Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Research Question: Is it possible to protect the strict boundaries inherent in "the sanctity of life"
and still harvest these cells to help the living among us?
"Those who support a total ban on embryonic stem cell research sometimes talk as
if theirs are the only views based on moral principle. But whatever else might be
said in response to their arguments, there is another moral ideal that is often lost in
...These democratic processes deserve protection from those, both inside and
outside parliament, who would seek to subvert them. And taking the value of
matter how deeply they are held." (Oakley, 2002, pg. 228)
Interpretation of Fact 1:
To respect the sanctity of democracy, which is also based on moral principle, it is sometimes
necessary to put one's own personal beliefs aside. Those that are elected to government, are done
so in a democratic fashion, we therefore hope that the protection of democracy is something that
Fact 2:
"In the process of pursuing the elusive stem cell and its promise of universal healing,
we stand to gain important insight into the nature of human life itself. Along with our
regenerative capacity. Our bodies have long lost the forethought of indefinite growth
possessed by the sequoia or the carp. Unlike starfish or newts, we can no longer
replace lost limbs. And as we grow older, our own aging populations of stem cells
cannot keep up with our failing bodies. We have paid a heavy price for our high
overcome them. The Promethean prospect of eternal regeneration awaits us, while
Interpretation of Fact 2:
Stem cell research promises not only scientific and medical discoveries, but an insight into
human life. As humanity has evolved, we've lost the primitive ability to quickly and effectively
self regenerate. As we continue to evolve, the current ability of stem cells may also be lost.
Being at the top of the evolutionary pyramid has cost humanity an irreplaceable loss whose
Fact 3:
"A distinction between deriving and using derivatives, when expressed by reference
to the embryo rather than the investigator, is a distinction between killing and using
Interpretation of Fact 3:
Is there a difference between creating a human embryo for research purposes or using the
"The science of human embryonic stem cells is in its infancy, and the current
policies threaten to starve the field at a critical stage." (Daley, 2004, pg. 627)
Interpretation of Fact 4:
This is an ironic metaphor. "Stem cell research" can be viewed as the "embryo" that is being
debated and the current "legislation and policies" viewed as the "researchers and scientists" that
destroy the preciously fragile. Both, stem cell research and the embryo are being prevented from
Fact 5:
"Indeed, one could argue that governmental intervention in the scientific process
may have been complicit in motivating Hwang to publish prematurely. And in the
research have enabled a few well-funded investigators, such as Hwang, to fill the
Interpretation of Fact 5:
The fraud that occurred in South Korea has made the public realize that embryonic stem cell
research is not just a new branch of science, but also an untapped market potential. By claiming
to legacies of knowledge.
Fact 6:
"Deriving new cell lines by means of SCNT will require recruiting women to
donate oocytes, which have rarely been solicited for research purposes in this
Interpretation of Fact 6:
The reality is that to make an embryo, whether in the hopes of accomplishing a viable pregnancy,
or for the purpose of extracting it's genetic material, women are needed. This branch of science
would not exist without the web-weavers of life. Despite Women's equality movement, women
still remain the most socially vulnerable when it comes to workplace compensation. The fear is
that financially vulnerable women may resort to egg donation, which has serious risks associated
Fact 7:
"Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, would
create the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which would allocate,
the approach of the NIH. Up to 10 percent of the funds would be awarded rapidly
development of scientific and medical research facilities where the research could
composed of ethicists and scientific and clinical experts, would establish rigorous
Interpretation of Fact 7:
Due to legislation prohibiting NIH grants from funding Stem-Cell research on lines created after
2001, a coalition of citizens, scientists, and businesspeople put before the state of California a
proposition to establish a bond measure to provide state funds for human embryonic stem-cell
research at California's public and private academic research institutions. The granting of funds
would be done by a board of ethicists, scientific and clinical experts through a competitive peer
reviewed process.
