iPSC are stem cells that are produced from adult stem cells. The adult stem cell is not as plastic as embryonic stem cells, but they can be reverted back to a state of pluripotentcy, where they can act as embryonic stem cells. This is ethically significant since there is a great amount of controversy over using embryonic stem cells since they involve the destruction of some embryo or fetus to obtain them.
In this month's (april) Scientific American, Steve Mirsky writes: "So what I don't get is why aren't people who are against using embryonic stem cells in research just as against using iPSCs?" He gets to this question by pointing out that iPSCs have the theoretical possibility of being implanted in a womb and grown as a clone. Most who are against stem cell research are also against cloning and so consequently should be against the use of iPSCs.
Mirsky is bringing up what seems like an inconsistency in the anti-stem cell research camp. But I don't think he's entirely right. First, I'm totally for stem cell research, but I'm in more favor of iPSC research, although in practical terms, iPSC research will be slower research. But back to me in a second. What are the anti-stem cell camp against exactly? Its isn't stem cell research strangely enough. Very few opponents of stem cell research would actually say that the research itself is morally wrong, rather the source of the research material is questionable. Destroying embryos are wrong and if this research promotes embryos being destroyed, then it is wrong because of that, not because of its aims or the research itself.
So since iPSC doesn't destroy embryos, then it is morally acceptable research. But what about the possibility of cloning? For someone to be upset by iPSC because of concerns over cloning, one would have to make a slippery slope argument. iPSC research will lead to human cloning. Clearly this isn't any more true than legalizing gay marriage leading to inter-species marriages.
So why worry about iPSC when embryonic stem cells will in all likelihood produce results quicker? Simply put, it would make more people happy. If we could grow meat in a petri dish that is identical to real meat, without the animal cruelty, we should do it because it would make more people happy. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just raise a cow? Sure it would. But if we could avoid the problematic aspects of eating meat, then we should.
Now some might say there are no problematic aspects of embryonic stem cell research, whereas there are problematic aspects with animal husbandry. But we could still easily imagine a world where all animals are not factory farmed, where they have pleasant lives and a Temple Grandin approved death. People would still be unhappy to see animals dying, and whether that is reasonable or not isn't the issue, for me anyways. I don't think we can really control how things make us feel. If seeing cats on fire pleases the people of France, then it does, no matter how unsavory it is. I love Survivor (Go Russell!) and I know that its terrible television. But I love it anyways. I can't help it! This isn't to say that we should indulge in things that are morally bad so long as they make us happy, but rather if we can avoid making people unhappy and not do anything morally bad, then we should do so.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wayne,
ReplyDeleteYou assert:
Destroying embryos are wrong and if this research promotes embryos being destroyed, then it is wrong because of that, not because of its aims or the research itself.
However this is incoherent, since HESC research is predicated on using HESCs. Therefore if you oppose the use of human embryos in research, then you must oppose HESC research.
But why is the use of HESC wrong? Let’s just stick with using the leftover IVF embryos in the USA. Why not use these embryos in research, when they are destined to be destroyed? And the majority of them will be destroyed.
Chad
I'm never incoherent. :) j/k
ReplyDeleteIf we can engage in HESC research without destroying embryos (iPECs) then its not dependent upon destroying human embryos at all.
Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with destroying embryos, but I think we should continue to go the route of iPECs because it statisfies more people's desires. Utilizing embryonic stem cells make people unhappy.
No doubt the majority will be destroyed, but opponents to HESC research oppose the destruction of these embryos as well. So they're fairly consistent on that count.
Wayne,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. You state:
Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with destroying embryos, but I think we should continue to go the route of iPECs because it statisfies more people's desires. Utilizing embryonic stem cells make people unhappy.
One problem with your statement is that scientific research will always make some people unhappy. That is not a good reason for not doing or prohibiting research. Since science is opposed to “common sense” or “folk wisdom” it will always unsettle taken for granted assumptions about the world.
No doubt the majority will be destroyed, but opponents to HESC research oppose the destruction of these embryos as well. So they're fairly consistent on that count.
