Advertisement

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Question of Beliefs?

  • Barbara MaierEmail author
  • Warren A. Shibles†
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 47)

Abstract

As far as we know now, embryonic stem cell research is not very promising in terms of therapeutic gains because of the side-effects but nevertheless not at all neglectable in terms of gaining basic knowledge about the development of diseases and their understanding, trials for toxicity of pharmaceuticals, development of embryos, understanding of fertility, etc. The debate about research on human embryonic stem cells is especially characterized by using value terms to promote certain positions. Humaine medicine is medicine for suffering people. The consequentialistic ethical perspective focuses on affected sick people. Do present and future patients have a right to demand that this research be conducted, and moreover, that it be conducted now and without hesitation?

Keywords

Embryonic stem cell research adult stem cells (AS) embryonic stem cells (ES) IVF left over embryos SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) cloning therapeutic cloning definition of embryo moralization of embryos abortion argument humaine medicine 

References

  1. 1.
    PBS. August 9, 2001 “News Hour.” www.pbs.org/search
  2. 2.
    Weissmann, J.L. 2002. Stemcells – scientific, medical, and political issues. NEJM 346:1576–1579 esp.1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruen, L., and Grabel, L. 2006. Concise review: Scientific and ethical roadblocks to human embryonic stem cell therapy. Stem Cells 24:2162–2169; esp. 2164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shibles, W. 1972. Philosophical pictures. Dubuque, IA: William, C. Brown.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dewey, J., and Tufts, J. 1932. Ethics. New York: Holt; Dewey, J. 1932/1996. Theory of the moral life. New York: Irvington Publishers Inc. edn.; Dewey, J. 1939. Theory of valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evers, K. 2002. European perspectives on therapeutic cloning. NEJM 346:1579–1582; PhRMA Genomics: Cloning and stem cell research. http://www.genomics.phrma.org/cloning.html.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nüsslein-Volhard, C. 2004. Von Genen und Embryonen, 42. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomson, J.A., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S.S., Waknitz, M.A., Swiergiel, J.J., Marshall, V.S., and Jones, J.M. 1998. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts’ Science 282:1145–1147; Stem Cell Research News: http://www.stemcellresearchnews.com/ University of Wisconsin: News and background information detailing embryonic stem cell research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomson, J.A. 2001. Human embryonic stem cells. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics and public policy. eds. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L., 15–26. Cambridge, MA, London, England: A Bradford Book, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Okarma, T. 2001. Human embryonic stem cells: A primer on the technology and its medical applications. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics and public policy. eds. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L., 3–13 Cambridge, MA; London, England: A Bradford Book, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zwaka, T.P., and Thomson, J.A. 2003. Homologous recombination in human embryonic stem cells. Published online February 10th 2003; doi:10.1038/nbt788.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hall, V.J., Stojkovic, P., and Stojkovic, M. 2006. Using therapeutic cloning to fight human disease: A conundrum or reality? Stem Cells 24:1628–1637; esp.1634.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenthal, N. 2003. Prometheus` vulture and the stem-cell promise. NEJM 349:267–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells. 2009. Opinion of the Austrian bioethics commission of March 16th, 2009.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strauss, E. 1999. Brain stem cells show their potential. Science 283:471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harris, J. 2004. On cloning, 116. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    NIEHS. 1999; Stem Cells: International Journal of Cell Differentiation and Proliferation. http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/; Stem Cell Research Foundation: http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/Aout/about.htm.
  18. 18.
    Research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells. 2009. Opinion of the Austrian Bioethics Commission of March 16th, 2009: 68.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kimmelmann, J., Baylis, F., and Glass, K.C. 2006. Stem cell trials: Lessons from gene transfer research. Hastings Center Report 36:23–26; esp. 25 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thomson JA 2001. Human embryonic stem cells. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics and public policy. eds. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L., 15–26; esp. 22 Cambridge, MA; London, England: A Bradford Book, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Understanding stem cells. 2009. An overview of the science and issues from the National Academies. Washington, http://dels.nas.edu/bis/stemcells/basics.shtml visited Sept 25th, 2009; Pecorino, L., Stem Cells for Cell-Based Therapies. An actionbioscience.org original article with links to other stem cells websites and articles: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pecorino2.html.
