SEP home page

  • Table of Contents
  • Random Entry
  • Chronological
  • Editorial Information
  • About the SEP
  • Editorial Board
  • How to Cite the SEP
  • Special Characters
  • Advanced Tools
  • Support the SEP
  • PDFs for SEP Friends
  • Make a Donation
  • SEPIA for Libraries
  • Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

  • Friends PDF Preview
  • Author and Citation Info
  • Back to Top

Ethics of Stem Cell Research

Human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research offers much hope for alleviating the human suffering brought on by the ravages of disease and injury. HESCs are characterized by their capacity for self-renewal and their ability to differentiate into all types of cells of the body. The main goal of HESC research is to identify the mechanisms that govern cell differentiation and to turn HESCs into specific cell types that can be used for treating debilitating and life-threatening diseases and injuries.

Despite the tremendous therapeutic promise of HESC research, the research has met with heated opposition because the harvesting of HESCs involves the destruction of the human embryo. HESCs are derived in vitro around the fifth day of the embryo’s development (Thomson et al . 1998). A typical day-5 human embryo consists of 200–250 cells, most of which comprise the trophoblast, which is the outermost layer of the blastocyst. HESCs are harvested from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, which consists of 30–34 cells. The derivation of HESC cultures requires the removal of the trophoblast. This process of disaggregating the blastocyst’s cells eliminates its potential for further development. Opponents of HESC research argue that the research is morally impermissible because it involves the unjust killing of innocent human beings.

Scientists recently succeeded in converting adult human skin cells into cells that appear to have the properties of HESCs by activating four genes in the adult cells (Takahashi et al . 2007; Yu et al . 2007). The reprogrammed cells—“induced pluripotent stem cells” (iPSCs)—could ultimately eliminate the need for HESCs. However, at present, the consensus in the scientific community is that both HESC and iPSC research should be pursued, as we do not yet know whether iPSCs have the same potential as HESCs or whether it is safe to transplant them into humans. Thus, the controversies around HESC research will continue, at least in the near-term.

While the principal source of the controversy surrounding HESC research lies in competing views about the value of human embryonic life, the scope of ethical issues in HESC research is broader than the question of the ethics of destroying human embryos. It also encompasses questions about, among other things, whether researchers who use but do not derive HESCs are complicit in the destruction of embryos, whether there is a moral distinction between creating embryos for research purposes and creating them for reproductive ends, the permissibility of cloning human embryos to harvest HESCs, and the ethics of creating human/non-human chimeras. This entry provides an overview of all but the last two issues just listed; cloning and human-non-human chimeras are addressed in separate entries.

1.1 When does a human being begin to exist?

1.2 the moral status of human embryos, 1.3 the case of “doomed embryos”, 2. the ethics of using human embryonic stem cells in research, 3. the ethics of creating embryos for stem cell research and therapy, 4. stem cell-derived gametes, 5. stem cell-derived organoids, gastruloids, and synthetic embryos, cited resources, other resources, related entries, 1. the ethics of destroying human embryos for research.

The potential therapeutic benefits of HESC research provide strong grounds in favor of the research. If looked at from a strictly consequentialist perspective, it’s almost certainly the case that the potential health benefits from the research outweigh the loss of embryos involved and whatever suffering results from that loss for persons who want to protect embryos. However, most of those who oppose the research argue that the constraints against killing innocent persons to promote social utility apply to human embryos. Thus, as long as we accept non-consequentialist constraints on killing persons, those supporting HESC research must respond to the claim that those constraints apply to human embryos.

In its most basic form, the central argument supporting the claim that it is unethical to destroy human embryos goes as follows: It is morally impermissible to intentionally kill innocent human beings; the human embryo is an innocent human being; therefore it is morally impermissible to intentionally kill the human embryo. It is worth noting that this argument, if sound, would not suffice to show that all or even most HESC research is impermissible, since most investigators engaged in HESC research do not participate in the derivation of HESCs but instead use cell lines that researchers who performed the derivation have made available. To show that researchers who use but do not derive HESCs participate in an immoral activity, one would further need to establish their complicity in the destruction of embryos. We will consider this issue in section 2. But for the moment, let us address the argument that it is unethical to destroy human embryos.

A premise of the argument against killing embryos is that human embryos are human beings. The issue of when a human being begins to exist is, however, a contested one. The standard view of those who oppose HESC research is that a human being begins to exist with the emergence of the one-cell zygote at fertilization. At this stage, human embryos are said to be “whole living member[s] of the species homo sapiens … [which] possess the epigenetic primordia for self-directed growth into adulthood, with their determinateness and identity fully intact” (George & Gomez-Lobo 2002, 258). This view is sometimes challenged on the grounds that monozygotic twinning is possible until around days 14–15 of an embryo’s development (Smith & Brogaard 2003). An individual who is an identical twin cannot be numerically identical to the one-cell zygote, since both twins bear the same relationship to the zygote, and numerical identity must satisfy transitivity. That is, if the zygote, A, divides into two genetically identical cell groups that give rise to identical twins B and C, B and C cannot be the same individual as A because they are not numerically identical with each other. This shows that not all persons can correctly assert that they began their life as a zygote. However, it does not follow that the zygote is not a human being, or that it has not individuated. This would follow only if one held that a condition of an entity’s status as an individual human being is that it be impossible for it to cease to exist by dividing into two or more entities. But this seems implausible. Consider cases in which we imagine adult humans undergoing fission (for example, along the lines of Parfit’s thought experiments, where each half of the brain is implanted into a different body) (Parfit 1984). The prospect of our going out of existence through fission does not pose a threat to our current status as distinct human persons. Likewise, one might argue, the fact that a zygote may divide does not create problems for the view that the zygote is a distinct human being.

There are, however, other grounds on which some have sought to reject that the early human embryo is a human being. According to one view, the cells that comprise the early embryo are a bundle of homogeneous cells that exist in the same membrane but do not form a human organism because the cells do not function in a coordinated way to regulate and preserve a single life (Smith & Brogaard 2003, McMahan 2002). While each of the cells is alive, they only become parts of a human organism when there is substantial cell differentiation and coordination, which occurs around day-16 after fertilization. Thus, on this account, disaggregating the cells of the 5-day embryo to derive HESCs does not entail the destruction of a human being.

This account is subject to dispute on empirical grounds. That there is some intercellular coordination in the zygote is revealed by the fact that the development of the early embryo requires that some cells become part of the trophoblast while others become part of the inner cell mass. Without some coordination between the cells, there would be nothing to prevent all cells from differentiating in the same direction (Damschen, Gomez-Lobo and Schonecker 2006). The question remains, though, whether this degree of cellular interaction is sufficient to render the early human embryo a human being. Just how much intercellular coordination must exist for a group of cells to constitute a human organism cannot be resolved by scientific facts about the embryo, but is instead an open metaphysical question (McMahan 2007a).

Suppose that the 5-day human embryo is a human being. On the standard argument against HESC research, membership in the species Homo sapiens confers on the embryo a right not to be killed. This view is grounded in the assumption that human beings have the same moral status (at least with respect to possessing this right) at all stages of their lives.

Some accept that the human embryo is a human being but argue that the human embryo does not have the moral status requisite for a right to life. There is reason to think that species membership is not the property that determines a being’s moral status. We have all been presented with the relevant thought experiments, courtesy of Disney, Orwell, Kafka, and countless science fiction works. The results seem clear: we regard mice, pigs, insects, aliens, and so on, as having the moral status of persons in those possible worlds in which they exhibit the psychological and cognitive traits that we normally associate with mature human beings. This suggests that it is some higher-order mental capacity (or capacities) that grounds the right to life. While there is no consensus about the capacities that are necessary for the right to life, some of the capacities that have been proposed include reasoning, self-awareness, and agency (Kuhse & Singer 1992, Tooley 1983, Warren 1973).

The main difficulty for those who appeal to such mental capacities as the touchstone for the right to life is that early human infants lack these capacities, and do so to a greater degree than many of the nonhuman animals that most deem it acceptable to kill (Marquis 2002). This presents a challenge for those who hold that the non-consequentialist constraints on killing human children and adults apply to early human infants. Some reject that these constraints apply to infants, and allow that there may be circumstances where it is permissible to sacrifice infants for the greater good (McMahan 2007b). Others argue that, while infants do not have the intrinsic properties that ground a right to life, we should nonetheless treat them as if they have a right to life in order to promote love and concern towards them, as these attitudes have good consequences for the persons they will become (Benn 1973, Strong 1997).

Some claim that we can reconcile the ascription of a right to life to all humans with the view that higher order mental capacities ground the right to life by distinguishing between two senses of mental capacities: “immediately exercisable” capacities and “basic natural” capacities. (George and Gomez-Lobo 2002, 260). According to this view, an individual’s immediately exercisable capacity for higher mental functions is the actualization of natural capacities for higher mental functions that exist at the embryonic stage of life. Human embryos have a “rational nature,” but that nature is not fully realized until individuals are able to exercise their capacity to reason. The difference between these types of capacity is said to be a difference between degrees of development along a continuum. There is merely a quantitative difference between the mental capacities of embryos, fetuses, infants, children, and adults (as well as among infants, children, and adults). And this difference, so the argument runs, cannot justify treating some of these individuals with moral respect while denying it to others.

Given that a human embryo cannot reason at all, the claim that it has a rational nature has struck some as tantamount to asserting that it has the potential to become an individual that can engage in reasoning (Sagan & Singer 2007). But an entity’s having this potential does not logically entail that it has the same status as beings that have realized some or all of their potential (Feinberg 1986). Moreover, with the advent of cloning technologies, the range of entities that we can now identify as potential persons arguably creates problems for those who place great moral weight on the embryo’s potential. A single somatic cell or HESC can in principle (though not yet in practice) develop into a mature human being under the right conditions—that is, where the cell’s nucleus is transferred into an enucleated egg, the new egg is electrically stimulated to create an embryo, and the embryo is transferred to a woman’s uterus and brought to term. If the basis for protecting embryos is that they have the potential to become reasoning beings, then, some argue, we have reason to ascribe a high moral status to the trillions of cells that share this potential and to assist as many of these cells as we reasonably can to realize their potential (Sagan & Singer 2007, Savulescu 1999). Because this is a stance that we can expect nearly everyone to reject, it’s not clear that opponents of HESC research can effectively ground their position in the human embryo’s potential.

One response to this line of argument has been to claim that embryos possess a kind of potential that somatic cells and HESCs lack. An embryo has potential in the sense of having an “active disposition” and “intrinsic power” to develop into a mature human being (Lee & George 2006). An embryo can mature on its own in the absence of interference with its development. A somatic cell, on the other hand, does not have the inherent capacity or disposition to grow into a mature human being. However, some question whether this distinction is viable, especially in the HESC research context. While it is true that somatic cells can realize their potential only with the assistance of outside interventions, an embryo’s development also requires that numerous conditions external to it are satisfied. In the case of embryos that are naturally conceived, they must implant, receive nourishment, and avoid exposure to dangerous substances in utero . In the case of spare embryos created through in vitro fertilization—which are presently the source of HESCs for research—the embryos must be thawed and transferred to a willing woman’s uterus. Given the role that external factors—including technological interventions—play in an embryo’s realizing its potential, one can question whether there is a morally relevant distinction between an embryo’s and somatic cell’s potential and thus raise doubts about potentiality as a foundation for the right to life (Devolder & Harris 2007).

Some grant that human embryos lack the properties essential to a right to life, but hold that they possess an intrinsic value that calls for a measure of respect and places at least some moral constraints on their use: “The life of a single human organism commands respect and protection … no matter in what form or shape, because of the complex creative investment it represents and because of our wonder at the divine or evolutionary processes that produce new lives from old ones.” (Dworkin l992, 84). There are, however, divergent views about the level of respect embryos command and what limits exist on their use. Some opponents of HESC research hold that the treatment of human embryos as mere research tools always fails to manifest proper respect for them. Other opponents take a less absolutist view. Some, for example, deem embryos less valuable than more mature human beings but argue that the benefits of HESC research are too speculative to warrant the destruction of embryos, and that the benefits might, in any case, be achieved through the use of noncontroversial sources of stem cells (e.g., adult stem cells) (Holm 2003).

Many, if not most, who support the use of human embryos for HESC research would likely agree with opponents of the research that there are some circumstances where the use of human embryos would display a lack of appropriate respect for human life, for example, were they to be offered for consumption to contestants in a reality TV competition or destroyed for the production of cosmetics. But proponents of the research hold that the value of human embryos is not great enough to constrain the pursuit of research that may yield significant therapeutic benefits. Supporters of the research also frequently question whether most opponents of the research are consistent in their ascription of a high value to human embryos, as opponents generally display little concern about the fact that many embryos created for fertility treatment are discarded.

When spare embryos exist after fertility treatment, the individuals for whom the embryos were created typically have the option of storing for them for future reproductive use, donating them to other infertile couples, donating them to research, or discarding them. Some argue that as long as the decision to donate embryos for research is made after the decision to discard them, it is morally permissible to use them in HESC research even if we assume that they have the moral status of persons. The claim takes two different forms. One is that it is morally permissible to kill an individual who is about to be killed by someone else where killing that individual will help others (Curzer, H. 2004). The other is that researchers who derive HESCs from embryos that were slated for destruction do not cause their death. Instead, the decision to discard the embryos causes their death; research just causes the manner of their death (Green 2002).

Both versions of the argument presume that the decision to discard spare embryos prior to the decision to donate them to research entails that donated embryos are doomed to destruction when researchers receive them. There are two arguments one might marshal against this presumption. First, one who wants to donate embryos to research might first elect to discard them only because doing so is a precondition for donating them. There could be cases in which one who chooses the discard option would have donated the embryos to other couples were the research donation option not available. The fact that a decision to discard embryos is made prior to the decision to donate the embryos thus does not establish that the embryos were doomed to destruction before the decision to donate them to research was made. Second, a researcher who receives embryos could choose to rescue them, whether by continuing to store them or by donating them to infertile couples. While this would violate the law, the fact that it is within a researcher’s power to prevent the destruction of the embryos he or she receives poses problems for the claim that the decision to discard the embryos dooms them or causes their destruction.

Assume for the sake of argument that it is morally impermissible to destroy human embryos. It does not follow that all research with HESCs is impermissible, as it is sometimes permissible to benefit from moral wrongs. For example, there is nothing objectionable about transplant surgeons and patients benefiting from the organs of murder and drunken driving victims (Robertson 1988). If there are conditions under which a researcher may use HESCs without being complicit in the destruction of embryos, then those who oppose the destruction of embryos could support research with HESCs under certain circumstances.

Researchers using HESCs are clearly implicated in the destruction of embryos where they derive the cells themselves or enlist others to derive the cells. However, most investigators who conduct research with HESCs obtain them from an existing pool of cell lines and play no role in their derivation. One view is that we cannot assign causal or moral responsibility to investigators for the destruction of embryos from which the HESCs they use are derived where their “research plans had no effect on whether the original immoral derivation occurred.” (Robertson 1999). This view requires qualification. There may be cases in which HESCs are derived for the express purpose of making them widely available to HESC investigators. In such instances, it may be that no individual researcher’s plans motivated the derivation of the cells. Nonetheless, one might argue that investigators who use these cells are complicit in the destruction of the embryos from which the cells were derived because they are participants in a research enterprise that creates a demand for HESCs. For these investigators to avoid the charge of complicity in the destruction of embryos, it must be the case that the researchers who derived the HESCs would have performed the derivation in the absence of external demand for the cells (Siegel 2004).

The issue about complicity goes beyond the question of an HESC researcher’s role in the destruction of the particular human embryo(s) from which the cells he or she uses are derived. There is a further concern that research with existing HESCs will result in the future destruction of embryos: “[I]f this research leads to possible treatments, private investment in such efforts will increase greatly and the demand for many thousands of cell lines with different genetic profiles will be difficult to resist.” (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 2001). This objection faces two difficulties. First, it appears to be too sweeping: research with adult stem cells and non-human animal stem cells, as well as general research in genetics, embryology, and cell biology could be implicated, since all of this research might advance our understanding of HESCs and result in increased demand for them. Yet, no one, including those who oppose HESC research, argues that we should not support these areas of research. Second, the claim about future demand for HESCs is speculative. Indeed, current HESC research could ultimately reduce or eliminate demand for the cells by providing insights into cell biology that enable the use of alternative sources of cells (Siegel 2004).

While it might thus be possible for a researcher to use HESCs without being morally responsible for the destruction of human embryos, that does not end the inquiry into complicity. Some argue that agents can be complicit in wrongful acts for which they are not morally responsible. One such form of complicity arises from an association with wrongdoing that symbolizes acquiescence in the wrongdoing (Burtchaell 1989). The failure to take appropriate measures to distance oneself from moral wrongs may give rise to “metaphysical guilt,” which produces a moral taint and for which shame is the appropriate response (May 1992). The following question thus arises: Assuming it is morally wrongful to destroy human embryos, are HESC researchers who are not morally responsible for the destruction of embryos complicit in the sense of symbolically aligning themselves with a wrongful act?

One response is that a researcher who benefits from the destruction of embryos need not sanction the act any more than the transplant surgeon who uses the organs of a murder or drunken driving victim sanctions the homicidal act (Curzer 2004). But this response is unlikely to be satisfactory to opponents of HESC research. There is arguably an important difference between the transplant case and HESC research insofar as the moral wrong associated with the latter (a) systematically devalues a particular class of human beings and (b) is largely socially accepted and legally permitted. Opponents of HESC research might suggest that the HESC research case is more analogous to the following kind of case: Imagine a society in which the practice of killing members of a particular racial or ethnic group is legally permitted and generally accepted. Suppose that biological materials obtained from these individuals subsequent to their deaths are made available for research uses. Could researchers use these materials while appropriately distancing themselves from the wrongful practice? Arguably, they could not. There is a heightened need to protest moral wrongs where those wrongs are socially and legally accepted. Attempts to benefit from the moral wrong in these circumstances may be incompatible with mounting a proper protest (Siegel 2003).

But even if we assume that HESC researchers cannot avoid the taint of metaphysical guilt, it is not clear that researchers who bear no moral responsibility for the destruction of embryos are morally obligated not to use HESCs. One might argue that there is a prima facie duty to avoid moral taint, but that this duty may be overridden for the sake of a noble cause.

