Anencephalic Infants and Stem Cell Research
Anencephalic infants and stem cell research.
I am going to examine whether an Anencephalic infant is really a person.
An Anencephalic infant does not possess a brain other then a brainstem which allows development of a human body without the development of the cortex. Is such a "being" more worthy of protection then my pet dog (or a swine slated for slaughter) that possesses a cortex, albeit not a human cortex?
Is a hunk of "human" meat that does not possess a mind more worthy of protection then a chimpanzee that possesses a mind albeit not a human mind?
We can experiment on the chimpanzee because, while it possesses a mind, it is not a human mind. But the Anencephalic human does not even possess a mind, but for some reason it is against ethics to experiment with this hunk of meat that possesses no self awareness (unlike the unfortunate chimpanzee who we experiment on).
We all struggle with what to do about stem cell research. We are in the infant stages in regards to possibilities and as regards to ethics. My own viewpoint is that we should experiment upon ourselves if at all possible instead of experimenting on other lifeforms that possess minds, even if these minds are not humans.
Thus I put forth the furtherance of ethics by experimenting upon "ourselves" using the genes of an Anencephalic human being. Any human born absent a Cortex does not possess a mind. It is preferable for us to conduct our drug experiments on a "human" that does not possess a mind to conducting an experiment on a chimpanzee, or even a lab rat, that does possess a mind, even if that "mind" is not human. It is preferable to experiment on a human carcass that is alive and absent a mind to experimenting on a chimpanzee that possesses a mind that, while not human, is still present.
This brings me to stem cell research. I have become aware that "technical difficulties" have arisen in therapeutic cloning attempts to generate organs for needy recipients. What these "technical difficulties" were was not identified, however I can imagine. How does one seek to generate a kidney for a recipient without generating all the other biological functions necessary to allow the organ to grow? Unfortunately, thus far therapeutic cloning that allows such development also allows for the development of another cortex and thus another mind that must be somewhere along the line be destroyed to save the other human mind.
But what about gene splicing? If the genes responsible for an anencephalic infant could be identified, they could be spliced into the donors DNA so no "mind" will result.
Here is the problem as I see it. When eggheads attempt to experiment with embryonic stem cells, they have not found a way to program these stem cells to produce anything but a whole human being. If genes from an anencephalic human are spliced into the stem cells they experimenting with, this worry will be removed. If their experiment goes awry, and they are forced to "kill" the results of their experiment, they will not be killing a human mind. They would be ending that which would never have had a mind anyway.
I support stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. However the introduction of anencephalic genes into the research is key to my continuing support.
I am going to examine whether an Anencephalic infant is really a person.
An Anencephalic infant does not possess a brain other then a brainstem which allows development of a human body without the development of the cortex. Is such a "being" more worthy of protection then my pet dog (or a swine slated for slaughter) that possesses a cortex, albeit not a human cortex?
Is a hunk of "human" meat that does not possess a mind more worthy of protection then a chimpanzee that possesses a mind albeit not a human mind?
We can experiment on the chimpanzee because, while it possesses a mind, it is not a human mind. But the Anencephalic human does not even possess a mind, but for some reason it is against ethics to experiment with this hunk of meat that possesses no self awareness (unlike the unfortunate chimpanzee who we experiment on).
We all struggle with what to do about stem cell research. We are in the infant stages in regards to possibilities and as regards to ethics. My own viewpoint is that we should experiment upon ourselves if at all possible instead of experimenting on other lifeforms that possess minds, even if these minds are not humans.
Thus I put forth the furtherance of ethics by experimenting upon "ourselves" using the genes of an Anencephalic human being. Any human born absent a Cortex does not possess a mind. It is preferable for us to conduct our drug experiments on a "human" that does not possess a mind to conducting an experiment on a chimpanzee, or even a lab rat, that does possess a mind, even if that "mind" is not human. It is preferable to experiment on a human carcass that is alive and absent a mind to experimenting on a chimpanzee that possesses a mind that, while not human, is still present.
This brings me to stem cell research. I have become aware that "technical difficulties" have arisen in therapeutic cloning attempts to generate organs for needy recipients. What these "technical difficulties" were was not identified, however I can imagine. How does one seek to generate a kidney for a recipient without generating all the other biological functions necessary to allow the organ to grow? Unfortunately, thus far therapeutic cloning that allows such development also allows for the development of another cortex and thus another mind that must be somewhere along the line be destroyed to save the other human mind.
But what about gene splicing? If the genes responsible for an anencephalic infant could be identified, they could be spliced into the donors DNA so no "mind" will result.
