No ethical bypass of moral status in stem cell research

Bioethics

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 12-19

  Brown, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Human embryo; Induced pluripotent stem cells; Moral complicity; Moral status; Stem cell research

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EMBRYO; ARTICLE; BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE; COMPLICITY; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; ETHICS; HUMAN; MORALITY; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; STEM CELL RESEARCH;

BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE; COMPLICITY; EMBRYO, MAMMALIAN; EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; HUMANS; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; MORAL OBLIGATIONS; MORALS; STEM CELL RESEARCH;

EID: 84870773018     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01891.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. S. Napier. A Regulatory Argument against Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. J Med Philos 2009; 34: 496-508
2. J. Harris. 2007. Enhancing Evolution. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press: Chapters 10 & 11.
3. B. Baertschi & Mauron. Moral Status Revisited: The Challenge of Reversed Potency. Bioethics. 2010; 24-97
4. Baertschi and Mauron reject this claim for reasons other than those considered in this paper.
5. This is the view of the Chairperson of the Ethics and Public Policy Committee of the International Society of Stem Cell Research: 'By moving forward from past debates about embryo status to issues concerning the uses of all varieties of stem cells, we can begin to focus bioethical discourse on areas that have a much broader consensus base of shared values.'I. Hyan. The Bioethics of Stem Cell Research and Therapy. J Clin Invest 2010; 120: 71-75
6. K. Hochedlinger & K. Plath. Epigenetic Reprogramming and Induced Pluripotency. Development. 2009; 136: 509-523.
7. S. Yamanaka. Pluripotency and Nuclear Reprogramming. Philos Trans R Soc 2008; 363: 2079-2087.
8. J. Thomson & J. Yu et al. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells. Science. 2007; 318: 1919-1923.
9. J. Cox & A. Rizzino. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: What Lies Beyond the Paradigm Shift. Exp Biol Med 2010; 235: 148-158, p. 153.
10. S. Yamanaka & H.M. Blau. Nuclear Reprogramming to a Pluripotent State by Three Approaches. Nature 2010; 10: 707-709.
11. J. Patel & S. Yang. Advances in Reprogramming Somatic Cells to Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports. 2010; 6: 362-380.
12. M. Li & M. Chen et al. How Far Are Induced Pluripotent Stem cells from the Clinc? Aging Res Rev 2010; 9: 257-264.
13. S. Malchenko, V. Galat et al. Cancer Hallmarks in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: New Insights. J Cell Physiol 2010
14. R. Lanza, Q. Feng et al. Hemangioblastic Derivatives from Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Exhibit Limited Expansion and Early Senescence. Stem Cells. 2010; 28: 704-712.
15. Z. Gnosh et al. Persistent Donor Cell Gene Expression among Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Contributes to Differences with Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Plos ONE. 2010; 5-2: e8975.
16. M. Marchetto et al. Transcriptional Signature and Memory Retention of Human-induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Plos ONE. 2009; 4-9: e7076.
17. S. Yamanaka et al. Variation in the Safety of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines. Nat Biotechnol 2009; 27: 743-745.
18. S.H. Kadish. Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine. Calif Law Rev 1985; 73: 323-410.
19. National Bioethics Advisory Board: Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research. 1999. Recommendation 2, p. 702010
20. In announcing his non-complicity scheme, George W. Bush said: '[This would allow] us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos'. The German Stem Cell Law of 2002 restricted imports of embryonic stem cells 'to prevent demand in Germany from causing the derivation of embryonic stem cells' unless 'the embryonic stem cells were derived before 1 January 2002 in the country of origin'. http://www.hinxtongroup.org/docs/Germany1.html2007
21. R.M. Green. Benefitting From 'Evil': An Incipient Problem in Human Stem Cell Research. Bioethics. 2002; 16: 244-266.
22. A. Allison. Stem Cell Technique 'Contrary to Public Order'. Nature. 2006; 444-799.
23. The tradition to which I refer is Roman Catholic thought, in part because many who object to embryo sacrifice in stem cell research do so from within this tradition. The account provided is not intended to be orthodox, but is intended to draw upon a clear and well understood analytical framework. See J. Keenan. Prophylactics, Toleration and Cooperation: Contemporary Problems and Traditional Principles. Int Philos Q XXIX: 205-230.
24. The analysis provided here draws upon the account of traditional moral complicity theory found in, M. Brown. Moral Complicity in induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J Nothing in this paper depends upon further elaboration or refinements of this view.2009; 19: 1-23
25. From 1931 to 1972 the United States Public Health Service sponsored a study of 399 African-American men diagnosed with untreated syphilis. See G. Pence. Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Shaped and Define Medical Ethics. Maidenhead, Berks: McGraw-Hill: 216-236.2008
26. D. Neri. The Race toward 'Ethically Universally Acceptable' Human Pluripotent [Embryonic-Like] Stem Cells: Only a Problem of Sources? Bioethics 2009. DOI: 1-111/j.1467-8591.2009.01784: 'Faced with the irredeemable moral wrongness of destroying an embryo, the fact that you exploit it using derived materials or using derived knowledge should be deemed morally irrelevant. So my conclusion is that the use of knowledge, too, has to be considered, from the point of view of the moral standard-bearers[The Pontifical Academy for Life], a form of impermissible exploitation of the embryo'. [Italics in original]. Neri considers this a defect of traditional moral complicity theory; others embrace the view that 'No passage of time can morally sterilize the act of embryo destruction, and thereby release the beneficiary from complicity, because embryos are destroyed for the purpose of medical research [Italics in original]'. D. Sullivan & A. Costerisan. Complicity in Stem Cell Research: Countering the Utilitarian Argument. Ethics Med 2008; 24-154
27. D. Birnbacher, Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Argument from Complicity. Ethics, Bioscience and Life. 2009; 18: 12-16.
28. B. Malcolm. Direct Reprogramming and Ethics in Stem Cell Research. Natl Cathol Bioeth Q 2008; 8(2): 277-290.
29. J. Belamonte et al. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and Reprogramming: Seeing the Science through the Hype. Nature Reviews 2009; 10: 878-883.
30. Current German law may be inconsistent in this regard. See K. Devolder. Complicity in Stem Cell Research: The Case of induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Hum Reprod 2010; 25(9): 2175-2180.
31. R. Streiffer. Informed Consent and Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research. Hastings Cent Rep 2008; 38: 40-46.
32. I. Hyun. The Bioethics of iPS Drug Development. J Clin Pharmacol Ther Forthcoming. Isoo Hyun also flags moral complicity concerns of downstream users as an emerging ethical issue in iPSC research.
33. J. Robertson. Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy. J Law Med Ethics 2010; 38(2): 191-203, pp. 200-201
34. Robertson suggests that parents and other surrogate medical decision-makers should not be empowered to conscientiously object on behalf of their children or others to effective stem cell based medical treatment.
35. Variations on this proposal are endorsed in the context of German Law in H. Mertes. Stem Cell Research Policies: Who's Afraid of Complicity? Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19: 38-42.
36. B. Arabadjiev, R. Petkova et al. Do We Need More Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines? Biotechnol, Biotechnol Equip 2010; 24(3): 1921-1927.
37. C. Scott & J. McCormick. And Then There Were Two: Use of hESC Lines. Nat Biotechnol 2009; 27-28: 696-697.