Fact 8:
"The quality of the research is at issue as well. Brody worries that smaller states
won't be able to replicate rigorous grant peer review. Weissman is most concerned
that the considerable monies available could lead to the wasting of funding on sub-
par research. He advocates carrying the money forward until it can be well spent,
perhaps on expensive clinical trials that are years away." (Guenin, 2005, p. 07)
Interpretation of Fact 8:
Size is quality. Smaller states may waste allocated funds on inferior quality research, due to the
inability of appropriately determining grant merit. The suggestion is to hold the funds until a
Fact 9:
"But even if all problems were overcome, would SCNT stem cells ever be a realistic
clinical option? Probably only for the very rich. Any such personalized treatment
will always remain labour intensive, and hence expensive." (McLaren, 2001, 131)
Interpretation of Fact 9:
The potential of stem-cell treatments could be endless. It could be the new "antibiotic" to cure
an endless list of afflictions plaguing humanity. However, like with the release of all new
technology, whether it's the introduction of CD burners in the 90's, or the holy grail of humanity
that stem-cell promises to be, they are usually accompanied by a price tag that is dismissed only
by the wealthy.
Fact 10:
"We really don't know what will ultimately come out of research on embryonic stem
cells. It is important to play down promises to the public that the work will produce
anything of clinical value in the foreseeable future. We simply don't know how an
embryonic stem cell will behave in a human, and we don't know whether human
important, we don't yet know whether research on embryonic stem cells will teach
circumventing the need for embryonic cells." (Schwarts, 2006, pg. 1189)
Stem cell research is such a new science, that perhaps it has been given more credit than it
deserves. Many terminally ill patients see the promise of stem cells as the only life saving
disappointing to many. But the reality is that much is still unknown. Scientists cannot even
guarantee that embryonic stem cells from humans are more valuable than other stem cells.
Conclusion:
Democracy is a form of protection. The populations of democratic countries are secure in the
knowledge that important decisions will not be made on an individual basis, but will follow the
rules of debate, consideration and approval set up by that country. The ideals of democracy are
so cherished that wars have been waged and lives have been lost and sacrificed over it. An
imposition of ones personal beliefs and values, now matter how well intentioned, is a disregard
the Dark Ages, when religion ruled through ignorance and fear. The Renaissance was not only a
rebirth of society, but the enlightenment of discovery. It was the beginning of the end of
Religion's vision of world domination. With enlightenment and discovery came education, and
the desire to enquire about the unknown, not fear it. The impoverished began to realize they
were the majority. As the centuries rolled forward, wars continued, however, they began to take
on a different tone. Blood was being spilled for democracy. It was after all, mostly the blood of
the impoverished. Why not spill it for something that you believe in?
Democracy became the foundation of balancing society. The rich would still continue to be rich,
however, they would not be able to impose their beliefs on the poor. Even religion, whether it is
The laws of evolution state that as humanity advances, we are constantly trying to better and
ameliorate our standard of living. The quest for evolution has become so tunnel-vision that we
are almost indifferent to the consequences of our actions, and ignorantly claiming each advance
as a victory. We have failed to acknowledge that humanities evolutionary quest has resulted in
many interspeciary casualties, ranging from humans to microscopic life forms. We see the
prolonging of life as a medical advancement, and fail to recognize that death is an unavoidable
link in the chain of life. Stem cells hold much promise, but at what price?
In 1995, a piece of federal legislation passed by United States Congress, and signed by former
president Bill Clinton prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from using
appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in
which human embryos are destroyed. The legislation, known as the Dickey Amendment, does
not provide a clause, or a prohibition against using the remains of embryos. The argument is that
researchers are not deriving (facilitating, or creating the creation or death of an embryo), but
merely using available derivatives (perhaps supplied by countries with no current legislation
against the creation and destruction of human embryos). Since the material being used has
already been killed, by no actions of the researchers, they should not be discriminated against in
regards to funding.
On August 9, 2001, American president George W. Bush, announced that research on human
embryonic stem cells created before that date would be supported by federal dollars; research on
lines created later would not. Since that announcement, there has been the creation of an
additional 128 lines from embryos carrying genetic diseases such as neurofibromatosis type 1,
Marfan's syndrome, the fragile X syndrome, myotonic dystrophy, and Fanconi's anemia.
