Skip to main content

Recent Ethical Controversies About Stem Cell Research

  • Chapter
Book cover Stem Cell Research

Part of the book series: Biomedical Ethics Reviews ((BER))

  • 124 Accesses

Abstract

When we think of the state of bioethics at the present time, the moral dimensions of stem cell research and cloning, genetic therapy and counseling, reproductive interventions, organ and tissue transplantation, and life-prolonging (sometimes better described as dying-prolonging) technologies come to mind. All of these issues have come to the forefront because of the incredible and almost unimaginable advances in biology, chemistry, physics, and electronics over the past quarter of a century, which have greatly increased the potential for enhancing human wellbeing. Our cultural values and laws have barely been able to deal, in a coherent way, with the opportunities and dangers posed by the advances which are resulting from this accelerated pace of scientific development. The media, and people at large, are often supportive of these technologies because, although the creation and destruction of new human life and the transformation of human embryos into stem cells are often the “collateral damage” of this research, the focus is generally on how well off everyone would be if we could just develop the research into new and better therapeutic applications. Scientists working in these fields are almost always asking for government support without any restrictive legal guidelines or prohibitions. I believe that it is up to bioethicists to ask the difficult (and often unpopular) ethical questions that relate to contemporary advances in biomedical research that will guide both scientists and public policy in the years to come.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. Fins, J. J. and Schachter, M. (2002) Patently controversial: markets, morals and the president’s proposals for embryonic stem cell research, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 12(3), 265–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hansen, J-E. S. (2002) Embryonic stem cell production through therapeutic cloning has fewer ethical problems than stem cell harvest from surplus IVF embryos,Journal of Medical Ethics, (28)2, 86–88.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lagnado, L. (2002, November 12). Uninsured and ill, a woman is forced to ration her care,The Wall Street Journal. pp. Al, A14.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University Medical School (2002). Conference: Just health care: moral critique, outrage and response. (April 10–12, 2002 ).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hackler, C. (2001) Justice and human nature,American Journal of Bioethics (1)2, 38–39.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Holland, S., Lebacqz, K., and Zoloth, L. (eds.). (2001)The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science,Ethics and Public Policy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The Stem Cell Debate.The New York Times,December 18, 2001, Section F.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hall, S. S. (2001) Adult stem cells.Technology Review, November. Accessed from the Internet on December 12, 2001 at http://www.techreview.com/magazine/novOl/hall.asp

  9. Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report (2001). Private cord blood bank opens to criticism in Australia, (December 19, 2001). This article reports the following: “A private umbilical cord blood bank owned by biotechnology company Cryosite opened Monday in Sydney, Australia, to criticism from supporters of the

    Google Scholar 

  10. Milde, A., Kuhl-Burmeister, R., Ritz-Timme, S., and Kaatsch,H.J. (1999) DNA typing in cases of blood chimerism,International Journal of Legal Medicine 112(5),333–335.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Strain, L., Dean, J.C.S., Hamilton, M. P. R., and Bonthron, D. P. (1998) A true hermaphrodite chimera resulting from embryo amalgamation after in vitro fertilization,The New England Journal of Medicine 338(3), 166–169.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ford, N. (1988) When did I begin: conception of the human individual in history, inPhilosophy And Science. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kavanaugh, J. F. (2001)Who Count As Persons?: Human Identity And The Ethics Of Killing. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  14. General Assembly Of The United Nations (1948)Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. Accessed from the Internet on December 5, 2002, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

  15. Roe v. Wade. (1973). 410 U.S. 113. Science and morality: no conflict. Life Issues Forum, (August 18). Accessed from the Internet at http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/lifeissues/08182000.htm

  16. Grisez, G. (1970) Abortion: The Myths, The Realities, and The Arguments. Corpus Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Aquinas, T. (13th Century CE, a) De Potentia Dei.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Engelhardt, H. T. (1973) The beginnings of personhood: philosophical considerations, Perkins Journal, 27, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Caputo, J. (1997) The Prayers and Tearsof Jacques Derrida: Religion Without Religion. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal(December 1999).Recent Ethical Controversies About Stem Cell Research 117