Most HESCs are derived from embryos that were created for infertility treatment but that were in excess of what the infertile individual(s) ultimately needed to achieve a pregnancy. The HESCs derived from these leftover embryos offer investigators a powerful tool for understanding the mechanisms controlling cell differentiation. However, there are scientific and therapeutic reasons not to rely entirely on leftover embryos. From a research standpoint, creating embryos through cloning technologies with cells that are known to have particular genetic mutations would allow researchers to study the underpinnings of genetic diseases in vitro . From a therapeutic standpoint, the HESCs obtained from leftover IVF embryos are not genetically diverse enough to address the problem of immune rejection by recipients of stem cell transplants. (Induced pluripotent stem cells may ultimately prove sufficient for these research and therapeutic ends, since the cells can (a) be selected for specific genetic mutations and (b) provide an exact genetic match for stem cell recipients.) At present, the best way to address the therapeutic problem is through the creation of a public stem cell bank that represents a genetically diverse pool of stem cell lines (Faden et al . 2003, Lott & Savulescu 2007). This kind of stem cell bank would require the creation of embryos from gamete donors who share the same HLA-types (i.e., similar versions of the genes that mediate immune recognition and rejection).

Each of these enterprises has its own set of ethical issues. In the case of research cloning, some raise concerns, for example, that the perfection of cloning techniques for research purposes will enable the pursuit of reproductive cloning, and that efforts to obtain the thousands of eggs required for the production of cloned embryos will result in the exploitation of women who provide the eggs (President’s Council on Bioethics 2002, Norsigian 2005). With respect to stem cell banks, it is not practically possible to create a bank of HESCs that will provide a close immunological match for all recipients. This gives rise to the challenge of determining who will have biological access to stem cell therapies. We might construct the bank so that it provides matches for the greatest number of people in the population, gives everyone an equal chance of finding a match, or ensures that all ancestral/ethnic groups are fairly represented in the bank (Faden et al . 2003, Bok, Schill, & Faden 2004, Greene 2006).

There are, however, more general challenges to the creation of embryos for research and therapeutic purposes. Some argue that the creation of embryos for non-reproductive ends is morally problematic, regardless of whether they are created through cloning or in vitro fertilization. There are two related arguments that have been advanced to morally distinguish the creation of embryos for reproductive purposes from the creation of embryos for research and therapeutic purposes. First, each embryo created for procreative purposes is originally viewed as a potential child in the sense that each is a candidate for implantation and development into a mature human. In contrast, embryos created for research or therapies are viewed as mere tools from the outset (Annas, Caplan & Elias 1996, President’s Council on Bioethics 2002). Second, while embryos created for research and therapy are produced with the intent to destroy them, the destruction of embryos created for reproduction is a foreseeable but unintended consequence of their creation (FitzPatrick 2003).

One response to the first argument has been to suggest that we could, under certain conditions, view all research embryos as potential children in the relevant sense. If all research embryos were included in a lottery in which some of them were donated to individuals for reproductive purposes, all research embryos would have a chance at developing into mature humans (Devander 2005). Since those who oppose creating embryos for research would likely maintain their opposition in the research embryo lottery case, it is arguably irrelevant whether embryos are viewed as potential children when they are created. Of course, research embryos in the lottery case would be viewed as both potential children and potential research tools. But this is also true in the case of embryos created for reproductive purposes where patients are open to donating spare embryos to research.

As to the second argument, the distinction between intending and merely foreseeing harms is one to which many people attach moral significance, and it is central to the Doctrine of Double Effect. But even if one holds that this is a morally significant distinction, it is not clear that it is felicitous to characterize the destruction of spare embryos as an unintended but foreseeable side-effect of creating embryos for fertility treatment. Fertility clinics do not merely foresee that some embryos will be destroyed, as they choose to offer patients the option of discarding embryos and carry out the disposal of embryos when patients request it. Patients who elect that their embryos be discarded also do not merely foresee the embryos’ destruction; their election of that option manifests their intention that the embryos be destroyed. There is thus reason to doubt that there is a moral distinction between creating embryos for research and creating them for reproductive purposes, at least given current fertility clinic practices.

Recent scientific work suggests it is possible to derive gametes from human pluripotent stem cells. Researchers have generated sperm and eggs from mouse ESCs and iPSCs and have used these stem cell-derived gametes to produce offspring (Hayashi 2011; Hayashi 2012). While it may take several years before researchers succeed in deriving gametes from human stem cells, the research holds much promise for basic science and clinical application. For example, the research could provide important insights into the fundamental processes of gamete biology, assist in the understanding of genetic disorders, and provide otherwise infertile individuals a means of creating genetically related children. The ability to derive gametes from human stem cells could also reduce or eliminate the need for egg donors and thus help overcome concerns about exploitation of donors and the risks involved in egg retrieval. Nonetheless, the research gives rise to some controversial issues related to embryos, genetics, and assisted reproductive technologies (D. Mathews et al . 2009).

One issue arises from the fact that some research on stem cell-derived gametes requires the creation of embryos, regardless of whether one is using ESCs or iPSCs. To establish that a particular technique for deriving human gametes from stem cells produces functional sperm and eggs, it is necessary to demonstrate that the cells can produce an embryo. This entails the creation of embryos through in vitro fertilization. Since it would not be safe to implant embryos created during the early stages of the research, the likely disposition of the embryos is that they would be destroyed. In such instances, the research would implicate all of the moral issues surrounding the creation and destruction of embryos for research. However, the creation of embryos for research in this situation would not necessitate the destruction of the embryos, as it does when embryos are created to derive stem cell lines. One could in principle store them indefinitely rather than destroy them. This would still leave one subject to the objection that life is being created for instrumental purposes. But the force of the objection is questionable since it is not clear that this instrumental use is any more objectionable than the routine and widely accepted practice of creating excess IVF embryos in the reproductive context to increase the probability of generating a sufficient number of viable ones to produce a pregnancy.

Further issues emerge with the prospect of being able to produce large quantities of eggs from stem cells. As the capacity to identify disease and non-disease related alleles through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) expands, the ability to create large numbers of embryos would substantially increase the chances of finding an embryo that possesses most or all of the traits one wishes to select. This would be beneficial in preventing the birth of children with genetic diseases. But matters would become morally contentious if it were possible to select for non-disease characteristics, such as sexual orientation, height, superior intelligence, memory, and musical ability. One common argument against using PGD in this way is that it could devalue the lives of those who do not exhibit the chosen characteristics. Another concern is that employing PGD to select for non-disease traits would fail to acknowledge the “giftedness of life” by treating children as “objects of our design or products of our will or instruments of our ambition” rather accepting them as they are given to us (Sandel 2004, 56). There is additionally a concern about advances in genetics heightening inequalities where certain traits confer social and economic advantages and only the well-off have the resources to access the technology (Buchanan 1995). Of course, one can question whether the selection of non-disease traits would in fact lead to devaluing other characteristics, whether it would alter the nature of parental love, or whether it is distinct enough from currently permitted methods of gaining social and economic advantage to justify regulating the practice. Nonetheless, the capacity to produce human stem cell-derived gametes would make these issues more pressing.

There have been a number of recent scientific studies in which stem cells have, under certain in vitro culture conditions, self-organized into three-dimensional structures that resemble and recapitulate some of the functions of human organs (Lancaster & Knoblich 2014; Clevers 2016). These “organoids” have been established with human stem cells for a variety of organs, including, among others, the kidney, liver, gut, pancreas, retina, and brain. In addition to organoids, stem cells have been shown to self-organize into embryo-like structures in vitro . Human embryonic stem cells have formed structures – referred to as “gastruloids” – that bear some resemblance to embryos during gastrulation, which is the stage several days after implantation where the body plan and some tissues tissue types, including the central nervous system, start to develop (Warmflash et al. 2014; Deglincerti et al . 2016; Shahbazi 2016). Researchers have also combined mouse embryonic stem cells and trophoblast stem cells to create “synthetic embryos,” which have a structure akin to pre-implantation embryos (Rivron et al . 2018). Synthetic embryos have been shown to implant into the mouse uterus, though their potential to develop to term has not been demonstrated.

While these scientific advances offer promising avenues for better understanding human development and disease, they also raise some novel and challenging ethical issues. In the case of organoids, cerebral organoids raise the most vexing issues. Researchers have produced cerebral organoids with a degree of development similar to that of a few-months-old embryo, and have already used them to study how the Zika virus causes microcephaly in fetuses (Garcez et al . 2016). At present, there is some evidence that cerebral organoids may be able to receive afferent stimulations that produce simple sensations (Quadrato et al . 2017). However, they currently lack the kind of mature neural networks and sensory inputs and outputs essential to the development of cognition. If, through bioengineering, human cerebral organoids were to develop the capacity for cognition, that would provide grounds for ascribing an elevated moral status to them, and it would raise concomitant issues about our moral obligations towards them. In the nearer term, it is more likely that cerebral organoids will develop some degree of consciousness Assuming we have a shared understanding of consciousness (e.g., phenomenal consciousness), one challenge is to identify means of measuring the presence of consciousness, since a cerebral organoid cannot communicate its internal states (Lavazza & Massimini 2018). But even if we can verify that an organoid is conscious, there remains the question of the moral significance of consciousness (Shepherd 2018). There is debate over whether consciousness has intrinsic value (Lee 2018), and whether in some cases it is better for a conscious being to not possess it (Kahane & Savulescu 2009). Those who reject the intrinsic value and moral significance of consciousness might find the case of a conscious entity that has led a solely disembodied existence, emerges and persists in the absence of any social or cultural nexus, and lacks beliefs and desires, to be a paradigmatic case where the value of consciousness is doubtful.

With respect to gastruloids and synthetic embryos (if the latter are successfully produced with human stem cells), the central question is whether these entities are sufficiently like human embryos in their structure and functions to give rise to moral concerns about their use in research. Gastruloids do not possess all the characteristics of an embryo, as they do not form all of the embryonic tissues (e.g., they do not have the trophectoderm, which mediates the attachment to the uterus). At the same time, gastruloids may, with extra-embryonic tissues, achieve a developmental stage in which they manifest a whole body plan. Recall that one argument (discussed in Section 1.1 above) for rejecting that human embryos are human beings is that the cells that comprise the early embryo do not function in a coordinated way to regulate and preserve a single organism. Gastruloids can in principle operate with this higher level of coordination. While one may still reject that this characteristic of gastruloids confers human rights on them, their more advanced stage of development might ground reasonable claims for according them greater respect than embryos at an earlier stage. In the case of both gastruloids and human synthetic embryos, the possibility that they ultimately lack the potential to develop into mature human beings may be of significance in morally distinguishing them from normal human embryos. As noted previously (in section 1.2 above), one argument for ascribing a high moral status to human embryos and for distinguishing the potential of human embryos from the potential of somatic cells and embryonic stem cells is that embryos have an “active disposition” and “intrinsic power” to develop into mature humans on their own. If synthetic embryos and gastruloids do not possess this disposition and power, then those who oppose some forms of human embryo research might not object to the creation and use of human gastruloids and synthetic embryos for research.

  • Annas, G., Caplan, A., and Elias, S., 1996, “The Politics of Human-Embryo Research—Avoiding Ethical Gridlock,” New England Journal of Medicine , 334: 1329–32.
  • Benn, S.I., 1973, “Abortion, Infanticide, and Respect for Persons,” in The Problem of Abortion , Joel Feinberg (ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth: 92–103.
  • Bok H., Schill K.E., and Faden R.R., 2004, “Justice, Ethnicity, and Stem-Cell Banks,” Lancet , 364(9429): 118–21.
  • Buchanan, A., 1995, “Equal Opportunity and Genetic Intervention,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 12(2): 105–35.
  • Burtchaell, J.T., 1989, “The Use of Aborted Fetal Tissue in Research: A Rebuttal,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research , 11(2): 9–12.
  • Curzer, H., 2004, “The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 29(5): 533–562.
  • Damschen, G., Gomez-Lobo, A., and Schonecker, D., 2006, “Sixteen Days? A reply to B. Smith and B. Brogaard on the Beginning of Human Individuals,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 31: 165–175.
  • Clevers, H., 2016, “Modeling Development and Disease with Organoids,” Cell , 165: 1586–1597.
  • Deglincerti, A., et al ., 2016, “Self-Organization of the Attached In Vitro Human Embryo,” Nature , 533: 251–54.
  • Devolder, K., 2005, “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Why the Discarded-Created Distinction Cannot Be Based on the Potentiality Argument,” Bioethics , 19(2): 167–86.
  • Devolder, K., and Harris, J., 2007, “The Ambiguity of the Embryo: Ethical Inconsistency in the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate,” Metaphilosophy , 38(2–3): 153–169.
  • Dworkin, R., 1992, Life’s Dominion , New York: Vintage.
  • Faden, R.R., et al ., 2003, Public Stem Cell Banks: Considerations of Justice in Stem Cell Therapy, Hastings Center Report , 33: 13–27.
  • Feinberg, J., 1986, “Abortion,” in Matters of Life and Death , T. Regan (ed.), New York: Random House.
  • FitzPatrick, W., 2003, “Surplus Embryos, Nonreproductive Cloning, and the Intend/Foresee Distinction,” Hastings Center Report , 33: 29–36.
  • Garzes, P.P., et al ., 2016, “Zika Virus Impairs Growth in Human Neurospheres and Brain Organoids,” Science , 352: 816–18.
  • George, R.P., and Gomez-Lobo, A., 2002, “Statement of Professor George (Joined by Dr. Gomez-Lobo),” in Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry , report by the President’s Council on Bioethics: 258–266.
  • Green, R., 2002, “Benefiting from ‘Evil’; An Incipient Moral Problem in Human Stem Cell Research,” Bioethics , 16(6): 544–556.
  • Greene, M., 2006, “To Restore Faith and Trust: Justice and Biological Access to Cellular Therapies,” Hastings Center Report , 36(1): 57–63.
  • Hayashi, K., et al ., 2011, “Reconstitution of the Mouse Germ Cell Specification Pathway in Culture by Pluripotent Stem Cells,” Cell , 146(4): 519–532.
  • Hayashi, K., et al ., 2012, “Offspring from Oocytes Derived from In Vitro Primordial Germ Cell-Like Cells in Mice,” Science , 338(6109): 971–975.
  • Holm, S., 2003, “The Ethical Case Against Stem Cell Research,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 12: 372–83.
  • Kahane, G. and Savulescu, J., 2009, “Brain Damage and the Moral Significance of Consciousness,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 34: 6–26.
  • Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., 1992, “Individuals, Human, and Persons: The Issue of Moral Status,” in Embryo Experimentation: Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues , P. Singer, et al. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 65–75
  • Lancaster, M.A., and Knoblich, J.A., 2014, “Organogenesis in a Dish: Modeling Development and Disease Using Organoid Technologies,” Science , 345(6194): 1247125.
  • Lavazza, A. and Massimini, M., 2018, “Cerebral Organoids: Ethical Issues and Consciousness Assessment,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 44: 606–10.
  • Lee, A.Y., 2018, “Is Consciousness Intrinsically Valuable,” Philosophical Studies , 20: 1–17.
  • Lee, P., and George R., 2006, “Human-Embryo Liberation: A Reply to Peter Singer,” National Review Online (25 January). [ Available online ]
  • Lott, J.P., and Savulescu, J., 2007, “Towards a Global Human Embryonic Stem Cell Bank,” American Journal of Bioethics , 7(8): 37–44.
  • Marquis, D., 2002, “Stem Cell Research: The Failure of Bioethics,” Free Inquiry , 23(1): 40–44.
  • Mathews, D., et al ., 2009, “Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Gametes: Truth and (Potential) Consequences,” Cell: Stem Cell , 5: 11–14.
  • May, L., 1992, Sharing Responsibility , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • McMahan, J., 2002, The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
  • McMahan, J., 2007a, “Killing Embryos for Stem Cell Research,” Metaphilosophy , 38(2–3): 170–189.
  • –––, 2007b, “Infanticide,” Utilitas , 19: 131–159.
  • Norsigian, J., 2005, “Risks to Women in Embryo Cloning,” Boston Globe , February 25.
  • Parfit, D., 1984, Reasons and Persons , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Quadrato, G., et al ., 2017, “Cell Diversity and Network Dynamics in Photosensitive Human Brain Organoids,” Nature , 545: 48–53.
  • Rivron, N.C., et al ., 2018, “Blastocyst-Like Structures Generated Solely from Stem Cells,” Nature , 557: 106–11.
  • Robertson, J., 1988, “Fetal Tissue Transplant Research is Ethical,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research , 6(10): 5–8.
  • –––, 1999, “Ethics and Policy In Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 2(9): 109–36.
  • Sagan, A., and Singer, P., 2007, “The Moral Status of Stem Cells,” Metaphilosophy , 38(2–3): 264–284
  • Sandel, M., 2004, “The Case Against Human Perfection,” Atlantic Monthly , 293(3): 51–62.
  • Savulescu, J., 1999, “Should We Clone Human Beings?” Journal of Medical Ethics , 25(2): 87–98.
  • Shahbazi, M.N., et al ., 2016, “Self-Organization of the Human Embryo in the Absence of Maternal Tissues,” Nature Cell Biology , 18: 700–08.
  • Shepherd, J., 2018, “Ethical (and Epistemological) Issues Regarding Consciousness in Cerebral Organoids,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 44: 611–12.
  • Smith, B., and Brogaard, B., 2003, “Sixteen Days,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 28: 45–78.
  • Siegel, A., 2003, “Locating Convergence: Ethics, Public Policy, and Human Stem Cell Research,” in The Stem Cell Controversy , M. Ruse and C. Pynes (eds.), Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
  • –––, 2004, “Temporal Restrictions and the Impasse on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” The Lancet , 364(9429): 215–18.
  • Strong, C., 1997, “The Moral Status of Preembryos, Embryos, Fetuses, and Infants,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 22(5): 457–78
  • Takahashi, K., et al ., 2007, “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors,” Cell , 131: 861–872.
  • Thomson, J.A., et al ., 1998, “Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts,” Science , 282: 1145–47.
  • Tooley, M., 1983, Abortion and Infanticide , New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Warmflash, A., et al ., 2014, “A Method to Recapitulate Early Embryonic Spatial Patterning in Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” Nature Methods , 11: 847–854.
  • Warren, M.A., 1973, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” Monist , 57: 43–61.
  • Yu, J., et al ., 2007, “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells,” Science , 318: 1917–1920.
How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

  • President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry
  • U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2001, Fact Sheet: President Bush’s Stem Cell Decision
  • International Society for Stem Cell Research
  • Stem Cell Resources from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • Stem Cell Research and Applications , recommendations and findings from the AAAS and the Institute for Civil Society.
  • Medline Plus: Stem Cells
  • The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Bioethics
  • The Hinxton Group: An International Consortium on Stem Cell, Ethics, and Law

-->abortion, ethics of --> | cloning | double effect, doctrine of | ethics, biomedical: chimeras, human/non-human | parenthood and procreation | systems and synthetic biology, philosophy of

Copyright © 2018 by Andrew Siegel < asiegel @ jhu . edu >

  • Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

  • Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Logo

The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Devolder, K., (2015), ' The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research ', (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Oxford University Press

Embryonic stem cell research holds unique promise for developing therapies for currently incurable diseases and conditions, and for important biomedical research. However, the process through which embryonic stem cells are obtained involves the destruction of early human embryos. Katrien Devolder focuses on the tension between the popular view that an embryo should never be deliberately harmed or destroyed, and the view that embryonic stem cell research, because of its enormous promise, must go forward. She provides an in-depth ethical analysis of the major philosophical and political attempts to resolve this tension. One such attempt involves the development of a middle ground position, which accepts only types or aspects of embryonic stem cell research deemed compatible with the view that the embryo has a significant moral status. An example is the position that it can be permissible to derive stem cells from embryos left over from in vitro fertilisation but not from embryos created for research. Others have advocated a technical solution. Several techniques have been proposed for deriving embryonic stem cells, or their functional equivalents, without harming embryos. An example is the induced pluripotent stem cell technique. Through highlighting inconsistencies in the arguments for these positions, Devolder argues that the central tension in the embryonic stem cell debate remains unresolved. This conclusion has important implications for the stem cell debate, as well as for policies inspired by this debate.

