Stem cell research probably has the most potential of any medical investigation to date. Apart from already having made significant scientific breakthroughs such as bone marrow transplants and cloning, stem cell researchers assert that it will change the way we treat a whole host of degenerative diseases including cancer and Parkinson’s disease, and will even allow us to repair spinal cord injuries. But the first step in achieving these breakthroughs is the capacity to influence the growth of pluripotent stem cells. It is here that some might need a brief lesson on how stem cells work – don’t worry, you won’t need a degree in biology to understand.
Stem cells are found all over your body, throughout your life, and there are two basic types of stem cells:
- Tissue specific stem cells – cells specific to a particular adult tissue in your body. These cells can therefore yield cells only of that particular tissue, they are called multipotent stem cells.
- Pluripotent stem cells – stem cells that haven’t yet begun specialising, or becoming a particular adult tissue. These cells have the potential to be any type of cell in the body, and because of this trait, are the core of stem cell research (SCR).
But there is one problem regarding pluripotent cells. Until recently the only way to obtain them was via human embryos. The cells of human embryos were the perfect source of un-specialised cells, but they came with some obvious ethical concerns. Is it ok to kill living cells that could one day become human? There are a few arguments that I would like to explore in order to find our answer.
The first usually goes along the lines of the ‘sanctity of life’ – “these cells are living beings that deserve to live as any other living creature on the planet” – this argument falls down when we consider the way in which humans treat life in almost every other circumstance. Take the meat industry for example. Not only do we kill these living creatures (who are more ‘alive’ than embryos by any definition you might find), but it could be argued that they are tortured, or at least live in torturous conditions before they are killed – humanely or not. Of course the current state of the meat industry may not be a good example of moral decency (although it is still the norm), and if you don’t support the industry you might think that the sanctity of life is a good argument. But unless you’re a Jain, whose religious doctrines preach the sanctity of life to the extent that its practitioners wouldn't kill a fly, any animal that you can see – including a fly – is a more complex creature than a human embryo. So again, unless you are a Jain that harbours some potentially unreasonable beliefs, then I'm sure you wouldn't object to swatting a fly every now and again. So if we can’t attribute the importance of human embryos to ‘life’, then what other reasons are there?
Is it possible that these human embryos are important, not because they are alive, but because they are human, or at the very least have the potential to become human? The initial argument – embryos should receive special treatment in virtue of being human – doesn't seem to match up with the reality of childbirth. The problem here is that current estimates suggest that 60-80% of fertilized eggs don’t implant, and of the eggs that do, a significant portion spontaneously abort. So even taking the best case scenario into account, more than half of the total population of humans (assuming fertilised eggs are considered human) die before they are born. There are more humans that have never lived than humans who have. And this doesn't seem to trouble anyone. In fact, the knowledge that death at this stage is so natural may even convince some that ‘killing’ embryos for vital scientific gains is acceptable. And even when an embryo is over a week old, if something is not special in virtue of being alive or being human, then it certainly cannot be called special in virtue of having ‘fingernails’, as many anti-abortionists point out in their attempts to humanize the embryos. But how about the potential for being human? Given recent scientific advances, it is possible to create pluripotent stem cells from adult stem cells, i.e. it is possible to create embryonic stem cells from skin (or any other adult stem cell, skin is simply the most used). This means that upon rubbing our hands together in an attempt to warm ourselves we are killing thousands of ‘potential’ humans. Hopefully this is enough to convince you that arguments from the ‘potential human’ corner are invalid.