  22. 22.
    Harris, J. 2004. On cloning, 146. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gruen, L., and Grabel, L. 2006. Concise review: Scientific and ethical roadblocks to human embryonic stem cell therapy. Stem Cells 24:2162–2169; esp. 2163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies 1993: 607. www.fedpubs.com/subject/health/newegno.htm. Federal Publications Inc Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  25. 25.
    Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the European Union 1997. (European Treaty Series No 164) http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/commit/QueVeuler-Vaus.asp?NT=164&CL=ENG.
  26. 26.
    Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the European Union 1997. Art 18. (European Treaty Series No 164) http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/commit/QueVeuler-Vaus.asp?NT=164&CL=ENG.
  27. 27.
    Nüsslein-Volhard, C. 2004. Von Genen und Embryonen, 22. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nüsslein-Volhard, C. 2004. Von Genen und Embryonen, 54. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    see Maier, B. 2005. Unsere Empfindsamkeit für und unsere Sorge um das Leben von Menschen auf dem Hintergrund moderner Biotechnologien. In Leben nach Maß – zwischen Machbarkeit und Unantastbarkeit. Gentechnologie im Licht von Albert Schweitzers Philosophie und Theologie, ed. Schüz, G., 115–142; esp.124 Frankfurt am Main. www.bundeskanzleramt.at/bioethik/ Detail: http://www.bka.gv.at/Docs/2006/4/3/BMaier_Schuz.pdf.
  30. 30.
    Brock, D. 2006. Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles. Journal of Medical Ethics 32:36–42; esp. 38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sandel MJ 2004. Embryo ethics: The moral logic of stem cell research. NEJM 351:207–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Farley MA 2001. Roman Catholic views on research involving human embryonic stem cells. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics and public policy, eds. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L., 113–118. Cambridge, MA; London, England: A Bradford Book, MIT Press; Mendiola, M.M. 2001. Human embryonic stem cells: Possible approaches from a Catholic perspective. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics and public policy. eds. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L., 119–125. Cambridge, MA; London, England: A Bradford Book, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brock, D. 2006. Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles. Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 36–42; esp.36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maier, B. 2005. Unsere Empfindsamkeit für und unsere Sorge um das Leben von Menschen auf dem Hintergrund moderner Biotechnologien. In Leben nach Maß – zwischen Machbarkeit und Unantastbarkeit. Gentechnologie im Licht von Albert Schweitzers Philosophie und Theologie, ed. Schüz, G., 115–142; esp.118 f. Frankfurt am Main. www.bundeskanzleramt.at/bioethik/Detail: http://www.bka.gv.at/Docs/2006/4/3/BMaier_Schuz.pdf.
  35. 35.
    Nüsslein-Volhard, C. 2004. Von Genen und Embryonen, 67 f. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lebacqz, K. 2001. On the elusive nature of respect. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics and public policy. eds. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L., 149–162 Cambridge, MA; London, England: A Bradford Book, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Merkel, R. 2002. Forschungsobjekt Embryo. Verfassungsrechtliche und ethische Grundlagen der Forschung an menschlichen embryonalen Stammzellen. 135–139 München: dtv.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Meilaender, G. 2001. Some protestant reflections. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics and public policy, eds. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L., 141–147; 143 Cambridge, MA; London, England: A Bradford Book, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the European Union 1997. (European Treaty Series No 164) http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/commit/QueVeuler-Vaus.asp?NT=164&CL=ENG.
  40. 40.
    Shibles, W. 1980. Ethics as a science: Going from is to ought. Iowa Science Teachers Journal 3:26–32.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    McGee, G., and Caplan, A.L. 1999. The ethics and politics of small sacrifices in stem cell research. Kennedy Insitute of Ethics Journal 9:151–158; esp. 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Matthiesen, L. ed. 2002. Survey of Opinions from the National Ethics Committees or Similar Bodies, Public Debate and National Legislation in Relation to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Use. Vol, I. in EU Member States, European Commission Research Directorate-General. Directorate E-Life Sciences: Biotechnology, agricultural and food research.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    McGee, G., and Caplan, A.L. 1999. The ethics and politics of small sacrifices in stem cell research. Kennedy Insitute of Ethics Journal 9:151–158.