    Google Scholar 

  21. Boethius, A. M. S. (6th Century CE).Liber de Persona et Duabus Naturis in Boetii Opera Omnia, Vol II.Patrologiae Latinae Tomus 64—Migne.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Aquinas, T.Summa Theologica I.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Aquinas, T.Scriptum Super Sentientiis, Tomus III.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shannon, T. A. and Wolter, A. B. (1990) Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo,Theological Studies, 51, 603–626.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 46 (2002) Federal guidelines relating to human subjects’ research.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J. (2001)Principles of Biomedical Ethics,Fifth Edition. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Diamond v. Chakrabarty,(1980). 447 U.S. 303 at 311.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Newman, P. (1997) Intellectual property law and the new biology,Judges’ Journal,36(3), 46.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress (1989)New Developments in Biotechnology: Patenting Life—Special Report.Pub. No. OTA-BA-370, at 93.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.(1998).249 Cal. Rptr. 508 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App.).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moore v. Regents of University of California(1999)51 Cal. 3d 120 at 141.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Doerflinger, R. M. (2000) for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cataldo, P. J. (2001) Human rights and the human embryo,Ethics and Medics 26 (12), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McGee, G. and Caplan, A. (1999) The ethics and politics of small sacrifices in stem cell research,Kennedy Institute Journal of Ethics 9 (2), 151–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stolberg, S. G. (2001) Controversy reignites over stem cells and clones,The New York Times(December 18), F1. See F8 in the same paper for some of the groups being gathered to oppose creation of embryos by cloning.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wolf, D.P. (2001) Parthenogenetic activation of rhesus monkey oocytes and reconstructed embryos,Biology and Reproduction 65, 1253–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  37. US Congress. (1998) Omnibus consolidated and emergency supple- mental appropriations act of 1998.P.L.105–277,112 Stat. 2681.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Raab, H. S. (1999) Federal funding for research involving human pluripotent cells,Biolaw 2S, S: 60–61.

    Google Scholar 

  39. NBAC (1999) Ethical Issues In Human Stem Cell Research, Volume I: Report And Recommendations Of The National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  40. NIH (2000)National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells. Federal Register 65,51976, (August 25, 2000), corrected Federal Register 65,69951, (November 21, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Brownback, S. (2001)Congressional Record,S6393.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Frist, W. (2001)Congressional Record, S7846–S7851.

    Google Scholar 

  43. House of Representatives (2001) Human cloning prohibition act of 2001.Congressional Record, H4916–H4945.

    Google Scholar 

  44. This is the text of the document as it appeared in the FEDERAL REGISTER on November 2. 2001: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells ACTION: Notice; withdrawal of NIH Guidelines for Research Using Pluripotent Stem Cells Derived from Human Embryos (published August 25, 2000, 65 FR 51976, corrected November 21, 2000, 65 FR 69951). SUMMARY: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announces the withdrawal of those sections of the NIH Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells, http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/stemcellguidelines.htm. (NIH Guidelines), that pertain to research involving human pluripotent stem cells derived from human embryos that are the result of in vitro fertilization, are in excess of clinical need, and have not reached the stage at which the mesoderm is formed. The President has determined the criteria that allow federal funding for research using existing embryonic stem cell lines, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/print/200108091.html. Thus, the NIH Guidelines as they relate to human pluripotent stem cells derived from human embryos are no longer needed.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NIH Office of Extramural Research, NIH, 1 Center Drive, MSC 0152, Building Recent Ethical Controversies About Stem Cell Research 119 1, Room 146, Bethesda, MD 20892, or e-mail DDER@nih.gov.

  45. See the Press Release of August 8, 2001 on this subject. Press release accessed from the Internet on December 28, 2001 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/print/200108091.html. This release states the following: Embryonic Stem Cell Research August 9, 2001

  46. “As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist.” I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines “where the life and death decision has already been made.” This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research “without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.” —George W. Bush

    Google Scholar 

  47. “Specter, A. et al. (2001)Congressional Record,59118.

    Google Scholar 

  48. The web site of the Council ( http://www.bioethics.gov) provides information on all the Council’s interests, including stem cells, and also has a link to the full text of its cloning report.

  49. Lyon, A. (2002) The cloning report: left of Bush but still a ban,Hastings Center Report 32(5), 7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Okarma, T. B. (2001) The technology and its medical applications, inThe Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science,Ethics,and Public Policy. (Holland et al., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McCartney, J.J. (2004). Recent Ethical Controversies About Stem Cell Research. In: Humber, J.M., Almeder, R.F. (eds) Stem Cell Research. Biomedical Ethics Reviews. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-674-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-674-4_5

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-61737-543-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59259-674-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics