In Britain, they have recently created human-cow embryos using cow egg cells. They claim that their aim is not to make human-cow hybrids but to use such embryos for stem cells. This is part of the bigger goal of creating organs as part of the booming field of regenerative medicine. We don't, however, know what these human-cow embryos really could amount to. Based upon biological predictions, successful animal-human embryos of this sort could not be made but it has not been entirely investigated.
Scientists who advocate the fertilization of cow egg cells with human DNA do so for two reasons: one being that we must save human egg cells. Such cells are "precious" and have been destroyed too often in the process of research. Another reason is that they believe that the negative stigma surrounding the debate of stem cells lies mostly in the fact that human stem cells are being used. Arthur Caplan is quoted in the article (big surprise) as saying that he "sees no risk in making 'monsters' [aka human-cow embryos] this way."
Numerous complications can be seen with this method. Is it really true that all of the negative connotations associated with embryos used for stem cells would just disappear? Afterall, the embryo is still part human. It is unlikely in the highly controversial subject of stem cells that negative attitudes would dissipate. The ethical controversies of stem cell research are complex and therefore cannot be solved using a simple solution, such as removing the human egg cell component. In addition, it is likely that more ethical issues will be created in using animal and human embryos. Animal rights activists may have something to say about animal DNA being used for the production of stem cells. Others may simply fear the combination because it is "unnatural."
The question remains: should this type of experimentation be allowed even though we do not know the outcomes? Will it help solve the need for stem cells by eliminating some of the controversial aspects (such as destroying a potential human fetus)? Or instead, will more ethical issues arise?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080402/sc_nm/cloning_cows_dc;_ylt=Ag0w0E0eYSI3G2F6JJBOy2eJhMgF
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Although using human-cow embryos to create stem cells does not necessarily guarantee that the "negative connotations associated with embryos used for stem cells would just disappear," I think you quickly discredit the view that human-cow embryos could reduce the negative connotations. I think that that most people's moral aversion to stem cell research revolves around the issue of the fetus, whether it is considered living, whether it has any rights, etc. A human-cow embryo, however, can potentially circumvent all of these issues. After all, many more people morally accept animal experimentation when compared to human experimentation.
But what is the human-cow embryo? Sure, it contains the genetic identity of both a human and a cow, but does that mean people should experience the same moral aversion as if it were entirely human? I think this question raises the issue as to what it means to be human. Many will argue that our consciousness, our intelligence, our spirituality, etc. make us human. If we were to adopt these standards, the human-cow embryo would surely not even remotely count as human. In order to avoid defining a human by such characteristics, we can try to define a human biologically by DNA of Homo sapien. Such an argument may progress that because the human-cow embryo has half human genes, it is part human and thus people should rightfully experience moral aversion. But should such an argument carry such weight? Any weight? As Lee Silver has questioned, if one were to put human DNA into a single organism like a bacterium, for example, would that organism be considered human? Would a graft of human tissue growing on a petri dish satisfy the condition of being human? Most people would agree that such specimen would not be human. By extending this logic, most people should also view the human-cow embryo as not human. Despite this “proof” (if you will), I admit that people may still experience moral aversion to the human-cow embryo, but then the question arises under what basis should such feelings persist?
I think the problem many would have with this type of research is that it is highly unnatural, a complaint which Peter Singer reminds us is little more than ‘Yuck!’. These complaints and religious objections aside, the ethics of this experiment must be judged objectively. While humans have been experimenting with/on animals for centuries, the novel aspect about this case is that we would be essentially “creating” a new species for the sake of research – this, I think, is the underlying problem here, and would potentially raise a new field of ethical questions.
Although it is hard to predict what future technological advances will bring, in this case I think the potential benefits of stem cell therapy justify the pursuit of these experiments – stem cell therapy offers benefits comparable to that of genetic therapy, but the use of human embryos is the biggest hindrance to their advancement. If stem cell therapy could use say, cow embryos instead of human embryos, I think the moral objections many have to it would quickly disappear, although that is mostly speculation on my part. So, if the technology were available, what would be the objection to going one step further and “creating” these embryos for stem cell therapy?
I agree with Adam that the creation of cow-human hybrids may reduce the “personhood” of the subject and thereby reduce some of the moral aversion towards stem cell research. However, the creation of these hybrids may raise more problems than it solves. The use of bovine eggs rather than human eggs naturally leads to calling the resulting embryo a “cow-human hybrid.” However, this name is quite misleading, because the resulting hybrid is 99.9% human an only 0.1% cow (Hawkes). Merely due to the 0.1% non-human portion of the embryo, the scientists claim that using the hybrids steps outside of the legal ban set by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Does the 0.1% bovine genotype enough to render a fetus non-human? Does this cow-human hybrid have the potential to grow up to have the mental capacities of a normal human? What was uncertain about embryo’s personhood before this new development becomes even more uncertain with the cow-human hybrid. I argue that it is morally wrong to try to obscure the facts of the case or scaffold the truths in order to half deceive the public into letting down their aversion toward stem cell research. What we ought to do in order to eliminate the ethical question is to clarify the question of personhood of the embryo, not add more confounding elements.
Perhaps, what is at the foundation of the moral qualms against the use of cow-human hybrids is how uncertainty ought to influence our actions. Imagine a similar situation in an every-day different scenario: when one meets another for the first time, one is naturally more reserved in what he/she decides to say to the stranger (compared to something one would say to a good friend). This is because the stranger’s reactions and tolerance level is yet uncertain. Thus, as our everyday interactions show, uncertainty ought to be enough to prevent the action regardless of how it actually affects the individual. The fact that we are uncertain whether embryos are persons or not (and therefore can feel pain just like us) ought to be enough to prevent us from using them as subjects for stem-cell research.
Source:
Hawkes, Nigel. "Human-cow hybrid embryo planned." TimesOnlilne 07 Nov 2006 07 Apr 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article627853.ece.
Post a Comment