Research on these novel lines can still go forward, however must do so without grant support
from the National Institutes of Health. The options that remain are to find funding from private
foundations or philanthropic sources. The private sources are under no obligation to direct
What happens when health care research is turned over to private sources? It is no longer about
treating the sick, it becomes about stocks and trade prices, balancing the cost of production,
which in the case of stem cells includes research, and the race to be the first to claim
“ownership” on a discovery. Health care then becomes a game. And like in all games, there are
In 2004, the laboratory of Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul National University in South Korea
announced that it had created embryonic stem cells that were genetically identical to the affected
patient, without having to fertilize the oocyte. This claim was more a technological than a
biological advance, and would permit the capability of generating lines that are immunologically
and genetically matched to patients who could then receive stem-cell transplants and of making
stem-cell lines for research that faithfully model human diseases. Within six months of this
publication, independent research concluded that Hwang’s claims were false. Speculations were
that the South Korean government was so eager to claim rights on discovery of this technology,
As in all games, there are winners, and there are losers. In the South Korean example, it became
evident that the biggest losers were actually victims of coercion, and an ethical lapse of
confidentiality. It was later discovered that the lab not only used oocytes that were donated from
willing women, but also used those of members of the research team, which was not done under
voluntary circumstances. The procedure of oocyte is one that is not without danger.
In some countries, women egg donors are paid anywhere from $5000 to $25,000 per cycle. This
financial incentive may influence women to accept unnecessary risk. The most serious risk
being ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome which can be a result of the daily dose of recombinant
follicles. An ultrasound guided needle is inserted through the vagina, and the eggs extracted.
A twisted perspective, however one that cannot be ignored, is that from biblical times to present
day, men have been asking women to lay on their backs, either for their own gratification, or for
their scientific egos. Women can always count on employment in the oldest profession known to
prostitutes only require them to have female sex organs, and be physically desirable to them, at
that moment. The scientific customers only require donors to have female sex organs, and be of
desirable age.
Due to governments position and fears associated with embracing stem-cell research, it has left
the door wide open for independent groups to sink their talons into the delicate flesh of this new
science. With non-governmental groups directing the path of stem-cell research, there is no
promise of democracy, or even the guarantee that decisions will be made for the greater good.
It’s quite fearful to think that pharmaceutical industries sponsoring and financing this research
are capable of obscuring and hiding new discoveries that could potentially eradicate plaguing
diseases that currently exist. It is more profitable to market the life extending anti-viral
medications for HIV, which will ensure recurrent customers, promising them the hope that a cure
is within reach, than to market a one time cure, that requires no follow up.
group in power chooses to prohibit." (Freda Adler, President of the American Criminological
Society for the 1994-1995 term) The obvious problem with allowing a board selected by a group
of citizens, scientist and businesspeople is who will be in the position to regulate their
appointment and their decisions. Research policies and protocols will always be influenced by
"who" is funding the project. The unfortunate reality is that the value of a human life has
become equivalent to a Monopoly dollar. A CEO of a company who's most recent acquisition is
a research institute conducting stem cell research based studies to eradicate Parkinson's Disease,
would find it more financially profitable to redirect studies towards a condition affecting 57% of
Who will determine what project are inferior? A committee consisting of members who's
children suffer from diabetes will obviously prioritize all projects focusing on diabetes research.
If a project is determined to be of greater importance, will funds being held by smaller states be
diverted to more pressing projects? Who is responsible for determining how funds should be
allocated? What assurance is there that these decisions are a reflection of the general population,
and not a personal interest? One fact that remains clear is that those who can, do. The answer to
these questions are irrelevant to those who can afford to travel to countries with more flexible
laws, where stem-cell research is not so strictly regulated. Laws turn a blind eye to those who
can pay for induced blindness. In society, these benefits have always, and will always be
Daley, George Q., M.D., Ph.D. (2004). Missed Opportunities in Embryonic Stem-Cell Research
[Electronic version]. The New England Journal of Medicine, 627-628.
