Refuting the Argument to Continue Embryonic Stem Cell Research

January 14, 2008

Several weeks have passed since the major scientific advance involving stem cell reprogramming. For those who missed the (well-warranted) publicity, researchers in Wisconsin and Japan were able to reprogram an adult skin cell into a stem cell that shares similar properties as an embryonic stem cell (i.e., it is pluripotent). Since the new discovery does not involve the destruction of any young human beings and gives the scientist most of what he wants, namely, a pluripotent cell that can turn into numerous others types of cells (e.g., liver cell, heart cell etc.) one would think the ethical debate is over. We need not pursue research that destroys human embryos – we did not need to in the first place. But there are those who are still pushing for embryonic stem cell research. Consider an issue of the Lancet a few weeks ago in which the editors say the following,

Notice the lack of any ethical argument. There is a buried scientific argument, to be sure. The editors of Lancet and other commentators argue that embryonic stem cell research should be pursued until it is clear that the other alternatives satisfy all of our scientific goals. The argument is that embryonic stem cell research holds potential scientific promise. Unless alternatives hold the same promise and are more easily used, we should continue with embryonic stem cell research. But the objection against embryo-destructive research is not a scientific one, but one based on the fact that young human beings are destroyed. In fact, arguments against destructive human experimentation abound in other domains. No one argues for such research because of the scientific knowledge one would gain from it.

Consider some examples. The Willowbrook experiments on mentally retarded children intentionally inoculated vulnerable children with hepatitis. The purpose was to observe the disease process and potentially find the mechanisms of transition – scientific knowledge! The study was “approved” because of the scientific knowledge that it presented to the medical community. Yet now we unanimously denounce the study as unethical. Bioethicists and researchers of all stripes think the study breached numerous ethical standards. Consider a more recent proposal to do research on the terminally ill and the dying.(1) This research involved administering potentially toxic drugs to a patient who elected to be taken off of life support (one knows of the patient’s wish, of course, through a reliable surrogate). Once life support is withdrawn and death is expected, the research portion begins. Again, bioethicists would allow such a study only if the research intervention would not be likely to kill the patient. Even if important scientific knowledge were to be gained without complying with certain ethical principles, the study would not be permitted. The point is that prohibitions against human experimentation are based on ethical arguments, not scientific ones. The ethical principle relevant to embryonic stem cell research is that it is impermissible to kill human beings – any human being – age and developmental maturity is irrelevant.

The persistence of those who are stating that embryonic stem cell research should continue is attributable more so to persistent rejection of the argument that human embryos are simply young human beings and therefore deserve protection from destructive research. It is interesting to note that the regulations governing human research already protect implanted embryos. Extending such protections to non-implanted embryos would not seem that far of a stretch, especially if one considers the fact that these embryos are human beings.

(1) Rebecca D. Pentz et. al. “Revisiting Ethical Guidelines for Research with Terminally Wean and Brain-Dead Patients,” Hastings Center Report Jan-Feb. (2003): 20-26.

Back to news