"As an academic bioethicist with experience in the clinical setting, it is important to me that context and morality are married. Devolder's book accomplishes this task nicely, beginning in the introduction with a consideration of the potential use of embryonic stem cell (if not the embryo as a whole) for the alleviation of pain and disease. She convincingly directs us towards our moral obligation to allieviate suffering, underscoring that embryonic stem cell research is thus a moral enterprise." - Ayesha Ahmad, London School of Economics, Times Higher Education

"In her small but well written and insightful monograph Katrien Devolder is focusing on these "middle-ground positions" together with technical solutions to the dilemma. The author has been working on reproductive ethics in general and on embryo and stem cell research ethics in particular for more than ten years. Her book is based on several previously published articles, but it is far more than a mere collection or a re-use of essays." - Marco Stier, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

"Devolders study is a tour de force, exhibiting real skill and imagination in the use of analogies to test our moral intuitions... The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research is a solid contribution to our stem cell debates. Neither partisan nor committed to advocacy for any side, it displays epistemic honesty and exhibits the value of philosophical analysis at its best." - Ronald M. Green, Monash Bioethics Review

  • Open access
  • Published: 07 July 2014

Ethical issues in stem cell research and therapy

  • Nancy MP King 1 &
  • Jacob Perrin 2  

Stem Cell Research & Therapy volume  5 , Article number:  85 ( 2014 ) Cite this article

150k Accesses

138 Citations

25 Altmetric

Metrics details

Rapid progress in biotechnology has introduced a host of pressing ethical and policy issues pertaining to stem cell research. In this review, we provide an overview of the most significant issues with which the stem cell research community should be familiar. We draw on a sample of the bioethics and scientific literatures to address issues that are specific to stem cell research and therapy, as well as issues that are important for stem cell research and therapy but also for translational research in related fields, and issues that apply to all clinical research and therapy. Although debate about the moral status of the embryo in human embryonic stem cell research continues to have relevance, the discovery of other highly multipotent stem cell types and alternative methods of isolating and creating highly multipotent stem cells has raised new questions and concerns. Induced pluripotent stem cells hold great promise, but care is needed to ensure their safety in translational clinical trials, despite the temptation to move quickly from bench to bedside. A variety of highly multipotent stem cells - such as mesenchymal stem/stromal cells and stem cells derived from amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, adipose tissue, or urine - present the opportunity for widespread biobanking and increased access. With these increased opportunities, however, come pressing policy issues of consent, control, and justice. The imperatives to minimize risks of harm, obtain informed consent, reduce the likelihood of the therapeutic misconception, and facilitate sound translation from bench to bedside are not unique to stem cell research; their application to stem cell research and therapy nonetheless merits particular attention. Because stem cell research is both scientifically promising and ethically challenging, both the application of existing ethical frameworks and careful consideration of new ethical implications are necessary as this broad and diverse field moves forward.

Introduction

As every reader of this journal knows, ‘stem cell research’ is a category of enormous breadth and complexity. Current and potential therapeutic applications for stem cells are numerous. Stem cell researchers may be engaged in many different endeavors, including but not limited to seeking new sources of highly multipotent stem cells and methods of perpetuating them; creating induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) lines to study genetic disorders or explore pharmacogenomics; conducting animal or early-phase human studies of experimental stem cell interventions; or working with stem cells and biomaterials to develop organoids and other products for use in regenerative medicine, to name only a few possibilities.

In this review of selected major ethical issues in stem cell research and therapy, we briefly describe and discuss the most significant ethical implications of this wide-ranging and fast-moving field. Our discussion addresses research oversight in the historical context of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research; clinical translation and uncertainty; the profound tension between the desire for clinical progress and the need for scientific caution; and issues of consent, control, commercialization, and justice arising from stem cell banking, disease modeling, and drug discovery. We seek to make stem cell scientists more aware of the need for clarity of discussion and to improve professional and public understanding of the ethical and policy issues affecting this important but early research. A review this brief is necessarily general; our hope is that researchers can use this discussion as a starting point for more in-depth identification and analysis of issues pertinent to specific translational research projects [ 1 – 3 ].

Stem cell research: oversight and clinical translation

The basic system of regulation and review of research involving humans and animals as subjects [ 4 , 5 ] is familiar to investigators. Recently, however, the term ‘translational’ has come to describe a line of research inquiry intended to stretch from bench to bedside and beyond. This has helped to emphasize that thinking about ethical issues should begin at the earliest stages of preclinical research. Ethics in both research and clinical settings is most effective when it is preventive.

In this respect, stem cell research is not unique; stem cell researchers should ask themselves the same questions about the trajectory of their translational research as would any other biomedical researcher [ 6 ]. Oversight of cell-based interventions does, however, include additional features that, while adding complexity to the regulatory process, also make it easier to take a long view, by requiring attention to the use of stem cells at all research stages. Increasing pressures for the rapid clinical translation and commercialization of stem cell products underscore the value of this long view [ 7 – 14 ].

The ethical issues that all researchers face during clinical translation begin with the need to ask a meaningful question, the answer to which has both scientific and social value and can be reached by the study as designed when properly conducted [ 6 , 15 ]. The risks of harm and the potential benefits to society from the development of generalizable knowledge (and, sometimes, potential direct benefit to patient-subjects) must be weighed and balanced at each stage of the research. Sound justification is necessary to support moving from the laboratory into animal studies, and from animals into human subjects, as well as through relevant phases of research with humans [ 15 – 18 ]. Minimizing the risks of harm, selecting and recruiting appropriate patient-subjects, facilitating informed decision making through the consent form and process, and avoiding the ‘therapeutic misconception’, whereby unduly high expectations affect all interested parties to a clinical trial, are all significant research ethics considerations, especially in first-in-human and other early-phase studies [ 19 – 26 ]. To many researchers, these considerations are simply requirements of sound and responsible study design, as exemplified, for example, in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance documents and investigational new drug requirements [ 27 ]. It should come as no surprise, however, that research design and research ethics are closely intertwined [ 1 , 6 , 15 ].

Stem cell research may give rise to heightened concern in several of these areas. One such concern is clarity of language. The term ‘stem cell’ by itself is broad and non-specific enough to be confusing; it can refer to hESCs, to iPSCs, to other types of multipotent and highly multipotent stem cells (including but not limited to stem cells derived from amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, adipose tissue, or urine), or to determined or adult stem cells like hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), which have long been used in standard therapies. Patients, science reporters, and the public, on hearing the term ‘stem cell’, may thus find it difficult to distinguish between experimental stem cell interventions and proven stem cell therapies of long standing, such as treatments involving autologous or allogeneic HSC transplantation. The commercial availability worldwide of unproven ‘stem cell therapies’ that have not been studied in translational research adds to this confusion [ 12 , 14 , 24 – 26 , 28 , 29 ].

Human embryonic stem cells and embryonic stem cell research oversight committees

Hopes that the ethical controversy surrounding hESCs would become irrelevant when new sources of highly multipotent stem cells became available have proven somewhat premature. hESCs remain scientifically promising and continue to have important uses, even as research with iPSCs and other highly multipotent stem cells gains momentum [ 30 – 32 ]. A brief discussion thus seems warranted.

The first hESC line was derived in 1998, ushering in one of the most public, spirited, and intractable debates in research ethics: the moral status of the embryo from which hESCs are derived. To harvest hESCs, it is first necessary to destroy the 5-day-old preimplantation embryo. Opponents of hESC research argue that because the embryo is capable of developing into a human being, it has significant moral standing; therefore, its destruction is unethical. Some proponents of hESC research deny that the embryo has any moral status; others grant it limited moral status but argue that the value of this limited status is far outweighed by the potential benefits that can result from hESC research [ 24 , 33 ].

The ethical implications of hESC research in the US have been reflected in federal funding policy and in research oversight. In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) established a committee to develop guidelines for institutions and investigators conducting hESC research [ 9 ]. The NAS Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research , most recently amended in 2010 [ 34 ], comprehensively address permissible and impermissible categories of hESC research and recommend the establishment of embryonic stem cell research oversight committees (ESCROs) to assist in research review. They also incorporate National Institutes of Health guidelines promulgated after a 2009 federal funding expansion, recommend oversight of research with human pluripotent stem cells, and address questions of consent from all donors of biomaterials, creation and use of embryos for research purposes, and animal-human chimeras.

Many research institutions have created ESCROs or ‘SCROs’ to review hESC and iPSC research; others rely on their institutional review boards or their animal care and use committees or both. As stem cell research diversifies, its ethical oversight also becomes more diverse, and questions have been raised regarding the ongoing need for specialized committees like ESCROs and SCROs [ 9 , 10 ]. The NAS Guidelines are nonetheless likely to continue providing guidance for a variety of oversight bodies reviewing stem cell research [ 9 , 10 , 32 ].

Induced pluripotent stem cells on the translational pathway

Controversy about the derivation and use of hESCs led investigators to seek less ethically fraught but maximally useful types of stem cells [ 31 ]. The history of iPSCs is one of seeking efficient ways to induce pluripotency that minimize the risk of teratoma development [ 35 ]. Although the rapidly developing science has reduced risks of harm and has increased the efficiency of pluripotent cell line creation to some extent, safety and efficacy concerns remain [ 36 ]. Indeed, the most recent advance in inducing pluripotency - stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency, or STAP [ 37 ] - was widely heralded [ 38 ] but has since been called into question [ 39 ]. Obokata and colleagues [ 37 ] presented data suggesting that subjecting somatic cells to various stresses could quickly and safely produce iPSCs, but their results have not proven reproducible.

In research with iPSCs as well as with other types of stem cells, it is essential that preclinical studies in animal models and other media be sufficient to justify the progression to clinical trials. Toxicity and the risk of tumorigenicity must be assessed for all stem cell-based products, especially when genetically modified, in order to minimize the risks of harm as far as feasible before moving to humans [ 11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 26 , 40 ].

Concern about the research use of animals - especially non-human primates - in preclinical research, including iPSC research, is growing and must be addressed; at the same time, researchers are increasingly aware that good animal models are often unavailable or inadequate to predict effects in humans. Thus, considerable uncertainty continues to surround first-in-human trials and other early-phase studies using stem cells, even as the rapid pace and apparently improving safety of iPSC creation tempt the field to move rapidly into clinical research and even therapeutic applications [ 5 , 25 , 41 ].

Clinical trials: uncertainty and human subjects

Clinical trials of iPSCs and other highly pluripotent stem cell interventions generally enroll patients as subjects at all trial stages, as using healthy volunteers may raise safety concerns or compromise the value of the data. All clinical trials must, of course, be carefully designed, rigorously justified, and properly conducted in order to protect the rights, interests, and welfare of trial subjects and contribute to generalizable knowledge [ 11 , 12 , 15 – 17 , 25 , 26 , 35 , 40 ]. Stem cell researchers can and should benefit from the lessons learned by gene transfer researchers: rapid transition to clinical applications without sufficient understanding of the mechanisms of effect is both inefficient and unwise [ 11 , 12 , 25 , 42 ].

The Geron trial provides just one instructive example. In late January 2009, the FDA approved the first clinical trial of an hESC-based experimental intervention for spinal cord injury. The product, oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs), is thought to remyelinate spinal cord axons. The trial was to enroll a small number of patient-subjects with recent serious spinal cord lesions. It was placed on hold once by the FDA to ensure the purity and safety of the OPCs and ultimately was halted by the sponsor, Geron Corporation (Menlo Park, CA, USA), for reasons of cost, after only four patient-subjects had received the intervention.

Both the trial’s design and its ultimate discontinuation were controversial. Its design caused controversy because the subjects were enrolled very soon after a serious injury, making understanding and consent challenging in this first-in-human trial and in addition making it potentially difficult to distinguish between spontaneous recovery of function and remyelination attributable to the intervention. Patients with older lesions, though very probably in a better position to make decisions about trial participation, have scar tissue that makes remyelination unlikely or impossible. The sponsor’s premature discontinuation of the trial was problematic because data insufficiency renders worthless not only its own investment but also those made by patient-subjects and investigators. The outcome had the potential to discourage pioneering stem cell research in the future [ 25 , 43 , 44 ]. Nonetheless, identifying the optimal time for post-injury intervention, both to maximize the potential for assessing effects on remyelination and to promote an optimal decision-making process by patient-subjects, is of ongoing concern to spinal cord injury researchers studying cell-based interventions [ 45 ]. More recently, discussions of ethical and design issues in particular stem cell trials (for example, macular degeneration [ 2 ] and cardiovascular disease [ 3 ]) highlight the difficult balance between the imperatives of caution and progress for first-in-human trials in high-profile areas like stem cell intervention research.

Disclosure and discussion of uncertainty with potential subjects in stem cell trials are essential in order to reduce the incidence of therapeutic misconception, whereby research subjects and also investigators and oversight bodies view research as a treatment modality or significantly overestimate the likelihood of direct benefit or both [ 19 – 22 , 41 ]. This information transparency also helps protect the integrity of the research process and the safety of patients in the face of increasing global availability of unapproved and unproven stem cell ‘treatments’ [ 11 , 12 , 16 , 24 – 26 ].

Many types of multipotent and highly multipotent stem cells have been identified as potentially suitable for clinical applications. Some of the most significant challenges faced in clinical application include how quickly to move forward in the face of great promise, great uncertainty, and great clinical need; how to regard research with investigational interventions that are difficult to standardize and impossible to undo; and how to define and describe these uncertainties in the consent process. A growing number of prestigious academics from both science and bioethics are calling attention to these challenges [ 2 , 24 , 26 , 42 ].

One prominent scientist commentator compares the current state of stem cell research with the histories of HSC transplantation and gene transfer research, citing several principles: risks of harm should be commensurate with the severity of the condition under study, preclinical animal models remain critically important, and gaining insight into therapeutic mechanisms is essential to the success of a line of clinical research. He advocates ‘a conservative approach to clinical translation of stem cell therapies’ at present, not because of risks of harm, ‘but rather because our understanding of the mechanisms by which stem cells might prove useful, and in which diseases, remains primitive’ [ 25 ]. Similarly, in an international survey of stem cell scientists and scholars of ethical issues in stem cell research, a prolific bioethics research group has identified increasing concerns arising from pressures for clinical translation, commercialization, and oversight of new stem cell technologies [ 14 ].

Highly multipotent stem cells: biobanking, disease modeling, and drug discovery

Some applications of stem cell research, such as disease modeling, drug discovery and testing, cell line banking, and commercialization of stem cell therapies, also give rise to ethical considerations specific to the field [ 11 , 12 , 14 , 16 , 24 – 26 , 28 , 29 ]. iPSCs and other highly multipotent stem cells have many additional important uses outside the typical clinical research trajectory. The creation and use of disease-specific iPSC lines, both alone and in combination with regenerative medicine products (for example, to produce ex vivo organoids), are essential components of disease modeling and drug discovery. ‘Body-on-a-chip’ types of three-dimensional organoid arrays hold great promise for improving drug development, disease modeling, and pharmacogenomic research, by lowering costs, speeding results, and increasing the safety and potential efficacy signaling of first-in-human trials, and considerable research is under way [ 46 ]. That promise is as yet unrealized, but questions of consent and control arise even at the bench. Because iPSC lines are derived from the somatic cells of identifiable individuals, disclosing to those individuals the planned and envisioned uses of iPSCs derived from the cells they have donated and obtaining consent from them are critical for the creation and sharing of cell line research libraries and the future uses of biomaterials derived from previously donated biospecimens [ 24 , 26 , 47 – 50 ].

As potentially therapeutic applications proliferate for different highly multipotent stem cell types and as technical barriers to the collection and perpetuation of cell lines continue to fall, proposed research and treatment uses abound for both autologous and allogeneic stem cells. In particular, the development of public and other broadly accessible biobanking models for stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid and placental tissue, urine, and adipose tissue holds promise for easy collection of good allograft matches for a large percentage of the population but also requires attention to ethical and policy issues [ 26 , 51 ].

Justice in stem cell research and treatment

Justice is a necessary but neglected consideration in all scientific research. Like many novel biotechnologies, gene- and cell-based and regenerative medicine interventions and products can be extraordinarily costly and time- and labor-intensive to develop and use. Justice thus requires attention to the costs of developing stem cell therapies and making them available, with the goal of reducing unfair disparities in access. Cost is a standard distributive justice concern. Less commonly discussed is the effect of research funding decisions on health disparities - both priority-setting within research and priority between research funding and funding for medical care, public health, and other public goods [ 19 – 21 ].

Justice considerations are addressed in stem cell research and therapy in several ways. The first is biobanking policy and practice. The rationale for public stem cell banking is to provide a resource for transplantation of blood-forming HSCs to virtually anyone. Ideally, large-scale banking efforts could store enough different lines of broadly multipotent and pluripotent stem cells, suitable for use in regenerative medicine applications, to provide good matches for nearly the entire population of the US. Comprehensive systems for the collection, storage, and use of stem cells of different types are, however, still in the early stages of technological and policy development. Scientific, practical, and ethical challenges include ensuring broad availability of matches for those in need, determining access for both research and therapy, refining consent forms and processes, and protecting confidentiality in labeling and information linkage [ 11 , 12 , 16 , 26 , 51 , 52 ]. Thus, large-scale biobanking of stem cell lines holds the potential to greatly increase access to stem cell therapies and reduce costs, but because available allogeneic matches may not be perfect, balancing the harms and benefits of biobanking remains critical.

