How we define humanity in society today differs enormously from our understanding of humanity decades ago. Our definition of humanity is getting smaller and narrower each successive decade. At the turn of the century, science has taken over and is being taken to extremes that were unimaginable decades ago. The extent to which science is being used today is accredited to our need as humans to live longer, healthier lives. Some of the most recent discoveries are in biotechnology, and more specifically the use of embryonic stem cell research in aiding the development of therapeutic cloning. The developments in this science may be beneficial to our elderly population, but our values towards unborn fetuses are being placed under those of elderly people. How far will we go in prolonging the lives of the elderly before our understanding of what is means to be human is confined even more?
As we try to prolong our lives on earth, there has been a huge increase in the devotion to aging research. The study of aging is known as Gerontology. Leonard Hayflick, who is known as the father figure of this science, opened the doors to the study of aging and how stem cell research can be used to treat and potentially cure diseases such as Alzheimer’s (Hall 2003). Hayflick was the pioneer in showing that cells age. The life expectancy of humans has increased, resulting in an increase in diseases related to the aging body.
Hayflick’s successful legal battles with the federal government opened the door for many biotech visionaries. One of the principal visionaries is Michael West. The first biotech company devoted to the research of aging and Advanced Cell Technology was founded by West (Hall 2003). His company has been devoted to spreading word of stem cell research and its ability to aid us in therapeutic cloning. Advanced Cell Technology focuses on cloning technology and how its development will help us combat the aging process. Embryonic stem cell research is the first step in helping scientists and researchers find answers to how we can fight the aging process and decrease problematic diseases.
Stabilizing the stem cells used in the research is a key issue. There have been many cases in which stem cells used in therapy mutated after maturing. This has led to tumors in some of the test cases involving animals. This area of science is under developed and when implemented into society at this early of a stage, large risks can formulate. There is also the risk associated with donating eggs for the research. It takes approximately 100 eggs to produce a feasible stem cell, and currently these eggs would come from women willing to donate (Shepard 2003). Women who volunteer to donate their eggs run the risk of injury.
With the use of embryonic stem cell research, the door to therapeutic cloning is opened. The first case of successful therapeutic cloning was in 2001 (Coxon 2001). In therapeutic cloning, stem cells are extracted from an embryo that is less than two weeks old and used to grow into a piece of human tissue or a complete human organ. This new organ is used in patients who need organ transplants (Wagner 2000). People with heart, liver, or lung problems, for example, can look to therapeutic cloning as a means to correcting their physiological problems. Having the ability to take a stem cell from an embryo and create a clone of an organ or tissue is not only revolutionary, but provides hope for people of old age.
The process of therapeutic cloning is fairly complex. It begins by removing DNA from a women’s ovum. The DNA from the cell of a human is then removed and placed into the ovum. This is followed by a shock to the ovum, giving it a small chance of forming into a pre-embryo. After this has been completed, the pre-embryo develops stem cells that are beneficial to therapeutic cloning. When the stem cells are removed from the pre-embryo, the embryo has died. The cells are finally used to create organs or tissue that can be used to transplant into a patient (Coxon 2001). The process has an underlying issue and that is the death of the pre-embryo, an embryo that has potential for life.
Despite all the benefits, stem cell research and therapeutic cloning present controversy and dilemma. There is strong criticism of these scientific developments not only to individuals, but to society as a whole. When stem cells are taken out of an embryo, the embryo is killed in order to treat or cure another human’s paralysis or disease (Rovner 2002). The harm here is significant because we are taking the potential life of a being away for the sake of someone who has already gone on to live a life. Yes, we are treating or curing an illness, but in doing so we are eliminating the embryo of a potential child.
What is the effect of this action on society as a whole? The dangers are boundless. If there were a large increase in the amount of embryonic cells being used for therapeutic cloning, society as we know it would be redefined. We would be destroying one form of life in order to preserve the life of another. Morally and ethically, this idea would not stand a chance in a world full of strong political and religious points of view. This situation would bring back memories of what it was like when the debate over abortion was at its peak. Pro-life groups would be completely against the ideas behind this science where as pro-choice groups would be all but against it. The two sides of the issue both have great arguments for why or why not this science should be implemented even more in society. With all the dangers, so to come benefits.
The most beneficial aspect of using stem cell research for therapeutic cloning is that sick and dying people all over the world have hope for a healthier future. Currently, there are many diseases and illnesses that have either no cures or have very little options for treatment. The use of embryonic stem cells would not only benefit individuals, but would have potential benefits for society as a whole. It would entail a reaction similar to the time when the cure for cancer was found. People of old age are the majority of people who have health illnesses and diseases. Therapeutic cloning would shine a light in the eyes of those who feel that because of Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease, they cannot live a life full of joy like they did before their old age caused an unfortunate illness or disease.
