Stem cell research holds great promise for medical advances, but embryonic stem cells are not immune to ethical controversy. Alternatives include adult stem cells and iPS cells, and their potential to replace embryonic stem cells is being debated.
Stem cells are cells that have the ability to differentiate into cells of any tissue and are highly regarded for their potential in medical advancements. Stem cells play an important role in embryonic development and are also found in the human body. When these natural stem cells are artificially manipulated with the help of science and technology, there are high hopes for revolutionary advances in the treatment of incurable diseases. As such, stem cells hold a high place in the next generation of biotechnology.
There are several types of stem cells. First, what are embryonic stem cells? They originate from the fertilization of a sperm and egg, after which the fertilized egg undergoes cell division and differentiation to form an embryo. Embryonic stem cells are cells that are extracted from embryos between 7 and 12 days after fertilization by destroying them. Currently, research on embryonic stem cells is ongoing, but there are some who argue that embryonic stem cell research should be stopped because of the ethical issues it raises.
The essence of embryonic stem cells is to obtain stem cells from embryos. Embryonic stem cells have a fatal flaw that is not free from ethical issues. The controversy starts with the question, “Is an embryo a life?” The debate about whether embryos are life has been going on for a long time, and opinions are still divided. Those in favor of embryonic stem cell research argue that embryos are just clumps of cells, not life. However, it’s not absolutely clear that an embryo is not a life. There is still no clear definition of when life begins, whether it’s when the sperm and egg fertilize or 14 days after fertilization. Some have argued that life begins when a fetus is felt, which means that the question of when life begins is a philosophical and highly charged debate. In the absence of a consensus that an embryo is clearly not a life, treating it as a clump of cells and using it for research purposes is problematic from a bioethical perspective.
A human being is a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus, and a newborn baby, all of which are completed into an adult individual. This process is continuous, and it is unreasonable to draw a line between non-life and life at any point in time. The argument for using embryos up to 14 days after fertilization for research purposes is based on the discovery of neural tissue called primordia after 14 days. However, these primordia are the expression of genetic information that has been present in the embryo all along. There is no scientific basis for using the appearance of primordia as the beginning of life. The argument that existence at a certain point in time is not life is tenuous and not everyone agrees with it.
But what about somatic cell cloned embryonic stem cells? These stem cells are artificially created using somatic cell cloning technology. They are obtained by swapping the nucleus from an adult’s somatic cell with the nucleus of an egg. Unlike embryonic stem cells, this method can be considered a product of science and technology because it was created artificially by humans. However, somatic cell cloned embryonic stem cells should be treated the same as embryonic stem cells. Somatic cloned embryonic stem cells contain 2n of DNA, the same as a fertilized egg, and theoretically have the potential to develop into a human being when implanted in the womb. Therefore, it should not be considered a product of science and technology.
With the current state of science and technology not supporting human cloning, it may seem like the stuff of science fiction. However, embryonic stem cells from somatic cell cloning are directly related to the theory of human cloning. If embryos created by somatic cell cloning technology are implanted in the uterus and the developmental process is successful, the possibility of human cloning is not zero. If embryonic stem cells from somatic cell cloning, with its uncertainties, were to meet the curiosity of scientists and lead to human cloning, it would be a major disruption.
Faced with these disadvantages, should we abandon embryonic stem cell research and ignore its potential to advance life sciences and medicine? Fortunately, there is another alternative that offers hope. They are adult stem cells and iPS cells.
Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are obtained by destroying embryos, adult stem cells can be obtained from specific parts of the human body, such as cartilage, bone marrow, breast, umbilical cord, etc. Most importantly, they are free from bioethical restrictions. While embryonic stem cells have the potential to mutate into cancerous cells as they differentiate into specific cells, adult stem cells do not pose this risk. However, adult stem cells are difficult to obtain because they are present in small quantities in the human body and can only differentiate into specific cells.
iPS cells, which stands for induced pluripotent stem cell, are cells that have been reverted to stem cells by adding genes for cell differentiation to somatic cells. These cells are not embryonic, so there are no bioethical issues, and unlike embryonic stem cells, they do not cause immune rejection. Most importantly, unlike adult stem cells, iPS cells are theoretically free to differentiate like embryonic stem cells. Despite their short history, rapid advances in research have made them a promising alternative to embryonic stem cells. However, iPS cells are not perfect. For one thing, they can be carcinogenic, and oncogenes can be utilized during the differentiation process, which means that they can mutate into cancerous cells in an attempt to cure an incurable disease.
Stem cell research is an area of modern medicine that cannot be abandoned. Although we”ve made a lot of progress, there are still many gaps in the field. Each stem cell has its advantages and disadvantages, and no stem cell is perfect. In addition to obtaining stem cells, differentiation research needs to be continued to ensure that stem cells can be applied to patients in the clinic in a differentiated state.
We have yet to hear of a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic walking under his own power, and there are still diseases that modern medicine cannot solve. If stem cell research pays off, it will have a positive impact on the treatment of incurable diseases. However, I am concerned that if we proceed too quickly, we may end up disrespecting the dignity of life. I hope that the bioethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cells are fully considered.
