In this blog post, we will examine the ethical and medical issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research and explore whether IPS cells can be a realistic and perfect alternative.
The debate over embryonic stem cells is one of the biggest social issues in science today. Stem cells extracted from embryos can differentiate into all types of cells in the body, such as liver, heart, and bone cells, and therefore have great potential for organ transplants and the treatment of incurable diseases. However, embryonic stem cell research raises ethical issues because it involves the use of embryos. In addition, the side effects that occur after treatment remain a limitation of the research. The author of this book, Michael Sandel, argues that there are no ethical problems with embryonic stem cell research and that therefore the research is justified. However, I disagree with Sandel’s argument. Therefore, in this paper, I will refute some of Sandel’s arguments and present additional arguments against his position to show that embryonic stem cell research is not justified. After that, I will propose alternatives to organ transplants and treatments for intractable diseases.
The first argument Sandel uses to support embryonic stem cell research is that embryos cannot be considered persons. Embryos do not have identifiable human characteristics or forms, such as specific organs or tissues. And if we consider embryos to be persons based solely on the two characteristics of being human cells and being alive, then we must also consider human skin cells to be human beings. I do not think this argument is wrong, but even so, I believe there are sufficient reasons to respect embryos as living beings. The most important factor in determining the moral status of embryos is their potential to grow into human beings. While I acknowledge that embryos are not human beings, embryos have the potential to grow into human beings, which is why they cannot be treated in the same way as skin cells. Although embryos cannot become human beings on their own without a mother, from the perspective that all human beings begin as embryos, there are sufficient reasons to respect embryos even if they are not human beings.
Sandel cited the following reason: most embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are surplus embryos from fertility clinics. A study surveyed the number of surplus frozen embryos left unused in fertility clinics in various countries and found that there were approximately 400,000 in the United States, 50,000 in the United Kingdom, and 70,000 in Australia. If these embryos are used for research, they will ultimately be discarded, but they could be used to treat intractable diseases, so it is true that “nothing will be wasted.” However, I believe there are problems with this argument. The first is the ethical issue of surplus embryos being created in fertility clinics in the first place. Embryos are created in fertility clinics by creating more embryos than are needed for implantation. This means that if only the number of embryos needed for implantation were created, there would be no surplus. In fact, in Germany, a policy prohibits the creation of more embryos than necessary for implantation, so no extra embryos are created. Ultimately, embryos in fertility clinics are a matter of national policy and cannot avoid ethical issues.
As can be seen from the above, Sandel’s argument focuses mostly on ethical aspects. Now, I would like to present the medical aspects of the risks associated with embryonic stem cell research. First, embryonic stem cells have a high probability of causing cancer during treatment. Embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated stem cells that have not yet differentiated into specific cells, and they are induced to differentiate into cells suitable for therapeutic purposes. During this process, some cells differentiate into cells other than those intended, which can cause tumors and, in severe cases, lead to cancer. These cells cause tumors, which can lead to cancer in serious cases. Second, there is the problem of significant side effects after treatment. According to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine in August 2001, side effects such as persistent seizures and unconscious arm movements occurred during the treatment of Parkinson’s disease patients using stem cells. As such, embryonic stem cells have ethical and medical issues, and it is not reasonable to continue embryonic stem cell research with so many problems.
Therefore, I oppose embryonic stem cells and propose induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells) as an alternative. Stem cells can be broadly divided into embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and IPS cells. IPS cells are also called “reprogrammed stem cells,” which implies the process of creating IPS cells. IPS cells are created by introducing specific genes into adult somatic cells to turn back the biological clock of the cells to the state of primitive stem cells. As explained above, IPS cells do not use embryos and can therefore be an alternative to embryonic stem cells, which raise ethical issues. IPS cells are a relatively new advanced medical technology in the field of stem cells. In 2012, Professor Shinya Yamanaka of Japan and Sir John Gurdon of the United Kingdom won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their research on how to extract IPS cells from mice. This was achieved in just six years after the publication of their paper. The short period of time between the publication of the paper and the awarding of the Nobel Prize shows that IPS cells can be a reasonable alternative to stem cell research, which had been stalled due to ethical issues, and that their potential is recognized as significant.
Let’s take a look at the current state of stem cell research in Korea. Embryonic stem cell research in Korea, which had been restricted since the 2004 Hwang Woo-suk stem cell fraud scandal, has recently been approved and resumed. However, even this research is being conducted under intensive monitoring by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and with a limited number of embryos, and it continues to face opposition from the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family and religious groups. Under these restrictions, it will be difficult to resolve the possibility of cancer and other side effects in the near future, and therefore, the realization of treatments for intractable diseases will be further delayed. IPS cell research does not raise ethical issues and can therefore be conducted actively without such restrictions. Currently, genes that induce dedifferentiation, such as TAZ, continue to be discovered. In addition, IPS cells are known to cause no immune rejection even in organ transplants because they use the patient’s own somatic cells. These results prove the potential of IPS cells, and if embryonic stem cell research is discontinued and research on IPS cells is intensified, it will yield even greater results. Unlike embryonic stem cells, which raise ethical issues even when research is successful and used for actual treatment, IPS cells will provide results that satisfy everyone.
Of course, there are some limitations to IPS cells. A research team at the University of California, San Diego announced that mutant cells were found during the process of dedifferentiation, progression, and completion. The daughter cells produced by the division of these mutant cells grow faster than normal cells, which can lead to tumors and cancer. Therefore, IPS cells also require rigorous research before clinical application. In addition, there is a problem that abnormalities in chromosome numbers frequently occur. When abnormalities occur in chromosome numbers, the human immune system kills the abnormal cells, which can cause tissue rejection and various side effects. These side effects of IPS cells can also occur with embryonic stem cells, but they are more severe in IPS cells, which is a limitation.
Embryonic stem cells have the great advantage of being able to differentiate into all types of cells. Therefore, they have been the focus of research due to their potential for use in the treatment of intractable diseases. However, IPS cells can also function as primitive stem cells, and if these cells have the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells, it is necessary to reconsider whether it is necessary to continue research on embryonic stem cells, which raise ethical issues. Of course, IPS cells are still in the early stages of research compared to embryonic stem cells, and there is a possibility that they may have more serious side effects. However, side effects can be resolved through further research. Therefore, if the goal is to find a cure for intractable diseases, it seems more reasonable to conduct research in a way that is acceptable to the majority of society. For this reason, embryonic stem cells should be replaced by IPS cells for research purposes.
