Written by Brian S. (KIS'19)
Edited by Angela Y. (VHS'21)
━━ August 12th, 2018 ━━
The Ethicality of Stem Cell Research
As science becomes more and more advanced, the things that seemed impossible have begun seeming much more like a reality. However, with technology becoming more advanced, it brings with it an ethical issue. The question changes from “can we?” to “should we?” These types of ethical questions have sparked much debate throughout the science community. One of these heated debates is around stem cells, more specifically, the research of stem cells in embryos.
Before we get into the arguments for each of side of the argument, we must consider what stem cells are exactly. Simply put, stem cells are cells in the human body that haven’t been assigned into a specific function yet. Most of the cells in your body have already differentiated; they have a specific role or function. Cells that have already differentiated cannot become any other cell. Their fate is sealed, and they cannot change the function which has been assigned. Cell differentiation is important for eukaryotic multicellular organisms like us because that is what allows us to have specialized organs. Without cells becoming specialized to serve a specific purpose, specialized masses of cells, like tissues and organs, won’t be able to form.
So you may be wondering why stem cells are so important since I just discussed the importance of having differentiated cells. Well, the reason why stem cell research is becoming so popular is that of their unique property: stem cells haven’t differentiated yet. This is important because differentiated cells are unable to change their function. So, the advantage of non-differentiated cells is that they don’t have a specific purpose. They still haven’t locked into exactly what function they will serve. Therefore, they will be able to become any type of cell. This property of stem cells is what makes them so special. They can be used to treat injuries that were once thought to be permanent.
The body is usually able to reconstruct most of itself, given enough time. However, there are some injuries that won’t heal, no matter how much time is given, like neuron damage. Usually, damage to critical areas won’t heal, but with the use of stem cells, these injuries could potentially heal again. So, scientists are able to manipulate these cells into differentiating into whatever function they want these cells to have. With stem cells, new heart cells, nerve cells, and muscle cells can all be recreated. Then, these newly created cells can be used to replace the old, degenerative tissue.
The ethical debate that comes from stem cell research stems from the use of embryonic stem cells. There are multiple ways to harvest stem cells, the main three being the bone marrow, umbilical cord, and embryo. Even though there are multiple places to harvest stem cells from, scientists have found that the stem cells that are harvested from the embryo are the most versatile. This is because embryonic cells are omnipotent, able to eventually differentiate into all organs and tissue types. The stem cells harvested from the bone marrow, for example, are only able to differentiate into certain types of cells, although there is still research about this happening today. So, with embryonic stem cells in mind, the question that arises is whether or not it is humane to do tests on human embryos.
The main difference in the debate is each sides’ view on the blastula, the early stage of an embryo that is just a hollow ball made up of cells (usually about 150 cells). One side believes that the blastula is an unborn child, a child that has potential to grow. However, the opposition to that points out that since this is in a lab experiment, the blastula will never grow into a full human being, as the blastula will never get a chance to actually embed itself into the uterus wall. Therefore, it will never have a chance to fully develop into an actual human being. Basically, the debate is on when life in a cell actually begins.
I believe that blastulae are actually living. The way that I think of this is kind of like the new watch question. Let’s say that you have a watch, but one part of it breaks. So, you take it to the shop to get that one part replaced. And then later, after you have been using for a little bit, another part of the watch breaks. So, once again, you take it back to the shop to get that part fixed. And you continue this process until you have replaced every single part in the watch. Is that watch now considered a new watch, or is it still considered the same watch that you have had this whole entire time? If it is a new watch, when does the old watch become the new watch? In my opinion, the moment you change a piece it is now considered a new watch. Similarly, would you consider a single human cell a human? If that cell continues to divide, how much does it need to divide in order to be considered a human? Does some sort of action, like implanting into the uterus wall, need to take place in order for it to be considered a human? In both of these questions, we must consider at what exact point something changes: an old watch to a new watch or nonliving to living. Kind of like the way that a single watch with a new piece is considered a new watch, I also think that a single human cell can be considered a human. In a purely biological sense, a single cell is considered to have life. Therefore, shouldn’t it also be considered a human?
Although I believe that the blastula is human, I believe that the research on embryonic stem cells should continue. Stem cells have tremendous potential to cure many of the diseases and illnesses we have today. Because of this, even though many blastulae will be destroyed in the process of finding the scientific breakthrough and curing the patient, in the end, the destruction of these blastulae is outweighed by the saving other human lives.
━━━━━━━━
Pictures:
━━━━━━━━
Comments