Stem Cells

Originally posted as part of a presentation to Honors Seminar at Southern Wesleyan University, Jan 20, 2004.

I once tried to keep up with the news on this topic, but have revised this page, in an attempt to thoroughly cover the issues, as well as linking to the basic science involved. This is the version of April 26, 2008.

Here's a news source , that seems to be kept up-to-date.

The author of this page is responsible for the contents of web pages that this document links to. The links are provided because, in the opinion of the author, they provide information useful in seeking knowledge about the subject matter of this page. He does not necessarily agree with opinions expressed on other pages, and they may not agree with each other. Some pages you may go to via the links on this page may have ads that are offensive.

Table of contents

What are stem cells, and what do they do?

A little background in ethics

Ethical issues in stem cell research

President Bush's decision

Links

What are stem cells, and what do they do?

Stem Cell Basics, from the National Institutes of Health

Stem Cells - Key Text, from the Australian National Stem Cell Centre

International Society for Stem Cell Research Frequently Asked Questions page

Human Stem Cell Research: All Viewpoints, from ReligiousTolerance.org. See their background information page.

Wikipedia article on stem cells (The Wikipedia is a free on-line encyclopedia, written by anonymous volunteers, and reviewed and re-written by such volunteers. The concept has been subject to criticism. One such criticism is that authors should be recognized authorities, and the current system does not guarantee that. My personal experience is that the Wikipedia generally gives good introductions to ideas and concepts, and is generally factually correct. It also has provision for disputation of the accuracy of an article, which, so far as I am aware, no other encyclopedia provides. I have not relied exclusively on the Wikipedia for any one topic.)

NOVA ScienceNow page on stem cells, from PBS

Some background in ethics

What is ethics, and what is the basis for ethics? (an Ethics Updates main page, from a UCSD professor, links to pages introducing various ethical theories)
Here are three foundations for a system of ethics (there are certainly more than that, but we have to stop somewhere):
utilitarianism/consequentialism asks "What are the total consequences?"
What are the problems with this approach? Can a Christian be a consequentialist? Can a Christian act regardless of foreseeable consequences? Would your church accept a large donation from, say, the estate of the owner of a gambling establishment who had never attended church, nor made a profession of faith? Should it?
(Go here for an introduction to utilitarianism, here for the Wikipedia article on consequentialism, or here for the Wikipedia article on utilitarianism)

deontologism asks "Are there things which are my duty to do (or not do) regardless of the consequences?"
What are the problems with this approach? Can a Christian be a deontologist? Can a Christian not take duty into account, and consider only the probable consequences?"
Go here for an introduction to deontology. The introduction was written for law students, but is broadly applicable. Here is the Wikipedia article on deontology. (I am including Divine Command Theories under deontologism, which is a simplification.)

Principle-based ethics asks "Are there principles which I can use to guide my actions?"
One widely-used set of such principles is:
Autonomy - I should act so as to preserve the freedom to make decisions, for myself and others
Nonmaleficence - I should avoid doing harm to others whenever possible
Beneficence - I should do good to others whenever possible
Justice - I should treat people fairly, and give them what they deserve
What are the problems with this approach? Does this set of principles put too much emphasis on autonomy? Does our society?
Can a Christian take one or more principles, and use them as the main guide for making ethical decisions? Must a Christian do so? Are these principles suitable for guiding Christian ethical life? Is The Golden Rule ("So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12, NIV) or are the Ten Commandments, principles that can be used in this way?
(Go here for an expansion of the above, with criticism, and here for another example of criticism of this position)

Slippery Slopes
One aspect of making choices is that there is a danger that, having made one choice, you will choose to do something more dangerous or ethically questionable, because you have made the first choice. For example, if we allow the use of discarded embryos from fertility clinics for stem cell research, it is possible that the next step might be to use such discarded embryos for experiments in cloning. If cloning is less ethically acceptable, then we have moved down a slippery slope. (Not everybody believes that ethical slippery slopes exist. If they do, there may be more than one kind of slippery slope, but that's beyond the scope of this web page. For an in-depth treatment, go here and here.)

Ethical issues in stem cell research

you may want to see What Are Some Issues in Stem Cell Research? (Univ. of Utah)

From the above source, and others, here are some of the ethical issues:
1) Is an early embryo the moral equivalent of a newborn (or later) human? (See my discussion of Exodus 21:22-23. There is some scriptural indication that an embryo might not be the moral equivalent of a newborn.)

2) If the answer to the question above is "yes," does that mean that all research on embryonic stem cells should be stopped? If the answer is "no," does that mean that all research on embryonic stem cells ethically acceptable?

3) Are there any ethical reasons not to do research on adult stem cells? If stem cell research has the potential to help people with serious medical problems, is it ethical to regulate or prohibit such research? Does James 4:17 apply here? ("Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." - NIV)

4) Two ways to produce embryonic stem cells that do not depend on abortion:
= using embryos prepared by fertility clinics for possible implantation, but not used for that purpose
= in vitro (in glassware, outside a body) fertilization for the express purpose of producing embryos for research purposes. Are either or both of these ethically acceptable?
There is a third way, potentially. It is possible to make mouse stem cells develop into sperm, and eggs. (See below) If this is possible in humans, it might mean that it is possible to produce an embryo from combining sperm and eggs produced in this way. Then, such an embryo could be used to produce embryonic stem cells. Would this be any different from in vitro fertilization for the express purpose of research?

5) One possible use of stem cells is the following. Suppose you had an inherited disease. It would probably be possible to take an unrelated human fertilized egg, however obtained, and replace its nucleus with one taken from one of your cells, then allow it to develop into an embryo. Then, a scientist could harvest stem cells from this embryo, and "fix" the genetic problem, then use such repaired cells to produce tissues (blood, for instance) to replace yours. Since they would be almost identical to your cells, you should be able to tolerate them as a graft. (see article by ABC News for diagram and example) Would this be ethical? Some of this, as of February 12, 2004, has been done, using humans.

6) What is the motivation for doing research on stem cells? An article posted by the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity claims that the motivation is actually a search for immortality.

7) Is research into embryonic stem cells wise use of resources?

8) Was President George W. Bush's decision to allow use of pre-existing stem cells morally defensible? (See also next section)
President Clinton produced regulations allowing some stem cell research. His regulations had these restrictions, according to this article (Wired, August 23, 2000): ". . . the new guidelines will insist that federal research be conducted only on cells taken from frozen embryos that were destined to be discarded anyway, and that no federal money is used for the destruction of embryos to get the cells."
Presidents can only issue regulations for research supported by federal funds. Congress can enact legislation making certain types of research legal or illegal, even if supported otherwise. Bush's regulations superseded Clinton's. So far as I am aware, no previous president regulated stem cell research, as it is a recent development.

9) Is the (sometimes deliberate) confusion on this issue moral? That is, when one "side" minimizes the benefits of research using embryonic stem cells, or exaggerates the benefits of research using adult stem cells, or the other "side" exaggerates in the opposite direction, is that right? (In the opinion of the author, all combinations of such exaggerations, perhaps deliberate, were undertaken related to the 2004 US election.)

Arthur Caplan, one of the nation's most prominent medical ethicists, has taken the Bush administration to task over the morals of their view on embryonic stem cell research.

Joe Carter has produced an extensive blog post on the issues involved in therapeutic cloning.