But this does not explain why, if the president really considers embryos to be human beings, he has not at least called for such a ban, nor even called upon scientists to stop doing stem cell research that involves the destruction of embryos.
When the comment drew a flurry of critical press attention, the White House retreated. No, the president did not believe that destroying an embryo was murder.
If embryonic stem cell research does constitute the deliberate taking of innocent human life, it is hard to see how it differs from murder.
The chastened press secretary made no attempt to parse the distinction. It was a gaffe only because the Bush policy does not follow that logic. How so? MS : In the course of treating infertility, American fertility clinics routinely discard thousands of human embryos.
The bill that recently passed in the Senate would fund stem cell research only on these excess embryos, which are already bound for destruction.
This is also the position taken by former governor Mitt Romney, who supports stem cell research on embryos left over from fertility clinics. Although Bush would ban the use of such embryos in federally funded research, he has not called for legislation to ban the creation and destruction of embryos by fertility clinics. MS : It does. If embryos are human beings, to allow fertility clinics to discard them is to countenance, in effect, the widespread creation and destruction of surplus children.
Those who believe that a blastocyst is morally equivalent to a baby must believe that the , excess embryos languishing in freezers in U. But those who view embryos in this way should not only be opposing embryonic stem cell research; they should also be leading a campaign to shut down what they must regard as rampant infanticide in fertility clinics.
Some principled right-to-life opponents of stem cell research meet this test of moral consistency. Those who fail to take seriously the belief that embryos are persons miss this point. If he does not want to ban embryonic stem cell research, or prosecute stem cell scientists for murder, or ban fertility clinics from creating and discarding excess embryos, this must mean that he does not really consider human embryos as morally equivalent to fully developed human beings after all.
Skip to main content. Other ethicists, lawyers and women's rights activists feel that they should, at least to compensate for time lost from work and other costs to them.
To surmount the supply and ethical problems of acquiring human eggs, some researchers have proposed inserting human nuclei into animal eggs. Any embryonic stem cells derived would not be used for therapies directly but instead used to conduct research that could lead to therapies.
Other researchers hope to make research-grade materials through cell fusion or genetically engineering other types of cells. Regulatory agencies in the UK have launched a public discussion as to whether human-animal hybrids should be created. Researchers must agree not to let the embryos grow past 2 weeks, and the researchers must argue convincingly that their experiments address important questions that could not be answered any other way.
However, some people object that mixing human nuclei with animal eggs offends human dignity or that scientists might not follow the regulations set for these experiments. International Society for Stem Cell Research. Overview from the US National Academies. Stem Cell Glossary from Nature Insight. Reprints and Permissions. Mention embryonic stem cells in the pub and the topic still divides opinion. But what exactly are the ethical arguments and why are they so tricky to resolve?
Research with embryonic stem cells ESCs is highly debated and many people have strong opinions about it. Both sides of the debate are interested in protecting human life, so why are views so different?
It comes down to how the human blastula is viewed. ESCs are primarily made from cells found in a human blastula, one of the earliest stages of human life. Blastulas used in research are typically harvested, isolated and cultivated in a laboratory or fertility clinic.
Others feel that a blastula is not exactly a child just yet, because unless a blastula is imbedded in the uterus wall, it will never have the chance to develop into a baby. Every year fertility clinics create many blastula that are destroyed because they are made in surplus.
Supporters of ESC research generally feel that using cells from these surplus blastula for research and developing medical treatments, which could help improve and save people's lives, is much better than throwing them away.
This is where discussion is important. Debates and discussions about the moral and ethical status of ESCs help establish the rules and regulations that govern scientific research and the development of medical treatments using stem cells.
It is important to realise that, although people may have very strong opinions on what is "best" for society, groups on both sides of this discussion are interested in helping and protecting human lives. Embryonic stem cell research poses a moral dilemma.
It forces us to choose between two moral principles:. In the case of embryonic stem cell research, it is impossible to respect both moral principles. To obtain embryonic stem cells, the early embryo has to be destroyed.
This means destroying a potential human life. But embryonic stem cell research could lead to the discovery of new medical treatments that would alleviate the suffering of many people.
So which moral principle should have the upper hand in this situation? The new development offers the possibility that the controversy over the use of embryos could end.
But many scientists and supporters of embryonic stem cell research caution that this advance has not eliminated the need for embryos, at least for the time being. Recently, the Pew Forum sat down with Yuval Levin, author of Tyranny of Reason , to discuss the ethical and moral grounds for opposing embryonic stem cell research. A counterargument explaining the case for embryonic stem cell research is made by Jonathan Moreno, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.
Recently, researchers in the United States and Japan successfully turned human skin cells into cells that behave like embryonic stem cells. There has been some discussion that this advance makes the moral and ethical debate over embryonic stem cells moot.
The scientific community has reacted very positively to this advancement, which was made in November There have been many additional scientific studies published on the topic since then, and it appears increasingly likely that the cells produced using skin cells are the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. Do you agree with Professor James Thomson, who led the American research team that made this breakthrough, when he maintains that this advance does not, for the time being, abrogate the need for embryonic stem cell research?
Thomson also argued that there will still be a need to use embryos in the future. But given that there are concerns, the case for destroying embryos does become a lot weaker. But for a lot of people, the stem cell debate has always been a matter of balance.
People are aware that there are ethical concerns and that there is enormous scientific promise. Now the debate is: Given the ethical questions at stake, is the scientific promise sufficient to make us put the ethical concerns aside and support the research?
I think that balance has changed because of this advance, and having an alternative to embryonic stem cell research that achieves the same result will obviously affect the way people think about the ethics of this issue. But I do think it means that people are going to change the way they reason about the balance between science and ethics because of this advance.
0コメント