The second justice-promoting feature of stem cell research and therapy has some similarities. Attempts to standardize and streamline production are more prevalent in stem cell-related research than elsewhere - especially in development of cell-based products and in regenerative medicine. In other new technologies like gene transfer, standardization, the development of platform technologies, and attempts at large-scale, cost-reducing production are in their infancy. This production perspective is an important step in reducing time, labor, and costs and thus increasing access, but it could also have interesting ethical implications. Autologous or individually ‘compounded’ cell-based interventions will certainly be more costly and less readily available - and will take more time to produce - than allogeneic and other ‘mass-produced’ cell-based interventions, which may provide a less-than-perfect match or fit for a given patient. Such differences could have efficacy implications that must be monitored and balanced against cost savings and access gains [ 51 ].

A final justice consideration that is heightened in the stem cell context is the simple reality that important work dedicated to improving the health of the public takes place in a market system with its attendant pressures of competition and commercialization. The attempt to ensure that hope does not become hype and that hype does not become fraud is a matter of justice. Thus, sound practice in clinical translation, careful discussion in the media, and even seeking balance between scientific transparency and data-sharing and the intellectual property interests of industry all have important justice implications [ 13 , 16 , 24 – 29 , 42 , 53 ]. As research funding shrinks and competitive pressures grow, it may become increasingly difficult to move deliberately toward clinical translation and to allocate research resources wisely. This is especially likely as more is learned about how to reduce the risks of harm from the creation and use of iPSCs and as the costs of careful progress continue to increase. The fewer resources we have, the more important it is to allocate funds to maximize the likelihood of knowledge development in areas of greatest promise and clinical need [ 14 , 21 ].

Individual researchers may at first regard justice considerations as somewhat removed from their daily work at bench or bedside. The goals of advancing knowledge and, ultimately, improving human health are nonetheless social goals, not merely scientific goals. Researchers make vital contributions to societal views about the value of - and best directions for - scientific progress. For this reason alone, it is worthwhile for researchers to keep in mind the population-level applications of stem cell research as well as the effects of stem cell therapy on individual health.

Summary and conclusions

As our discussion has shown, many of the ethical and policy issues that are most significant for stem cell research and therapy are similar to those arising in other novel biotechnologies. Consideration of these issues in both scientific and bioethics literatures addresses many common themes: the minimization of risks of harm; the importance of information disclosure and informed consent; the potential for overpromising, overexpectations, and the therapeutic misconception; and the pressure from disease constituencies and commercial entities to move quickly into the clinic, too often at the expense of understanding basic mechanisms. In the realm of clinical translation, trial-specific examinations of ethical issues continue to provide important guidance, not only with regard to the trials specifically considered but also as models for investigators starting down new translational pathways.

Although the creation and use of hESCs have long been the unique focus of stem cell ethics, more current controversies include the creation, for research use, of human embryos, human-animal chimeras, and gametes. Yet these marquee controversies are, in the long run, less important for the field as a whole than are more mundane, justice-oriented concerns like the creation and use of stem cell banks for research and therapy, facilitation of ‘off-the-shelf’ stem cell applications that could be less costly though perhaps less than perfect, and questions of consent, provenance, and policy. Finally, moving forward with the right blend of creativity and caution is essential, in the interest of both science and patients. In all areas of stem cell research and therapy, nuanced consideration and discussion of the best translational pathways, as viewed by ethics as well as science, will play a vital role in balancing hope and hype now and in the future, as the field continues its rapid progress.

Abbreviations

embryonic stem cell research oversight (committee)

US Food and Drug Administration

human embryonic stem cell

hematopoietic stem cell

induced pluripotent stem cell

National Academy of Sciences

oligodendrocyte progenitor cell

stem cell research oversight (committee).

Lo B, Parham L: Resolving ethical issues in stem cell clinical trials: the example of Parkinson disease. J Law Med Ethics. 2010, 38: 257-266. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00486.x.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Habets MG, van Delden JJ, Bredenoord AL: The inherent ethical challenge of first-in-human pluripotent stem cell trials. Regen Med. 2014, 9: 1-3. 10.2217/rme.13.83.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Niemansburg SL, Teraa M, Hesam H, van Delden JJ, Verhaar MC, Bredenoord AL: Stem cell trials for cardiovascular medicine: ethical rationale. Tiss Eng Part A. 2013, [Epub ahead of print]

Google Scholar  

Levine R: Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research. 1988, New York: Yale University Press

Gilbert S, Kaebnick GE, Murray TH: Special Report: Animal research ethics: evolving views and practices. Hastings Center Rep. 2012, 42: S1-S39.

Article   Google Scholar  

Joffe S, Miller FG: Bench to bedside: mapping the moral terrain of clinical research. Hastings Center Rep. 2008, 38: 30-42.

Arcidiacono JA, Blair JW, Benton KA: US Food and Drug Administration international collaborations for cellular therapy product regulation. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2012, 3: 38-42. 10.1186/scrt129.

Article   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Caulfield T, Zarzeczny A, McCormick J, Bubela T, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, Galipeau J, Harmon S, Huynh M, Hyun I, Illes J, Isasi R, Joly Y, Laurie G, Lomax G, Longstaff H, McDonald M, Murdoch C, Ogbogu U, Owen-Smith J, Pattinson S, Premji S, von Tigerstrom B, Winickoff DE: The stem cell research environment: a patchwork of patchworks. Stem Cell Rev. 2009, 5: 82-88. 10.1007/s12015-009-9071-3.

Greely H: Assessing ESCROs: yesterday and tomorrow. Am J Bioeth. 2013, 13: 44-52.

Lomax GP, Peckman SR: Stem cell policy exceptionalism: proceed with caution. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2012, 8: 299-304. 10.1007/s12015-011-9305-z.

Hyun I, Lindvall O, Ahrlund-Richter L, Cattaneo E, Cavazzana-Calvo M, Cossu G, De Luca M, Fox IJ, Gerstle C, Goldstein RA, Hermeren G, High KA, Kim HO, Lee HP, Levy-Lahad E, Li L, Lo B, Marshak DR, McNab A, Munsie M, Nakauchi H, Rao M, Rooke HM, Valles CS, Srivastava A, Sugarman J, Taylor PL, Veiga A, Wong AL, Zoloth L, Daley GQ: New ISSCR guidelines underscore major principles for responsible translational stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell. 2008, 3: 607-609. 10.1016/j.stem.2008.11.009.

International Society for Stem Cell Research: Guidelines for the clinical translation of stem cells. [ http://www.isscr.org/docs/guidelines/isscrglclinicaltrans.pdf ]

Caulfield T: Stem cell research and economic promises. J Law Med Ethics. 2010, 38: 303-313. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00490.x.

Caulfield T, Rachul C, Zarzeczny A: The evolution of policy issues in stem cell research: an international survey. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2012, 8: 1037-1042. 10.1007/s12015-012-9404-5.

Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C: What makes clinical research ethical?. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2701-2711. 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701.

Kato K, Kimmelman J, Robert J, Sipp D, Sugarman J: Ethical and policy issues in the clinical translation of stem cells: report of a focus session at the ISSCR annual meeting. Cell Stem Cell. 2012, 11: 765-767. 10.1016/j.stem.2012.11.004.

London AJ, Kimmelman J, Emborg ME: Beyond access vs. protection in trials of innovative therapies. Science. 2010, 328: 829-830. 10.1126/science.1189369.

Article   PubMed Central   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

King NM, Cohen-Haguenauer O: En route to ethical recommendations for gene transfer clinical trials. Mol Ther. 2008, 16: 432-438. 10.1038/mt.2008.13.

Dresser R: First-in-human trial participants: not a vulnerable population, but vulnerable nonetheless. J Law Med Ethics. 2009, 37: 38-50.

Dresser R: Stem cell research as innovation: expanding the ethical and policy conversation. J Law Med Ethics. 2010, 38: 332-341. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00492.x.

Dresser R: Alive and well: the research imperative. J Law Med Ethics. 2012, 40: 915-921.

Dresser R: The ubiquity and utility of the therapeutic misconception. Soc Philos Policy. 2002, 19: 271-294. 10.1017/S0265052502192119.

King NM, Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis AM, Hull SC, Nelson DK, Parham-Vetter PC, Rothschild BB, Easter MM, Wilfond BS: Consent forms and the therapeutic misconception: the example of gene transfer research. IRB. 2005, 27: 1-

Hyun I: The bioethics of stem cell research and therapy. J Clin Invest. 2010, 120: 71-75. 10.1172/JCI40435.

Daley GQ: The promise and perils of stem cell therapeutics. Cell Stem Cell. 2012, 10: 740-749. 10.1016/j.stem.2012.05.010.

Sugarman J: Human stem cell ethics: beyond the embryo. Cell Stem Cell. 2008, 2: 529-533. 10.1016/j.stem.2008.05.005.

Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research: Guidance for industry: considerations for the design and conduct of early-phase clinical trials of cellular and gene therapy products (DRAFT). 2013, [ http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/CellularandGeneTherapy/UCM359073.pdf ]

Sipp D: Direct-to-consumer stem cell marketing and regulatory responses. Stem Cells Translational Med. 2013, 2: 638-640. 10.5966/sctm.2013-0040.

Weissman I: Stem cell therapies could change medicine if they get the chance. Cell Stem Cell. 2012, 10: 663-665. 10.1016/j.stem.2012.05.014.

Hyun I, Hochedlinger K, Jaenish R, Yamanaka S: New advances in iPS cell research do not obviate the need for human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2007, 4: 367-368.

King NM, Coughlin CN, Atala A: Pluripotent stem cells: the search for the ‘perfect’ source. Minn J Law Sci Technol. 2011, 12: 715-730.

Ishii T, Pera RA, Greely HT: Ethical and legal issues arising in research on inducing human germ cells from pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2013, 13: 145-148. 10.1016/j.stem.2013.07.005.

Cohen CB: Renewing the Stuff of Life: Stem Cells, Ethics, and Public Policy. 2007, New York: Oxford University Press

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee, The National Academies: Final Report and 2010 Amendments to the National Academies’ Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. 2010, Washington, DC: National Academies Press

Yamanaka S: Induced pluripotent stem cells: past, present, and future. Cell Stem Cell. 2012, 10: 678-684. 10.1016/j.stem.2012.05.005.

Pera MF: Stem cells: the dark side of induced pluripotency. Nature. 2011, 471: 46-47. 10.1038/471046a.

Obokata H, Wakayama T, Sasai Y, Kojima K, Vacanti MP, Niwa H, Yamato M, Vacanti CA: Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency. Nature. 2014, 505: 641-647. 10.1038/nature12968.

Cyranoski D: Acid bath offers easy path to stem cells. Nature. 2014, 505: 596-10.1038/505596a.

Cyranoski D: Acid-bath stem-cell study under investigation. Nature. 2014, [ http://www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738 ]

Kimmelman J, Baylis F, Glass KG: Stem cell trials: lessons from gene transfer research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2006, 36: 23-26.

Hyun I: Allowing innovative stem cell based therapies outside of clinical trials: ethical and policy challenges. J Law Med Ethics. 2010, 38: 277-285. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00488.x.

Wilson JM: A history lesson for stem cells. Science. 2009, 324: 727-728. 10.1126/science.1174935.

Bretzner F, Gilbert F, Baylis F, Brownstone RM: Target populations for first-in-human embryonic stem cell research in spinal cords. Cell Stem Cell. 2011, 8: 468-475. 10.1016/j.stem.2011.04.012.

Lukovic D, Stojkovic M, Moreno-Manzano V, Bhattacharya SS, Erceg S: Perspectives and future directions of human pluripotent stem cell-based therapies: lessons from Geron’s clinical trial for spinal cord injury. Stem Cells Dev. 2014, 23: 1-4. 10.1089/scd.2013.0266.

Illes J, Reimer C, Kwon BK: Stem cell clinical trials for spinal cord injury: readiness, reluctance, redefinition. Stem Cell Rev. 2011, 7: 997-1005. 10.1007/s12015-011-9259-1.

Esch MB, King TL, Shuler ML: The role of body-on-a-chip devices in drug and toxicity studies. Ann Rev Biomed Eng. 2011, 13: 55-72. 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071910-124629.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lowenthal J, Lipnick S, Rao M, Hull SC: Specimen collection for induced pluripotent stem cell research: harmonizing the approach to informed consent. Stem Cells Translational Med. 2012, 1: 409-421. 10.5966/sctm.2012-0029.

Lomax GP, Hull SC, Lowenthal J, Rao M, Isasi R: The DISCUSS project: induced pluripotent stem cell lines from previously collected research biospecimens and informed consent: points to consider. Stem Cells Translational Med. 2013, 2: 727-730. 10.5966/sctm.2013-0099.

Lomax GP, Shepard KA: Return of results in translational iPS cell research: considerations for donor informed consent. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2013, 4: 6-7. 10.1186/scrt154.

Hyun I: The bioethics of iPS cell based drug discovery. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011, 89: 646-647. 10.1038/clpt.2010.308.

King NM, Coughlin CN, Furth M: Ethical issues in regenerative medicine. Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law J. 2009, 9: 216-238.

Faden RR, Dawson L, Bateman-House AS, Agnew DM, Bok H, Brock DW, Chakravarti A, Gao XJ, Greene M, Hansen JA, King PA, O’Brien SJ, Sachs DH, Schill KE, Siegel A, Solter D, Suter SM, Verfaillie CM, Walters LB, Gearhart JD: Public stem cell banks: considerations of justice in stem cell research and therapy. Hastings Center Rep. 2003, 33: 13-27.

Caulfield T, Rachul C: Science spin: iPSC research in the news. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011, 89: 644-646. 10.1038/clpt.2010.309.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA

Nancy MP King

Center for Bioethics, Health, and Society, Wake Forest University, 1834 Wake Forest Rd, Winston-Salem, NC, 27106, USA

Jacob Perrin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy MP King .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

King, N.M., Perrin, J. Ethical issues in stem cell research and therapy. Stem Cell Res Ther 5 , 85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt474

Download citation

Published : 07 July 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt474

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Pluripotent Stem Cell
  • Clinical Translation
  • Stem Cell Therapy
  • Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1757-6512

  • Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
  • General enquiries: [email protected]

stem cell ethics essay

stem cell ethics essay

Embryonic Stem Cell Research An Ethical Dilemma

Article sidebar.

stem cell ethics essay

Main Article Content

Introduction

In November 1998, two teams of U.S. scientists confirmed successful isolation and growth of stems cells obtained from human fetuses and embryos. Since then, research that utilizes human embryonic cells has been a widely debated, controversial ethical issue. Human embryonic cells possess the ability to become stem cells, which are used in medical research due to two significant features. First, they are unspecialized cells, meaning they can undergo cell division and renew themselves even with long periods of inactivity. Secondly, stem cells are pluripotent, with the propensity to be induced to become specified tissue or any “organ-specific cells with special functions” depending on exposure to experimental or physiologic conditions, as well as undergo cell division and become cell tissue for different organs.

The origin of stem cells themselves encapsulates the controversy: embryonic stem cells, originate from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, a 5-day pre-implantation embryo. The principal argument for embryonic stem cell research is the potential benefit of using human embryonic cells to examine or treat diseases as opposed to somatic (adult) stem cells. Thus, advocates believe embryonic stem cell research may aid in developing new, more efficient treatments for severe diseases and ease the pain and suffering of numerous people. However, those that are against embryonic stem cell research believe that the possibility of scientific benefits of research do not outweigh the immoral action of tampering with the natural progression of a fetal development and interfering with the human embryo’s right to live. In light of these two opposing views, should embryonic stem cells be used in research? It is not ethically permissible to destroy human embryonic life for medical progress.

Personhood and the Scientific Questionability of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The ethics behind embryonic stem cell research are controversial because the criteria of ‘personhood’ is “notoriously unclear.” Personhood is defined as the status of being a person, entitled to “moral rights and legal protections” that are higher than living things that are not classified as persons. Thus, this issue touches on existential questions such as: When does life begin? and What is the moral status that an embryo possesses? There is a debate on when exactly life begins in embryonic development and when the individual receives moral status. For example, some may ascribe life starting from the moment of fertilization, others may do so after implantation or the beginning of organ function. However, since the “zygote is genetically identical to the embryo,” which is also genetically identical to the fetus, and, by extension, identical to the baby, inquiring the beginning of personhood can lead to an occurrence of the Sorites paradox, also acknowledged as “the paradox of the heap.”

The paradox of the heap arises from vague predicates in philosophy. If there is a heap of sand and a grain is taken away from that heap one by one, at what point will it no longer be considered a heap – what classifies it as a heap? The definition of life is similarly arbitrary. When, in the development of a human being, is an embryo considered a person with moral standing? The complexity of the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, like the Sorites paradox, demonstrates there is no single, correct way to approach a problem; thus, there may be multiple different solutions that are acceptable. Whereas the definition of personhood cannot be completely resolved on a scientific basis, it serves a central role in the religious, political, and ethical differences within the field of embryonic stem cell research. Some ethicists attempt to determine what or who is a person by “setting boundaries” (Baldwin & Capstick, 2007).

Utilizing a functionalist approach, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that to qualify as a person, the individual must possess several indicators of personhood, including capacity, self-awareness, a sense of time, curiosity, and neo-cortical function. Proponents argue that a human embryo lacks these criteria, thereby is not considered a person and thus, does not have life and cannot have a moral status. Supporters of stem cell research believe a fertilized egg is just a part of another person’s body until the cell mass can survive on its own as a viable human. They further support their argument by noting that stem cell research uses embryonic tissue before its implantation into the uterine wall. Researchers invent the term “pre-embryo” to distinguish a pre-implantation state in which the developing cell mass does not have the full respects of an embryo in later stages of embryogenesis to further support embryonic stem cell research. Based on this reductionist view of life and personhood, utilitarian advocates argue that the result of the destruction of human embryos to harvest stem cells does not extinguish a life. Further, scientists state that any harm done is outweighed by the potential alleviation of the suffering enduring by tremendous numbers of people with varying diseases. This type of reasoning, known as Bentham’s Hedonic (moral) calculus, suggests that the potential good of treating or researching new cures for ailments such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, certain cancers, etc. outweighs any costs and alleviate the suffering of persons with those aliments. Thus, the end goal of stem cell use justifies sacrificing human embryos to produce stem cells, even though expending life is tantamount to murder. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research would equate the actions done to destroy the embryos as killing. Killing, defined as depriving their victims of life, will therefore reduce their victims to mere means to their own ends. Therefore, this argument touches on the question: if through the actions of embryotic stem cell research is “morally indistinguishable from murder?” (Outka, 2013). The prohibition of murder extends to human fetuses and embryos considering they are potential human beings. And, because both are innocent, a fetus being aborted and an embryo being disaggregated are direct actions with the intention of killing. Violating the prohibition of murder is considered an intolerable end. We should not justify this evil even if it achieves good. Under the deontological approach, “whether a situation is good or bad depends on whether the action that brought it about was right or wrong,” hence the ends do not justify the means. Therefore, under this feeble utilitarian approach, stem cell research proceeds at the expense of human life than at the expense of personhood.

