Regenerating a stem-cell ethics debate

The creation of human stem cells revives some old moral dilemmas

Editorial: "In praise of stem-cell simplicity"

THE moral controversy over stem cell research seemed to have been put to rest with the engineering of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which do not require the destruction of embryos. But news of the creation of cloned human embryonic stem cells (New Scientist, 8 October, p 6) sets the stage for renewed ethical debate.

A research team at The New York Stem Cell Foundation Laboratory fused unfertilised human eggs with skin cells, effectively creating an embryo containing personalised stem cells for the donor of the skin cells - albeit stem cells of no clinical use because they have three sets of chromosomes rather than two.

What are we to make of this? It is the moral lens we choose which determines our conclusion.

One lens is consequentialism, which would argue that the research is acceptable because it moves us closer to long-anticipated treatments. On the other hand, those who argue that an embryo is entitled to the respect befitting a person would find its destruction morally unacceptable despite the potential benefits.

Others may see it as a moral step too far to create embryos only to destroy them, instead of the more palatable route of using surplus embryos from IVF.

Then there is the yuck factor and its close cousin, "it's unnatural". The creation of chimeras using animal eggs caused a fury. The embryos created in New York, while totally human, are also mutants and are sure to do the same.

Further moral questions arise over the fact that the egg donors were paid. This raises concerns about commodification and exploitation similar to those voiced in response to proposals to allow the sale of organs.

Finally, one might ask whether the work brings us closer to human cloning. The embryos are not viable; no one can spirit one out of the lab and implant it. But if they were viable, would we be on the proverbial slippery slope?

On this at least we can be clear. There is a logical difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning and the existence of the former would not set the stage for acceptance of the latter. There is simply no connection.

Arlene Judith Klotzko is a bioethicist, lawyer and author of A Clone Of Your Own? (Oxford University Press)

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.

Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article

Subscribe now to comment.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Source: http://feeds.newscientist.com/c/749/f/10897/s/1956057b/l/0L0Snewscientist0N0Carticle0Cmg212283460B90A0A0Eregenerating0Ea0Estemcell0Eethics0Edebate0Bhtml0DDCMP0FOTC0Erss0Gnsref0Fonline0Enews/story01.htm

aapl apple stock aspergers tcu apple computer pancreatic cancer steve jobs