Arguments Against Stem Cell Research: A Clarification

Kim 2

Table of Contents

Arguments Against Stem Cell Research: A Clarification .............................................. 1

History ............................................................................................................................. 1

Difference by Type .......................................................................................................... 2

Cell Count ........................................................................................................................ 3

Division ............................................................................................................................ 4

Superiority ....................................................................................................................... 5

Rebuttal ........................................................................................................................... 8

Application ...................................................................................................................... 8

Ethics ............................................................................................................................... 9

Closing ............................................................................................................................. 11

2
 Kim 3

Outline

I. Arguments Against Stem Cell Research: A Clarification

II. History

III. Difference By Type

IV. Cell Count

V. Division

VI. Superiority

VII. Rebuttal

VIII. Application

IX. Ethics

A. Human Value

B. Norfolk Institute, Virginia

X. Closing

3
 Kim 4

Philip Kim

Mr. Birmingham

Philosophy & Ethics

26 January 2011

Arguments Against Stem Cell Research: A Clarification

The controversiescontroversy surrounding the main beliefs of stem cell study is one that

is heavily dependent on the difference between stem cell research in theory and stem cell 메모 [s1]: How is it heavily
dependent?
research in practice. According to science, stem cell research in general is beneficial to humanity,

offering the possibility to provide a renewable source of organs available for transplantation.

Through this, stem cell research claims to indirectly provide humanity with the potential cure to 메모 [s2]: You should reconsider
this word
diseases, conditions, and disabilities such as Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,

spinal cord injury, burns, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis.

History

Stem cell research dates back to the mid-1800s, when scientists discovered that some

cells have the ability to generate other cells. Since then, the types of stem cells known to man

have expanded to form three broad categories of stem cells. The first type of stem cell is the

totipotent stem cell, which is found in embryos. Totipotent stem cells have the ability to divide

and produce the entire set of differentiated cells within an organism. The second type of stem

cell is the Pluripotent stem cell which has the ability to differentiate into any type of cell within

an organism. The last type of stem cell is the Multipotent stem cell, which can be found from

fetal tissue, umbilical cords, and adult tissue, are commonly harvested from bone marrow and fat

tissues.

4
 Kim 5

Stem cell harvesting from adult tissue samples, adult bone marrow, blood, and human umbilical

cords are not as controversial as harvesting from stem cell harvesting via destroyed embryos or

stem cell harvesting via abortions. In fact, adult stem cell harvesting is almost flawless in terms

of the morality issue when compared to embryonic stem cell harvesting. However, as noted

earlier, the modern stem cell controversy relies heavily around stem cell research in practice than

in theory, which brings out critical flaws in the arguments of supporters of stem cell research.

The adult stem cell harvest method has not been as popular and as efficient to account for

science’s claims that stem cell research can, in fact, “be moral.” In other words, stem cell

research conducted upon human beings at higher stages of development is not as “attractive” an

option compared to embryo-based stem cell research; logically speaking, if there are two

methods of performing a task, people are usually going to choose the easier method.

Difference by Type

There are many reasons why adult stem cell harvesting methods are undesirable compared to

embryo harvesting methods. One of these reasons is the difference between types of stem cells.

Adult stem cells within humans at higher stages of development are seen as undifferentiated cells.

These kinds of cells are found among differentiated cells within tissue or inner linings of organs,

such as within the digestive tract. The adult stem cell’s task is to differentiate to yield some of

the major types of cells within the adult human body, maintaining and repairing tissues. As

noted earlier, this type of cell is commonly known as the multipotent stem cell. Multipotent stem

cells are partially differentiable, meaning that they can only form a limited number of tissues.

The other type of stem cell commonly used for stem cell research is the pluripotent stem cell.

Also noted earlier, the pluripotent stem cell has the ability to differentiate and cover up to 200

5
 Kim 6

types of cells within an organism, which is virtually all of the possible tissue types in human

beings. Most importantly, pluripotent stem cells are commonly found in 5 to 14 day old embryos.

Simply looking at the potential for differentiability, it is clear which type of stem cell has

superiority over the other. Pluripotent stem cells harvested via embryo destruction can

differentiate into any type cell, forming whatever tissue that is needed. Multipotent stem cells

harvested from adult tissue are limited in differentiability, and can only differentiate under the

condition that the researcher had successfully extracted the stem cell before it could begin

differentiation, and isolated the multipotent stem cell so that it would remain in a blank state

before it is implemented to the damaged or diseased tissue. The fact that embryonic stem cells

can treat a wider range of conditions over adult stem cells gives them greater plasticity.

Cell Count

Another reason that embryonic stem cell harvesting is a more attractive option when compared

to adult stem cell harvesting is the stem cell counts for both methods. Due to the characteristics

of its early development, an embryo will have numerous amounts of stem cells that are readily

forming the various tissues needed to constitute a full, healthy organism. Therefore, pluripotent

stem cells are more frequently found in an embryo. Pluripotent cells will also form a significant

proportion of an embryo’s genetic buildup. Meanwhile, stem cells within adult organisms are

only found in minor, if not individual, counts in a mature individual. For example, only one cell

out of every 1,000 cells within the bone marrow will be a useable stem cell, and isolating that

once cell and extracting it before it can differentiate is a whole new problem for adult stem cell

extraction. The reason why adult stem cells are so rarely found is because in an adult human

being, most of the organs and tissues are fully functional. In higher stages of development, the

body’s need for “blank cells” needed to develop into new tissues is extremely low whereas in a

6
 Kim 7

week old embryo, almost everything needs to be put into place. This means that an adult stem

cell, when created, is only created to cover for a specific shortage of a type of cell, such as the

inner linings of the digestive tract, and will readily differentiate in to the type of cell it was

created to develop into. As a result, successful location, isolation, and extraction of adult stem

cells prove to be ridiculously difficult when compared to the simple extraction of embryonic

stem cells.

Low stem cell counts are not only a characteristic for adult stem cells, but for stem cells derived

from umbilical cords or placenta as well. Cells collected from umbilical cord blood of newborn

babies contain both multipotent and pluripotent stem cells, but are low in frequency. So are the

cells collected from the placenta, an organ providing the fetus with nutrients during pregnancy. It

is important to note than when compared to umbilical cord and placenta stem cell counts, the

adult stem cell count is again the method with the lowest yield; embryonic stem cells coming in

first place for most number of stem cells, but at the cost of embryonic destruction. Also, stem

cell harvesting via umbilical cords and placenta requires a full 9 month wait until the baby is

born.

Division

Branching off from the stem cell count argument is the third reason why embryonic stem cell

extraction is so preferable over adult stem cell extraction: rate of division. Due to its early

developmental stage, an embryo will divide very rapidly. For example, in the time period of

about two weeks, the embryo will have instituted what will later form the entire central nervous

system of the fully developed person. The speed of which embryonic stem cells divide and

develop adds to the desirability to use them for stem cell research because of the potential for

researchers to instantly produce a large mass of stem cells for therapeutic practice. On the other

7
 Kim 8

hand, an adult stem cell rarely divides fast enough to resemble the rate in which embryonic stem

cells develop, and may often fail to provide immediate, or even timely, treatment of patients.

Superiority

A fourth reason why embryonic stem cell harvesting is because of the inferiority of adult stem

cells in producing results over embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells that are harvested from a

patient’s body are often ineffective against genetic diseases for the patient. The reason for this is

simple. You can’t take broken pieces apart, put them back together, and expect them to not be

broken anymore. Gene therapy, the process in which a patient’s own stem cells are used as a cure

to his or her disease, is therefore not practical for genetic flaws within the patient. Allogenic stem

cell transplantation from a healthy donor usually produces a better result, but it is important to

know that most Allogenic stem cell transplantations are embryo-based. Also, adult stem cells

that have been exposed to toxins and sunlight over time can be subject to DNA abnormalities,

which make them completely useless for stem cell treatment.

Meanwhile, in contrast to the inferiority of adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells have already

been proven to be successful in treating heart damage in mice.

Conclusively, these four reasons, differentiability, count, division rate, and effectiveness, are

what makes embryonic stem cell harvesting so appealing over stem cell research based on adult

stem cells. When supporters of stem cell research claim that there are better, more ethical

methods to collect stem cells from adults without doing any practical harm to anyone, it is

important to understand that stem cell extraction in practice is most likely centered away from

such morally upright methods of research. Just because there is a spoon to eat your ice cream

with doesn’t mean that you’re necessarily going to use it.

8
 Kim 9

One exception to these four reasons is a new method of stem cell extraction, or, to be more

specific, creation. Induced pluripotent (iPS) cells, first produced from mice in 2006, then

produced from humans in 2007, are pluripotent cells created through forced expression of certain

genetic traits to form stem cells. IPS cells are basically cells extracted from adult tissues

reprogrammed and genetically engineered to pluripotency. However, just because the iPS cell is

an outlier does not mean that it is a desirable source of stem cells. The cost of genetically

engineering and producing stem cells is extremely high, and as a result, iPS cells are not

patentable, meaning that drug companies can’t make enough money to either make them or by

selling them. And as Milton Friedman once said, “The most important single central fact about a

free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.”