Here is the problem as I see it. When eggheads attempt to experiment with embryonic stem cells, they have not found a way to program these stem cells to produce anything but a whole human being. If genes from an anencephalic human are spliced into the stem cells they experimenting with, this worry will be removed. If their experiment goes awry, and they are forced to "kill" the results of their experiment, they will not be killing a human mind. They would be ending that which would never have had a mind anyway.
I support stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. However the introduction of anencephalic genes into the research is key to my continuing support.
posted by Little David at 7/23/2006 12:37:00 PM
6 Comments:
This brings me to stem cell research. I have become aware that "technical difficulties" have arisen in therapeutic cloning attempts to generate organs for needy recipients. What these "technical difficulties" were was not identified, however I can imagine. How does one seek to generate a kidney for a recipient without generating all the other biological functions necessary to allow the organ to grow? Unfortunately, thus far therapeutic cloning that allows such development also allows for the development of another cortex and thus another mind that must be somewhere along the line be destroyed to save the other human mind.
I believe that I have criticised you for this before, but please don't make suppositions and then moralise on it as fact on subjects completely out of your depth. Sorry, but you are completely wrong here.
The "technical difficulties" are much more prosaic. Therapeutic cloning requires human eggs. These are incredibly scarce meaning that for the most part, any research or clinical application wouldn't get off the ground anyway.
The purpose of therapeutic cloning is to create genetically compatible EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, not to create clones. Presumably with further research, we will eventually be able to create organs directly from embryonic stem cells, but they are the first step. That is, we are not creating entire human beings and then butchering them for their organs. That is obviously abhorrent to everyone and in the realm of science fiction.
The ethical dilemma, however, is in therapeutic cloning, a human embryo (even though it is no more than a cluster of cells) is created. Many people, especially the "life begins at conception" crowd cannot accept that a potentially viable human embryo is created for the purpose for the creation of these cells. I personally think that this is okay.
But what about gene splicing? If the genes responsible for an anencephalic infant could be identified, they could be spliced into the donors DNA so no "mind" will result.
Sorry, this is entirely irrelevant as we collect the embryonic stems cells at a stage when neural tissue hasn't even developed.
The rest of your article is fantasy.
My prediction is that the argument of therapeutic cloning will eventually become moot. Why? I do not believe that Western governments that are often affected by a vociferous religious element will ever accept therapeutic cloning, in the next few decades anyway. By that time, alternative technologies that bypass this technical hurdle would be developed, e.g.:
(1) Convert adult stem cells back into embryonic-like multipotent stem cells so no embryo ever needs to be created;
(2) Or extract embryonic stem cells from embryos created by parthenogenesis. These embryos are non-viable so could never have become a human.
Regards,
Michael Tam
What I heard on NPR (National Public Radio) was a researcher specifically discussing that they had run into technical difficulties in generating organs and the like. He did not identify what the technical difficulties were, but only stated that whole organ generation capability was not going to happen until far into the future.
You seem to think that all research is clustered only around very narrow efforts. Apparently this is not true or else the US Legislature would not have recently passed the law prohibiting "fetal farming".
As for your statement that therapeutic cloning requires human eggs, this is not true. Human stem cells have been created using animal eggs (I believe taken from a swine) where the animal's DNA was removed and the DNA from a human donor inserted. The scientific term for the procedure is called somatic cell nuclear transfer. I seem to recall that the researcher who accomplished this won some type of award.
While I will admit at least some ignorance on this subject, perhaps you too will admit you are not an expert either. For what you describe as "moralizing" and I would describe as "discussing ethics" I think I am as qualified as anyone else. After all, most of those passing the laws up on capital hill do not have experience as medical researchers either.
Other technical difficulties include coaxing the embyronic or multi-potent stem cells to specialise into specific cells lines. This has proved more complex than most researchers have expected.
The problem with US legislature is mostly unique in the Western world. My understanding is that for the greater part, US "bans" on stem cell research is limited to public funding of research. Considering that there is strong corporate research funding in the US, this is highly unsatisfactory.
UK, European and Australian law are generally much broader in their scope.
Yes, somatic cell nuclear transfer is a great technology that could possibly overcome some of the difficulties (see the same edition of New Scientist as the article I linked to). However, it far more complex than using human eggs and even that is hardly "simple".
As for your "discussing ethics", it is important to make sure you understand the basic facts. Your original article suggests that the ethical dilemma with therapeutic human cloning has to do with making humans and extraction of organs from those humans (hence the whole rant on splicing genes for anencephaly). You have completely missed the mark.
