ALone? and take the V™ energy  ride! 

before:: deadstop on the bench.

after :: 80KMPH zappin it out with every sip.. 

here ya go.. 

- a video by Sid. A video meant to be a ‘lol webcast’

Music by Disciple:Alone

‘V’™ is a registered trademark of Frucor Beverages Ltd.

This is a follow-up to my previous thought provoking human cloning read a few years ago..you can read it here: www.sidfire.com/stemcell1

There is always change and nothing is permanent in the field of science and technology. This statement can be justly referred to when considering the hottest and most controversial topic today in the area of biotechnology, the Human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research. HESC is a topic of household conversation thanks to sublime event in 1998, when scientists discovered that stem cells can be taken from spare embryos which are formed from the process of In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) technique (Shamblott et al. 1998). Following this discovery of embryonic stem cells for research, an insight into its aftermath reveals countless debates on whether research on embryonic stem cells should be allowed or banned. From the perpetual advocates trying to picture us the potential greater benefit for humanity with HESC research as a futuristic shining light, to the opponents that believe they have sufficient reasons based on morality that this research is most likely to cast darkness over humanity with time. I would like to stand firm through these shadows of rising anti-HESC research nemesis today by arguing against its main moral objections and by examining the relevant bioethical principles that act towards it.  I want to ultimately defend stem cell research with a certain limit by discussing significant ethical, social, legal and policy challenges in the world today.

So what are stem cells? What are its characteristics and their appropriateness to embryonic stem cell research? Broadly speaking, a stem cell is a cell that can reproduce itself into various different specialised cells by means of cell division. The egg cell in its fertilised state is a stem cell with a potential to develop into a complete organism. Stem cells are of wide interest as they have the potential to develop into any kinds of cells. The spare embryos which are formed from the process of In vitro Fertilisation are one of the current sources of stem cells. Today, it is still a poorly understood process as to how exactly a single fertilized egg can develop into a human being (Cameron April 21, 2006). However, there is a much extolled vision of promises that stem cell research holds. In view of this, following purposes showcase the desire for stem cell research to promote advancement in medicine: 1. Advancements in treatment of infertility; 2. to enhance knowledge about the cause of congenital diseases; 3. to improve knowledge about the cause of miscarriages; 4. to invent more effective techniques of contraception; 5. to improve methods for detecting the presence of abnormal gene on chromosome (Schenker 1998). Furthermore, HESC research holds promise in therapy for diseases including Parkinson’s, ability to repair nerve cells and lost cells, to even create new organs in laboratories for use in organ transplant.

 ”Opposition to embryonic stem cell research may be likened to the futile and foolish condemnation of Galileo. Then again, it may be bold resistance to the suicide of a species.” (Kavanaugh 2001). Interestingly, many important moral objections have been raised over the potential of embryonic stem cells I presented above. In general the main objection raised by non-advocates or opponents of embryonic stem cell research is that the human embryo is a human being and the act of taking stem cells from a human embryo can be considered as murder since the embryo ‘dies’ during this process. I believe these opponents of HESC research have a significant reason in arguing that the destruction of a potential human being as in this case of an embryo being destroyed is morally wrong no matter how much life-saving potential this research holds in future. Another high ethical perspective of these people is to ultimately prove that these embryos are indeed human beings; they argue stating that if the embryos are implanted into a women’s uterus, there is a high degree of possibility that the embryo will develop into a fetus and that in turn develops into a new born baby. They believe that a funded HESC research lab would be in ethical similarity to that of a Hitler’s death camp (Robinson 2002). Therefore, in most sense they believe it is immoral or totally unjust to kill ’someone’ for saving a life of another. Also, I would like to consider the slippery slope argument which forms a notable basis of arguments by those who object this research. “If you allow exceptions to a rule, it creates a slope away from the absoluteness of the rule, down which people will slide further and further until they will not obey the rule at all.” “If you give people an inch, they will take a mile” I would like to apply these two statements as a format for the slippery slope arguments in stem cell research. It generates a careful outlook that embryonic stem cell research could pave way for dangers of implementing laws that undermine morality (Garlikov).

