Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Justification on Ethical and Pragmatic Grounds

The use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) in research has long been a divisive topic within the health community and society as a whole. On one hand, stem cells present exciting possibilities for healthcare, such as tissue regeneration allowing for spinal cord injury recovery or a cure for Alzheimer’s disease (Mayo Clinic, 2020). On the other hand, embryonic stem cell use creates what many regard as an important ethical issue: while some feel that it is warranted, many feel that it is entirely unethical. I will argue that hESC research is justified. I begin by discussing the nature of embryonic stem cell research and why stem cells− specifically from embryos− are necessary. I then show why arguments made by anti-abortionists are unsound by addressing where hESC come from and refuting the oft-used claim that the artificial creation of embryos for stem cell harvestation deprives life. Ultimately, I conclude that the use of hESC for therapeutic research is an essential advancement in healthcare that should be supported on both practical and ethical grounds. 

Before expounding upon my argument, I find it important to provide a brief background into embryonic stem cell research. The hESC are non-specialized cells from an embryo in its earliest developmental stage, which are referred to as a blastocysts. These cells hold great potential for scientific advancement, because they are cloneable, malleable, and responsive. Scientists have been conducting hESC research for over 30 years, and in this time, they have managed to make substantial advances in several domains (Yu, 2020). These include generating red blood cells to create functional blood for transfusions into patients,; eliminating the need for immunosuppressive drugs after many kidney transplants; and injecting stem cells into patient retinas to reverse macular degeneration (Doheny, 2020).

First, it is worth noting why hESC are special. Those who are uncomfortable with hESC research often claim that other sources are available. However, despite being largely free of bioethical road bumps, the use of umbilical cord and adult stem cells cannot serve as a replacement for hESC. This is because hESC are the only ones that are pluripotent, meaning they have the ability to specialize into whichever cell type researchers choose (ISSCR 2020). Cord and adult stem cells are far more difficult to work with, as they have already specialized into certain tissues. In addition, they fail to proliferate and survive as well as hESC, making them more difficult to work with (Moseman, 2010). Unfortunately, some researchers who are unable to use hESC end up having to try and fit these various square pegs into a round hole due to restrictive litigation. If alternative cell types were as effective as hESC, then they would certainly be adequate substitutes. However, as things stand today, restricting embryonic stem cell use is slowing medical progress. By dismissing the false notion that there is a realistic replacement for hESC research, scientists can be given the tools they need to make significant strides in regenerative and developmental medicine.

For some, the utility of hESC research is not the problem. Ethically, many anti-abortionists argue that it is not right to use fetal tissue from abortions as it is taking advantage of what would have been a human life. This argument by anti-abortionists is entirely unsound and illogical. The use of fetal tissue in research is an entirely separate issue from abortion. If anti-abortion activists have a problem with abortions as a concept, they should take action against abortions, not stem cell research. In fact, many anti-abortionists actually view hESC research using fetal tissue as a better ethical alternative to a standard abortion, as it makes use of cells that would otherwise die. As the strongly pro-life Senator Orrin Hatch notes, “The support of embryonic stem cell research is consistent with pro-life values… the morality of the situation dictates that these embryos be used to improve and save lives” (Parham 2009). Nonetheless, let us suppose for the sake of argument that abortion and hESC research are connected. In hESC research, only cells from within the first eight days of conception are used. This removes the argument of important developmental milestones indicating the killing of life, which eliminates all but the most extreme pro-life arguments. All in all, it does not make sense to attack one issue for the perceived shortcomings of another.

Many hESC also come from leftovers of In vitro fertilization (IVF) infertility treatment. With stronger consent litigation in place, robust stem cells left over from infertility treatment could be more justifiably used. After IVF infertility treatment, there are often a great deal of embryos that are discarded. These embryos could be, and in many cases, have been frozen and subsequently used for stem cell research. Much like the previous contention, many see the use of leftover embryos from infertility treatment as a better ethical alternative, as it makes use of cells that would otherwise have been discarded. However, concerns have been raised over the issue of specific and explicit consent being given to use these “leftovers”. As things currently stand, these discarded materials are typically considered “de-identified” and can be used without consent from the patient who received the infertility treatment (Hellmer, 2016). These discarded embryos should be tracked and maintained as “identified” going forward. Subsequently, explicit consent should be granted from the patient in order to use these stem cells. This would go a long way towards assuring the consent-related concerns that many have. With more ethical use of stem cells from infertility treatment, the availability of hESC would flourish.