Rebuttal

A final note on the differences between embryonic and adult stem cells concerns the way most

supporters of adult stem cell extractions give their support under the implication that adult stem

cell harvesting methods have been brought up as a solution to the immoral and inhumane

embryonic stem cell harvesting methods. This, in fact, is not true. Stem cells as a research began

in the 1960’s in which human stem cells were harvested from adult bone marrow. Bone marrow

transplants were successful in treating diseases such as genetic immune system deficiencies and

cancers. But it had one major problem of having to match every donor tissue type with the

recipient tissue type, which led to the development of the Bone Marrow Registry and the

discovery of embryonic stem cell extraction. Simply put, embryonic stem cell extraction was

derived as an easier alternative to stem cell harvesting from adult bone marrow.

Application

9
 Kim 10

In consideration of all this, the claims that stem cell research have been turning towards a

morally sound and ethical path over recent times may not be as accurate as one thinks. With this

debate somewhat cleared up, it is now most appropriate to progress to the main argument and

discuss why stem cell research is wrong, or thought to be wrong.

The main argument against stem cell research concerns a central idea known as parts against

wholes. Beginning from the moment of conception, human embryos function as developing, but

complete, organisms, or wholes. To illustrate, think of the two methods of stem cell extraction. A

stem cell within the bone marrow, within a fully developed, adult human being is a part. A

collection of stem cells that form an embryo is a whole. This fact holds true because an embryo

has all the properties that define an organism from a group of cells. An embryo has the ability to

grow, mature, repair injury, adapt to circumstances, and uphold a balance between different

organ systems.

Ethics

Closely related to this idea is the argument that human beings are valuable at all levels of

development. Even stem cell researchers have admitted to the fact that an embryo is a human

being. Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, one of the study leaders of a laboratory that successfully

reprogrammed human skin cells into an embryonic state (iPS cell production), admitted, “When I

saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my

daughters... I thought, we can’t keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another

way." Unhappy with embryonic stem cell harvesting, Dr. Yamanaka had decided to search for an

ethically sound method of obtaining human stem cells.

This is why the destruction of an embryo within stem cell extraction is such a controversial issue.

Supporters of stem cell research who disagree that an embryo is a human being argue that an

10
 Kim 11

embryo is never conscious and thus does not know if it is being destroyed or not. However, think

of the instance where a fully grown human being falls into a vegetative state. He or she may not

be conscious of what may be going on. Does that justify anyone to kill that person? Bluntly said,

even if stem cell research leads to groundbreaking discoveries and cures for the benefit of

humanity, all embryonic stem cell research will ever be is the deliberate murder of a human

being for his or her fully functional parts.

Another source of embryonic stem cells that have not been debated as passionately is embryonic

stem cells harvested from aborted babies. The argument for this method of stem cell collection is

that the babies were going to die either way, and there is no reason why science shouldn’t benefit

from something that causes no harm to anyone. Abortion is a totally separate field of debate from

stem cell research, and although in this case it has some ties with the topic of interest, by no

means are the ethical issues concerning abortion going to be discussed here. However, one thing

must be said: defending embryonic stem cell harvesting from aborted babies is indirect

justification of the process of abortion. Think about this: if you were saw a man dying on the

street, would you stand around, waiting for the man to die, take his wallet, donate all his money

to a charity, and say, “That was sad for the man who died, but at least his money was given to a

good cause.”?

Lastly, it is important to note one last example of why stem cell research is morally wrong,

specifically concerning but not bound to the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine of

Norfolk, Virginia. Known as the donor egg program, this company began fertilizing embryos in

the laboratory with donated sperm and eggs for the sole purpose of harvesting the fertilized

embryos in the future for stem cells. The donor egg program offered an amount of money from

$1,200 to $1,400 for women to “donate” their eggs to be killed and harvested for the benefit of

11
 Kim 12

others. As seen here, stem cell research is economically oriented, which means that for now, only

those with the means to access it can benefit from it. And those who mean to profit from it can

benefit from stem cell research regardless of its ethical justification.

Closing

In conclusion, stem cell research, whether or not it is ultimately successful, is a field of science

that is morally unsound. The reason the success or failure of the results of stem cell research and

its statistical significance was not discussed in this paper is because the effectiveness of stem cell

research has no relation whatsoever to the question of is it right or wrong. Stem cell research as

of now could be responsible for saving millions of lives, yet this paper would still stand valid,

and will continue to be so unless stem cell research finally applies its theories and claims to

actual practice, specifically the abolishment of embryonic stem cell harvesting, and any other

methods of research that resemble it.

12
 Kim 13

Reference

Allen, Thomas B. Vanishing Wildlife of North America. Washington, D.C.:

National Geographic Society, 1974.

13