I would like to thoroughly examine the arguments mentioned above as they bring out a series of ethical principles in reference to the following case study:

Case Study: Five years ago, Mr. and Mrs. Smith presented to an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic in theirlocal hospital. After a number of attempts, eight of Mrs. Smith’s eggs were successfullyfertilized. Three of these were implanted and eight months later Mrs. Smith gave birth totwins, but only one baby survived. The Smiths requested that the surplus embryos be frozenfor possible further implantation at a later stage. No further possibilities for use of the embryoswere suggested at this time by the hospital staff.Tragically Mr. and Mrs. Smith died in an automobile accident one year later. Two years afterthis the IVF clinic tried to contact the couple to determine their wishes concerning the disposalor use of the frozen embryos, and at this stage learned of their deaths. In the hospital therewas a research group actively researching therapies for Parkinson’s disease. They hadalready presented a proposal to the hospital Ethics Committee to be allowed to use stem cellsderived from frozen embryos for research in Parkinson’s disease therapy and the project hadbeen approved.The Director of the research team approached the IVF clinic to see whether they had surplusfrozen embryos that they might use. The head of this clinic offered the surplus Smith embryosto the Director of the research team.In the country where this happened, there is no clear legislation concerning embryo stem cellresearch.

Read on…

now..a argument erupts; is that of the status of the human embryo after its fertilization (Johnstone 1982). It is argued that the embryo has its rights as that of a person since it is a human being. Do the orphan embryos in the case study have a right in accordance to the rights of a person? I would like to refute this by providing you with an understanding of the IVF technique to justify that this argument more or less is not consistent with the biological development of the fetus. If in the case study, the frozen embryos were indeed subjected to further implantation, they would have been done so at a stage when they are 48 to 72 hours old after fertilization (Robertson 1994). This is the stage when the embryo is actually in its 4-8 cells form after it is implanted into the uterus, from where over a due course of time it further develops through a series of different stages. From the first stage, the pre-embryo begins to transform and develop into a true rudiment of the embryo alongside the site of the embryonic axis, major organs and differentiation to different structures of the body begins. It is by the end of the 4th week that major organs are fully developed with cardiovascular circulation. By the 8th week, the embryo develops into a recognisable miniature human however still lacking the nervous system and most importantly the functioning of the brain. So until after the end of the 12th week, the embryo is fully developed into a baby, ready to be born. Therefore, in view of the different stages of development as described above, the moral objection of viewing the embryo as a human being cannot be justified (Robertson 1994).

The second argument in relation to the case study I would like to bring forward is consent from the owner of the embryos. Has the owner given informed consent to the IVF clinic to use the embryos for a purpose other than implantation? Firstly, I strongly believe that informed consent from owner is a very important for any control over the spare embryos. This is where I believe that the principle of Bioethics “Autonomy” comes to mind. In the given Case study, we can see that there was no informed consent of the embryos to be used for any purpose other than implantation (IVF). But I would like to stand by the judgement to donate the orphaned embryos to stem cell research especially in this scenario. The owners of the embryo have deceased which means the question of informed consent and control over embryos also deceased. I strongly feel that if the now “orphan” embryos were left typically frozen, it actually doesn’t serve any purpose. If them who object on immoral grounds say that it is immoral to use the orphaned embryos for stem cell research, then don’t you think it is also immoral to leave the orphaned embryos frozen which results in them being ultimately discarded at the end?

Also, when people object to donation of embryos to stem cell research stating that the embryos are murdered, I strongly argue back stating that natural reproduction of humans actually result in a lot more loss of human embryos than that of IVF or stem cell research. With these facts in mind, what else do those who equate embryos to persons come up with to justify their stand? They claim that natural pregnancy related infant mortality would not justify ‘infanticide’ caused by stem cell research. This sounds far too unrealistic to me given the fact that if we ever consider natural infant mortality to be equal in meaning to that of infanticide caused by stem cell research, then natural infant mortality can be termed immoral as well and that too at a higher public health crisis level due to its higher mortality rate than that based on stem cell research (Sandel 2004).