The ethical dilemma of therapeutic cloning are multifold. Firstly, the most COMMON way of doing it requires human eggs. This is hardly a simple procedure and potentially dangerous for the woman. The source of eggs at present have mostly been excess eggs from IVF programs but these are few.
If you remember the disgraced South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-Suk, one of the scandals was the allegation that he had bullied a female researcher into ova donation.
The second problem is the creation of otherwise viable human embryos for the purpose of tissue harvest. Many have argued that the purposeful creation of a viable human embryo for this purpose is an abomination. Considering that tissue extraction or experimentation on the "excess" embryos from IVF for a long time was considered off limits, this position is at least consistent with practice, though perhaps not with non-emotive ethics (i.e., allowing choice for termination of pregnancies).
Even discounting the "life begins at conception" concept, there is still a valid argument that creating a viable human embryo only for the purpose of tissue harvest is perhaps immoral.
There are many new technologies coming out that will make therapeutic cloning redundant, at least, the traditional meaning of the term (i.e., making a "clone" of an individual - i.e., a genetically identical viable embryo). Nevertheless, there are ever new ethical dilemmas that are raised.
On your example, the increasing use of animal genes and animal cells lines opens up a Pandora's box. If your genes are hybridised with some animal genes, would you be in some way less than human? Even more troubling is the creation of animals with human genes - are they part human? Not troubling perhaps if we are only inserting a protein here and there, but if we are using animals to create humanised organs for transplants, that would involve creating entire human like organ systems in the animals. How will we class these animal-human hybrids?
Regards,
Michael Tam
I think it is you that missed the entire point of my article.
I was exploring the ethics of cloning and yes possibly even the harvesting of tissues from human clones.
I am saying that by use of the genes of anencephalic infants, through gene splicing, some of the ethical dilemnas presented through some research efforts can be resolved for at least some people (such as myself).
However, in order to be included in such a group which includes myself, one would have to accept that an anencephalic individual, while still human, is not a person. That an anencephalic individual, since it does not possess a cortex, does not possess a mind, is not a person, does not possess a soul, etc etc.
While this argument and resulting conclusion is not going to satisfy many (perhaps even most) of the "life begins at conception" crowd, even they might admit that this (using anencephalic genes) would be preferable to the use of DNA that does not possess these genes for experimentation.
I could even see some (such as myself) as it being preferable to generating human carcasses without cortexs for medical experiments then it is to use animals whereby the experiments cause needless suffering to something that does possess a mind, albeit not a human mind. Besides, the results of the experiments on such a carcass would also be more accurate.
I would even be willing to donate my own DNA as long as there was a contractual obligation to only use my DNA where, through gene splicing, my clone was never allowed to develope a cortex.
I think I exist (that my mind and soul resides) within my cortex. As for as my mind is concerned, the rest of the body only exists as a biological support mechanism for that portion of my body where the mind resides. (The rest of the body does include many aspects that allows the mind to enjoy existance beyond mere existential support through providing mobility, sensory input etc.)
Several points:
We don't have Borg (Star Trek reference) incubators to grow whole humans outside of a uterus. Where are you going to grow these little brainless humans? This is a much harder task than growing an organ (and thus pointless if our goals is to grow replacement tissues and organs).
Secondly, I'm reasonably certain that there is no such thing as "genes for anencephaly" and even if there were, it would involve genetic modification AFTER the embryo was created. That is, modifying an otherwise viable embryo with "bad" genes. That does not get us away from the key ethical question of creating a viable human embryo for non-reproductive purposes in the first place.
Thirdly, there are already much better technologies already in existence that bypasses the whole ethical dilemma. For example, embryos made by parthengenesis will never develop into a foetus and will never develop to the stage of having neuronal tissue and hence never ever come close to having a mind. By all definitions it cannot be considered a "person".
I have not missed the point of your article at all, but you have missed my criticism. That is, your article is fundamentally meaningless because you are looking at the hypothetical ethics of something that will not happen.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I do not see where growing an entire human being outside the uterus would be any more of a problem then growing the entire human body. In fact it would seem to me to be easier, since if only an individual organ is grown some technological method must be used to replace all the biological support mechanisms that allow for the growth at later stages.
Upon what do you base your "reasonable certainty" that no anencephalic genes exist? Or is your opinion based on pure conjecture?
I think you misunderstand some of the advances that have been made in cloning. DNA from an adult human was introduced into an animal egg through somatic cell nuclear transfer. Now, if anencephalic genes do exist, what would prevent researchers from splicing these genes into the DNA prior to introduction into even the egg of an animal. By this method, no viable - or at least nothing viable with a cortex - would ever be created or ever need to be destroyed.
Post a Comment
<< Home