Sure, they are consistent – consistently making a bad argument. Again, there need to be good arguments against the use of surplus embryos. Consistentcy is not one of them.
Chad
Chad - I think there is actually lots of good reasons for not doing research that upsets lots of people. For example the Tuskegee syphilis studies would have upset lots of people had they known about it, and shouldn't have been done. Did it expand our knowledge? Yes. Could we have gotten that knowledge in another way? Yes.
ReplyDeleteSo why go the route that would upset lots of people? If the results are the same, but maybe a decade or two apart, then whats the significant difference?
And we're not just talking about people who are opposed to science because they are not knowledgeable. In this case, we're simply talking about people who hold different values than I, particularly the value of an embryo.
Since this isn't a case where our clash of values are completely incommensurable by science (because of iPECs, unlike abortion), I think it would be responsible of us to reach for the middle ground.
Wayne:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your replies. You state:
For example the Tuskegee syphilis studies would have upset lots of people had they known about it, and shouldn't have been done.
I think we can both agree that scientific research, done under duplicitous conditions that cause human subjects undue pain or death, is impermissible. That’s not what I was talking about. Human embryo research does not fit this example. Some people do believe that human embryos are human subjects, but this is far from a settled point.
Since this isn't a case where our clash of values are completely incommensurable by science (because of iPECs, unlike abortion), I think it would be responsible of us to reach for the middle ground.
I’m not sure a middle ground exists in this case. If one is going to do either HESC or iPEC research, the use of embryos will be required (at least right now). Perhaps induced pluripotency will make the use of human embryos irrelevant one day. It is currently not the case.
Chad
Chad- How does iPEC research utilize embryos? It seems like this is the sticking point that we have. I'm pretty sure (although not positive) that iPEC research doesn't utilize embryos, only stem cells from adults. Thats what makes it the middle ground.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that if all HESC research utilized embryos, then we would have to simply just push through people's values, because the gains are far greater than people's discomfort.
Sure the Tuskegee experiments are different than HESC, but I was responding to the point that making people unhappy is irrelevant to research. Lets take a hypothetical example. Lets say we could do some kind of research on panda bears, and only panda bears, that would allow us to discover some principle of the universe that has really no practical application in the world, but it would be a great boon to our understanding of the world. The research however would involve killing the panda bears. Should we do it? I would say no. Panda bears make people happy, and even though the research would yield more knowledge about the world, the benefits don't out weigh the loss of happiness that people would have about the pandas suffering and dying. So people's happiness is relevant to whether or not we should engage in one kind of research or another.
As you said, some people believe that embryos are human subjects, and its not settled, and in reality, probably will never be settled. So if iPECs offer us the opportunity to dodge the upsetting nature of the research for many people, then we should.
Double checking some sources here, iPSC cells are created in two ways: 1. An engineered virus with a few genes infects an adult stem cell turning it into an iPSC cell. The gene itself may come from from embryonic stem cells, so there might be a case for what you're stating. But even in this case, only one embryo would need to be harmed (to get the genes initially) then the gene could be manufactured indefinately without any harm to further embryos.
ReplyDeleteBut last year (2009) iPSC were created by applying recombinant proteins to an adult stem cell, which wouldn't require embryonic cells at all, so no embryos would be harmed even to get a gene.
Wayne,
ReplyDeleteIt looks like we’re debating two separate issues:
1. What is the status of iPS cells vs. HESCs?
2. What kinds of scientific research are permissible? Or, are there limits to scientific practice?
As for the first, you state:
How does iPEC research utilize embryos? It seems like this is the sticking point that we have. I'm pretty sure (although not positive) that iPEC research doesn't utilize embryos, only stem cells from adults.
First, there’s the logical point. If you are going to claim that HESCs are identical to iPS cells, then how do you know that? You will have to compare them, so you will need to use human embryos.
Second there’s the empirical point. iPS cells still have many problems. For example:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464663a.html?s=news_rss
It looks like we will need to use HESCs for the time being.