Further considering these points above, I believe every fair and open minded individual can state that HESC research is acceptable. I want to look back on the case study and the moral status of the orphaned embryos and reiterate that, faced with the prospect of therapy for Parkinson’s and related, why shouldn’t we use the spare embryos for stem cell research if we do not need to implant them into a uterus?

However, I would also like to put my points across defending stem cell research with a certain limit. I do not merely like to write this essay opinionated on how good stem cell research is without mentioning a thing about slippery slope. “Even the noblest ends do not justify any means so I have decided we must proceed with great care.” said United States President George in his very carefully crafted Aug 9, 2001 speech on funding of stem cell research by the federal government. This slippery slope argument is my reflective thinking on what could be done to outweigh the stance taken by the opponents of stem cell research. So, what bioethics is all about here?

I believe that we should respect the embryo despite not thinking of it as a human being. Though the embryo is not a full human being, it must be treated with dignity. I state this in view of the potential human life it can give rise to. Taking into account the slippery slope of modern research where eggs are taken from willing donators and embryos are created only to be destroyed, a grave concern emerges with the disrespect shown to the embryos in this case. The philosophy here is that this will lead to a slippery slope of exploitation and abuse. One might come to think in terms of bioethics that a potential human being (the embryo) is being used as a means. This is the spirit of the bioethics principle of humanity. On the other hand, I think that taking spare embryos resulting from the process of IVF and using them for research is morally acceptable. Bioethicists should regard this as a slippery slope which should not be allowed to limit the full potential of future applications of stem cell research. Thus, slippery slope can also to be a danger to otherwise good deeds which stem cell research of spare embryos can bring.

I strongly believe that the role of Bioethics should be understood by everybody including critics of HESC research. It plays a major role in shaping out policies of the government representing a country. Bioethicists can help formulate public policies with proper evaluation that is based on moral judgement rather that legal judgement. So it is equally important to ensure that something which is immoral is not legislated by the law. In this regard, Joel Feinberg once said “It is convenient to think of these problems as questions for some hypothetical and abstract political body. An answer to the question of when liberty should be limited or how wealth ideally should be distributed, for example, could be used to guide not only moralists, but also legislators and judges toward reasonable decisions in particular cases where interests, rules, or the liberties of different parties appear to conflict…We must think of an ideal legislator as somewhat abstracted from the full legislative context, in that he is free to appeal directly to the public interest unencumbered by the need to please voters, to make “deals” with colleagues, or any other merely “political” considerations… The principles of the ideal legislator… are still of the first practical importance, since they provide a target for our aspirations and a standard for judging our success and failures.” (Feinberg 1973).

I am going to conclude by saying that Human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research can be morally acceptable when it is governed with the help of bioethicists. I believe that this will lead to a perfect candor in stem cell research where scientists will establish moral limits to their activity by declaring what the consequences of such research with embryonic stem cells are. I also believe it will lead to a better form of regulatory and legislation changes that at present act both as barriers and open gates in different countries around the world.  There is no doubt that the future potential of this research is brilliant, but as discussed above without the right ethical reflections over the dark path of slippery slopes it just wouldn’t  be possible to realise it.

Finally, I would also like to take a quick view at Ted Peters paper (The stem cell debate in America and Around the Globe) to support my views in terms of christian thinking on the ethics of stem cell research. 

How should the worldwide Christian community think about the human embryonic stem cell controversy? Ted Peters* recommends thoughtful Christians abide by three rules which i have found very useful to share on the ethics of stem cell research.

First, trust the truth. To acknowledge Jesus Christ as the “way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) is to acknowledge that our faith is rooted in truth, that no genuine truth can take us away from God. Theological truth should work in concert with scientific truth. As we understand the science of human development better, our theological views must encompass that truth. One implication is this: we should avoid twisting new scientific knowledge to fit philosophical commitments formulated before this knowledge became available. Occasional reassessment of earlier assumptions on behalf of the possibility of a growth in vision might be called for.

Second, steward our talents (Matthew 25:14-30). In our own era, we count as talents the fact that our society is poised on the brink of breakthroughs in science and medicine that could dramatically enhance human health and wellbeing. Christian input to public policy is a matter of stewardship. It is important for all Christian voices to be heard, including and especially those from the “beneficence” perspective that have been overridden by the “embryo protection” voices.

