What if we could put an end to the stem cell debate once and for all?
Stem cells have an almost god-like power: the ability to transform into any type of cell in the human body. As such, they can be used to cure diseases, regenerate organs, and generally improve the lives of millions of sick people. Up until a few years ago, however, the only viable way to obtain stem cells was to destroy a human embryo. This unfortunate predicament led to countless debates on the proper balance between protecting the rights of the unborn and offering potentially life-saving treatment to those in need.
But in 2007, scientists developed a technique by which regular human skin cells can be genetically modified and transformed into stem cells. These stem cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), can differentiate into any type of cell in the same way that embryonic stem cells can, while completely sidestepping the ethical debate surrounding the destruction of fertilized eggs.
When I first heard about this discovery about a year ago, I was elated, thinking that the debate was over and that the process of further research, discovery, and development of treatments could finally proceed unhindered. But, as a recent article in Scientific American explains, a whole host of other issues surrounding induced pluripotent stem cells have arisen and taken hold of the bioethical community. If they can be used to create new organs, how about using them to create new gametes? This gives people of any age the opportunity to have children, but is that ethical? What about creating gametes from dead people? And cloning? The list goes on and on.
The Scientific American article focuses most of its energy on fretting about all the ways in which iPS cells could potentially be used for nefarious and questionably ethical purposes, while failing to stress the crucial point that iPS cells completely resolve the ethical debate over the destruction of human embryos. Many other things in life, including medicine, knives, and water, can cause terrible consequences if misused, but this does not mean that, for example, we should buy so much into the hype about the dangers of overdosing that we decide never to take Tylenol again. As with anything potentially dangerous, we should protect ourselves from and restrict its misuses, while not denying ourselves the benefits it provides when used properly.
As for induced pluripotent stem cells, the fact that they can be used toward questionable ends should not cloud our assessment of their promise and should not stop us in any way from using them to cure diseases and regenerate organs. We have resolved the major ethical debate surrounding stem cells; let us not get sucked into another one and forget what we are trying to accomplish in the first place.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=undifferentiatied-ethics
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8370692532177471184&hl=en#
2 comments:
I agree – the ethicality of iPS cells need not be debated at the current time. There are still many problems associated with therapeutic use of any form of stem cells – this is why stem cell treatments are not prescribed yet. Indeed, perhaps gametes of the deceased can be made. Indeed, human cloning may arise. It is no surprise that there are futuristic and theoretical ideas being bandied about.
But since when has ethics – a discipline concerned with the reality and effects of choice – concern itself with procedures that have not even been proven to work? If the ethics of the research itself is not questioned, why limit it? We cannot even selectively differentiate any form of stem cells into specialized cells. Even the more specific Adult Stem Cells cannot be specifically induced into any cell lineage. We simply do not have enough knowledge to accomplish many of the futuristic debated issues such as human cloning from any sort of stem cells.
Organs are highly structured orientations of various cells playing highly interlocked and often quite misunderstood roles. Perhaps decades from now organs could be “grown,” but this should be given the exact same treatment as other futuristic technologies – tabling the ethical issues of application until treatments are harnessed in fact and not just hopeful theory.
Questioning the ethics of a nonexistent procedure is unproductive – the debate will have no resolution to moderate uses of a treatment. Rather, it will limit research of the treatment (which may lead to other ‘ethical’ discoveries and treatments). Even if the original debate was deemed unethical after its study, it at least has the potential to produce subordinate fields that are ethical.
Post a Comment