h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

ok my latest project for school.

On Wed. 30 April, I need to present a 10-12 persuasive speech why embryonic stem cell research is NOT moral.

I personally believe it is moral. But I have to argue the point from the opposite side.

Can I get some feedback from my fellow H2G2s?

Right now I have over 132 pages of notes and haven't the foggist idea on how to cut them back to 12 minutes.

First, Richenda, good luck with your presentation!

IMO, there are three questions that someone must ask herself.. Do the therapeutic promises live up to the hype? (AFAIK, the answer is not necessarily. It'd be nice if they did, and many proponents of embryonic stem cell research make it sound as if cures for such horrendous conditions as multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons and the like are to use a cliché "just around the corner". But even if all else was equal, with al the funding any researcher could ever require, and *no* legal restrictions, from what I understand, it's a wee bit more difficult than that...

Second, are there viable alternatives to embryonic stem cells? It seems to me, from what I've read, that some proponents of the use embryonic stem cells *don't want* any alternative to be viable! (I don't speculate as to why)

Third, where do the embryos come from any why? A related question, a sub-question if you will is, is it right to use people as things, even in the service of other people? I know many say that embryos are not people, in which case, what are they? s? I don't think so@!

Well, I foresee some disagreement with what I've written, but I'd be amazed if it were otherwise. Have at it, all!

Vicky

I would say that it's entirely moral to find the best ways to improve health and wellbeing of others without causing harm; and a cell formation yet to develop an independent nervous system isn't likely to mind. That's my lot.

Best of luck with your project hon.

Ooh wait, I've got one!

Since the subject is of such exhaustive moral debate; whatever your belief about the opinions of the argument against, the ensuing schism can only be profoundly unhealthy for a society intent on improving relations. If the possibility of research improving things is outweighed by the antagonism toward it, and those for, then there can be no justification for it.

Sorry Vicky, you were right - I have some disagreement for you. Your first two points don't really come across as moral ones to me. They appear to be more like additional practical points used to support the moral argument.

>>A related question, a sub-question if you will is, is it right to use people as things, even in the service of other people?<<

That, on the other hand, is the real moral question, I think. I'm a little unsure myself, but I generally lean towards saying that stem cell research has a place, because it *could* do a lot of good. Now, do embryos suddenly 'become' people? Or are they people the moment the sperm does its thing with the egg? It's a tricky area - there obviously has to be a cut-off point at which an embryo is too developed (like there needs to be for abortion), but that does mean we have to define a point when the embryo becomes human.

Hi laconian, re your comment on defining bwhen an embryo becomes human- evr had kids. It kind of changes your outlook if you know what I mean- besides cut-off points are change by general consensus of peole that have other motives (politicians- amongst othetrs, but eventually politicians) so think things thru before you comments about this stuff if you have no experience of hids etc... or really think things thru before comments if you do !

I think it's important to bear in mind that these are embryos created outside the body. They have no potential to develop fully unless implanted.

Does your debate include consideration of use of hybrid embryos too?

I have no points to suggest against, but for the debate you will also need to have some counter for the arguments in favour.

<>

IMO, it's after implantation, when there's no longer any possibility of splitting to form twins... Here's an interesting article I found when looking for information to clarify my thoughts...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_37_41/ai_n15375493/pg_2

I'd go for 14 days, but as the article points out, in vitro conceptions are a whole other matter...
Vicky

<> vicky

Does something happen at 14 days, or is it just a convenient time limit?

It's the figure I got from the article...

Vicky

food for thought...

The overwhelming objection to embryonic stem cell research is that it involves the destruction of an embryo or fetus. For many this constitutes destruction of a potential human, and conflicts with religious and moral views held in society. For others, the potential for this research to provide treatments and possibly cures for debilitating illnesses that have no cure and significantly impact on our way of life overrides this concern. Central to any argument on this is what actually constitutes the beginning of life for a human. Opinions on this vary from the moment of conception, to a 14 day embryo, to a living baby at birth. This issue is highly emotive and it will always be necessary to consider all opinions and to balance the harm that might be done against the potential good this research may provide for those suffering from debilitating diseases. Is is also important to note, the sub-cultures within the main culture may hold different views from the main culture on moral issues.

Stem cell research has been going on for over forty years, but only became controversial with the beginning of human embryonic stem cell (ES) research in 1998. However, keep in mind that in 1954 John Enders received a Nobel prize in Medicine for growing polio virus in human embryonic kidney cells. Wonder why no one screamed foul then? Oh wait, they were only being used as a growth medium.

But baring that small issue, as promising as everyone claims embryonic stem cells will be, today no breakthroughs have been made using embryonic cells. Yet, adult cells have been used successfully for over 40 years. The newest breakthough came yesterday when scientists were able to cure successfully treat a form of blindness for the first time using gene therapy.

