Ethics in the trenches: a multifaceted analysis of the stem cell debate.

Department of Biomedical Genetics, Aab Institute for Biomedical Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
Stem cell reviews (Impact Factor: 2.77). 01/2006; 1(4):345-76. DOI: 10.1385/SCR:1:4:345
Source: PubMed


The increasing understanding of stem cell biology has opened up the possibility of using cell transplantation to treat a large variety of diseases. The medical need to identify optimal therapies is being challenged, however, by some members of society who seek to impose on this scientific quest their views--generally associated with particular religious beliefs--of what constitutes allowable research. This conflict mirrors earlier battles, extending over 150 years, between those implementing inoculation and vaccination to protect against smallpox and those who felt this to be unethical for religious reasons. For the many individuals who might benefit from the potential of stem cell medicine, such prolonged debate is unacceptable. In this review, conflicts in this debate are examined by holding opponents of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research to the standards applied to the science. The challenge of identifying optimal cells for tissue repair is juxtaposed with misrepresentations of stem cell science by those opposed to ESC research. Absolutist views on ethics are juxtaposed with examples of the bad science and unethical acts that occur when dogmatic religious filters and definitions of human-ness are forced upon scientific discussions. Finally, after considering how opponents of ESC research may, ironically, enhance commercial demand for cells derived from fetuses aborted for personal reasons of the mother, 10 proposals are offered that would--if followed by all participants in this debate--produce more ethically balanced discussions and a more comprehensive body of data from which evidence-based conclusions can be drawn.

Download full-text


Available from: Mark Noble, Oct 08, 2015
14 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The field of stem cell biology and regenerative medicine is rapidly moving toward translation to clinical practice, and in doing so has become even more dependent on animal donors and hosts for generating cellular reagents and assaying their potential therapeutic efficacy in models of human disease. Advances in cell culture technologies have revealed a remarkable plasticity of stem cells from embryonic and adult tissues, and transplantation models are now needed to test the ability of these cells to protect at-risk cells and replace cells lost to injury or disease. With such a mandate, issues related to acceptable sources and controversial (e.g., chimeric) models have challenged the field to provide justification of their potential efficacy before the passage of new restrictions that may curb anticipated breakthroughs. Progress from the use of both in vitro and in vivo regenerative medicine models already offers hope both for the facilitation of stem cell phenotyping in recursive gene expression profile models and for the use of stem cells as powerful new therapeutic reagents for cancer, stroke, Parkinson's, and other challenging human diseases that result in movement disorders. This article describes research in support of the following three objectives: (1) To discover the best stem or progenitor cell in vitro protocols for isolating, expanding, and priming these cells to facilitate their massive propagation into just the right type of neuronal precursor cell for protection or replacement protocols for brain injury or disease, including those that affect movement such as Parkinson's disease and stroke; (2) To discover biogenic factors--compounds that affect stem/progenitor cells (e.g., from high-throughput screening and other bioassay approaches)--that will encourage reactive cell genesis, survival, selected differentiation, and restoration of connectivity in central nervous system movement and other disorders; and (3) To establish the best animal models of human disease and injury, using both small and large animals, for testing new regenerative medicine therapeutics.
    ILAR journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources 02/2007; 48(4):323-38. DOI:10.1093/ilar.48.4.323 · 2.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Stroke 03/2008; 39(2):273-5. DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.511972 · 5.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a major focus for stem cell therapy (SCT). However, the science of SCT has not been well matched with an understanding of perspectives of persons with SCI. The online advocacy community is a key source of health information for primary stakeholders and their caregivers. In this study, we sought to characterize the content of SCI advocacy websites with respect to their discussion of SCT and stem cell tourism. We performed a comprehensive analysis of SCI advocacy websites identified through a web search and verified by expert opinion. Two independent researchers coded the information for major themes (e.g., scientific & clinical facts, research & funding, policy, ethics) and valence (positive, negative, balanced, neutral). Of the 40 SCI advocacy websites that met inclusion criteria, 50% (N=20) contained information about SCT. Less than 18% (N=7) contained information on stem cell tourism. There were more than ten times as many statements about SCT with a positive valence (N=67) as with a negative valence (N=6). Ethics-related SCT information comprised 20% (N=37) of the total content; the largest proportion of ethics-related content was devoted to stem cell tourism (80%, N=30 statements). Of those, the majority focused on the risks of stem cell tourism (N=16). Given the still-developing science behind SCT, the presence of cautionary information about stem cell tourism at advocacy sites is ethically appropriate. The absence of stem cell tourism information at the majority of advocacy sites represents a lost educational opportunity.
    Stem cell reviews 12/2010; 7(3):657-63. DOI:10.1007/s12015-010-9211-9 · 2.77 Impact Factor
Show more