some questions that are beyond the scope of our discussion here -- questions which I want to set aside because I don't think we can resolve them during the run of What's New in Life Science Research, and which I think might draw our attention away from issues where we can make progress.
Ethical issues on the table:
- Is it ethical to do embryonic stem cell research? (What kinds of considerations should inform our answer to this question?)
- Is it ethical to direct public funding to support embryonic stem cell research? (What kinds of considerations should inform our answer to this question?)
- Are the ethical issues raised by embryonic stem cell research new ones, or have scientists already encountered them in other sorts of research?
- Given a diverse population whose members are not in total agreement about the ethical status of human embryos (for example), what kind of basis is there for making a decision about where "society" stands on these issues? (How, if at all, should individual scientists be bound by the ethical positions of others in society?)
Issues I don't see us resolving here (and which I will thus argue we should set aside):
- Does life (or personhood) begin at conception?
- Is abortion wrong?
- Should people have the freedom to do whatever they want with their bodies (including the choice to sell body parts)?
- Are free markets always right?
Some of the issues I'm setting aside may at first blush seem unrelated to stem cell research. Trust me, they all rear their heads at some point or other in these discussions, and often they present a chasm where dialogue stops because common ground has fallen away.
Indeed, the very possibility of finding common ground strikes me as a central question for scientists, non-scientists, policy makers, and members of society at large trying to get a handle on stem cell research. At this moment, there is not consensus about whether it's ethically permissible to use human embryos in stem cell research. Given a pluralistic society with members whose moral intuitions vary, what should happen?
Should everyone simply follow her own conscience? That's not what we do with research on human subjects or animals, nor with reporting potential conflicts of interest, not with disposing of hazardous waste. That scientific research (and medical practice, and commerce, etc.) is subject to regulations suggests that we have important shared interests in play.
Should we be bound by the view of the majority? (Who gets to write the questions to determine that majority view? Will it be determined via surveys, focus groups, ballots in special elections?) Should we be bound by the most cautious views within the population? The most permissive ones? And what do we do about the fact that there's not even consensus on the basic strategies by which we should make ethical decisions?
Given the size of the population of the U.S., I'm not waiting up nights for consensus. I think we're more likely to find something like common ground. And to find it, non-scientists and scientists alike will need to examine what stem cell research might deliver, and what it might cost us to realize this promise, who will benefit from the knowledge stem cell research could produce, and who will bear the costs involved in producing the knowledge.
In my next post, I'll say more about the ethical issues at stake in whether embryonic stem cell research is conducted, how it is supported, and how the knowledge produced by such research is used. In the meantime, if there are other ethical issues around stem cells you'd like to talk about, let us know in the comments.
Humanities & Social Science
Medicine & Health
Comments
In my opinion, there is absolutely no way to make any headway whatsoever on your "on the table" issue #1 without addressing--at a minimum--your "off the table" issue #1.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | November 28, 2008 4:51 PM
I'd like to notice that when mass media talk about ethic of stem cell research they almost always forgot to add "embryonic", because research of "adult" stem cell have no ethical issues. But more then 50% of stem cell research is "adult".
Because mass media forgot to add that, public automatically consider "SC research" = "embryonic SC research". Thus for some public "SC research" is "destroying of life" and unethical.
Nevertheless all of recent public surveys shows that most people support "stem cell research" and support donation of unwanted oocytes for it. I'm not even talking about scientific audience where pretty much all of them supporters and where number of religiously affected people much less.
Posted by: Alexey Bersenev | November 28, 2008 6:25 PM
Ahh, my topic of research. I love it. Here are my answers:
Yes. Major considerations should be how far embryonic experiments are carried out however. An embryoid body may be ok - growing the cells in a disorganized fashion - but growing embryos in animal hosts or otherwise creating something even resembling a human would need a much higher level of scrutiny.
Unquestionably. Every other country in the world is ahead of us on this one, and the absence of a governmental finger in the pie means that they lose control over the ethical use of the cells rather than gain it. Instead you have an ethics free zone for whoever has private funding. Government funding would create constraints that would likely become the standard code of conduct for using the technology.
Not new. See research on tissues from aborted fetuses which have been approved for decades (and were once thought to be a source of stem cells for therapeutic use).
They should be bound by government regulation as a proxy for the will of the people. People can vote for or against representatives based on their positions on science as a political issue. Government funding will decide the ethical status of the cells and what constitutes ethical experimentation. The government will have the NIH convene an ethics panel, present recommendations to congress, have them adopted etc. I think there is precedent for this (the fetal tissues). Further, this means that the objection can't be purely religious, as the government (ideally) shouldn't be legislating the religious beliefs of the public.No. This isn't a matter of opinion but one of fact. Life doesn't begin. It is a continuum. No part of reproduction involves dead cells or non-living cells. Sperm are living. Eggs are living. Embryo is living. The real question is when do we care? We, for the most part, don't believe every sperm is sacred. Nor are eggs in short supply being wasted on average monthly for several decades. Personhood is a better way of putting it, but of course more subjective. Creeps like Singer have placed personhood well after an infant is born advocating infanticide up to a year of age. The Catholic church I think has gone to the opposite extreme opposing contraception and shifting ensoulment from the quickening (~20 weeks) to conception - an equally meaningless and arbitrary distinction. Some cultures didn't consider children to be people until age 7 - the age of reason. Jewish law from the Old Testament distinguished between unborn life and born life. An infant killed would result in death. A mother injured into miscarriage resulted in a fine. Others have suggested the date of birth as being the defining moment, as before then the issue is subject to the discretion and control of someone who is unquestionably a person - the mother.
I think we've empirically determined this to be "no". And countries in which abortion is strictly forbidden - eg. El Salvador, other central American countries - this policy has become very unpopular with the number of deaths of women from ectopic pregnancy and underground abortions. It seems unlikely we will return to such a state, and it appears, if anything given the recent changes in law in Mexico and Columbia, the trend is in the other direction. No. The law is quite clear on this and has been for good reason. We don't own our body parts and can not sell them. The market that would be created by such a system would result in much human misery and awfulness. It already does on the blackmarket trade in organs. This is an easy one. Almost never. The "invisible hand" of the free market is attached to a retarded monkey as the recent travails of deregulation have shown us. Free markets have no morals, and there are situations in which what is moral will conflict with the market solution. Also markets have winners and losers, and there are many situations in which having losers will not be tolerated. Hence social safety nets. People won't chose to starve, or die without healthcare. They'll rob, steal, or even kill to survive. Ask Marie Antoinette. And it's only fair that we extend such safety nets to people when it comes to food, medical care, and a warm place to sleep because it looks like we have no qualms about extending it to Citi.Posted by: MarkH | November 29, 2008 11:32 AM
to MarkH -
"See research on tissues from aborted fetuses which have been approved for decades (and were once thought to be a source of stem cells for therapeutic use)".
Do you know the current status of US legislation according using aborted fetuses for research and therapies? If so can you give a link to the law? Anything about it under government control in other countries?
I think answers to all questions asked by author will depend on audience for which questions were asked. What is audience of this blog? Scientists? IT guys? plumbers? housewifes???
I guess most of readers are scientists, so Mark express their opinion, I'd agree
Posted by: Alexey Bersenev | November 29, 2008 2:11 PM
The same answer to an old question - when is it right to kill? When the one killed is a real danger to the life of someone else. And then only kill if there's no other way to preserve life.
The laws of El Salvador ignore the real danger to life from an ectopic pregnancy. The laws of the US (and destruction of embryos for research, whether "left over" ivf embryos or from the embryos that would be and are created anew from donated or purchased oocytes) allow human beings to be killed when there is no danger to life.
Posted by: B Nuckols | December 1, 2008 12:31 AM