One can reject the asserted utilitarian approach to stem cell research as a reductionist view of life because the argument fails to raise ethical concerns regarding the destruction embryonic life for the possibility of developing treatments to end certain diseases. The utilitarian approach chooses potential benefits of stem cell research over the physical lives of embryos without regard to the rights an embryo possesses. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research claim this will cure diseases but there is a gap in literature that confirms how many diseases these cells can actually cure or treat, what diseases, and how many people will actually benefit. Thus, killing human embryos for the potentiality of benefiting sick people is not ethically not ethically permissible.

Where the argument of personhood is concerned, the development from a fertilized egg (embryo) to a baby is a continuous process. Any effort to determine when personhood begins is arbitrary. If a newborn baby is a human, then surely a fetus just before birth is a human; and, if we extend a few moments before that point, we would still have a human, and so on all the way back to the embryo and finally to the zygote. Although an embryo does not possess the physiognomies of a person, it will nonetheless become a person and must be granted the respect and dignity of a person. Thus, embryotic stem cell research violates the Principle of “Full Human Potential,” which states: “Every human being […] deserves to be valued according to the full level of human development, not according to the level of development currently achieved.” As technology advances, viability outside the womb inches ever closer to the point of inception, making the efforts to identify where life begins after fertilization ineffectual. To complicate matters, as each technological innovation arrives, stem-cell scientists will have to re-define the start of life as many times as there are new technological developments, an exhausting and never-ending process that would ultimately lead us back to moment of fertilization. Because an embryo possesses all the necessary genetic information to develop into a human being, we must categorically state that life begins at the moment of conception. There is a gap in literature that deters the formation of a clear, non-arbitrary indication of personhood between conception and adulthood. Considering the lack of a general consensus of when personhood begins, an embryo should be referred to as a person and as morally equivalent to a fully developed human being.

Having concluded that a human embryo has the moral equivalent of a fully-fledged human being, this field of research clearly violates the amiable rights of personhood, and in doing so discriminates against pre-born persons. Dr. Eckman asserts that “every human being has a right to be protected from discrimination.” Thus, every human, and by extension every embryo, has the right to life and should not be discriminated against their for “developmental immaturity.” Therefore, the field of embryonic stem cell research infringes upon the rights and moral status of human embryos.

Principle of Beneficence in Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The destruction of human embryos for research is not ethically permissible because the practice violates the principle of beneficence depicted in the Belmont Report, which outlines the basic ethical principles and guidelines owed to human subjects involved in research. Stem cell researchers demonstrate a lack of respect for the autonomy and welfare of the human embryos sacrificed in stem cell research.

While supporters of embryonic stem cell research under the utilitarian approach argue the potential benefits of the research, the utilitarian argument however violates the autonomy of the embryo and its human rights, as well as the autonomy of the embryo donors and those that are Pro-Life. Though utilitarian supporters argue on the basis of rights, they exclusively refer to the rights of sick individuals. However, they categorically ignore the rights of embryos that they destroy to obtain potential disease curing stem cells. Since an embryo is regarded as a human being with morally obligated rights, the Principle of Beneficence is violated, and the autonomy and welfare of the embryo is not respected due to the destruction of an embryo in stem cell research. Killing embryos to obtain stem cells for research fails to treat embryos as ends in an of themselves. Yet, every human ought to be regarded as autonomous with rights that are equal to every other human being. Thus, the welfare of the embryo is sacrificed due to lack of consent from the subject.

The Principle of Beneficence is violated when protecting the reproductive interests of women in infertility treatment, who are dependent on the donations of embryos to end their infertility. Due to embryonic stem cell research, these patients’ “prospects of reproductive success may be compromised” because there are fewer embryos accessible for reproductive purposes. The number of embryos necessary to become fully developed and undergo embryonic stem cell research will immensely surpass the number of available frozen embryos in fertility clinic, which also contributes to the lack of embryos available for women struggling with infertility. Therefore, the basis of this research violates women’s reproductive autonomy, thus violating the Principle of Beneficence.

It is also significant to consider the autonomy and welfare of the persons involved. The autonomous choice to donate embryos to research necessitates a fully informed, voluntary sanction of the patient(s), which poses difficulty due to the complexity of the human embryonic stem cell research. To use embryos in research, there must be a consensus of agreement from the mother and father whose egg and sperm produced the embryo. Thus, there has to be a clear indication between the partners who has the authority or custody of the embryos, as well as any “third party donors” of gametes that could have been used to produce the embryo because these parties’ intentions for those gametes may solely have been for reproductive measures only. Because the researchers holding “dispositional authority” over the embryos may exchange cell lines and its derivatives (i.e., genetic material and information) with other researchers, they may misalign interests with the persons whose gametes are encompassed within the embryo. This mismatch of intent raises complications in confidentiality and autonomy.

Lastly, more ethical complications arise in the research of embryonic stem cells because of the existence viable alternatives that to not destroy human embryos. Embryonic stem cells themselves pose as a higher health risk than adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have a higher risk of causing tumor development in the patient’s body once the cells are implanted due to their abilities to proliferate and differentiate. Embryonic stem cells also have a high risk of immunorejection, where a patient’s immune system rejects the stem cells. Since the embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that underwent in vitro fertilization, when implanted in the body, the stem cell’s marker molecules will not be recognized by the patient’s body, resulting in the destruction of the stem cells as a defensive response to protect the body (Cahill, 2002). With knowledge of embryonic stem cells having higher complications than the viable adult stem cells continued use of embryonic stem cells violates the Principle of Beneficence not only for the embryos but for the health and safety of the patients treated with stem cells. Several adult stem cell lines (“undifferentiated cells found throughout the body”) exist and are widely used cell research. The use of adult stem cells represents research that does not treat human beings as means to themselves, thus, complying with the Principle of Beneficence. This preferable alternative considers the moral obligation to discover treatments, and cures for life threating diseases while avoiding embryo destruction.

It is not ethically permissible to destroy human embryonic life for medical progress due to the violations of personhood and human research tenets outlined in the Belmont Report. It is significant to understand the ethical implications of this research in order to respect the autonomy, welfare, beneficence, and basic humanity afforded to all parties involved. Although embryonic stem cell research can potentially provide new medical advancements to those in need, the harms outweigh the potential, yet ill-defined benefits. There are adult stem cell alternatives with equivalent viability that avoid sacrificing embryos. As society further progresses, humans must be cautious of compromising moral principles that human beings are naturally entitled to for scientific advancements. There are ethical boundaries that are crossed when natural processes of life are altered or manipulated. Though there are potential benefits to stem cell research, these actions are morally and ethically questionable. Thus, it is significant to uphold ethical standards when practicing research to protect the value of human life.

Shamblott, M. J., J. Axelman, S. Wang, E. M. Bugg, J. W. Littlefield, P. J. Donovan, P. D. Blumenthal, G. R. Huggins, and J. D. Gearhart. “Derivation of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Cultured Human Primordial Germ Cells.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95, no. 23 (November 10, 1998): 13726–31. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.23.13726.

National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Stem Cell Basics I.” Stem Cell Information , 2016. https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/1.htm .

Kitwood, Thomas Marris., Clive Baldwin, and Andrea Capstick. Tom Kitwood on Dementia: A Reader and Critical Commentary . Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, 2007.

University of Michigan. “Stem Cell Research: Frequently Asked Questions,” 2013. http://www.stemcellresearch.umich.edu/overview/faq.html#section2 .

EuroStemCell. “Origins, Ethics and Embryos: The Sources of Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” 2016. https://www.eurostemcell.org/origins-ethics-and-embryos-sources-human-embryonic-stem-cells .

Perry, David L. “Some Issues in Contemporary Neurological Science and Technology,” 2011. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/ethics-and-personhood/ .

Swirsky, E. “Week Fourteen Unit: Minute Paper 5 [Blackboard Assignment],” 2018.

O’Mathúna, DP. “Personhood in Bioethics and Biomedical Research.” Research Practitioner 7 (2006): 167–74.

Grobstein, C. “External Human Fertilization.” Scientific American 240, no. 6 (June 1979): 57–67.

Mastin, L. “Deontology,” 2009. https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_deontology.html .

Spitzer, Robert. “Introduction and Principles of Ethics.” In Ten Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues , xi–xii, 1-3, 20-29. San Fransisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2011. https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/philosophy/introduction-amp-principles-of-ethics.html .

Eckman, Jim. “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Issues In Perspective , 2011. https://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/05/14-2/ .; Eckman, Jim. “The Devaluing of Life in America.” Issues In Perspective , 2015. https://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2015/09/the-devaluing-of-life-in-america/ .

Outka, Gene (2009) "The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Principle of "Nothing is Lost","  Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics : Vol. 9 : Iss. 3 , Article 7. 

Curzer, Howard. “The Ethics Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, no. 5 (October 1, 2004): 533–62. doi:10.1080/03605310490514225.

Lo, Bernard, and Lindsay Parham. “Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research.” Endocrine Reviews 30, no. 3 (May 2009): 204–13. doi:10.1210/er.2008-0031.

Hubbard, James. “Embryonic Stem-Cell Research: Experts Debate Pros and Cons.” The Survival Doctor , 2013. http://thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/02/14/doctors-debate-embryonic-stem-cell-research-pros-and-cons/ .

Koch, Valerie Gutmann, Beth E. Roxland, Barbara Pohl, and Sarah K. Keech. “Contemporary Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research.” In Stem Cells Handbook , 29–37. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2013. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7696-2_2.

Cahill, Lisa Sowle. "Holland, Suzanne, Karen Lebacqz, and Laurie Zoloth, Eds. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy." The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 2, no. 3 (2002): 559-62. doi:10.5840/ncbq20022344.

Devolder, Katrien. The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research . Oxford University Press, 2015. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547999.001.0001.

ScienceDaily. “Adult Stem Cell,” 2018. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/adult_stem_cell.htm .

Article Details

Browse our libraries by:

  • Explore Stem Cells
  • Tissue Engineering
  • CAR-T Therapy
  • Cell Therapy
  • Current and Potential Uses
  • Disease Modelling
  • Gene Editing
  • Gene Therapy
  • Methods and Tools
  • Patient Involvement
  • Unproven Treatments
  • Policy & Regulation
  • Stem Cell News
  • Embryonic Stem Cells
  • Clinical Trials
  • Blood Stem Cells
  • Skin Stem Cells
  • Reprogramming
  • Cell and Gene Fundamentals
  • Ethics and Society
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Bowel Disease
  • Immune Conditions
  • Muscle and Skeletal Diseases
  • Reproduction and Fertility
  • Rare Diseases
  • Blood Disorders
  • Epidermolysis Bullosa
  • Motor Neurone Disease
  • Huntington's Disease
  • Heart Disease
  • Eye Disease
  • Liver Disease
  • Kidney Disease
  • Lung Disease
  • Muscular Dystrophy
  • Neurological Disorders
  • Alzheimer's Disease
  • Cerebral Palsy
  • Debate/Discussion
  • EuroStemCell Resource
  • Presentation
  • Whole Lessons

Embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma

Embryonic stem cells offer hope for new therapies, but their use in research has been hotly debated. Different countries have chosen to regulate embryonic stem cell research in very different ways. 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?

What are the issues being discussed? ▼

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. A fertilised egg grows into a blastula (made of ~100 cells), which can only survive for a short time before it must be implanted in a womb. Blastulas used in research are typically harvested, isolated and cultivated in a laboratory or fertility clinic.

What is the rationale for different opinions? ▼

Some people see destroying a blastula for its cells as destroying an unborn child.

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.

Where does the middle ground lie? ▼

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. Understanding this can greatly help people to respect each other’s differences in opinions and work to find the middle ground.

  • The ethical dilemma
  • What moral status does the human embryo have?
  • Embryonic stem cell research and religion
  • Find out more
  • Acknowledgements and references

A set of scales

Embryonic stem cell research poses a moral dilemma. It forces us to choose between two moral principles:

  • The duty to prevent or alleviate suffering
  • The duty to respect the value of human life

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 answer hinges on how we view the embryo. Does it have the status of a person?

Chapter 1 of this film introduces some of the key ethical arguments. Find this film and others in our  video library .

The moral status of the embryo is a controversial and complex issue. The main viewpoints are outlined below.

1. The embryo has full moral status from fertilization onwards Either the embryo is viewed as a person whilst it is still an embryo, or it is seen as a potential person. The criteria for ‘personhood’ are notoriously unclear; different people define what makes a person in different ways.

2. There is a cut-off point at 14 days after fertilization Some people argue that a human embryo deserves special protection from around day 14 after fertilization because:

  • After 14 days the embryo can no longer split to form twins. Before this point, the embryo could still be split to become two or more babies, or it might fail to develop at all.
  • Before day 14, the embryo has no central nervous system and therefore no senses. If we can take organs from patients who have been declared brain dead and use them for transplants, then we can also use hundred-cell embryos that have no nervous system.
  • Fertilization is itself a process, not a ‘moment’. An embryo in the earliest stages is not clearly defined as an individual.

3. The embryo has increasing status as it develops An embryo deserves some protection from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, and its moral status increases as it becomes more human-like.

4. The embryo has no moral status at all An embryo is organic material with a status no different from other body parts.

Different religions view the status of the early human embryo in different ways. For example, the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and conservative Protestant Churches believe the embryo has the status of a human from conception and no embryo research should be permitted. Judaism and Islam emphasize the importance of helping others and argue that the embryo does not have full human status before 40 days, so both these religions permit some research on embryos. Other religions take other positions.

EuroStemCell film "Conversations: ethics, science, stem cells"

EuroStemCell factsheet on ethical issues relating to the sources of embyronic stem cells

EuroStemCell factsheet on the science of embryonic stem cells

Booklet for 16+ year olds about stem cells and ethics from the BBSRC

This factsheet was created by Kristina Hug .

Reviewed in 2011 by Göran Hermerén .

Reviewed and edited in 2018 by Göran Hermerén .

Images courtesy of Wellcome Images : Egg and sperm by Spike Walker; Blastocyst on pin by Yorgos Nikas.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Published: December 1999

Stem cell politics, ethics and medical progress

  • George J. Annas 1 ,
  • Arthur Caplan 2 &
  • Sherman Elias 3  

Nature Medicine volume  5 ,  pages 1339–1341 ( 1999 ) Cite this article

640 Accesses

30 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Tremendous controversy has surrounded efforts to undertake research on totipotent human stem cells. To date public policy in the United States has attempted to skirt the ethical and social questions raised by this research. Annas et al. argue that research using human embryos as a source of totipotent stem cells can secure broad public support if there is an open and public discussion about the ethical justification for undertaking such research and the assurance of adequate federal regulation and oversight.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Thomson, J.A. et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282 , 1145–1147 (1998).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

2. Shamblott, M.J. et al. Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 , 13726–13731 (1998).

Annas, G.J. & Elias, S. The politics of transplantation of human fetal tissue. N. Engl. J. Med . 320 , 1079–1082 (1989).

Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Fact Sheet: Stem Cell Research , January 19, 1999 (2 pp).

Caplan, A. & Garry, D.L. Are there really alternatives to the use of fetal tissue from elective abortions in transplantation research? N. Engl. J. Med . 322 , 1592–1596 (1992).

Google Scholar  

Public Law 105–277, sec. 511 (1998).

Annas, G.J., Caplan, A. & Elias, S.E. The politics of human-embryo research–avoiding ethical gridlock. N. Engl. J. Med . 1996; 334 : 1329–32.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research, Final Report . US G.P.O., September 1999.

Feiler, C.L. Human embryo experimentation: regulation and relative rights. Fordham Law Rev . 66 , 2435–2465 (1998).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lanza, R.P., Cibelli, J.B. & West, M.D. Human therapeutic cloning. Nature Med . 5 , 975–977 (1999).

Massachusetts General Law code 112, sec. 12J.

Geron Ethics Advisory Board. Research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Ethical Considerations 1–14 (Geron Corporation, Menlo Park, California, December 1998).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health Law Department, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, 02118, Massachusetts, USA

George J. Annas

Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, 19104, Pennsylvania, USA

Arthur Caplan

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, 60612, Illinois, USA

Sherman Elias

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Annas, G., Caplan, A. & Elias, S. Stem cell politics, ethics and medical progress. Nat Med 5 , 1339–1341 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/70900

Download citation

Issue Date : December 1999

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/70900

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

stem cell ethics essay

Stem Cells - Ethics

  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Some Recent Findings
  • 3.2 August 2002
  • 3.3 March 2002
  • 3.4 February 2002
  • 3.5 October 2001
  • 3.6 August 2001
  • 4.1 Reviews
  • 4.2 Articles
  • 4.3 Search PubMed
  • 5 Glossary Links

Introduction

The term "stem cell" is used so freely these days in many different forums that it is difficult sometimes understand without context what scientists, politicians, ethicists and commentators are discussing. Many papers discussing the ethics of stem cell research are published about or linked to the legal and political issues.

A useful guide (online PDF document) to stem cells was produced in a report by the National Institute of Health (NIH, USA, May 2000) and more recently NIH has established a Stem Cell information page.

Some Recent Findings

In December 2013, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published two resources on stem cell treatments. ( NHMRC - Stem Cell Treatments )

Quick Guide for Medical Practitioners

  • Stem Cell Treatments – a Quick Guide for Medical Practitioners
  • Stem Cell Treatments – Frequently Asked Questions

Transcript of discussion on ABC Radio (Dr. J Kahn , Dr. J Wagner) on Genetic Technology And Ethics Legal: RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN EMBRYOS ACT 2002

INFORMATION FOR HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES SHEET NUMBER 5 - STEM CELL RESEARCH The Australian Health Ethics Committee has been approached by human research ethics committees (HRECs) seeking advice on how to review research protocols that involve stem cell research.The following guidance is interim. Formal guidelines will be developed by AHEC in the context of its review of the 1996 NHMRC Ethical guidelines on assisted reproductive technology.