Another key benefit of embryonic stem cells in therapeutic cloning is that human organs would not have to be used for transplants. If someone needs a kidney transplant, for example, a donor needs to be found. The donor would have to go through a time consuming process that involves blood tests and making sure that their organ would “be compatible” with that of the patient. Donors have the potential of living a shorter life without the organ they are donating. With the use of stem cells, this lengthy process is eliminated. A therapeutic clone of an organ functions more efficiently and can be introduced into the body of a patient in more of a timely manner. The potential here for saving lives and treating serious diseases is one of the most intriguing aspects of therapeutic cloning. Would the benefits of this science redefine our understanding of what it means to be human?
There is a fine line between what is human and what is not. The use of embryonic stem cell research and its use in therapeutic cloning narrows this line. The elderly would be placed inside the line while pushing unborn fetuses outside this line. As a society, we are selecting what is human and what we do no believe to be human. We would be living in a world in which embryos were being destroyed in order to preserve the lives of the elderly for potentially a few years. This means we are valuing the life of an elderly over an unborn fetus. The potential for life in an unborn fetus is given no value in this situation, which brings rise to ethical consequences. The dignity and value of life would be given a tough double standard here. Those with diseases related to their old age would be all but against the idea of this science, because they can hope for a more enriched future, whereas the younger community sees this science as turning down the future for a potential child.
What should be done to successfully utilize our scientific capabilities without redefining humanity? The first step would be government involvement and funding to ensure ethical use of the science. We as humans would be putting all the power in the hands of politicians and government agencies to decide this matter. The extended funding and use of this science would come out of taxpayer pockets who are sure to be split on a decision. The people who fund this science must trust that the government would use the science in the most ethical manner possible. Human society would be split by laws against their moral and ethical values, but if the government is regulating this science and minimizing the ethical issues that arise, their would be a more unanimous pro science approach. Although there are many unnatural things we do to our bodies in order to live longer, healthier lives, the idea of killing embryos for therapeutic cloning is one of the most unnatural, science driven ideas that humans have faced to date. It runs along the same lines as abortion, and society faced great criticism on this idea of pro choice, pro life before.
In order to benefit mankind and avoid potential dangers of this relatively new science, scientists must demonstrate two things. The biggest goal is to keep human society from running into the dangers associated with using stem cells in therapeutic cloning. Good science and social responsibility are the only definitive manners in which this science could be used to better life on earth. As long as studies and research are being done in order to better the knowledge in this area and to improve the methods used, then the dangers can be minimized. When looking at the medical field and advancements that are made, it is almost impossible to completely eliminate dangers, but damage control with the use of stiff government regulations and policies would satisfy human society to this controversial science to the furthest extent.
We live in a society in which we strive to use our resources to further improve life on earth. If we have the ability of curing illnesses and diseases in our aging society, then those resources should be utilized. The government would have to ensure that research is only focused on the cloning of organs and tissues, and not the actual cloning of a person. The word “clone” itself is a means of creating a completely new, unnatural person. This is no act of God but merrily the act of science. The danger of killing embryos in order to preserve stem cells can be avoided if further advancements are made in the use of adult stems cells and animal cells to create therapeutic clones. The government should invest more money in ideas such as this so that the moral and ethical issues that surface on the skin can be minimized. The biggest issues of this technology would then be eliminated, and we would no longer see a society so distraught over such a potentially beneficial science to mankind.
Over the course of this paper, background in the scientific developments of embryonic stem cell research and its use in therapeutic cloning have been outlined. There are many dangers associated with this science, most importantly the fact that we are taking away the lives of potential children in society and placing more value on the life of the elderly. In retrospect, the ability to find cures and treatments for our elderly population shows that as humans we value the advancement of science and its ability to prolong the lives of the elderly. In conducting stem cell research in order to make advancements in therapeutic cloning, the very conception of life and the development of an embryo are being selected for. In essence, we are taking away the potential life of an unborn fetus in order to preserve and prolong the life of someone who has already gone through the human experience. An elderly person has already lived a majority of their life and experienced life as we know it; an unborn fetus will never develop into an embryo that could one day live a life just as every human was given the opportunity to before this science evolved.
Coxon, A. "Therapeutic Cloning: an Oxymoron." The Center for Bioethics & Human
Dignity. 13 Mar. 2001. Dept. of Human Health and Services. 12 Mar. 2007
<http://www.cbhd.org/resources/cloning/coxon_2001-03-13.htm>.
Hall, S. (2003). Merchants of immortality: chasing the dream of human life extension.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
National Institute on Aging. Bethesda, MD, 2002. Aging Under the Microscope: a
Biological Quest. 25 Feb. 2007 <http://www.nia.nih.gov>.
Rovner, J. "'Therapeutic' Cloning Wins Key Ally in U.S. Senate," Reuters, 30 April 2002.
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news>.
Shepard, S. "Cloning Research Found to Hurt Women." Focus on the Family. 28
Mar. 2003. 27 Feb. 2007 <http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news.html>.
Wagner, L. (2000). Can science add years to out lives? Washington, D.C.: Provider.
Wagner, L. (2002). Treasure chest or Pandora’s box? Washington, D.C.: Provider.