Lastly, many have questioned the ethics of producing artificial embryos in order to harvest their stem cells, as it may deprive the value of a life. In my view, producing embryos for the purpose of stem cell research is not in any way, shape, or form depriving value. The practice uses IVF to, with consent, use donated oocytes and donated sperm to create a blastocyst from which pluripotent stem cells can be harvested and multiplied (Dederer, 2020). The argument against abortion in many cases is that a life would form naturally from the process of sex which, from an evolutionary perspective, is meant to create life (Lepine, 2020). However, the creation of an artificial blastocyst is at no point ever intended to create life. Whether the process did happen or didn’t happen, there would be absolutely zero effect on the human population. There is no deprivation of a future as there was never an intent for an artificial embryo to become one. 

Opponents may object to the final contention by claiming that an artificial embryo would become a human life if it is left to proliferate naturally, thus representing a deprivation of a valuable future. However, the very person known for spearheading the valuable future argument, Don Marquis, rejects this claim. In the belief of Marquis, a noted anti-abortionist, you cannot trace an artificially created embryo to actual life, thus there is no definite future to be deprived in value. On the other hand, Marquis strongly opposes abortions as they can be traced to an actual life. According to Marquis, in order for the valuable future argument to work, there must be a defined future, indicating human life, on the horizon. An artificial embryo does not have a defined future. For this reason, one cannot claim that there is a deprivation of life (Marquis, 2007).

Another common objection may read like this: the use of aborted fetal tissue is not a separate issue from abortion, as hESC research facilitates abortion. Living in a society that normalizes using fetal tissue for hESC research normalizes abortion itself. However, this objection overlooks two important factors. First, the primary source of hESC is not from abortions but rather remaining cells from IVF infertility treatment. Fetal tissue from abortions represents only a minority of the hESC stock (Mehta, 2014). Second, to reiterate, if the issue is with abortion, then opponents should take up this issue as an independent issue. Abortion and hESC research are orthogonal: you can feasibly eliminate one and have the other. In addition, restricting hESC research solely because of one of its associations could have unintended consequences, such as halting important medical advancements. Those who disagree with the concept of abortion need to directly target abortion itself.

In conclusion, hESC research for therapeutic purposes is an essential medical practice that is justified on ethical grounds. It is vital,because the use of umbilical cord or adult stem cells is not a suitable replacement for the key research that must take place. Ethically, the anti-abortionist argument against the use of fetal tissue is entirely unsound. In addition, with stricter litigation in place, the practice of using remaining stem cells from IVF infertility treatment would flourish. Finally, the artificial creation of embryos for hESC research is in no way, shape, or form a deprivation of life. Although there are some concerns, they are focused on more general issues than hESC research.

References

Advena-Regnery, B., Dederer, H., Enghofer, F., Cantz, T., & Heinemann, T. (2018, June). Framing the ethical and legal issues of human artificial gametes in research, therapy, and assisted reproduction: A German perspective. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6001525/

CBS News. (2010, February 17). The Trouble With Adult Stem Cells. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-trouble-with-adult-stem-cells/

Doheny, K. (2019, August 12). Stem Cells and Health Advances: Where Are We Now? WebMD. Retrieved from https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20190812/stem-cells-and-health-advances-where-are-we-now

Embryonic Stem Cells. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/Regenerative_Medicine/2006Chapter1.htm

Family Life. (2019, April 17). Why Did God Invent Sex? FamilyLife®. https://www.familylife.com/articles/topics/life-issues/challenges/homosexuality/why-did-god-invent-sex/

Frequently asked questions about stem cell research. (2019, June 08). Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/bone-marrow-transplant/in-depth/stem-cells/art-20048117#:~:text=People who might benefit from,, burns, cancer and osteoarthritis

Hellmers, N., Obeng-Aduasare, Y., De Melo-Martín, I., & Henchcliffe, C. (2016, January). Future needs for informed consent in stem cell clinical trials in neurodegenerative diseases. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4774238/

Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.closerlookatstemcells.org/learn-about-stem-cells/types-of-stem-cells/#:~:text=Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent,testing drugs and other therapies

Lo, B., & Parham, L. (2009, May). Ethical issues in stem cell research. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726839/

Mehta, R. H. (2014, November). Sourcing human embryos for embryonic stem cell lines: Problems & perspectives. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345740/

Marquis, D. (2007, February). The moral-principle objection to human embryonic stem cell research. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2007.00481.x