Stem Cell Research: Vice Or Virtue

The advancements of contemporary stem cell research are making it possible to treat a wide range of human dysfunctions including muscular dystrophy, diabetes, baldness, blindness, deafness, and many neurodegenerative diseases. When the research emerged in the 1990’s scientists were certain that it had the power to transform the medical industry. Over the years both public and political opinions have shifted in its favor and against it. One impactful decision was made in 2009 when the Barack Obama administration removed the funding restrictions with executive order 13505. This permitted the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to start funding embryonic stem cell research (Lo and Parham). Following this decision, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) was established. California’s Stem Cell Agency lays out the latest clinical trials for the available stem cell therapies here in California. Their site addresses that while there is an immense amount of promising stem cell therapies being studied via clinical trials, only a small number of them have been authorized by the FDA. The trials include research on cancers, HIV, diabetes, and other debilitating diseases. Even though human stem cell research has made a lot of progress since it was first introduced into the biomedical field, ethical barriers still linger around the practice.

One ethical plight of embryonic stem cell research is the source of the cells. Most of the human embryonic stem cells available come from couples after they’ve completed in vitro fertilization and have eggs to spare for donation. The sole fact that they are being obtained from human embryos sparks up a lot of fiery reactions. Concerns over embryonic rights quickly rise since an embryo holds the potential to become a human being. The moral status of an embryo is highly controversial because it involves the politics of when human life begins (Lo and Parham). Some people believe that life starts as soon as a zygote is created therefore extracting the stem cells from the blastocyst is viewed as obstructing life which inextricably links it to the pro-life and pro-choice debate. Those who support stem cell research argue that the extra embryos from fertility treatments if not donated to other infertile women, will just be thrown away as medical waste or kept frozen indefinitely and not help to aid the many patients who are in dire need of stem cell therapy. In this light, not only do patients suffer but so do their friends and family. The main issue at hand is whether to protect the prospective personhood of the embryo or to alleviate the pain that sick people go through (Laura and Gruen). Although the discovery of induced pluripotent cells and adult stem cells may decrease the demand for human embryonic stem cells. These types of stem cells have also shown the capacity to be cellularly versatile and programmed to be specialized, they too are being studied in clinical trials. Only until thorough research is completed, will it be known what type of stem cell is more viable.

A second issue that stem cell research faces are the medical risks associated with the process. First, there are the perils that exist regarding the fertility drugs given to female donors to augment their egg count. One complication experienced by women who underwent this type of hormone therapy was ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Symptoms of this syndrome could range from mild nausea to serious issues like blood clots and kidney failures (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine). It is important to note that the women who showed higher risks of OHSS were those who were undergoing in vitro fertilization rather than just donating eggs. There is also the concern that fertility treatments can increase the chances of developing hormone-dependent cancers like ovarian, breast, and uterine cancers. Other medical risks related to egg retrieval include bleeding, infection, and complications of anesthesia (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine). Then there are the risks that can threaten the patients who are receiving stem cell transplants. The human immune system is designed to protect our physiological integrity, therefore, rejects foreign entities which challenge the competency of stem cell therapies. Although there are drugs like immunosuppressors that can help minimize transplant complications, some of them have also caused detrimental effects. Therefore, researchers need to emphasize that most of the available stem cell therapy trials are testing the safety of treatment not the efficacy of the treatment.

The third dilemma of embryonic stem cell therapy is the accessibility to such promising treatments. Since only so few of the therapies are deemed fit by the FDA, the resources are limited. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), is a huge public funder of biomedical advancements but cannot aid every project that seems feasible. The challenge is figuring out how to distribute the highly limited services. Associations like NIH and other funding organizations have guidelines about their investments but there are ambiguities to their priorities. The preferences can be so unclear that some feel congress truly decides where their funds go (Dresser). Another accessibility concern is discerning who should qualify to be a recipient of stem cell treatment. Should U.S.-funded agencies only treat those who are fortunate enough to live in the U.S.? It seems quite unethical to deny thousands of sick people when stem cell research is promising such revolutionary medical advances. There wouldn’t be many purposes for such biomedical innovations if it were to leave many people disadvantaged (Utzinger and Don de Savigny). Also pertinent is the cost of those promising regenerative stem cell therapies. Due to the lack of universal healthcare coverage and constant jabs at social services everyday people cannot obtain basic medical attention. Our current inadequate and for-profit health care system would inevitably create a social division as to those who can afford stem cell-based therapies and those who cannot (DeGrazia). It has also been pointed out that there is also a bias to what conditions are given more attention. For example, treatments that prolong the average life span seem to be given more preference over those that prevent premature death (Dresser). These choices are difficult to make but they hold great significance as to how to approach the highly anticipated stem cell therapies.

As an upcoming biotechnologist, I do take joy in scientific discoveries and advancements. Seeing how prevalent diseases are, I believe we should embark on designing therapies and treatments that can offer a better quality of life even if it is with embryonic stem cells. I respect those who stand against it but in my opinion, not to endeavor in such practices would only stunt our intellectual capabilities. Stem cell research just has a lot to offer like replacing animals in drug testing experiments. My main concern is that the accessibility to the treatments which stem cell research promises will be heavily limited and only available to those who are more socioeconomically well off. We are all at risk of developing diseases this cannot be any truer now with the current Covid-19 outbreak. It is only right that everyone and anyone gets access to medical treatment, which is why we need universal healthcare, something that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders passionately advocates. I stand with science, but I also stand for equal opportunities for all. I think that for stem cell research to truly flourish there needs to be serious transformation to our healthcare system.