August 2002

Stem Cell Debate in Australia continues with new Federal Legislation (August 2002)

  • Parliament of Australia- House of Representatives Bills Digest No. 17 ¬†2002-03 Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 "Purpose: To ban human cloning and other 'unacceptable practices' and to regulate the use of excess human embryos created by assisted reproductive technology (ART). The Bill is designed to be part of a national scheme which will include complementary State and Territory laws."
  • ABC Lateline disscussion- Broadcast: 14/8/2002 Stem cells: science and ethics clash "As the Federal Parliament debates a bill that will legalise embryonic stem cell research, the moral debate continues. Many hope embryo stem cells will hold the promise of cures for diseases and even allow paraplegics to walk again, but is it acceptable to use the cells from a potential human being?" Full transcript of this discussion available online.
  • Dr Michael Wooldridge MP, Minister for Health and Aged Care, Media Release, ' National Framework Agreed to Prevent the Exploitation of Human Cloning ', 31 July 2001 NATIONAL FRAMEWORK AGREED TO PREVENT THE EXPLOITATION OF HUMAN CLONING Australian Health Ministers today agreed to the development of a national framework to prevent the exploitation of human cloning. Meeting in Wellington today, Australian Health Ministers acknowledged that the development of complementary legislation across the states and territories was essential to ensure a consistent national approach to the cloning of humans.
  • Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee activities (inquiries and reports) Human cloning: scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research.
  • NHMRC- Stem Cells Derived from Human Embryos At its 141st session in March 2002, the NHMRC reaffirmed its commitment to rigorously applying the standards developed by the Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC) in the conduct of research in Australia involving humans. These standards consist of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans (1999) and associated guidelines.

February 2002

  • Stem Cells and grafting this Nature paper demonstrates the possible therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells in grafting, where host-graft rejection normally requires substantial ongoing immunosuppression. Preimplantation-stage stem cells induce long-term allogeneic graft acceptance without supplementary host conditioning FANDRICH etal. (Link to Nature Journal)

October 2001

  • India to tighten rules on human embryonic stem cells research Ganapati Mudur BMJ 2001; 323: 530a.

August 2001

  • Doonsebury comment- event the cartoon's have a comical view of the USA stem cell debate.
  • NIH Update on existing Human Embryonic Stem Cells . Read also " Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions"
  • An Australian research team isolates stem cells from the adult brain. Purification of a pluripotent neural stem cell from the adult mouse brain . R L RIETZE, H VALCANIS, G F BROOKER, T THOMAS, A K VOSS& P F BARTLETT == Canada ==

Legal: Research involving the in vitro embryo, March 2004 == New Zealand == "The regulations on stem cell research are reviewed, showing that four positions have emerged. Position A corresponds to the prohibition of all embryo research, position B confines the use of embryonic stem cells to those currently in existence and therefore extracted prior to some specified date, position C allows for the use and ongoing isolation of embryonic stem cells from surplus in vitro fertilization embryos, and position D approves of the creation of human embryos specifically for research. Position B which has been adopted by the United States, Germany, and Australia (with subtle differences between them) and which is regarded as a compromise position, is critiqued." Towns CR, Jones DG. Stem cells: public policy and ethics. N Z Bioeth J. 2004 Feb;5(1):22-8. == United States == On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. In addition, the President established the following criteria that must be met:

  • The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes;
  • The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes;
  • Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo;
  • No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo. In order to facilitate research using human embryonic stem cells, the NIH is creating a Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry that will list the human embryonic stem cell lines -- at varying stages of development -- that meet the eligibility criteria . Listed below are entities that have developed stem cell lines that meet the President's criteria and are therefore eligible for federal funding. Please click on the name of the laboratory or company for contact information. Dartmouth ethics professor discusses promise and pitfalls of stem cell research (2005) NIH Clinical Trials (May 2004) Launches Study of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Severe, Treatment-Resistant Lupus (NIAMS, May 13,2004) A clinical therapeutic trial in the USA for hematopoietic stem cells in an autoimmune disease. "A five-year study to see whether a therapy using transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells, blood stem cells found in bone marrow, can produce long-term remission for patients with severe, treatment-resistant systemic lupus erythematosus (or lupus), a rheumatic autoimmune disease that can affect the body's major organs. The study will include a basic research component to examine the roles of B and T cells, white blood cells in the immune system, in triggering lupus symptoms." Read more of the NIH Press Release Note that a May search of NIH Clinical Trials with "stem cell" found 302 study results. Repeat search: NIH Clinical Trials with "stem cell"
  • ↑ <pubmed>25145308</pubmed>
  • ↑ <pubmed>16716313</pubmed>
  • ↑ <pubmed>16770888</pubmed>

<pubmed>16403728</pubmed> <pubmed>15254278</pubmed> <pubmed>15250118</pubmed>

<pubmed>16716313</pubmed> <pubmed>16770888</pubmed> <pubmed>15310730</pubmed> <pubmed>15174985</pubmed> <pubmed>11531637</pubmed> <pubmed>12558484</pubmed> <pubmed>11531637</pubmed>

Search PubMed

May 2006 "stem cell ethics" 1,491 reference articles of which 214 were reviews.

Search PubMed Now: stem cell ethics | stem cell use | embryonic stem cell |

Glossary Links

Cite this page: Hill, M.A. (2024, February 24) Embryology Stem Cells - Ethics . Retrieved from https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Stem_Cells_-_Ethics

Powered by MediaWiki

Stem Cell Research Essay: Research Ethics, Pros and Cons, and Benefits

Stem cell research essay: introduction, why are stem cells useful, stem cell research ethics: pros and cons, how does stem cell research benefit society, embryonic stem cell research essay: conclusion.

Bibliography

Stem cells are capable of regenerating any tissue and organs in the body. Why are stem cells useful? They are characteristically pluripotent, which allows them to replenish damaged body tissues. In an adult human, bone marrow cells have the ability to divide constantly to replenish dying blood cells.

Pluripotency allows embryonic cells to “divide continuously to giving rise to differentiated tissues and organs” [1]. They also produce replacements for cells that are lost through normal wear and tear, injury, or disease [2]. While embryonic stem cells develop from pre-implantation embryos and are pluripotent, adult stem cells occur in fetal and adult stages [3]. In the human body, adult stem cells function in the repair and replacement of worn-out tissues. This stem cell research argumentative essay will analyze stem cell research ethics’ pros and cons and explain how it can benefit society.

Stem cell research has potential benefits in the treatment of chronic diseases. Stem cell therapy has shown promising results in the treatment of leukemias and blood and bone marrow disorders[4]. Current research focuses on developing stem cell therapy for heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes mellitus, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and arthritis.

Fetal surgery for the treatment of patients with congenital anatomical abnormalities such as myelomeningocele is also a promising area of stem cell research[5].

Cell replacement therapy for neurodegenerative defects, such as multiple sclerosis, have been found to offer long-term physiological benefits, making it a better alternative to conventional drug therapy[6]. Stem cells are also useful in drug research and development. Cell lines from carriers of genetic diseases are used to model the disorders and test potential, thus, speeding up the drug trial process.

Ethical perspectives aim to identify principles of right action that can guide society in thinking about moral decisions or how to navigate through dilemmas[7]. In this respect, though scientific research is essential in solving contemporary problems facing humans, it must be done within the confines of ethical conduct[8].

In stem cell research, several ethical issues dominate public debates. In particular, the issues of right to life at the fetal stage and the criteria for disseminating medical breakthroughs remain contentious. Another issue relates to the risks versus the benefits of research involving embryonic cells.

The moral debate also revolves around the rights of fetuses and issues of consent. The challenge lies in determining whether it is moral to harvest cells from a human fetus for scientific research. Proponents advance the argument that a fetus at an early stage of life is underdeveloped, and therefore, does not have the attributes of an adult or a young child[9].

They argue that it has no resemblance to a human being, has nobody organs and organ systems, and lacks self-awareness. However, critics contend that it is unethical to utilize embryonic cells for research as doing so contravenes the dignity of the unborn child.

They also hold that all humans share common attributes, and thus, claiming that embryos lack sentience is erroneous[10]. Their argument relates to the embryology perspective, which holds that “human life begins at fertilization” [11]. Therefore, embryos, being human beings at an early stage of development, cannot be used in scientific research.

In contrast, proponents of stem cell research fault the embryology perspective by arguing that research on embryos is ethical, as evidenced in identical twins that develop from the splitting of an early embryo. They pose the question: “If life begins at conception, then when does the life start for the twins?” They reckon that humans, being moral beings, cannot be equated with animals[12].

Thus, while research on animals may be permissible, the same cannot be said about humans what humans identify as the self is not the body, but the conscious. In this view, humans do not exist until they develop consciousness, and therefore, the destruction of the embryos for research cannot be morally wrong[13]. In this regard, participating patients must give informed consent prior to the use of embryonic cells sourced from unborn fetuses[14].

The ethical implications of the techniques used for obtaining stem cells have also borne on the actions of scientists and the decisions of policymakers. Another good source of pluripotent cells for research is stillborn fetuses or adults.

This procedure is less controversial, the only ethical issue being the acquisition of proper donor consent. Patients carrying cancerous embryos can donate them for research since the fetus will not survive upon birth[15]. The scientific and ethical concern presented by this approach concerns the potential of induction of tumorigenesis in recipients.

In vitro fertilization often generates test tube zygotes ready for uterine implantation. However, unsuccessfully implanted zygotes can be used for scientific research if the parents consent. This procedure involves the destruction of the embryo and is not acceptable to those who believe human embryos have a moral status similar to that of adult human beings.

However, in vitro, fertilization yields many fetuses to increase the chances of successful implantation[16]. Atsuo raises serious ethical concerns over the creation of more than one embryo through the IVF procedure[17].

He holds that it is both unlawful and unethical to do artificial fertilization to generate embryos for research. In non-destructive embryo cell extraction, a single cell or a small number of cells is extracted from an early-stage embryo. These cells have the potential to divide and give rise to a line of embryonic stem cells[18].

Embryonic stem cells can also be obtained from dead embryos, i.e., embryos that have stopped dividing. The ethical question posed with this procedure is how certain one can be that the embryo is dead since death is the failure of important organs like the heart and the brain, which the embryo does not have[19].

Critics also argue that doctors may misuse in vitro fertilization, creating excess fetuses for sterile couples. Thus, in vitro fertilization done for generating embryos for science is unethical and unlawful.

In the debate on embryo research, two perspectives are evident, namely, a ‘fetalist’ perspective and a feminist perspective. Proponents of the ‘fetalist’ view argue that fetuses have rights, and thus, research-based on embryonic cells dehumanizes them.

It makes fetuses mere objects of scientific research. In contrast, the feminist perspective focuses on the interests of women who donate the oocyte[20]. Normally, in the IVF procedure, female patients receive drugs to stimulate the required hormonal balance and increase the chances of implantation. In addition, the perspective considers the moral justification related to the treatments.

It is evident that stem cells have great potential as therapeutic agents for chronic human diseases, including cancer and heart disease. They can divide to generate new tissue that can then be transplanted into the patient to remedy a disease condition or disorder.

In this view, proponents contend that promoting this kind of research will lead to several medical breakthroughs beneficial to humans. In addition, they note that research on embryonic cells will enrich our basic scientific knowledge. The pursuit of scientific knowledge, though a valuable undertaking, runs the risk of being abused in the future by researchers interested in unethical projects, such as human cloning.

Stem cell therapy presents some advantages in that it makes transplantation a success as reprogrammed adult cells are rarely rejected[21]. In addition, the ability to grow embryonic stem cells helps to generate more stem cells for research, thus circumventing the task of frequent isolation from embryos. With stem cell research, the histo-compatibility barrier is avoided, especially with the use of IPS cells[22].

Stem cell therapy has potential as a remedy for congenital abnormalities. One such chronic disorder is multiple sclerosis, which defies conventional interventions. In this respect, the research can create an effective therapy to help patients with birth defects lead to a normal life.

In addition, disorders caused by hormonal deficiency can be treated with organ transplantation. Pluripotent cells, under the right conditions, can generate new tissues and organs with potential as transplants. Therefore, the therapeutic benefits of research based on embryonic cells are immense.

Looking at the benefits and shortcomings presented by stem cell research, one is left in a dilemma whether to support it or advocate for its discontinuity. Individuals are torn between respecting the sanctity of human life or alleviating the suffering of many sick people through stem cell therapy.

The benefits accruing from stem cell research are immense and indispensable. With proper regulations, policies, and scrutiny, they can be harnessed to improve the health of the sick people.

[1] James, Bobrow, “The Ethics and Politics of Stem Cell Research,” Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 104 (2005): 139.

[2] Bobrow, “The Ethics and Politics of Stem Cell Research,” 140.

[3] Connie Witherspoon, “Ethical Considerations Regarding Stem Cell Research,” The New Atlantis 1(2012): 98.

[4] Witherspoon, “Ethical Considerations Regarding Stem Cell Research,” 100

[5] Witherspoon, “Ethical Considerations Regarding Stem Cell Research,” 105

[6] Witherspoon, “Ethical Considerations Regarding Stem Cell Research,” 108

[7] Montague Shelby. “Stem Cell Research: The Ethical Issues,” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 82 (2009): 125.

[8] Shelby, “Stem Cell Research,” 127.

[9] Shelby, “Stem Cell Research,” 125.

[10] Shelby, “Stem Cell Research,” 126.

[11] Shelby, “Stem Cell Research,” 126.

[12] Guido De Wert and Christine Mummery, “Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Research, Ethics and Policy,” Oxford Journals 18 (2015): 672.

[13] De Wert and Mummery, “Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” 674.

[14] Shelby, “Stem Cell Research,” 127

[15] De Wert and Mummery, “Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” 674.

[16] Ogura Atsuo, “Recent Advancements in Cloning by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer,” The Royal Society Publishing 138 (2012): 1.

[17] Ogura Atsuo, “Recent Advancements in Cloning by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer,” 2.

[18] Shelby, “Stem Cell Research,” 127

[19] Shelby, “Stem Cell Research,” 127

[20] Ogura Atsuo, “Recent Advancements in Cloning by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer,” 2.

[21] Deborah White, “Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” Stem Cell Research News 1 (2015): 1.

[22] Deborah White, “Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” 2.

Atsuo, Ogura. “Recent Advancements in Cloning by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.” The Royal Society Publishing 138 (2012): 1-2.

Bobrow, James. “The Ethics and Politics of Stem Cell Research.” Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 104 (2005): 138-42.

De Wert, Guido, and Christine Mummery. “Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Research, Ethics and Policy.” Oxford Journals 18 (2015): 672-682.

Shelby, Montague. “Stem Cell Research: The Ethical Issues.” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 82 (2009): 125-131.

White, Deborah. “Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Stem Cell Research News 1 (2015): 1-4.

Witherspoon, Connie. “Ethical Considerations Regarding Stem Cell Research.” The New Atlantis 1 (2012): 98-113.

Cite this paper

  • Chicago (N-B)
  • Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 11). Stem Cell Research Essay: Research Ethics, Pros and Cons, and Benefits. https://studycorgi.com/ethics-of-stem-cell-research/

"Stem Cell Research Essay: Research Ethics, Pros and Cons, and Benefits." StudyCorgi , 11 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/ethics-of-stem-cell-research/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Stem Cell Research Essay: Research Ethics, Pros and Cons, and Benefits'. 11 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Stem Cell Research Essay: Research Ethics, Pros and Cons, and Benefits." January 11, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/ethics-of-stem-cell-research/.

StudyCorgi . "Stem Cell Research Essay: Research Ethics, Pros and Cons, and Benefits." January 11, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/ethics-of-stem-cell-research/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Stem Cell Research Essay: Research Ethics, Pros and Cons, and Benefits." January 11, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/ethics-of-stem-cell-research/.

This paper, “Stem Cell Research Essay: Research Ethics, Pros and Cons, and Benefits”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: August 26, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • BMC Med Ethics

Logo of bmcmeth

Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with researchers from Saudi Arabia

Ghiath alahmad.

King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC), King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard - Health Affairs, P.O. Box 22490, Mail Code 1515, Riyadh, 11426 Saudi Arabia

Sarah Aljohani

Muath fahmi najjar, associated data.

The datasets generated during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

With the huge number of patients who suffer from chronic and incurable diseases, medical scientists continue to search for new curative methods for patients in dire need of treatment. Interest in stem cells is growing, generating high expectations in terms of the possible benefits that could be derived from stem cell research and therapy. However, regardless of the hope of stem cells changing and improving lives, there are many ethical, religious, and political challenges and controversies that affect the research, and mandated to establish ethical guidelines and regulations. In Saudi Arabia, key stakeholders play an active role in discussing the ethics of stem cell research and therapy. The focus of the study was to explore professionals’ perceptions related to the ethical challenges of using stem cells in research and treatment in Saudi Arabia.

A qualitative research study was conducted to explore and describe the perceptions of 25 professionals employed at different tertiary hospitals in the various regions of Saudi. A thematic analysis was performed to search for and identify the most significant perceptions shared by the participants. Four themes were generated based on the ethical challenges of four areas related to stem cell use, including (1) forbidden and permitted sources of stem cells, (2) informed consent, (3) beneficence, and (4) ethical regulations and guidelines.

The study identified that there is a growing need to advance the knowledge, education, and awareness related to stem cell research and treatment in Saudi Arabia.

Literature highlights the significance of understanding stem cell therapy and research to support the development of regenerative medicine [ 1 – 3 ]. McLaren reported that there are millions of individuals suffering from and succumbing to “incurable degenerative diseases of the nervous system, heart, liver, pancreas, and other organs” annually [ 3 ]. Similarly, Lovell-Badge discussed the fact that stem cells offer great hope for patients with enervating illnesses such as “diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Huntington’s diseases” [ 4 ]. In this context, medical practitioners consider stem cells as the hope and light for many patients who are suffering and in dire need of a cure [ 1 ]. However, as indicated by several authors, the use of stem cells, present many ethical, political, and even religious challenges, either related to resources, use, or rights of donors [ 5 , 6 ]. Bharadwaj mentioned the increasing movements of social and government concerns regarding stem cell research and clinical medication in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan. More recently, emerging countries also incorporated stem cell therapies in their practices [ 7 ].

Lo and Parham provided a classification of the different ethical issues based on the four phases of stem cell research. The first phase is the “donation of biological material,” highlighting the problem of “informed and voluntary consent” [ 2 ]. The second phase, research with human embryonic stem cells, creates several ethical issues. These issues include the “destruction of embryos and the creation of embryos for research purposes” as well as financial compensation to oocyte donors, medical hazards related to the retrieval of the oocyte, and the need to protect the reproductive interests of women undergoing infertility treatment [ 2 ]. The third phase of the research is using stem cell lines obtained from other institutions leading to the issue of adverse legal and ethical principles [ 2 ]. The fourth and last step is the use of stem cells in clinical trials, encompassing both the advantages and disadvantages of the trial and informed consent [ 2 ].

Stem cell research in Saudi Arabia

Many Arabic countries conduct research with stem cells, as evidenced by the hundreds of scientific papers published in this field. Saudi Arabia is ahead in stem cell research as many universities, such as King Saud University and King Faisal Specialized Hospital and Research Center, started stem cell research more than 20 years ago [ 8 ]. In addition, many other research institutions, established later, play a leading role in this field such as King Abdullah International Medical Research Center with a specialized stem cell research department, including a stem cell registry containing more than 10,000 donors and the Cord Blood Bank [ 9 ].

From an ethical perspective, Saudi Arabia was the first country in the region to have ethical regulations related to the use of and research with stem cells. The Research Ethics Law promulgated in 2010 and its implementing regulation in 2012 includes all ethical guidelines to control stem cell research [ 10 ]. This was followed in 2014 by Jordan where a specific law about stem cell is announced [ 11 ]. In addition to these national laws, many research centers have institutional guidelines, for example King Faisal Specialized Hospital and Research Center and King Abdullah International Medical Research Center.

Though there is an abundance of stem cell research, the ethical component has not been researched in depth. There is no literature related to the views of physicians and researchers about the ethical challenges of using stem cells. It is important to explore this important issue to enhance the ethical component and maintaining the progress of stem cell research through finding appropriate solutions of all ethical challenges and obstacles.

Research design

A qualitative research design was used to explore and describe the perceptions and experiences of participants regarding the ethical challenges of using stem cells in a “subjective and reflexive manner” [ 12 ]. The aim was to gather, explore, analyze, and extract the most meaningful perceptions of the sample using interviews. The qualitative approach was deemed appropriate for the study to emphasize the content of the data to explore a specific phenomenon.

Data collection

We collected data from professionals employed at tertiary hospitals from various regions in Saudi Arabia where stem cell research have been conducted or are being conducted. The target population included physicians from any medical specialty or non-physician researchers doing stem cell research. We visited the potential hospitals and presented the objectives and purpose of the study. We collected contact information of potential participants with the permission from the gatekeepers of the hospitals and other pertinent representatives. We used a snowball sampling technique, defined by Clark and Creswell as the sampling of individuals based on the recommendations and suggestions of others [ 12 ]. Once a participant agreed to participate, we actively inquired from the participant to identify other possible candidates for the study. The technique allowed us to recruit 25 participants. The demographic characteristics of the sample are displayed in Table  1 .

Characteristics of the interviewed professionals

We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions and audiotaped the interviews. Before conducting the interviews, written informed consent was obtained. The consent form highlighted voluntary participation, no monetary reward or promise. The privacy and confidentiality clauses were explained thoroughly. The interviews were held in a private room at the preferred time and date of the participants. Each interview lasted between 40 and 60 min.

Data analysis

After completing the 25 interview transcripts, data analysis commenced. The analysis involved identifying, analyzing, and reporting the most frequent and meaningful patterns or themes [ 12 ]. The analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step process [ 13 ]. First, we familiarized ourselves with the interviews and actively read and reread the transcripts and generated initial codes as the second step. In the third step, we searched for themes across the data and the initial codes were categorized in the themes. We were mindful of the three objectives and purposes of the study to identify the most important points and concepts. The fourth step entailed the constant review of the themes, with the original data or the interviews. In the fifth step, the themes were named. Finally, the last step is the creation of the report as presented in the next section. We used the NVivo12 by QSR software to assist in the management and systematic tabulation of the themes.

A thematic analysis was performed to search for the most significant and meaningful responses from the sample. The thematic analysis resulted in four themes to address the three key objectives of the study. From the participant perspective, some sources are forbidden due to ethical issues. In addition, researchers and professionals must obtain an informed consent at all times (following the IRB) and follow the international regulations regarding stem cell research. The participants expressed the need to clarify the purpose of the research and storage procedures. Table  2 displays the themes in response to the study objectives.

Generated study themes

Theme I: an exploration of the sample’s views regarding forbidden and permitted sources of stem cells

The participants’ position regarding the sources of stem cells can be classified in two categories: permitted and forbidden resources. The majority felt that some sources of stem cells should be forbidden because they may lead to serious religious issues, but some sources were considered safe and acceptable.

Adult stem cells as a source was considered safe providing the extraction is done within the prescribed processes and guidelines. An interviewee said, “S ources which are like skin liver heart these are allowed… Adult stem cells- allowed.” A second participant added, “Adult stem cells [are] approved for clinical use.”

Pluripotent stem cells are becoming an acceptable resource of stem cells, due to their positive and safe characteristics. An interviewee shared that the use of pluripotent stem cells is continuously advancing with the hope of curing different diseases, saying: “ Why not? It’s a new science, and the people are trying to use pluripotent stem cells in another type of... a different kind of disease, and there is a lot of clinical intervention a lot of clinical trials still under investigation there is no clear answer.” Another participant indicated that pluripotent stem cells are similar to adult stem cells and can easily be replicated, saying: “Pluripotent stem cells it’s actually an adult cell you reprogramed the genetic and you move it back so you can do anything with it.”

According to our interviewees, the umbilical cord is a safe and promising stem cell source. A participant commented, “umbilical cord is one of the best sources of stem cells.”

The participants also indicated that the placenta is a permitted source, and they experienced no issues as the placenta was used previously to extract stem cells. A participant stated that using the placenta is not harmful, saying, “We used to collect stem cells from the placenta. It is not invasive.”

Obtaining stem cells from fetuses were perceived differently. One group clearly and completely forbids any use of stem cells from any fetus, either intentionally aborted or accidently miscarried, regardless of the age of fetus. One of the interviewees responded that the use is strictly prohibited, stating, “This is forbidden” and a second indicated clearly and strongly, “Miscarried fetuses before reaching [120 days] the same, the same, forbidden.” This group of professionals stated that the aborted fetus is rejected as the institutions and stakeholders are aware that the use of such a source may lead to ethical dilemmas. As one of the participants expressed, “there may be ethical issues that go along with the use of an aborted fetus.” In addition, the use of embryonic stem cells may lead to more serious and critical religious issues. A participant stated, “That they must adhere to the religious teaching that one must not touch or alter the fetus.”

However, some of the participant accepted fetuses aborted for therapeutic reasons, but forbid stem cells obtained from fetuses aborted for non-therapeutic reasons. An interviewee said, “However, these source of stem cells that we’re using is probably less chaotic, and hence should be utilized or the regulations should be applied like any other biological materials.” Spontaneously miscarried fetuses can be accepted as a resource of stem cells, if they are less than 120 days of age. One interviewee said, “If the fetus is less than 120 days old, it is not considered a human, and we can use its stem cells.”

Theme II: an exploration of professionals’ opinions regarding the ethical challenges of securing informed consent, with IRB approval

The second thematic category explored the sample’s perceptions concerning the challenges related to obtaining informed consent for stem cell research. The participants emphasized the importance of informed consent to guarantee the voluntary participation of donors. One of the interviewees said, “We do have consent actually, we never collect stem cells without taking a consent from the patient. Sure, sure yeah, we take the permission before we start collecting the cells.” However, for umbilical cord blood, consent is obtained from parents, usually during the routine visits to clinics during the pregnancy, as expressed by one interviewee.

According to the participants, the consent should explain and clearly describe the purpose of the research. A participant said: “I think that the donor should be informed what exactly we are doing with tissue that he has that we take it from him.” Another said, “The scope of the research should be properly presented. Such practice will protect both parties, the researcher and donor, from future issues.”

All donor rights should be mentioned in the informed consent. One of the interviewees said, “Donors’ rights musts be clarified and explained to them, including, but not limited to, withdrawal right.”

The explanation should be in understandable, clear language and the terms and conditions of the forms should be simplified. The communication must be sufficient to ensure the donor understand fully. A participant narrated, “The researchers must take the time to orient and explain the content of the informed consent to the volunteers.” The informed consent documents should have been reviewed and approved by an ethics committee. A participant discussed the process of procuring the form, as follows: We submit the consent to the research office as a part of the submitted research proposal and then you will get IRB approval for all proposals including the informed consent.”

Theme III: an exploration of the professionals’ perceptions regarding the ethical challenges related to the benefit resulting from the stem cell research

The participants described the potential value of the sources of stem cells in the field of medicine and research. According to the majority, any use of stem cells should be beneficial, either to the donors or to the public. A participant said, “Even if there is no direct benefit to the donors themselves, but at least stem cells research should have some potential benefits to others.” A second opinion was “There are different applications and uses of the umbilical cord and it can save many patients today.” When using stem cells in treatment, the approved procedures should be followed meticulously, as explained by one of the interviewees, “Not following approved methods may lead to serious consequences.”

The sample emphasized the responsibility of being transparent when informing and communicating with the patient about any potential benefit. “It is very important not give the patients false hope about treatment by stem cells,” as expressed by one of the interviewees. A second participant was concerned about false hopes based on wrong assumptions, “I am very sad to see hopeless people spend all their earnings and energy in trying something that can never be a success.”

Theme IV: an exploration of stem cell research regulations

Four subthemes were developed related to the regulations related to stem cell research theme, including the importance of following international regulations, the need to use international guidelines based on Islamic laws (fatwas) and beliefs, no national law related to stem cells, and the need to increase the researchers’ knowledge about the ethical guidelines of stem cells.

The majority of the sample considered following regulations and guidelines consistently every time stem cells are used as an important issue. A participant explained, “ We have to follow the set procedures by regulators and the law because it involves safety of patients.” Our findings indicate that our researchers are using international regulations in their current practice and research with stem cells. One researcher said, “ Actually we are already use international guidelines. We used to follow that when I was getting my training in the west, and we here continue do the same.” Another researcher justified why international regulations should be followed, “Following the international regulations on stem cell research is needed for two reasons: the ethical principles are the same, and we are in many cases part of international multicenter research.” However, when applying these international regulations, Islamic law and fatwas should be taken in account. One of the participants explained, “Nothing that contradicts Sariah is acceptable, and this is true when it comes to stem cells, especially when it comes to the permitted or forbidden resources.”

The participants also indicated a lack of standardization in the local setting. A participant narrated that currently, they follow only the international regulations for their clinical trials and research. The participant described the increasing need for a targeted local policy related to stem cells, saying: “There is no national standardization as far as I know.” According to a second participant, the main issue in Saudi is the actual lack of a national law related to stem cell research and therapy, he commented, “Ethics must be a priority in Saudi to be able to create laws that would be in line with the local religious or spiritual beliefs.” Another participant also expressed the need to create local guidelines, which should match the international guidelines and not contradict the Islamic law. A last perspective was as follows: “Definitely, it’s good to have a supporting in fatwa for our patients satisfaction. This is because patients and the community rely on the fatwa more than the IRB. They don’t know about the IRB. So, I think that’s why the need the fatwa. I think we would reassure our patients about that.”

Many participants admitted that researchers lack adequate knowledge and information regarding ethical considerations and guidelines about stem cells research. One of the participants said, “The researchers themselves need to be trained or oriented in a formal setting to become aware about the ethical guidelines of using stem cells. ”

Though researchers are doing research in the stem cell field, they realize the ethical challenges they are facing in their research. Having spent a significant part of their scientific life in Western countries, they are aware of ethical issues; however at the same time, their cultural and religious background plays a role in their perceptions regarding the ethical challenges and how to deal with them.

The first point to manage appropriately is the source of stem cells, classified in permitted and forbidden sources. While the sample accepts adult stem cells in general, they have a different point of view regarding embryonic stem cells. These stem cells are affected by ethical, legal, and religious considerations, especially regarding the method of obtaining the cells and more specifically, when it results in destroying embryos who may have a degree of dignity and humanity, similar to other researchers, societies and universities in the west [ 14 ]. A particular concern is if the fetus is more than 120 days old, the time of soul installment according to Islamic law [ 15 ], which is in the middle between the two opposing opinions: the first sees embryos less than complete and conscious persons, while the second sees them equal to all human beings and should not be treated differently. The sensitivity related to using stem cells from embryonic sources resulted in a significant increase in the interest of adult stem cells in medical research, even though the lesser importance they have.

The researchers’ points of view about permitted and forbidden sources, as stated in the Saudi law of ethics of research on living creatures and its implementing regulations [ 10 ], match almost completely except for limiting the use of pluripotent stem cells to laboratories only. The researchers did not mention extra fetuses (extra fertilized eggs) which, as prescribed in the Saudi law, are not permitted as a source of stem cells. The reason may be because it is neither a common practice nor legal to use this source. Researchers where satisfied with the available sources, namely cord blood and imported cell lines.

The source of stem cells was not the only point discussed by the sample. They highlighted several factors to be considered to ensure stem cell research is ethical. The points are a component of the general rules related to conducting ethical medical research, locally and internationally [ 16 ]. It was expected that the sample would mention obtaining informed consent prior to any stem cell donation, adult or embryonic, before use. Informed consent should also be obtained from donors of adult stem cells. However, for embryonic stem cells, consent should be obtained from the parents. It is noteworthy that the researchers highlighted the importance of clarifying the purpose of stem cell donation to the potential donors to avoid any possibility of employing practices that may invalidate the consent. Mandating review and approval of an ethics committee of the informed consent form protect the donors who may miss understanding some points in the informed consent documents. Although there is no direct benefit to the donors from stem cell research, the altruism principle is an important motivation to donate stem cells, which is supported by studies in other regions [ 17 ]. The participants mentioned the importance that research should not be futile but have a direct or indirect benefit. The researchers recognize that stem cells have the potential of future success and many people, especially patients with chronic diseases and difficult to treat diseases, have placed their hope on stem cells. So, it is understandable that the sample mentioned repeatedly that patients should be warned against false hope and they emphasized the importance of transparency in stem cell treatment or research; the idea that is highlighted by other researchers [ 18 ].

The awareness of researchers about the importance of respecting and complying to international guidelines can be understood in the context of receiving tertiary education abroad where they internalized the international guidelines and conducted research according to these guidelines. Frequently, the current research in Saudi Arabia is a continuation of their previous research during their training. The second reason which explains the importance of following international guidelines is that the majority of research is multi-center international studies and following the same principles is essential for success.

The harmonization of ethical and legal rules related to stem cell research with the Islamic point of view is important due to two reasons. Firstly, the acceptance or willing participation of potential donors will significantly increase if they are informed that the research is in line with Islamic law, and secondly, the Research Ethics Law in Saudi Arabia mandates that all practices in stem cell research should be in line with Islamic rules to be allowed and legitimate. However, the sample where not sufficiently aware of the regulation related to stem cell research mentioned in the Saudi Law of Research Ethics [ 10 ]. This caveat reflects a lack of responsibility about keeping themselves updated, as the law is readily available on the website of the National Committee of Bioethics www.kacst.edu.sa . From another perspective, the offices responsible in the National Committee of Bioethics should promote the law efficiently to raise awareness in researchers and donors.

In conclusion, the participants of the study indicate various ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells in research. For the majority of the participants, specific stem cell sources are forbidden in Saudi. Particularly, embryonic stem cells as the use may result in serious religious issues. The participants also reject aborted or (some) miscarried fetuses as a source. In response to the second objective, the ethical principles and challenges related to stem cell research were identified. The sample emphasized the importance of always securing IRB approval of the informed consent documents. Informed consent should include an explanation of the scope of the research and the participants’ rights, in simple understandable language to ensure complete understanding.

The majority of the participants reported that they already follow the international regulations related to stem cell research, which they had been exposed to during their studies and training, mostly in Western countries. However, surprisingly, they are not necessarily aware of existing national local laws, which reflects a critical need of research ethics education in general and in stem cell ethics in particular, through courses, conferences, and university programs-which are currently lacking in Saudi. Also, conducting analytic and comparative studies about stem cells in Saudi research ethics law may help to increase awareness among researchers. Additional in-depth research to include different categories with different levels will be very important at the next stage.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the experts involved in stem cell research who agreed to participate in our study.

Authors’ contributions

(GA) designed, directed, analyzed and interpreted the study interviewee data and he was the major contributor in writing the manuscript. (MN) carried out the interviews with study subjects and he helped in drafting the manuscript. (SA) helped in interviewing, drafting, and reviewing the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This study was funded by King Abdullah International Medical Research Center. There was no role of the funding body in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data and in the manuscript writing.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at king Abdulaziz medical city (KAMC) under the grant number: RC16/188/R. The written informed consent has been obtained from the interviewed professionals before conducting the interviews.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Ghiath Alahmad, Email: moc.liamtoh@damhalahtaihg , Email: as.dem.ahgn@gdamha .

Sarah Aljohani, Email: [email protected] .

Muath Fahmi Najjar, Email: AS.DEM.AHGN@umrajjan .

Stem Cells Therapy and Related Ethical Concerns Essay

Stem cells are universal cells that have the ability to divide and pass genetic information to other cell types that are designed to maintain and repair the organism. Adult stem cells are found in the adult organism and are able to divide and differentiate into other cells. Embryonic stem cells are especially powerful stem cells that are found in the fetus during early ontogenesis and are able to transform into any cell type in the organism. Despite the fact that stem cells are incredibly useful in treating various diseases, there are some ethical concerns about their usage.

Some individuals or organizations may wish to ban the use of embryonic stem cells. The reason for it is that embryos have an unidentified moral status. Since the time of forming personhood is unclear, there is a question of whether embryos’ should be protected from intervention (Poulos, 2018). I believe that transplantation of autologous stem cells leads to fewer debates as the patient from whom the stem cells are taken does not suffer in the procedure. Besides, such a patient is both a donor and a recipient (Lymphoma Action, 2019). Therefore, there is no concern about one person being healed at the cost of the other. Moreover, in this case, a patient is able to give informed consent for a procedure. Thus, autologous stem cells are likely to be put into service without introducing ethical disputes.

Nowadays, using stem cells offers the possibility of treating many injuries and diseases. For example, it helps with illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, and damage to the heart or brain. It successfully assists in the healing of burn victims as well. The use of stem cells to treat burn victims includes the use of immunomodulators, which help to regenerate skin quickly after damage caused by fire (Zakrzewski et al., 2019). Stem cells can also be used to treat Alzheimer’s disease, replace deficient neurons, and treat diseases such as multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

In conclusion, stem cells are able to assist in healing human organisms due to the fact that they transmit genetic information and alter into different types of cells. The question of the ethics of the use of stem cells is a cause of many debates due to different views on whether or not an embryo should be protected as a person. Stem cells are instrumental in handling numerous human injuries and illnesses, from diabetes to Alzheimer’s.

Lymphoma action. (2019). Autologous stem cell transplant [eBook edition]. Lymphoma Action. Web.

Poulos, J. (2018). The limited application of stem cells in medicine: a review . Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 9 (1), 1-11. Web.

Zakrzewski, W., Dobrzyński, M., & Szymonowicz, M. (2019). Stem cells: past, present, and future . Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 10 (68), 1-22. Web.

  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 23). Stem Cells Therapy and Related Ethical Concerns. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stem-cells-therapy-and-related-ethical-concerns/

"Stem Cells Therapy and Related Ethical Concerns." IvyPanda , 23 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/stem-cells-therapy-and-related-ethical-concerns/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Stem Cells Therapy and Related Ethical Concerns'. 23 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Stem Cells Therapy and Related Ethical Concerns." February 23, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stem-cells-therapy-and-related-ethical-concerns/.

1. IvyPanda . "Stem Cells Therapy and Related Ethical Concerns." February 23, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stem-cells-therapy-and-related-ethical-concerns/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Stem Cells Therapy and Related Ethical Concerns." February 23, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/stem-cells-therapy-and-related-ethical-concerns/.

  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Clinical Trial
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Symptoms and Effects
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Its Features
  • The Affect of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
  • Clinical Trial of Diabetes Mellitus
  • Discussion of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
  • Criminology: Corporate Personhood
  • Using Embryonic Stem Cells to Grow Body Parts
  • Aspects of Multiple Sclerosis
  • Multiple Sclerosis as a Neurological Disease
  • Ethics and Evidence-Based Research
  • The Ethical Use of Technology in Healthcare
  • Bioethics as an Essential Part of Healthcare
  • The Worth of Biomedical Ethics in Nursing Practice
  • The Ethics of Abortion in Nursing

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Stem Cell — Stem cells and ethics

test_template

Stem Cells and Ethics

  • Categories: Stem Cell

About this sample

close

Words: 801 |

Published: Sep 14, 2018

Words: 801 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Stem cells and leukemia.

  • Embryos (embryonic stem cells)
  • Adult tissue (adult stem cells)

Disadvantages

Image of Alex Wood

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

author

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

  • Expert in: Science

writer

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2211 words

5 pages / 2168 words

3 pages / 1330 words

8 pages / 3726 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Stem Cell

Adult mammalian ovary has been under watch for over 10 years now since it was proposed to home stem cells that experience postnatal oogenesis amid reproductive period like spermatogenesis in testis. Ovarian stem cells are [...]

Stem cells are undifferentiated or ‘blank’ cells found in the human body that have the potential to develop into many different cell types that carry out different functions. Stem cells have the remarkable potential to [...]

A stem cell transplant is a treatment for some types of cancer. For example in the case if person might have leukemia, multiple myeloma, or some types of lymphoma. It also treat some blood diseases with stem cell transplants. [...]

Mosquitoes belonged to the family of nematocerid flies which was the Culicidae (from the Latin culex, genitive culicis, meaning "midge" or "gnat"). Female mosquito was responsible to carry the vector that leads to the disease [...]

The concept of "survival of the fittest" is intrinsically tied to the theory of evolution through natural selection, a groundbreaking idea put forth by Charles Darwin in 1858. This theory sought to explain how adaptation and [...]

Hydrastis Canadensis is the Botanical name of the Goldenseal also known as Orangeroot orYellow Paccoon. Goldenseal is a small perennial (long-life) herb belonging to the Buttercup family, Ranunculaceae, though its leaves and [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

  • Instructions Followed To The Letter
  • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
  • Unique And Plagiarism Free

stem cell ethics essay

Minnesota Law

stem cell ethics essay

Prof. Susan Wolf Quoted in  MIT Technology Review  on Alabama’s Embryo Ruling

Professor Susan Wolf was quoted in  MIT Technology Review  on Alabama’s embryo ruling which said, in part, that an embryo is a child “regardless of its location.” The ruling could have implications for future technologies in development, such as artificial wombs or synthetic embryos made from stem cells. Professor Wolf commented, “I think the opinion is really extraordinary. I can’t think of another case where a court powered its ruling by looking not only at technology not actually before the court, but number two, that doesn’t exist in human beings. They can’t make a binding decision about future technology that is not even part of the case.”

Related News

  • Curriculum & Requirements
  • Meet the Team
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • LEAD Program
  • Current LL.M. Students
  • Class of 2023
  • Class of 2022
  • Class of 2021
  • Class of 2020
  • Class of 2019
  • Class of 2018
  • Class of 2017
  • Class of 2016
  • Class of 2015
  • Class of 2014
  • Class of 2013
  • Class of 2012
  • Class of 2011
  • Class of 2010
  • Class of 2009
  • Class of 2008
  • How to Apply
  • Join Our Mailing List
  • Recruiting Events
  • S.J.D. Candidates
  • Where Students Go
  • Testimonials & Videos
  • Program Faculty
  • Career Support
  • Courses, Registration & Grading
  • Business Law Minor
  • Dedicated Undergraduate Law Courses
  • Subject Areas
  • Course List
  • Summer Session 2024
  • Supervised Field Placements
  • Law in Practice
  • Moot Courts
  • Legal Writing
  • Education & Participation
  • Corporate Institute
  • Human Rights Center
  • Institute for Law & Economics
  • Institute for Law & Rationality
  • Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity
  • James H. Binger Center for New Americans
  • Program in Law & History
  • Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
  • Robina Public Interest Scholars Program
  • Saeks Public Interest Residency Program
  • Business Law
  • Civil Litigation
  • Criminal Justice
  • Environmental & Energy Law
  • Health Law & Bioethics
  • Human Rights Law
  • Immigration Law
  • Intellectual Property & Technology Law
  • International Law
  • Labor & Employment Law
  • Semester Exchange Programs
  • Academic Calendar
  • Lecture Series
  • Information Sessions
  • Connect with Admissions
  • Tuition & Financial Aid
  • Recruitment Events
  • Transfer Policy
  • Visiting Students
  • By The Numbers
  • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
  • Take A Virtual Tour
  • MN Pre-Law Scholars
  • Full Faculty List
  • Faculty News
  • Recent Publications
  • Working Papers (SSRN)
  • Scholarship Repository
  • Law Students
  • Law Faculty
  • Collections
  • 2022 Career Facts & Statistics
  • 2021 Career Facts & Statistics
  • 2020 Career Facts & Statistics
  • Corporate Fellowship
  • Judicial Clerkships
  • Professional Essentials Milestone
  • Public Interest Careers
  • Interviewing Programs
  • Grades & Percentiles
  • For Students
  • Career Center Staff
  • Business & Nonprofits
  • Economic Justice
  • Family and Community
  • Human Rights and Immigration
  • Rights & Liberties
  • View All Clinics
  • Clinic Directors
  • Faculty Advising
  • Choosing A Concentration
  • 1L Electives
  • Academic Success
  • Exam Policies & Info
  • Graduate Planning & Audit System
  • Minnesota Law Student Oath
  • Refund, Drop/Add Deadlines
  • MPRE Information
  • Bar-tested Subjects
  • Bar Information Video Clips
  • Student Organizations
  • Wellness & Wellbeing
  • Dean's Reception
  • Student Directory
  • Administrative Policies
  • Academic Policies
  • Student Support & Standards
  • Technology Support
  • Student Forms
  • Contact Student Affairs
  • Cancel Class for Low Enrollment
  • Seating Charts
  • Student Attendance Issues
  • Student Registration Faculty Guide
  • Documenting Incomplete Grade
  • Faculty Grade Submission
  • Feedback to Students on Exams
  • Final Exam Guidelines
  • Midterm Exam Guidelines
  • Faculty news submissions
  • Op-Ed guidelines
  • Submit Faculty Expertise
  • SSRN Instructions
  • Judicial Clerkship Letters
  • AV Request Form
  • Design Request Form
  • Designers, Photographers and Writers
  • Digital Banners
  • Email Banners
  • Law School Logos
  • Press Release Template
  • Event Resources
  • University Event-Related Links
  • PowerPoint Templates
  • Faculty Works in Progress
  • International Law Workshops
  • Legal History Workshops
  • Public Law Workshops
  • Squaretable Schedule
  • Copy Machines
  • Phones/Voicemail
  • Security Monitors
  • Transportation Services
  • U Card Office
  • Building Maps
  • Finance Staff
  • Travel & Chrome River
  • Compliance & Reporting
  • Employee Engagement
  • Hiring Resources
  • Performance Management
  • Known Issues
  • What's New in D9
  • Paragraph Types
  • Link Styles
  • Layout Options
  • WYSIWYG Toolbar
  • Flat Screen Sign Request
  • Ed Tech SLA
  • Law School LISTSERVs
  • Zoom Profile Photos
  • Zoom Backgrounds
  • Networking & Careers
  • Office of Advancement Staff
  • Alumni News
  • 5-Year Reunion
  • 10-Year Reunion
  • 15-Year Reunion
  • 20-Year Reunion
  • 25-Year Reunion
  • 30-Year Reunion
  • 35-Year Reunion
  • 40-Year Reunion
  • 45-Year Reunion
  • 50-Year Reunion
  • 55-Year Reunion
  • Recently Admitted
  • 1888 Society
  • Reunion Giving
  • 2023 Donors
  • 2023 Participating PAW Firms
  • 2021-22 Lockhart Members
  • 2022-23 Lockhart Members
  • 2023-24 Lockhart Members
  • Class Gift Program
  • Driven Campaign
  • Special Campaigns

Search form

Stem cells ‘migrate’ to repair damaged lung cells, study shows.

A new Yale-led study has found that stem cells migrate to help repair damaged lung cells caused by injuries such as viral or bacterial infections.

The findings were published Feb. 19 in the journal Developmental Cell .

“ This is an exciting new insight into stem cell biology,” said Maurizio Chioccioli , assistant professor of genetics and comparative medicine at Yale School of Medicine and corresponding author of the paper.

For the study, the researchers looked at the two main cell types that make up the alveolar epithelium in living mice. Alveolar epithelial type 1 cells, which line lung tissues, are crucial to the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide gases. And alveolar type 2 cells or (AT2s) are known to act as stem cells to replenish those injured or dead epithelial cells in the alveoli, or air sacs, in the lung. It was unknown exactly how the AT2s accomplished this feat.

Using advanced timelapse imaging techniques and genetic mouse models, the research team was able to track the fate of individual AT2s in the live breathing intact lung in response to injury. They were able to show for the first time that a large fraction of alveolar stem cells (AT2s) migrate to the site of the injury.

This behavior is important in the regeneration of alveoli, the air sacks that function as the site of gas exchange in the lung, the researchers say.

“ The results demonstrate that stem cell migration between individual functional units is an important driver of tissue regeneration in the mammalian lung,” Chioccioli said.

Other Yale authors of the study include Caroline Hendry , Maor Sauler , Naftali Kaminski , and  Smita Krishnaswamy .

Health & Medicine

Media Contact

Bess Connolly : [email protected] ,

Illustration of a man standing on a burning match.

Medical students with disabilities are at higher risk of burnout than peers

Kiana Flores, a Yale junior, leads a campus tour for prospective families.

Opening doors and making room: ‘Yale was a possibility for me’

Richard Prum with book cover of “Performance All the Way Down”

Blending humanities, science to illuminate human development and sexuality

stem cell ethics essay

Yale Library Book Talk series announces lineup for spring 2024

  • Show More Articles

IMAGES

  1. Stem cell ethics Essay Example

    stem cell ethics essay

  2. Stem Cells

    stem cell ethics essay

  3. (PDF) A question of ethics: Selling autologous stem cell therapies

    stem cell ethics essay

  4. The Ethics of Stem Cell Research

    stem cell ethics essay

  5. (PDF) The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cells—Now and Forever, Cells Without End

    stem cell ethics essay

  6. PPT

    stem cell ethics essay

VIDEO

  1. STEM CELL RESEARCH

  2. AI Views on Stem Cell Research #StemCell #AI

COMMENTS

  1. Ethics of Stem Cell Research

    1. The Ethics of Destroying Human Embryos for Research 1.1 When does a human being begin to exist? 1.2 The moral status of human embryos 1.3 The case of "doomed embryos" 2. The Ethics of Using Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Research 3. The Ethics of Creating Embryos for Stem Cell Research and Therapy 4. Stem Cell-Derived Gametes 5.

  2. Recognizing the ethical implications of stem cell research: A call for

    stem cells ethics hard and soft impacts iPSCs regenerative medicine Main text Introduction Stem cell science has expanded in the past two decades. These new research possibilities raise ethical and policy questions.

  3. Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research

    Stem cell research offers great promise for understanding basic mechanisms of human development and differentiation, as well as the hope for new treatments for diseases such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, and myocardial infarction. However, human stem cell (hSC) research also raises sharp ethical and political controversies.

  4. Examining the ethics of embryonic stem cell research

    Examining the ethics of embryonic stem cell research Last year, President Bush cast the first veto of his presidency when Congress tried to ease the restriction on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

  5. Stem cell issue: Stem Cell Research: The Ethical Issues

    In Stem Cell Research, the editors collected essays to stimulate discussion of the ethical issues surrounding the use of stem cells in research and medicine. This collection provides excellent philosophical and biological arguments in support of stem cell research.

  6. PDF Stem Cells science and ethics

    Biotechnology, Making Tremors and the first two editions of Stem Cells: Science and Ethics. She now co-ordinates public engagement projects for the University of Edinburgh (most recently Researchers ... 100 research papers in peer-reviewed journals and supervised the training of more than 27 PhD students. Mary is a Fellow of

  7. The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

    The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Books Addiction and Self-Control: Perspectives from Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People Bioprediction, Biomarkers and Bad Behavior Consciousness and Moral Responsibility Consciousness and Moral Status

  8. Ethical issues in stem cell research and therapy

    Stem Cell Research. Rapid progress in biotechnology has introduced a host of pressing ethical and policy issues pertaining to stem cell research. In this review, we provide an overview of the most significant issues with which the stem cell research community should be familiar. We draw on a sample of the bioethics and scientific literatures to ...

  9. Emerging stem cell ethics

    Emerging stem cell ethics. It has been 20 years since the first derivation of human embryonic stem cells. That milestone marked the start of a scientific and public fascination with stem cells, not just for their biological properties but also for their potentially transformative medical uses. The next two decades of stem cell research animated ...

  10. Ethical issues in stem cell research and treatment

    However, stem cell research has been riddled with ethical questions, in part because the predominant methods being used to derive or attempt to derive human embryonic stem cells require ...

  11. Recognizing the ethical implications of stem cell research: A call for

    ethics hard and soft impacts iPSCs regenerative medicine Main text Introduction Stem cell science has expanded in the past two decades. These new research possibilities raise ethical and policy questions.

  12. Stem cell ethics and policy: What's old is new again

    Main text In the early days of human embryonic stem cell research, most ethics and policy debates focused on the moral status of preimplantation human embryos and the conditions under which moral personhood could be ascribed, if ever, to objects of research at the benchside.

  13. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

    Introduction In November 1998, two teams of U.S. scientists confirmed successful isolation and growth of stems cells obtained from human fetuses and embryos. Since then, research that utilizes human embryonic cells has been a widely debated, controversial ethical issue. Human embryonic cells possess the ability to become stem cells, which are used in medical research due to two significant ...

  14. Recognizing the ethical implications of stem cell research: A call for

    The ethical implications of stem cell research are often described in terms of risks, side effects, safety, and therapeutic value, which are examples of so-called hard impacts. Hard impacts are typically measurable and quantifiable.

  15. Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Ethical Dilemma

    (en) Embryonic stem cell research: an ethical dilemma Embryonic Stem Cells Ethics and Society Embryonic stem cells offer hope for new therapies, but their use in research has been hotly debated. Different countries have chosen to regulate embryonic stem cell research in very different ways.

  16. Stem cell politics, ethics and medical progress

    Political attention in the United States is focusing on stem cell research mainly because of two scientific reports 1, 2 and a November 1998 press release, all promising the potential of wide ...

  17. Never an Easy Answer: The Ethics of Stem Cells

    Never an Easy Answer: The Ethics of Stem Cells Figure 1. Although there have not yet been any clinical trials to prove that stem cell treatments are effective - and to demonstrate that they are safe - there are many companies offering treatments for a wide array of diseases and conditions.

  18. Stem Cells

    Many papers discussing the ethics of stem cell research are published about or linked to the legal and political issues. A useful guide (online PDF document) to stem cells was produced in a report by the National Institute of Health (NIH, USA, May 2000) and more recently NIH has established a Stem Cell information page.

  19. Stem Cell Research Essay: Research Ethics, Pros and Cons, and Benefits

    This stem cell research argumentative essay will analyze stem cell research ethics' pros and cons and explain how it can benefit society. Why Are Stem Cells Useful? Stem cell research has potential benefits in the treatment of chronic diseases.

  20. stem cell ethics Essay

    stem cell ethics Essay 1706 Words 7 Pages MLA style also specifies guidelines for formatting manuscripts and using the English language in writing and also provides a writers with a system for cross-referencing their sources--from their parenthetical references to their works cited page.

  21. Ethical challenges regarding the use of stem cells: interviews with

    Many Arabic countries conduct research with stem cells, as evidenced by the hundreds of scientific papers published in this field. ... Also, conducting analytic and comparative studies about stem cells in Saudi research ethics law may help to increase awareness among researchers. Additional in-depth research to include different categories with ...

  22. Stem Cells Therapy and Related Ethical Concerns Essay

    Stem cells are instrumental in handling numerous human injuries and illnesses, from diabetes to Alzheimer's. References. Lymphoma action. (2019). Autologous stem cell transplant [eBook edition]. Lymphoma Action. Web. Poulos, J. (2018). The limited application of stem cells in medicine: a review. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 9(1), 1-11. Web.

  23. Stem cells and ethics: [Essay Example], 801 words GradesFixer

    According to (LHCrypto 2017), stem cells are a class of undifferentiated cells that are able to differentiate into specialized cell types. Stems cells are also known as the body's raw materials-cells from which all other cells with specialized functions are produced.

  24. Prof. Susan Wolf Quoted in MIT Technology Review on Alabama's Embryo

    Professor Susan Wolf was quoted in MIT Technology Review on Alabama's embryo ruling which said, in part, that an embryo is a child "regardless of its location." The ruling could have implications for future technologies in development, such as artificial wombs or synthetic embryos made from stem cells. Professor Wolf commented, "I think the opinion is really extraordinary.

  25. Stem cells 'migrate' to repair damaged lung cells, study shows

    Alveolar epithelial type 1 cells, which line lung tissues, are crucial to the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide gases. And alveolar type 2 cells or (AT2s) are known to act as stem cells to replenish those injured or dead epithelial cells in the alveoli, or air sacs, in the lung. It was unknown exactly how the AT2s accomplished this feat.

  26. Exosomes derived from umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells ...

    Environmental pollution has emerged as a global concern due to its detrimental effects on human health. One of the critical aspects of this concern is the impact of environmental pollution on sperm quality in males. Male factor infertility accounts for approximately 40%- 50% of all infertility cases. Nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) is the most severe type of male infertility. Human umbilical ...