Health Care Analysis

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 50–65

The Ethics of Moral Compromise for Stem Cell Research Policy

Original Article

Abstract

In the US, stem cell research is at a moral impasse—many see this research as ethically mandated due to its potential for ameliorating major diseases, while others see this research as ethically impermissible because it typically involves the destruction of embryos and use of ova from women. Because their creation does not require embryos or ova, induced pluripotent stem cells offer the most promising path for addressing the main ethical objections to stem cell research; however, this technology is still in development. In order for scientists to advance induced pluripotent stem cell research to a point of translational readiness, they must continue to use ova and embryos in the interim. How then are we to ethically move forward with stem cell research? We argue that there is personal integrity and value in adopting a ‘moral compromise’ as a means for moving past the moral impasse in stem cell research. In a moral compromise, each party concedes part of their desired outcome in order to engage in a process that respects the values and desires of all parties equitably. Whereas some contend that moral compromise in stem cell research necessarily involves self-contradiction or loss of personal integrity, we argue that in the US context, stem cell research satisfies many of the key pre-conditions of an effective moral compromise. To illustrate our point, we offer a model solution wherein eggs and embryos are temporarily used until non-egg and non-embryonic sources of pluripotent stem cells are developed to a state of translational readiness.

Keywords

Moral compromise Stem cell research Stem cell policy Embryo Moral status Women’s health 