Third, strive for human betterment. The biblical commandment to love God and neighbor (Matthew 23:36-40) applies to us both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, thoughtful Christians support thrusts in the wider society toward increased levels of justice, peace, caring, and human flourishing. Directly, I believe that Christians can, with good conscience, support scientists engaged in stem cell research.

            This means we should pause, open our ears, and through the din of the shrill public debate listen carefully for coherent moral positions to be set forth. Thoughtful Christians should examine the three moral frameworks: the embryo protection framework, the naturalist or anti-playing God framework, and the medical benefits framework. Are they internally coherent? Are they supported by truth? By theology? Can common ground be found among them? I recommend weighing judiciously what is being said in every argument; then make a commitment, and then leap into the public fray. Such a commitment will be the result of careful judgment, not an unequivocally clear demand by God. The purpose of the field of ethics is to help people by providing a way through an otherwise messy situation. Thoughtful Christians have an opportunity and a responsibility to offer carefully considered judgments and suggested paths for the wider society to follow. 

For a ‘hole-nutha-level of stem cell research- i am gonna talk about “Adult stem cells” next! so stay cryonic!

References*

Cameron, D. April 21, 2006, , New map reveals secret of stem cell development. Available: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/development.html [2008, 09/15] .

Feinberg, J. 1973, Social philosophy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Garlikov, R. , The “Slippery Slope” Argument. Available: http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/slope.htm [2008, 09/15] .

Johnstone, B. 1982, in Test-tube babies : a guide to moral questions, present techniques, and future possibilities, eds. P. Singer & W.A.W. Walters, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 49.

Kavanaugh, J.F. 2001, “Stem cell challenges”, America, vol. 185, no. 7, pp. 22.

Robertson, J.A. 1994, Children of choice : freedom and the new reproductive technologies, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Robinson, B.A. 2002, 17.10.2002-last update, Ethical Concerns: extracting stem cells. Available: http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem2.htm [2008, 09/15] .

Sandel, M.J. 2004, “Embryo ethics–the moral logic of stem-cell research”, The New England journal of medicine, vol. 351, no. 3, pp. 207-209.

Schenker, G.J. 1998, “International regulation of human embryo research
FIGO statements and world experience”, [Online], vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 15.09.2008. Available from: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/13/8/2047.pdf.

Shamblott, M.J., Axelman, J., Wang, S., Bugg, E.M., Littlefield, J.W., Donovan, P.J., Blumenthal, P.D., Huggins, G.R. & Gearhart, J.D. 1998, “Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95, no. 23, pp. 13726-13731.

On all ethical and practical aspects, I would like to argue through these shadows of rising anti-human cloning nemesis that we have no good reasons ethically speaking for which  the banning of both reproductive and therapeutic cloning could be justified. This in itself can for the moment raise controversy like any other change that is thought to violate ‘human dignity’. We will discuss this further to conclusively grasp the ethical and practical aspects of therapeutic human cloning and also  why the reproductive cloning of humans should not be banned.

“Cloning, even so-called therapeutic or experimental cloning, creates a new life without a father, and reduces a mother to the provider of an almost emptied egg. Nonetheless, it is a new human life and the determination to destroy it and limit its use to scientific research for therapeutic ends compound further the moral issues rather than protect mankind. As such, cloning embryonic human life under any circumstance crosses an ethical line, takes an irrevocable step, from which science can never turn back.”(Daniel Reilly, “Statement on human cloning,” The Diocese of Worcester, (Roman Catholic), 2001-NOV-26, at: http://www.worcesterdiocese.org/) - this is one of the statements in the likes of  many other conservative statements that are against therapeutic cloning. But, in view of the above statement I would like to generate a argument positively in favor of therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning can be used for therapy related to the motive that a person might be in need of an organ transplant. The ultimate goal of this kind of cloning is to produce a better or healthy copy of a patient’s tissue or organ for transplant. This would mean that the tissue or organ would bear the patient’s original DNA which is quite significant since it does not lead to any organ rejection. This further eliminates the need for organ transplants from other people. But what has this got to do with ethics? Well like the above conservative statement , ethics become relevant when the source of the stem cells used for cloning is considered. These sources are Human Embryos which appear to be the only source of stem cells that can used for effective therapeutic cloning. Practically, the human embryos from which the stem cells are collected are destroyed at times which raises a social consensus that otherwise reflects most of the ethical issues related to Human cloning. Some conservative people believe that these embryos are human beings and therapeutic cloning results in murdering the same. Another high ethical perspective of these people is to prove that these embryos are indeed human beings; they argue stating that if the embryos are implanted into a women’s uterus , there is a high degree of possibility that the embryo will develop into a fetus and that in turn into a new born baby. They believe that a therapeutic lab would be like an ethical similarity to that of a Hitler’s death camp. Also, in some sense they believe it is immoral or totally unjust to kill ’someone’ for saving a life of another.