A bit of background on stem cells themselves:
I. A stem cell is essentially a blank cell capable of becoming a more differentiated cell in the body. There are two main classes of stem cells
a. Embryonic
i. Embryonic Stem Cells (ES) are derived from human embryos that are 5 – 6 days old and are found in inner cell mass known as the blastocyst. They are pluripotent which means able to develop into any type of cell. The outer cells generate all other fetal membranes and placenta.
ii. Embryonic Germ Cells (EG) are derived from a specific part of the embryo called the gonad ridge. They can be isolated from fetuses older than 8 weeks and normally would develop into eggs and sperm.
b. Adult
i. Umblical cord stem cells (adult-like)
ii. Placental and aminotic fluid stem cells (adult-like)
iii. Adult stem cells
II. What are the advantages of adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells?
a. Adult stem cells have the following advantages.
i. Adult type cells from bone marrow and umbilical cord have recently been isolated which appear to be as flexible as the embryonic type.
ii. Recipients who receive products of their own cells will not experience immune reactions.
iii. Adult stem cells are easy to procure.
1. Good examples of this procurement are skin, muscle, marrow, and fat cells.
2. Umbilical and placental stem cells are easily obtained.
iv. No harm is done to the donor.
b. Embryonic stem cells have the following advantages.
i. They are flexible and appear to have the potential to make any cell.
ii. They are immortal.
iii. They are easily obtainable from excess embryos in fertilization clinics.
II. What are the disadvantages of adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells?
a. The disadvantages of adult stem cells are as follows.
i. They are of limited quantity and can sometimes be difficult to obtain in large numbers.
ii. They are finite and may not live as long as ES cells in a culture.
iii. With the exceptions noted above, they are less flexible and may be more difficult to reprogram to form other tissue types.
b. The disadvantages of embryonic stem cells are as follow:
i. They are difficult to differentiate uniformly and homogeneously into a target tissue.
ii. Because ES are obtained from a random embryo donor, they are immunogenic and are likely to be rejected after transplantation.
iii. They are capable of forming tumors or promoting tumor formation.
iv. They are obtained by the destruction of developing human life.

III. Pros and cons for using different type of cells.
a. Adult Stem Cells
i. Does not require ‘life’ being distroyed
ii. Morally acceptable.
iii. Informed consent from adult donor
b. Placentally-derived stem cells
i. Does not require ‘life’ being distroyed
ii. Morally acceptable
iii. After delivery, afterbirth is no longer required
c. Umbilical cord stem cells
i. Does not require life being destroyed
ii. Morally acceptable
iii. After delivery has been completed, umbilical cord is no longer require.
d. Embryonic germ cells
i. With informed consent, morally acceptable when derived from spontaneous miscarriages.
ii. Grey area if fetal tissue is derived from elective abortions.
e. Embryonic stem cells
i. Grey area

Setting aside the morality issue for a moment.

Good science demands that we investigate all avenues of inquiry. HOWEVER, “Good” research respects both scientific and ethical standards. Adult stem cell (ASC) research meets every mark of good science and has the following ethical advantages:
it does not destroy human embryos;
it does not use human oocytes;
and it does not alienate a large part of the world's citizens by engaging in research that they find immoral.

Scientists still need to compare ASC to ESC.
HOWEVER, this does not require destroying any more human embryos
ESC are immortal. Currently, there are over 20 viable lines in the US alone that are available for federally funded research to make these comparisons.

We don't know if ASC are really equivalent to ESCs
Dr. James Thomson, the first scientist ever to isolate, culture and characterize human ESCin 1998, and author of one of the two ASC studies, found that ASC cells “meet the defining criteria” for ESC “with the significant exception that the iPS cells are not derived from embryos.”

On April 11, 2007 the US sentate passed the Hope Act and it was then sent to the House of Representative where it is currently sitting. The
Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act or the HOPE Act ... to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells, including pluripotent stem cells that have the flexibility of embryonic stem cells (whether or not they have an embryonic source), that may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, provided that such techniques do not involve: (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) the destruction or discarding of, or risk of injury to, a human embryo of embryos other than those that are naturally dead.

No one is complaining about AS reseach. The Hope Act allow research to continue on current ES lines.

I asked my son, who is an ethical vegetarian, how he could justify wearing a leather coat. He told me that since I had already slaughtered the cow for dinner, it would be a waste not to use it’s hide to keep warm. The damaged had already occurred and could not be undone. The damage to embryos that have produced the current stem cell lines has already occurred and they have lost the potential to develop into sentient life. They will however continue to divide forever and be a source of embryonic stem cells without the additional destruction of anymore potential sentient life. I am asking my fellow students to write their congressman to say they approve the Hope Act and want them to approve it also. With the current lines and with AS now functioning as ES, new embryonic cell stem research is unnessary and immoral.

* * * * * * *
How am I doing so far?

>> Does something happen at 14 days, or is it just a convenient time limit? <<

It's a Brit thing. Sometimes called a fortnight. It corresponds to exactly one half a lunar orbit of the earth and is generally considered long enough to do almost anything. Although history shows that most sieges of forts lasted much longer. Which leads to the theory that 14 is just the English version of the Jewish 40 where everything takes 40 days and nights.

To test the true nature of passing time, simply leave a loaf of bread out in a damp cellar for 14 days and you'll get penicilin which makes everything better. If you leave it out for 40 days and nights it'll probably write the ten commandments. But if you leave a crossword puzzle out for 14 days and someone will fill it all in and spoil it for everyone else. It's all a question of... what was the quetsion again?


~jwf~