Abbreviations

ANT

Altered nuclear transfer

hESC

Human embryonic stem cell

iPSC

Induced pluripotent stem cell

SCR

Stem cell research

References

  1. 1.
    Baylis, F. (2008). Animal eggs for stem cell research: A path not worth taking. American Journal of Bioethics, 8, 18–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baylis, F. (2009). The HFEA public consultation process on hybrids and chimeras: Informed, effective, and meaningful? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 19, 41–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baylis, F., & McLeod, C. (2007). The stem cell debate continues: The buying and selling of eggs for research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 726–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benditt, T. M. (1979). Compromising interests and principles. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Compromise in ethics, law, and politics (NOMOS XXI) (pp. 26–37). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benjamin, M. (1990). Splitting the difference: Compromise and integrity in ethics and politics. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bortolotti, L., & Harris, J. (2005). Stem cell research, personhood and sentience. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10, 68–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Camporesi, S., & Boniolo, G. (2008). Fearing a non-existing minotaur? The ethical challenges of research on cytoplasmic hybrid embryos. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 821–825.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carens, J. H. (1979). Compromises in politics. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Compromise in ethics, law, and politics (NOMOS XXI) (pp. 123–141). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chung, Y., Bishop, C. E., Treff, N. R., Walker, S. J., Sandler, V. M., Becker, S., et al. (2009). Reprogramming of human somatic cells using human and animal oocytes. Cloning Stem Cells, 11, 213–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chung, Y., Klimanskaya, I., Becker, S., Marh, J., Lu, S., Johnson, J., et al. (2006). Embryonic and extraembryonic stem cell lines derived from single mouse blastomeres. Nature, 439, 216–219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (2008). Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, Vatican City.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Congress. (1995). H.R. 2127 EH; 104th Congress. House of Representatives. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:3:./temp/~c104SnlQUb. Last accessed March 20, 2011.
  13. 13.
    Cowan, C. A., Atienza, J., Melton, D. A., & Eggan, K. (2005). Nuclear reprogramming of somatic cells after fusion with human embryonic stem cells. Science, 309, 1369–1373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    DeGrazia, D. (2005). The ethics of animal research: What are the prospects for agreement? In T. Mappes & D. DeGrazia (Eds.), Biomedical ethics (pp. 289–299). New York: McGraw-Hill College.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Devolder, K. (2005). Human embryonic stem cell research: Why the discarded-created-distinction cannot be based on the potentiality argument. Bioethics, 19, 167–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Devolder, K. (2006). What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 43–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Devolder, K., & Harris, J. (2005). Compromise and moral complicity in the embryonic stem cell debate. In N. Athanassoulis (Ed.), Philosophical reflections on medical ethics. houndmills (pp. 88–108). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Devolder, K., & Harris, J. (2007). The ambiguity of the embryo: Ethical inconsistency in the human embryonic stem cell debate. Metaphilosophy, 38, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Devolder, K., & Ward, C. M. (2007). Rescuing human embryonic stem cell research: The Possibility of embryo reconstitution after stem cell derivation. In L. Gruen, L. Grabel, & P. Singer (Eds.), Stem cell research: The ethical issues (pp. 105–123). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dickenson, D. (2004). The threatened trade in human ova. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dworkin, R. (1994). Life’s dominion. An argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faden, R. R., Dawson, L., Bateman-House, A. S., Agnew, D. M., Bok, H., Brock, D. W., et al. (2003). Considerations of justice in stem cell research and therapy. Hastings Center Report, 33, 13–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feinberg, J. (1992). Freedom and fulfillment: Philosophical essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    George, K. (2007). What about the women? Ethical and policy aspects of egg supply for cloning research. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 15, 127–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Golding, M. P. (1979). The nature of compromise: A preliminary inquiry. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Compromise in ethics, law, and politics (NOMOS XXI) (pp. 3–25). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gottweis, H., & Minger, S. (2008). iPS cells and the politics of promise. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 271–272.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gruen, L. (2007). Oocytes for sale? Metaphilosophy, 38, 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gruen, L., & Grabel, L. (2006). Concise review: Scientific and ethical roadblocks to human embryonic stem cell therapy. Stem Cells, 24, 2162–2169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guenin, L. M. (2005). Wishful thinking will not obviate embryo use. Stem Cell Review, 1, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hammond, N., & Holm, S. (2008). Resolving the ‘egg supply problem’ in human embryonic stem cell derivation through technical means: A legal and ethical analysis. Medicine and Law, 27, 167–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harris, J. (2002). The ethical use of human embryonic stem cells in research and therapy. In J. Burley & J. Harris (Eds.), A companion to genethics (pp. 158–174). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harvey, O. (2010). Speculative stem cell futures: Some prospective commercial models for induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell based therapies. Journal of Future Studies, 14, 85–96.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Heng, B. C. (2006). Donation of surplus frozen embryos for stem cell research or fertility treatment: Should medical professionals and healthcare institutions be allowed to exercise undue influence on the informed decision of their former patients? Journal of Assisted Reproductive Genetics, 23, 381–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Huangfu, D., Maehr, R., Guo, W., Eijkelenboom, A., Snitow, M., Chen, A. E., et al. (2008). Induction of pluripotent stem cells by defined factors is greatly improved by small-molecule compounds. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 795–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hurlbut, W. B. (2005). Altered nuclear transfer as a morally acceptable means for the procurement of human embryonic stem cells. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48, 211–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hyun, I., Hochedlinger, K., Jaenisch, R., & Yamanaka, S. (2007). New advances in IPS cell research do not obviate the need for human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 1, 367–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2008). Guidelines for the clinical translation of stem cells. Deerfield, IL: International Society for Stem Cell Research.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Klimanskaya, I., Chung, Y., Becker, S., Lu, S., & Lanza, R. (2006). Human embryonic stem cell lines derived from single blastomeres. Nature, 444, 481–485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kuflik, A. (1979). Morality and compromise. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Compromise in ethics, law, and politics (NOMOS XXI) (pp. 38–65). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liao, S. M. (2005). Rescuing human embryonic stem cell research: The Blastocyst transfer method. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(6), 8–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Marques-Mari, A. I., Lacham-Kaplan, O., Medrano, J. V., Pellicer, A., & Simon, C. (2009). Differentiation of germ cells and gametes from stem cells. Human Reproduction Update, 15, 379–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. Journal of Philosophy, 86, 183–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Martin, P. A., Coveney, C., Kraft, A., Brown, N., & Bath, P. (2006). Commercial development of stem cell technology: Lessons from the past, strategies for the future. Regenerative Medicine, 1, 801–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Master, Z. (2005). Can we really bypass the moral debate for embryo research? American Journal of Bioethics, 5, 27–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Master, Z. (2006). Embryonic stem-cell gametes: The new frontier in human reproduction. Human Reproduction, 21, 857–863.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Master, Z., & Crozier, G. K. D. (2011). Symbolism and sacredness of human parthenotes. American Journal of Bioethics, 11, 37–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Master, Z., Laforce, D., McLeod, M., & Williams-Jones, B. (2008). The ethics of human embryos and embryonic stem cell research. Journal of Stem Cells, 3, 127–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Master, Z., McLeod, M., & Mendez, I. (2007). Benefits, risks and ethical considerations in translation of stem cell research to clinical applications in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 169–173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Melton, D. A., Daley, G. Q., & Jennings, C. G. (2004). Altered nuclear transfer in stem-cell research—a flawed proposal. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 2791–2792.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Meyer, J. R. (2008). The significance of induced pluripotent stem cells for basic research and clinical therapy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 849–851.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Minger, S. (2007). Interspecies SCNT-derived human embryos—a new way forward for regenerative medicine. Regenerative Medicine, 2, 103–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rand, A. (1964). Doesn’t life require compromise? In A. Rand (Ed.), The virtue of selfishness: A new concept of egoism (pp. 79–81). New York: A Signet Book.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Robertson, J. A. (1995). Symbolic issues in embryo research. Hastings Center Report, 25(1), 37–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rugg-Gunn, P. J., Ogbogu, U., Rossant, J., & Caulfield, T. (2009). The challenge of regulating rapidly changing science: Stem cell legislation in Canada. Cell Stem Cell, 4, 285–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ryan, M. A. (2001). Creating embryos for research: On weighing symbolic costs. In P. Lauritzen (Ed.), Cloning and the future of human embryo research (pp. 50–66). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Steinbock, B. (2001). Respect for human embryos. In P. Lauritzen (Ed.), Cloning and the future of human embryo research (pp. 21–33). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Steinbock, B. (2004). Payment for egg donation and surrogacy. Mt Sinai Journal of Medicine, 71, 255–265.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    St John, J., & Lovell-Badge, R. (2007). Human-animal cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, mitochondria, and an energetic debate. Nature Cell Biology, 9, 988–992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sugarman, J. (2008). Human stem cell ethics: beyond the embryo. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 529–533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sullivan, S., & Eggan, K. (2006). The potential of cell fusion for human therapy. Stem Cell Review, 2, 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Takahashi, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663–676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tannsjo, T. (2007). Why no compromise is possible. In L. Gruen, L. Grabel, & P. Singer (Eds.), Stem cell research: the ethical issues (pp. 188–201). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Testa, G., & Harris, J. (2005). Ethics and synthetic gametes. Bioethics, 19, 146–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Van Willigenburg, T. (2000). Moral compromises, moral integrity and the indeterminacy of value rankings. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 3, 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Waldby, C., & Cooper, M. (2008). The biopolitics of reproduction. Australian Feminist Studies, 23, 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Warren, M. (1973). On the moral and legal status of abortion. Monist, 57, 43–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Widdows, H. (2009). Border disputes across bodies: Exploitation in trafficking for prostitution and egg sale for stem cell research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 2(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Yu, J., Hu, K., Smuga-Otto, K., Tian, S., Stewart, R., Slukvin, I. I., et al. (2009). Human induced pluripotent stem cells free of vector and transgene sequences. Science, 324, 797–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zarzeczny, A., Scott, C., Hyun, I., Bennett, J., Chandler, J., Chargé, S., et al. (2009). iPS cells: Mapping the policy issues. Cell, 139, 1032–1037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Zhao, X. Y., Li, W., Lv, Z., Liu, L., Tong, M., Hai, T., et al. (2010). Efficient and rapid generation of induced pluripotent stem cells using an alternative culture medium. Cell Research, 20, 383–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Law Institute, Rm 462, Law CentreUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyLaurentian UniversitySudburyCanada

Personalised recommendations