Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

Post Stem-Cell Research
Created by John Eipper on 06/14/13 6:18 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:


Stem-Cell Research (John Heelan, -UK, 06/14/13 6:18 am)

Istvan Simon (13 June) acknowledges that there are important ethical issues involved in the area of experimentation on human cells in his characteristically spirited defence of his investment in stem-cell research (and the good of the US, "where most of this work is being done").

As a non-scientist, I understand that human embryos reach the stage at which stem cells are useful some 4-5 days after fertilisation, and that isolating the bit useful for experimentation usually results in the destruction of the embryo itself (other than the company in which Istvan has his investment apparently). So the ethical question revolves on whether the human embryo has a right to life or not. Some people believe that the still unexplained "miracle of life" occurs at fertilisation, others suggest a development time after which "life" can be said to exist. The ethical conundrum exists whether or not the embryo is destroyed as part of the experimentation, or by parental wish not to store excess embryonic cells resulting from IVF.

Istvan deftly avoids that conundrum by arguing, a little speciously perhaps, that a human cell is not a human being. Of course not--few of us grieve over the flakes of skin that we shed every night. However, is a human embryo a human being? Left to natural gestation, would that embryo evolve naturally into a person?

The nature of scientific enquiry is "project creep," as scientists extrapolate known science to search for the next step in trying to understand what causes "life." So, one could speculate that a scientific step in the future might well be to work out how human embryos could be developed into living beings outside the womb. If successful, then Aldous Huxley's prediction that the Brave New World babies were "decanted from bottles rather than being born" would have some truth behind it.

At this point the ethics would become even more difficult.

JE comments:  I've changed the topic line of this discussion thread to "ethics."  Previously it was "food"--not a tasteful choice here.

Rate this post
Informational value 
Reader Ratings (0)
Informational value0%

Visits: 12


Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Stem-Cell Research (Istvan Simon, USA 06/15/13 3:26 PM)
    Maybe I am ethically less astute than John Heelan (12 June), but I see no new conundrum, ethical or otherwise, in his post.

    From an ethical standpoint, I don't see how embryonic cells are any different from the skin cells John sheds at night. I see no difference. After all Dolly did not start life as an embryo, and yet she was a perfectly nice little sheep made in a laboratory in Scotland from Dolly's "mother"'s somatic cells.


    If this is so, why would an embryo have any more of a right to life than a skin cell?

    In any case, irrespective of what some people may believe or not about the "miracle of life," and whether they believe that this occurs at conception or not, stem cell research brings no new ethical problems, because the embryos already exist.

    By logic, either embryos have a right to become babies or not. But if embryos have a right to become babies--a right which is not recognized by any country that I know of-- then all the fertility work for infertile couples violates that right, because plenty of embryos are created which do not become babies, which are then discarded. Yet, fertility work has been going on for 35 years, and by now it has been generally accepted: there are four million "test-tube babies" that have been born all around the world. Therefore, it seems to me that the ethical issues were also resolved to most people's satisfaction: most people have now accepted implicitly that embryos do not have a right to become babies--because that is the implication of the fertility work which has been accepted in most countries, and as far as I know, is not being challenged anywhere on ethical grounds.


    It follows that there is nothing wrong or new ethically in getting stem cells from already existing embryos, even if the embryo is destroyed in the process, because as I said above most people have already accepted much before this work even began that the embryo does not have a right to life.

    By the way, the stem cell company that I mentioned without naming in a previous post is Advanced Cell Technology Corporation. John is welcome to check that they indeed do not destroy the embryo from which they grow their embryonic stem cells:


    JE comments:  Just a rhetorical question.  If there is no ethical conundrum in destroying embryos when doing stem-cell research, why then does Advanced Cell Technology pride itself in not destroying them?
    Please login/register to reply or comment:

Trending Now

All Forums with Published Content (44643 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications


Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy


Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series


Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust


Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire


Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US


Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)


Geography Maps Tourism Transportation


1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who