Although I could end my arguments for embryonic stem cell research here, I would like to point out one thing. If we do not have value in virtue of being alive, being human, or having the potential to be human, then where does our value lie? It can only lie in one place – sentience. The ability to think and feel. The stronger the claim to sentience, the stronger the claim to value. This is also the only value claim upon which one can be morally consistent. The claims that value exists in virtue of being alive is inconsistent with how we treat life in other circumstances. The claim that value exists in virtue of being human is inconsistent with our indifferent response to natural abortion. The claim that value exists in virtue of having the potential to be human is inconsistent with our thoughts about the potential for life in our skin cells. The claim that value exists in virtue of being sentient is consistent with all of these – humans can consider themselves more valuable than other animals, humans can be indifferent to natural abortion, humans can care minimally about the potential for our skin cells to become human. But upon preaching moral consistency in this regard, the idea that sentience is the only true measure of value has its own noteworthy implications.
If sentience is the only true measure of value, which I think it must be, then it follows that those animals that are more sentient than human babies (such as adult monkeys, more specifically chimps, gorillas and orang-utans, among other animals) are more valuable. It also means that should a human lose sentience then he or she loses their value, in such cases as significant brain trauma reducing someone to a vegetative state. That unborn child within us (up to a certain age), and that dear friend who is no longer sentient in hospital, have no value. That is to say if they do have value, it is only the value that others place on them. They have no inherent value in and of themselves.
This conclusion may not be easy to reconcile with, and it doesn't sit well with me either. In fact it is completely counter-intuitive (which I suppose is a good thing considering if it weren't, we would evolutionarily have had no more reason to look after our own child than the neighbour’s dog – and we wouldn't have survived long), but it seems to me to be the only reasonable conclusion. It is well known that human intuition has its limits, fields such as physics have pointed this out over and over again. But today we can afford to remove ourselves from our genetic tendencies, for we did not evolve to be rational, we evolved on the back of a necessity to survive in an inhospitable environment and nothing more. And given that we are lucky enough that a fight for survival is no longer necessary (at least in first world countries), perhaps one day we will be able to break free of some of these limitations placed on us by our genetic dispositions.
In conclusion, the ability to grow organs that your body will not reject (because the organ is grown from your own cells) is something that we cannot sacrifice for the sake of embryos. I could write another whole blog outlining and explaining all the remarkable things that Stem Cell Research might yield, but given that I’ve concluded that human embryos have no value (at least until a certain point in development) it is not necessary. I hope this post sheds a little more light onto the debate, and whether or not I’ve convinced you, we are now virtually able to create embryonic stem cells from adult tissue, so you won’t have anything to worry about in the future anyway!
Stem cells are found all over your body, throughout your life, and there are two basic types of stem cells:
- Tissue specific stem cells – cells specific to a particular adult tissue in your body. These cells can therefore yield cells only of that particular tissue, they are called multipotent stem cells.
- Pluripotent stem cells – stem cells that haven’t yet begun specialising, or becoming a particular adult tissue. These cells have the potential to be any type of cell in the body, and because of this trait, are the core of stem cell research (SCR).
But there is one problem regarding pluripotent cells. Until recently the only way to obtain them was via human embryos. The cells of human embryos were the perfect source of un-specialised cells, but they came with some obvious ethical concerns. Is it ok to kill living cells that could one day become human? There are a few arguments that I would like to explore in order to find our answer.
The first usually goes along the lines of the ‘sanctity of life’ – “these cells are living beings that deserve to live as any other living creature on the planet” – this argument falls down when we consider the way in which humans treat life in almost every other circumstance. Take the meat industry for example. Not only do we kill these living creatures (who are more ‘alive’ than embryos by any definition you might find), but it could be argued that they are tortured, or at least live in torturous conditions before they are killed – humanely or not. Of course the current state of the meat industry may not be a good example of moral decency (although it is still the norm), and if you don’t support the industry you might think that the sanctity of life is a good argument. But unless you’re a Jain, whose religious doctrines preach the sanctity of life to the extent that its practitioners wouldn't kill a fly, any animal that you can see – including a fly – is a more complex creature than a human embryo. So again, unless you are a Jain that harbours some potentially unreasonable beliefs, then I'm sure you wouldn't object to swatting a fly every now and again. So if we can’t attribute the importance of human embryos to ‘life’, then what other reasons are there?