“Therapeutic cloning will in time allow scientists to create organs that are a perfect match for those in need of a transplant. The cloned organ would be based on the recipient’s genetic material and would not require the use of debilitating immunosuppressive therapies. There would also be no chance of rejection, which is fatal. Therapeutic cloning represents the ideal in organ transplantation, as it would provide an unlimited source of organs to anyone who needs them. The need for these organs is dire.” (Justin Durivage, “Therapeutic cloning raises new questions concerning morality,” The Student File, 2001-DEC-07, at: http://www.tsl.pomona.edu/) -considering the statement as above , it does reflect my contentionary opinion that there are no adverse harms attached to this form of cloning but infact an array of benefits. Most liberal people may justify the statement by argueing that the embryo used for such therapeutic cloning is a pre-embryo which is not allowed to develop into an embryonic stage. Also some argue that the embryo is morally irrelevant and deserves no particular attention in view of seeing it as a group of cells containg DNA. This is infact much like the group of cells thats in our skin. When you shed your skin millions of times a day , theres no question of any ethics? Hello. Well such is the case with the arguments of people who are favorable to therapeutic cloning. Embryo is not human, and hence no murder is the fiercest weapon that could otherwise tally against any opponents.

Reproductive cloning on the other hand has its own set of arguments against it that practically sheds out the living daylights of ethical framework that surrounds it. Reproductive cloning involves the removal of DNA from an embryo and then replacing it with the DNA of another animal. In case of Dolly the sheep as i mentioned earlier in this essay, a mammary cell was taken from a old sheep and fused with a sheep egg with no DNA.  Since then , several species of mammals have been cloned including mice, cows, rhesus monkeys, sheep, goats, pigs, and rats. So what about humans? Why not humans? Considering these questions, I will first take you through a journey of arguments that more of less aren’t very convincing to prohibit or ban human cloning.

They say Reproductive cloning violates human dignity. Now what does human dignity mean? Any rational thought considering the fact what human dignity actually infers is beyond cloning. But still, they say, it cloning violates ‘human dignity’. Leaving this aside, how about people who like to clone themselves? The kinds that are self centered fans of themselves and would go to any lengths to clone themselves like a spare parts factory. This sounds a bit funny but does raise ethical issues of a time when some might take these clones and use them to transplant organs in non clones. What’s the purpose when this in itself defeats the ethical principle of equality? All clones and non-clones are equal. Also, another view against cloning is that some people for instance might like to think that cloning could as well lead to a future so horrific that a science fiction movie like the one depicting cloned humans that attack the world could turn out real. Well, might sound or look neat but trully impossible to even subject it to realization.

As I have discussed above, the therapeutic and reproductive cloning have many benefits in general that can without a shadow of a doubt potentially outweigh the problems that effect today practically. These problems could be from all the genetic defects to the ethical conservative statements.  There are in itself no serious harms associated with these forms of cloning. Much more, reproductive cloning can be morally acceptable when considering therapeutic cloning alongside.  I would like to conclude by saying that there are many benefits than harm. All these technologies are a part of the change that could well do mankind a whole lot good. The cloning techniques as discussed above can be ethically and practically well understood when they are promoted rather than prevented. This promotion should arise in a better form of regulatory and legislatory changes that at present act both as barriers and open gates in different countries around the world.