There are quite a few different strands of research on stem cells, whether researchers are trying to get cells of e.g. liver to return to being stem cells, or whether they come from embryos, or from the umbilical cord. And these raise different ethical concerns. I think it’s very difficult to define when an embryo/foetus becomes “human”, but I don’t have anything against researchers working with stem cells from eggs that are still very small.
I think the ethical aspect of the stem cell research has been overrated. The controversy mainly surrounds human cloning, as well as the use and destruction of fertilized human eggs (which are arguably life in the making). Nowadays there are many new techniques and discoveries which can work around these issues.
The use of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) is an especially fascinating new field, because with the use of the right growth factors you can tell any already-differentiated cells in your body (meaning they already have assigned functions) to go back to their original undifferentiated state, which in effect are stem cells with the possibility to become many other types of differentiated cells (“pluripotence”).
I think it’s the consensus that the aim of medical stem cell research is really to try to “regenerate” body parts or organs that could no longer function properly. Imagine if you could just take any cell from your own body, and grow them into a new liver or kidney! That way you could have tailor-made organ replacement without all the complications. Have you read the book or watched the film called “My Sister’s Keeper”? Yes that kind of extreme case could be avoided too.
Like with another type of research there’s a point that you may cross the line. I was about to have a stem cell treatment on my knee a couple of years ago. It wasn’t necessary in the end, but I couldn’t see anything wrong with that. However, typically stem cells are associated with cloning, and that’s a totally different story.
Comments