As for the second point:
Lets take a hypothetical example. Lets say we could do some kind of research on panda bears, and only panda bears, that would allow us to discover some principle of the universe that has really no practical application in the world, but it would be a great boon to our understanding of the world. The research however would involve killing the panda bears. Should we do it? I would say no.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at in this example. By your argument, you must then be opposed to all animal research in science including GMOs. I don’t think you believe this. You could be using the panda as an example because they are rare, or highly valued. So suppose we tell the panda opponent that we are only using cloned pandas for the experiment, so there would no net loss of wild pandas. That would take care of that argument.
So if your point is that panda research is wrong because there are few pandas left, I agree with you. In that sense, the value of the scientific knowledge gained is weighed against the loss of a species. However, again I don’t see the applicability of this analogy to embryo research. If your point is simply that human values play a role in science, I completely agree. But that sheds no light on point # 2 – that is, what should be the limits on science?
Chad
Intresting... Thanks for the link. Stem cell research in general is advancing so quickly, its hard to keep on top of it.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. you're right that iPSC cells still have a long way to go. Thats why I added a few decades of research more onto the iPSC than HESC research for practical treatments.
Hmmm... You're right about the comparisons of iPSC vs ES. I'm not sure how to get around that at all. But then again, I'm not sure I have to (making arguments for positions other than your own makes this tough). If the options for the anti-stem cell research are iPSC and HESC and both destroy embryos, then they would necessarily have to object to both, unless they are willing to say that because iPSC would probably destroy fewer embryos (we'd only need a few control cells compared to tons of experimental cells to compare them against) that it would be a more preferrable option than HESC, even though they have objections to both. If they take the hardline no embryos destroyed at all, then they might be in a pinch.
I'm not terribly satisfied with were this dicussion is going.... I'm not sure that I need to make a larger argument about the ethical limitations of scientific research to say that we might choose iPSC over HESC. I'm fairly certain that there could be no broadly stated moral limit to science, beyond basic minimal obligations to research subjects.
Ultimately, my point (in the blog post) is that given the choice between iPSC and HESC, the more responsible choice would be iPSC because it satisfies more people. I would have to imagine that there would be some moderates who see destroying fewer embryos preferrable to normal HESC research, because of how it makes people feel.
Wayne,
ReplyDeleteI'm not terribly satisfied with were this dicussion is going
I’ll take this as a hint that you are no longer interested in this thread.
I'm not sure that I need to make a larger argument about the ethical limitations of scientific research to say that we might choose iPSC over HESC.
Well, if you’re going to make comments like the one below, you might want to develop a more sophisticated argument:
Ultimately, my point (in the blog post) is that given the choice between iPSC and HESC, the more responsible choice would be iPSC because it satisfies more people.
This view, that scientific or technical decisions should be made according to the views of the majority or those groups that can make the most noise, is dangerously naïve. Defining “responsible” scientific decisions as those “which satisfy the most people” is deeply troubling, especially in the USA.
Chad
No, I'm not tired of the thread. I like it a lot actually, I just didn't like the idea of trying to define the moral limits of science in general. I'm not sure that we can do that, only because as science pushes the boundaries of knowledge, new values questions will arise that we may have never had to deal with before. Establishing overarching principles to cover all of science then would irresponsibly handcuff future inquiry. If we were to create some sort of principle, it would have to stipulate that it applies to the current limits of science... which would essentially defeat the point of any universalized principle.
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing that all scientific decisions should be made by an appeal to popularity of some such. I think there is intrinsic value in the pursuit of truth. But in cases in which we have choice between upsetting lots of people or not, and getting fairly similar results, we should choose not to upset people.
The question is are we getting similar results? I've conceded the point that we'll have to utilize embryos in both iPSC and HESC, but I would imagine that some people would be at least more satisfied with iPSC than HESC. Of course there would be some people who would be satisfied with neither. But I've never said that we shouldn't do stem cell research at all. its either iPSC or HESC. Not doing the research is not an option for me.
So lets say that iPSC does not produce identical results to HESC. It still might be better to progress with the iPSC research route and pause HESC research. Once we perfect iPSC, we can apply what we've learned to HESC, which would result in a net loss of fewer embryos still.