Stem Cell Researches are Not Frenkensteins!

With the UK Parliamentary debate on on the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill fast approaching and announcements from both Newcastle University and Kings College that they have created "admixed embryos" should we follow US legislature and seek a ban on this type of research?

Firstly let's look at the facts. Admixed embryos are seen by many within the scientific community to offer an unprecedented opportunity for research into debilitating conditions such as Parkinson's and Motor-Neurones disease. The Newcastle team, lead by Lyle Armstrong, have successfully created Admixed embryos by replacing the nucleus of an animal egg (a Cows) with a human cell nucleus. These so called cytoplasmic hybrids or 'cybrids' are genetically 99.9% human and the largest has grown to 32 cells in total, over a 3 day period. Both the Newcastle team and the Kings College team, led by Professor Stephen Minger, intend to grow these embryos for a maximum of 6 days after which they will extract the valuable embryonic stem cells. They can then use these for their research.

The researchers next aim is to perfect the technique of working with with admixed embryos before progressing to research using the cybrids created with the DNA of patients who carry the defective genes. It is hoped that stem cells drawn from these embryos will signal significant advances in treatment for these terrible life threatening conditions. The two main reasons for the use of cow eggs in the creation of cytoplasmic hybrids is the shortage of human donors, due in no small part to the small medical risk presented by the extraction procedure and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the existing ethical objections to using human eggs in such research.

It is currently illegal in the UK to to maintain theses embryos any longer than 14 days or to implant them in the womb of either an animal or human mother. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill does not propose any change to this law. In addition to the broader scientific community this research is supported wholeheartedly by a number of patient groups. However A number of religious groups have strongly opposed the current research. The Head of The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, described the efforts of both the Newcastle and Kings College teams as "experiments of Frankenstein proportion". Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster and leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England, described the research as "Monstrous".

These descriptions hardly seem appropriate given that the only element of the animal cell used is the cytoplasm and this contains next to no genetic material at all. In addition, as previously stated, the cells grown can not legally exist longer than two weeks and are, according to Professor John Burn (a member of the Newcastle team), "a clump of cells which would never go on to develop. It’s a laboratory process and these embryos would never be implanted into anyone." This is not to dismiss the ethical concerns of those that feel we should not even start this type of research. The argument that we should not in interfere with the process of creation, and genetic research has always offered that possibility, simply reflects some of our most deeply held moral traditions.

Nonetheless, on a personal note, I feel compelled to raise my own objections to the opinions expressed by representatives of the Catholic Church, and others. Their main argument seems to be that embryonic stem cells harvested this way are produced by the prevention of human life. I would therefore ask, what about the lives of those who are suffering from Parkinson's disease, Altzheimer's or Motor-Neurones disease? Are their lives not valuable? They are already alive, not just potentially. They are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters.

If We're talking about "ethics" then I would suggest it is unethical to deny a person potentially life saving treatment simply because a significant minority think we should all share a specific belief system. Similarly if an individual believes their religion prohibits support for this research then I would ask how they can be sure that it is not Gods will that humans find a cure for these terrible diseases. Was it contrary to Gods will that we discovered antibiotics or oncology drugs?

I don't think we should simply dismiss the concerns of many who state a moral pejorative but I do think we should feel free to challenge it. As ever, an ethical debate is entirely subjective but I believe that the morality implicit in finding a cure for these awful diseases is worthy of defense.

About The Author

Ian is co-founder and CEO of profitable-niche-marketing-business.com. With a background in financial services, Ian is now a full time internet marketer and lives on the South Coast of England with his wife and two children.

Ian has collaborated on the complete marketing courseProfitable Niche Marketing Business. (the complete guide to niche marketing).

If you have any questions for Ian please forward them to administration@profitable-niche-marketing-business.com