Embryonic stem cell research is controversial due to ethical issues and the risk of side effects after treatment. IPS cells have been proposed as a possible solution to these problems.
The debate for and against embryonic stem cells is one of the biggest social issues in science today. Stem cells derived from embryonic stages have the ability to differentiate into cells of any tissue in the body, such as liver, heart, bone, etc. However, embryonic stem cell research raises ethical issues because it involves the use of embryos, and side effects after treatment remain a limitation. Michael Sendel, the author of this book, argues that there are no ethical problems with embryonic stem cell research, and that it is therefore valid. In this article, I will refute some of Sendel’s arguments and provide additional evidence to show that embryonic stem cell research is not justified. Afterward, I will present alternatives to organ transplants and cures for incurable diseases.
Sendel’s first argument in favor of embryonic stem cell research is that embryos cannot be viewed as individuals. An embryo does not have identifiable human characteristics or morphology, such as specific body organs or tissues. The argument is that if an embryo is a person based on only two characteristics: it is a human cell and it is alive, then shouldn’t a human skin cell, for example, be considered a person? I don’t think this argument is wrong, but I do think it’s a good reason to respect embryos as living beings. The primary consideration in determining the moral status of an embryo is its potential to develop into a human being. While I recognize that embryos are not human beings, they do have the potential to become human beings, which is why I treat them the same as skin cells. While an embryo cannot become a human being on its own without a mother, the idea that all humans started out as embryos is reason enough to respect them even if they are not human.
Sendel’s next argument is that most embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are surplus embryos from fertility clinics. One study looked at the number of extra frozen embryos lying unused in fertility clinics by country and found that the United States had about 400,000, while the United Kingdom and Australia had about 50,000 and 70,000, respectively. The idea is that if these embryos are used for research, what would otherwise be thrown away could be used to treat incurable diseases, so “no waste, no gain” is true. However, I think there are problems with this rationale. First, there is the ethical issue of the very idea that fertility clinics generate extra embryos. Fertility clinics create extra embryos by creating more embryos than they need for implantation in advance. This means that if only as many embryos were created as needed for implantation, there would be no surplus. In fact, in Germany, policy prohibits the creation of more embryos than are needed for implantation, so there are no surplus embryos. The bottom line is that fertility clinics cannot avoid the ethical issue of embryos as a matter of national policy.
As you can see from the above, Sendel’s argument is mostly focused on the ethical aspect. Now, I would like to show that from a medical point of view, embryonic stem cell research is also risky. Firstly, embryonic stem cells are more likely to develop cancer during the treatment process. Embryonic stem cells are used by inducing the differentiation of undifferentiated stem cells, which have not yet differentiated into specific cells, into the cells that are intended to be used in the treatment, and in the process, some cells differentiate into other cells than intended. These cells cause tumors, which in severe cases lead to cancer. The second problem is the high number of side effects after treatment. According to an August 2001 report in the New England Journal of Medicine, the use of stem cells to treat patients with Parkinson’s disease resulted in side effects such as persistent seizures and involuntary arm movements. As you can see, embryonic stem cells are not only ethically problematic but also medically problematic, and it is not reasonable to continue researching embryonic stem cells with so many problems.
Therefore, I would like to argue against embryonic stem cells and propose an alternative called induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells). Stem cells can be broadly categorized into embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and IPS cells. IPS cells are also known as “induced pluripotent stem cells,” which refers to the process of creating IPS cells. IPS cells are made by introducing specific genes into adult somatic cells to turn the cell’s biological clock back to the state of a primitive stem cell. As the description of IPS cells suggests, IPS cells do not involve the use of embryos, making them an alternative to all the ethical issues that arise with embryonic stem cells. IPS cells are a relatively recent advancement in the field of stem cells. In 2012, Professor Shinya Yamanaka of Japan and Sir John Gurdon of the United Kingdom were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work on how to extract IPS cells from mice. This was only six years after they published their paper. The short time between the publication of the paper and the Nobel Prize is a recognition that IPS cells can be a reasonable alternative to stem cell research, which has been stagnating due to ethical issues, and that the potential is not small.
Let’s take a look at the current status of stem cell research in Korea. Korea’s embryonic stem cell research, which was restricted after the 2004 paper fabrication case of Dr. Hwang Woo-seok, was recently approved again. However, even this research is subject to intensive monitoring by the Ministry of Health and a limited number of embryos, and continues to face opposition from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and religious groups. With these restrictions, it is unlikely that the potential for cancer or other side effects will be resolved anytime soon, and cures for incurable diseases will be slow to materialize. Research on IPS cells does not raise ethical issues and can be carried out without these limitations. Even now, genes that induce reverse differentiation, such as TAZ, are still being discovered. It is also known that IPS cells do not cause immune rejection in the case of organ transplantation because they utilize the patient’s own body cells. These results demonstrate the potential of IPS cells, and if we stop researching embryonic stem cells and focus on IPS cells, the results will be even greater. Unlike embryonic stem cells, where the ethical issues do not disappear once the research is accomplished and the cells are used for treatment, this would be a win-win situation.
Of course, IPS cells do have some limitations. A team of researchers from the University of California, San Diego has reported the discovery of mutant cells before, during, and after reverse differentiation. The daughter cells produced by the division of these mutant cells have a faster growth rate than normal cells, which can lead to tumors and cancer. Therefore, IPS cells also require rigorous research before clinical application. There is also a problem that the number of chromosomes is often abnormal. When the number of chromosomes is abnormal, the human immune system tries to kill the abnormal cells, which leads to tissue rejection and various side effects. These side effects of IPS cells can also occur with embryonic stem cells, but their frequency is more severe, which is a limitation.
Embryonic stem cells have the great advantage of being able to differentiate into any cell. However, IPS cells can also act as primitive stem cells, and if they have the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells, it is questionable whether we should continue to research embryonic stem cells, which have ethical issues. Of course, IPS cells also have the limitation that they are not yet as advanced as embryonic stem cells and may have more side effects. However, the side effects can be solved with further research. Therefore, if the goal is to solve problems in terms of treating incurable diseases, it is more feasible to research in a way that the majority of society can agree on. Therefore, embryonic stem cells should be replaced by an alternative called IPS cells.