Guenin, Louis M. (2005, August 2). A Proposed Stem Cell Research Policy Stem Cells, DOI:
10.1634/stemcells.2005-0202. Retrieved February 24, 2007 from
http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/reprint/2005-0202v1.pdf
McLaren, Anne (2001). Ethical and social considerations of stem cell research. Nature, 414, 129-
131. Retrieved March 3, 2007, 04:55 from https://www.lib.uwo.ca/cgi-
bin/ezpauthn.cgi?url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6859/fig_tab/414129a
0_F1.html
Oakley, Dr. J. (2002). Democracy, embryonic stem cell research, and the Roman Catholic
church. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 228. Retrieved March 3, 2007, 01:18 from
http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/28/4/228?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESUL
TFORMAT=&fulltext=embryonic+stem+cell+research&andorexactfulltext=and&searchi
d=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
Okie, Susan, M.D. (2005). Stem-Cell Research — Signposts and Roadblocks [Electronic
version]. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1, 1-6. Retrieved February 24, 2007,
from http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/1/1.
Rosenthal, Nadia, Ph.D. (2003). Prometheus's Vulture and the Stem-Cell Promise. The New
England Journal of Medicine, 349:267-274. Retrieved March 2, 2007, 05:20 from
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/3/267?andorexacttitleabs=and&search_tab=ar
ticles&tocsectionid=Original+Articles&tocsectionid=Special+Reports&tocsectionid=Spe
cial+Articles&tocsectionid=Videos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=Clinical+Practi
ceAORBClinical+Therapeutics&tocsectionid=Review+ArticlesAORBClinical+PracticeA
ORBClinical+Implications+of+Basic+ResearchAORBMolecular+MedicineAORBClinica
l+TherapeuticsAORBVideos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=EditorialsAORBPersp
ectiveAORBOutlookAORBBehind+the+Research&tocsectionid=Sounding+BoardAORB
Clinical+Debate&tocsectionid=Clinical+Implications+of+Basic+Research&tocsectionid=
Health+Policy+ReportsAORBHealth+Policy+2001AORBQuality+of+Health+Care&sear
chtitle=Articles&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&sortspec=Score+desc+PUBDATE_SOR
TDATE+desc&hits=20&where=fulltext&andorexactfulltext=and&fyear=1996&fmonth=
Nov&searchterm=embryonic+stem-
cell+research&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Schwartz, Robert S., M.D. (2006). The Politics and Promise of Stem-Cell Research. The New
England Journal of Medicine, 355, 1189-1191. Retrieved March 13, 2007, from
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/355/12/1189
Snyder, Evan Y., M.D., Ph.D. & Loring, Jeanne F., Ph.D. (2006). Beyond Fraud — Stem-Cell
Research Continues [Electronic version]. The New England Journal of Medicine, 4, 321-
323.
Yamamoto, Keith R., Ph.D. (2004). Bankrolling Stem-Cell Research with California Dollars. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 1711-1713. Retrieved March 2, 2007, 02:38 from
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/17/1711?andorexacttitleabs=and&search_tab=
articles&tocsectionid=Original+Articles&tocsectionid=Special+Reports&tocsectionid=Sp
ecial+Articles&tocsectionid=Videos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=Clinical+Pract
iceAORBClinical+Therapeutics&tocsectionid=Review+ArticlesAORBClinical+Practice
AORBClinical+Implications+of+Basic+ResearchAORBMolecular+MedicineAORBClini
cal+TherapeuticsAORBVideos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=EditorialsAORBPer
spectiveAORBOutlookAORBBehind+the+Research&tocsectionid=Sounding+BoardAOR
BClinical+Debate&tocsectionid=Clinical+Implications+of+Basic+Research&tocsectionid
=Health+Policy+ReportsAORBHealth+Policy+2001AORBQuality+of+Health+Care&sea
rchtitle=Articles&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&sortspec=Score+desc+PUBDATE_SO
RTDATE+desc&hits=20&where=fulltext&andorexactfulltext=and&fyear=1996&fmonth
=Nov&searchterm=embryonic+stem-cell+re