Is it possible that these human embryos are important, not because they are alive, but because they are human, or at the very least have the potential to become human? The initial argument – embryos should receive special treatment in virtue of being human – doesn't seem to match up with the reality of childbirth. The problem here is that current estimates suggest that 60-80% of fertilized eggs don’t implant, and of the eggs that do, a significant portion spontaneously abort. So even taking the best case scenario into account, more than half of the total population of humans (assuming fertilised eggs are considered human) die before they are born. There are more humans that have never lived than humans who have. And this doesn't seem to trouble anyone. In fact, the knowledge that death at this stage is so natural may even convince some that ‘killing’ embryos for vital scientific gains is acceptable. And even when an embryo is over a week old, if something is not special in virtue of being alive or being human, then it certainly cannot be called special in virtue of having ‘fingernails’, as many anti-abortionists point out in their attempts to humanize the embryos. But how about the potential for being human? Given recent scientific advances, it is possible to create pluripotent stem cells from adult stem cells, i.e. it is possible to create embryonic stem cells from skin (or any other adult stem cell, skin is simply the most used). This means that upon rubbing our hands together in an attempt to warm ourselves we are killing thousands of ‘potential’ humans. Hopefully this is enough to convince you that arguments from the ‘potential human’ corner are invalid.
Although I could end my arguments for embryonic stem cell research here, I would like to point out one thing. If we do not have value in virtue of being alive, being human, or having the potential to be human, then where does our value lie? It can only lie in one place – sentience. The ability to think and feel. The stronger the claim to sentience, the stronger the claim to value. This is also the only value claim upon which one can be morally consistent. The claims that value exists in virtue of being alive is inconsistent with how we treat life in other circumstances. The claim that value exists in virtue of being human is inconsistent with our indifferent response to natural abortion. The claim that value exists in virtue of having the potential to be human is inconsistent with our thoughts about the potential for life in our skin cells. The claim that value exists in virtue of being sentient is consistent with all of these – humans can consider themselves more valuable than other animals, humans can be indifferent to natural abortion, humans can care minimally about the potential for our skin cells to become human. But upon preaching moral consistency in this regard, the idea that sentience is the only true measure of value has its own noteworthy implications.
If sentience is the only true measure of value, which I think it must be, then it follows that those animals that are more sentient than human babies (such as adult monkeys, more specifically chimps, gorillas and orang-utans, among other animals) are more valuable. It also means that should a human lose sentience then he or she loses their value, in such cases as significant brain trauma reducing someone to a vegetative state. That unborn child within us (up to a certain age), and that dear friend who is no longer sentient in hospital, have no value. That is to say if they do have value, it is only the value that others place on them. They have no inherent value in and of themselves.
This conclusion may not be easy to reconcile with, and it doesn't sit well with me either. In fact it is completely counter-intuitive (which I suppose is a good thing considering if it weren't, we would evolutionarily have had no more reason to look after our own child than the neighbour’s dog – and we wouldn't have survived long), but it seems to me to be the only reasonable conclusion. It is well known that human intuition has its limits, fields such as physics have pointed this out over and over again. But today we can afford to remove ourselves from our genetic tendencies, for we did not evolve to be rational, we evolved on the back of a necessity to survive in an inhospitable environment and nothing more. And given that we are lucky enough that a fight for survival is no longer necessary (at least in first world countries), perhaps one day we will be able to break free of some of these limitations placed on us by our genetic dispositions.
In conclusion, the ability to grow organs that your body will not reject (because the organ is grown from your own cells) is something that we cannot sacrifice for the sake of embryos. I could write another whole blog outlining and explaining all the remarkable things that Stem Cell Research might yield, but given that I’ve concluded that human embryos have no value (at least until a certain point in development) it is not necessary. I hope this post sheds a little more light onto the debate, and whether or not I’ve convinced you, we are now virtually able to create embryonic stem cells from adult tissue, so you won’t have anything to worry about in the future anyway!