arguments against stem cell research

module five considers the ethical questions that arise in stem cell research. but first, let’s do a little stem cell 101. as you’ll read in the supplemental materials for this unit, stem cells have three general properties: first, they can divide and renew themselves, seemingly without limit; second, they are unspecialized, yet highly adaptable; and third, they can differentiate to form specific cell types, such as blood cells or brain cells. when a stem cell divides, it can either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a specialized function. for many researchers, these properties endow stem cells with “silver bullet” capabilities. stem cells are either “embryonic” or “somatic” in origin.

embryonic stem cells are “totipotent,” meaning they can differentiate into any of the body’s cells; somatic or “adult” stem cells are “pluripotent,” since they can differentiate into some, but not all, of the body’s cells. for the most part, embryonic stem cells are harvested from “spare” or “surplus” embryos donated by couples trying to conceive through in vitro fertilization. these stem cells remain the primary material for the most promising stem cell therapies, including treatment of diabetes, alzheimer’s, parkinson’s, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, strokes, leukemia and arthritis. this little cartoon of a petri dish, labeled “stem cell parental advice,” seems to capture the essence of embryonic stem cells: “you can be anything you want to be when you grow up.” as with any science involving human experimentation, stem cell research has spawned significant ethical concerns, since the embryos used in stem cell research are destroyed after harvesting.

as you might imagine, this is where the problems start, and we should not be surprised to find the concept of “personhood” at the center of much of the debate. the catholic church, in particular, holds that personhood begins at the moment of conception, and that embryonic life is as deserving of protection as any other human life. if one accepts this doctrine, it follows that a human embryo should never be harmed, a position that is consistent with deontological ethics, since using an embryonic human for the benefit of scientific advancement is to treat a human life as a means to an end, and not as an end in itself. of course, if an embryo is not a person, then all bets are off, since we can't arbitrarily assign moral rights and privileges to just any living thing – only persons merit moral consideration.

our text presents two opposed views on embryonic stem cell research, with jane meienschein arguing for its acceptance and beth alvarez manninen arguing against it. meienshein holds that opponents of stem cell research often commit a version of the so-called “naturalistic fallacy” by trying to derive what is the case from what ought to be the case. you'll find out more about this fallacy in her well-argued presentation. manninen, on the other hand, holds that all human life, regardless of its developmental stage, is sacred, and that the destruction of embryonic life is therefore morally wrong, even if it yields scientific advances. here, she appeals to a version of immanuel kant’s famous categorical imperative, which stipulates that we treat humanity always as an end, and never as a means. both your essay and the discussion board focus on these opposed positions, so you may wish to outline them carefully.

i also think that the supplemental reading entitled “embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma” is extremely useful. in fact, i recommend that you incorporate selected portions into your own reflections. good stuff. well, that’s it. i’ll see you in two weeks as always, best wishes for a thoughtful fortnight.