Stem Cell Research Ethics

**Medical Addict** · 02-02-2008, 06:05 PM

I've been looking into the ethics of stem cell research lately and all i really found against it was the fact that embryos were being destroyed in the process, can anybody else give me other possible ethical issues with stem cell reasearch.

Any replies are greatly appreciated!

**Arch_Angel** · 02-02-2008, 07:04 PM

There aren't any.

Did you read that they have transformed fibroblasts (skin cells) into stem cells by inserting a few genes?

So the "ethical implication" are even weaker now.

**Tyraell** · 02-02-2008, 08:52 PM

I think the only real issues you get are human life/ rights or issues, which in themselves are often from a religious perspective.

Most of the other - weaker - arguments are based around the science of it (i.e. it's not as effective as claimed, there are better alternatives) and are used in supporting the 'human rights' arguments.

There's not much to it, really...

**Arch_Angel** · 02-02-2008, 09:21 PM

I suppose one thing people object to is cloning human embryos to then use them for research or medical purposes. People that argue from this perspective are usually deeply religious and tend to be ignorant of the complex cellular biology involved. The fundamental principles behind cloning an embryo are no different than those involved in growing new skin cells underneith a scab.

Of people that I've talked to about it not one can give a good reason why we shouldn't be doing this without resorting to "soul talk".

When you consider that the embryos (fert. but unneeded for IVF) are destroyed anyway at the present the sanctity of life argument goes out of the window completely.

**Motivator** · 02-02-2008, 09:29 PM

Basically this is a very deep topic and I find it sometimes to grasp it fully hopefully someone can read my response and can calrify and misconceptions i might have. To my understanding there are different types of stem cells:
Bone marrow stem cells
Pheripheral blood stem cells
Umbellical cord stem cells
Embryonic stem cells

Now from my understanding only embryonic stem cells are pluripotent – cells have the ability of differentiating into any type of cell in the human body hence why scientist are so ‘mad’ about using these type of stem cells as its got the means of treating for Alzheimer’s, replacing a organ which will not get rejected by the recipient and be able to grow nerves etc...These are the positives to using such stem cells.

However, the negatives to this (already been mentioned) is these stem cells are taken from embryos which have the potential of becoming into a real life person so basically argue it’s morally wrong. Also, there is a possibility that the stem cells may turn cancerous.

But yeah as ark angel pointed out there was a news break through about using adult stem cells (from skin tissue) and by inserting genes into them they become as good as embryonic stem cells. The main advantage to this technique being that it may finally allow scientist to sidestep the ethical implications and finally start to make some advancement in their research.

This is what I understand up to now ...it may be correct it may not be correct (any mistakes please do let me know).

Ok now i just read this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3228188.ece

At the bottom there are comments which suggest umbilical cords are best source of stem cells ...now I am confused ... I always thought before the breakthrough it always was embryonic stem cells...please help.

**Arch_Angel** · 02-02-2008, 09:43 PM

However, the negatives to this (already been mentioned) is these stem cells are taken from embryos which have the potential of becoming into a real life person so basically argue it’s morally wrong

May I add that every cell in your body minus red blood cells and indivdual gametes holds exactly the same potential to become a "real life person".

Everytime you sneeze you wipe out thousands of potential humans.

Simply because the zygote happens to be in the right place at the right time doesn't qualify it as a potential person anymore than does a nose cell.

Read the comment again:

"One wonders why these scientists are so dead set on unethical embryonic research, when they have not produced a single effective remedy for these diseases. "

This is clearly conflict of interest.

We should be providing medical scientists with everything they need to conduct research. If the umbilical cells are more useful than the embryonic ones then we should pour money into that. However scientific sense says that cells that can differentiate from a higher level (or the highest level) are of more use.

Also, the last line tells me that Jane MacMaster from Inverness, Scotland doesn't appreciate that research takes time and people putting legal blocks on it isn't going to speed it up any.

**Motivator** · 02-02-2008, 09:58 PM

wow this is going to be really stupid but can you elaborate how you can turn any cell in human body into another human...this may sound dumb but i really want to know the theory behind it. Btw Arch you really sound like you know your stuff i must admit that

**Arch_Angel** · 02-02-2008, 10:17 PM

A zygote (combination of a sperm and an egg) has 2 of each chromosome. These contain the genetic information to produce a fully fledged human. With a few differing concentrations of transcription factors (things that drive gene expression) from the mother the cell begins to divide and differentiate in specific ways.

It would be quite simple in theory to take a human cell and transform it into what is effectively a zygote. This is what they did to clone Dolly (with an mammary cell) in 1997. As long as the cell has a genome it is possible to manipulate this into becoming a fully fledged human.

You do it by the process of nuclear transfer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transfer

In a nutshell all you need is an unfertilised egg (oocyte - the likes of which are lost in menstruation) and the genomic DNA of the cell you wish to grow a human out of. Remove the DNA and inject it into the now empty egg.

They did it last month:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_H._Wood

So the DNA in each of your cells holds the potential to create another thinking, breathing person.

**Arch_Angel** · 02-02-2008, 10:26 PM

http://www.stemcellsciences.com/Explain/FAQ/

**chilledmocha** · 03-02-2008, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Arch_Angel

So the DNA in each of your cells holds the potential to create another thinking, breathing person.

Technically, this is not really true. As a quick introduction - the ability of cells to divide is based on certain "potencies". Totipotent cells, like zygotes, can divide into every cell in our human body, as well as provide the necessary extraembryonic tissues to support a new person. Pluripotent cells can give rise to a number of cell types (e.g. endoderm and mesoderm) but cannot support a new person.

More relevant to thinking, breathing persons (as opposed to fetuses) would be multipotent cells, like your hematopoietic stem cells in your bone marrow, that can give rise to a closely related family of cells such as red blood cells and white blood cells. On the other hand, most cells are either oligopotent or unipotent. Skin cells, for example, are unipotent - they can only divide to create other skin cells. In this respect, they do not possess the capability to create a new person.

It is only through genetic manipulation in labs that you can pry the DNA from the skin cells in order to create a person - and this person would not be "another" person but in fact would be the "same", i.e. a clone.

Furthermore, the creation of stem cells using non-embryonic stem cells carries with it certain risks and problems of its own - it's not an entirely safe and failproof method of producing pluripotent or multipotent stem cells. So there are still ethical implications... such as considering whether we should continue to spend time in this avenue or instead work on using embryonic stem cells to solve the problems we already have?