The debate over the use of human embryonic stem cells in scientific research just got a lot more complicated. The latest development came earlier this month, when the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk announced it had created human embryos solely for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells.
Stem cells are unique because they have not yet developed into cells with specific functions. Scientists have shown that the cells harvested from human embryos less than a week old can develop into any one of the 220 cell types that make up the human body.
Many scientists believe that stem cells hold enormous potential because the cells may offer cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
The Jones Institute's creation of embryos for research purposes signifies a casual disregard for the value of human life and its potential. Although the institute's approach is blameworthy, stem cell research that uses spare human embryos from fertility clinics, as opposed to manufactured embryos, should not be condemned.
Serious steps should be taken to ensure that human embryos are not reduced to the status of economic property or as simply a means to an end, something the institute failed to consider.
William E. Gibbons, who directed the human embryo effort at the Jones Institute, is quoted in The New York Times as saying that the Jones Institute has "opened the door up" to ethical scrutiny ("Scientists Create Scores of Embryos to Harvest Stem Cells," July 11).
In reality, the team under Gibbons ignored the recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. NBAC's September 1999 executive summary recommended that federal agencies should not fund research involving human embryos "made solely for research purposes."
The report does not apply to the Jones Institute because it is privately funded, but the institute has tainted the field of stem cell research by ignoring NBAC guidelines.
The White House still has yet to release its opinion on embryonic stem cell research, making the bold announcement by the Jones Institute extremely untimely and irresponsible.
John Arras, a University bioethicist, also holds this view. "To do what they did is extremely inflammatory," Arras said. Arras supports research using stem cells from human embryos but believes the actions of the Jones Institute were inappropriate.
Gregory Kaebnik, the editor of the Hastings Center Report, a bimonthly publication that reviews issues in biomedical ethics, also commented on the Jones Institute development. "I am troubled by this. It shows a kind of arrogance to toss out what is a community consensus about stem cells," said Kaebnik, who also is not opposed to the idea of harvesting stem cells from human embryos.
"Creating embryos for the specific purpose of destroying them seems more disrespectful than destroying embryos that were created for another reason," Kaebnik added.
Ethicists like Arras and Kaebnik support this kind of research, but other groups regard any kind of experiment involving human embryos as an insult to human life, often drawing comparisons between human embryo research and historic human rights atrocities.
"We think it's very dangerously close to the rationalization that the Nazis made during Hitler's regime," said Ann Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League.
While it is clear the work by the Jones Institute opposes NBAC guidelines, research on stem cells from human embryos should remain legal in the United States.
The potential benefits of stem cell research greatly outweigh the harm done to human embryos that are only days old. "The real tragedy is that extremely promising medical research that will save or improve the lives of real people might be thwarted because of the theological, metaphorical concerns of a shrinking minority of the population," Arras said.
"Naturally we want to see cures for these things, but we shouldn't be content as a society to sacrifice one human being for another," Scheidler said.
Statements like Arras' and Scheidler's form the crux of the debate surrounding stem cell research. One side sees the embryos as largely dispensable, but the other side sees the embryos as nothing short of fully human.
The announcement that human embryos have been created solely for research purposes unnecessarily casts stem cell research in a negative light and may prompt lawmakers to ban such a promising field. The actions of one company could have serious ramifications in restricting research. If that's so, the company may be unnecessarily sending thousands of Americans to an early grave.
Read More
Administrators and faculty paint conflicting pictures of May 4 encampment clearing
By Cecilia Mould | YesterdayThe details contested between the town halls included the clarity of the University’s tent policy and the presence of suspicious individuals at the encampment.
Faculty Senate calls for an external review of May 4 clearing of encampment
By Priya Kommu | YesterdaySenators had questions about the lack of direct communication between University administrators and the students and faculty present at the encampment.
University's last minute update to EHS tent regulations document creates confusion, frustration
By Arshiya Pant | YesterdayRyan said that he did not believe there was confusion among protesters about the permissibility of tents due to warnings from University officials on several occasions to remove tents.