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    McGee, G., and Caplan, A.L. 1999. The ethics and politics of small sacrifices in stem cell research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9:151–158; esp. 152 f.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical investigations, 3rd edn. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Evers, K. 2002. European perspectives on therapeutic cloning. NEJM 346:1579–1582.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Harris, J. 2004. On cloning, 6. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shibles, W. 1974. Ethics as open-context terms. In Wittgenstein, language and philosophy, rev. 3rd edn. ed. Shibles, W., 299 ff. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mendiola, M.M. 2001. Human embryonic stem cells: Possible approaches from a Catholic perspective. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics and public policy. eds. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L., 119–125; esp.119 ff. Cambridge, MA; London, England: A Bradford Book, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bjornson, C.R. 1999. Turning brain into blood: A hematopoetic fate adopted by adult neural stem cells in vivo. Science 283:534–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel NIH 1988.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Meyer, J.M., and Nelson, J.L. 2001. Respecting what we destory: Reflections on human embryo research. Hastings Center Report 31:16–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Drukker, M., Katchman, H., Katz, G., Friedman SET, Hornstein, E., Mandelboin, O., Reisner, Y., and Benvenisty, N. 2006. Human embryonic stem cells and their differentiated derivatives are less susceptible to immune rejection than adult cells. Stem Cells 24:221–229; Lamelsky, N., Blondel, O., and Laeng, P. 2001. Differentiation of embryonic stem cells to insulin-secreting structures similar to pancreatic islets. Science 292:1389–1394; Vaca, P., Martin, F., Vegara-Meseguer, M., Rovira, J.M., Berna, G., and Soria, B. 2006. Induction of differentiation of embryonic stem cells into insulin-secreting cells by fetal soluble factors. Stem Cells 24:258–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weissmann, J.L. 2002. Stemcells – scientific, medical, and political issues. NEJM 346:1576–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gruen, L., and Grabel, L. 2006. Concise review: Scientific and ethical roadblocks to human embryonic stem cell therapy. Stem Cells 24:2162–2169; esp. 2168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hall, S.S. 2006. Stem cells: A status report. Hastings Center Report 36:16–22; esp.20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Meissner, A., and Janisch, R. 2006. Generation of nuclear transfer-derived pluripotent ES cells cloned Cdx2-deficient blastocysts. Nature 439:212–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Solter, D. 2005. Politically correct human embryonic stem cells? NEJM 353:2321–2323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Harris, J. 2004. On cloning, 142. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Embryonale Stammzellenforschung: Obama erlaubt Staatliche Förderung (embryonic stemcell research: Obama allows for public funding): Spiegel online: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,612278,00.html (accessed october,1st 2009).
  61. 61.
    Meilaender, G. 2001. The point of a ban: Or how to think about stem cell research. Hastings Center Report 31:9–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Survey of opinions from National Ethics Committees, public debate and national legislation in the UK (Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2000) and from the law in the form of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) (Matthiesen, 2002).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Magnus, D. 2006. Stem cell research: The California experience. Hastings Center Report 36:26–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Magnus, D. 2006. Stem cell research: The California experience. Hastings Center Report 36:27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    McGee, G., and Caplan, A.L. 1999. The ethics and politics of small sacrifices in stem cell research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9:151–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Merkel, R. 2002. Forschungsobjekt Embryo. Verfassungsrechtliche und ethische Grundlagen der Forschung an menschlichen embryonalen Stammzellen, 259. München: Dtv.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Harris, J. 2004. On cloning, 16. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Harris, J. 2004. On cloning, 15 f. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kimmelmann, J., Baylis, F., and Glass, K.C. 2006. Stem cell trials: Lessons from gene transfer research. Hastings Center Report 36:23–26; esp. 25 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Harris, J. 2004. On cloning, 143. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schweitzer, A. 1923/1996. Kultur und Ethik, 349. München: Beck’sche Reihe.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schweitzer, A. 1923/1996. Kultur und ethik, 325. München: Beck’sche Reihe.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsParacelsus Medical University SALKSalzburgAustria
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin–WhitewaterWhitewaterUSA

Personalised recommendations