Embryonic stem cell research, cures for incurable diseases, and ethical issues: How do we address them?

Stem cell research holds great promise for treating incurable diseases and regenerating organs. A logical analysis of the need for and ethical objections to embryonic stem cell research emphasizes its importance.

 

Somatic embryonic stem cell research in South Korea has been taboo for some time after Dr. Woo-Seok Hwang was accused of ethical issues. The news only emphasized the unethical nature of embryonic stem cell research, which was seen as a violation of human dignity. As time passed, iPS and adult stem cell research was the main focus of Korea’s research community, and embryonic stem cell research was gradually forgotten. However, on May 17, 2016, nearly a decade later, embryonic stem cell research was again at the center of heated debate when the National Bioethics Review Committee conditionally approved Cha Hospital’s plan to conduct somatic cell cloning embryo research. Embryonic stem cells have the potential to help the medical community in treating incurable diseases and regenerating organs, so research is essential, but many people oppose it because of the misuse of human cloning and unethical experimental processes. In this article, we’ll look at the reasons why embryonic stem cell research should be allowed and analyze the logical holes in the arguments of those who oppose it.
Stem cells could be used to provide new organs for patients suffering from organ damage. Currently, people who have no organs due to cancer or other terminal illnesses are transplanted with organs from other people or by creating artificial organs. But there are serious problems with this approach. First, when transplanting another person’s organs, the immune system may recognize the transplanted organs as antigens, leading to immune rejection, which can cause acute shock death. To prevent this, immunosuppressants are used, but they weaken the body’s immune system, leaving it vulnerable to disease. Artificial organs have been developed as an alternative, but they can also be subject to immune rejection, and since they are powered by electricity, they require periodic surgery to power them up. In addition, any malfunction of the machine can be life-threatening, especially if it replaces a vital part of the body, such as the heart. However, differentiating and culturing stem cells can solve these problems. Because you’re growing your own cells, there’s no immune rejection, and because you’re not replacing an organ with a machine, there’s no risk of malfunction.
Stem cells will also help us find cures for incurable diseases for which there is currently no cure. For example, Parkinson’s disease, which is caused by the loss of dopamine-secreting nerve cells in the brain, usually begins to show clinical symptoms in the 60s, and there is no clear cause of the disease. Symptoms include autonomic nervous system abnormalities such as restless tremors, rigidity, slow movement, postural instability, and depression. The most common treatment is levodopa therapy, which involves the administration of levodopa, a precursor to dopamine, but there is currently no cure. Current treatments are primarily aimed at relieving symptoms and helping patients live as normal a life as possible. However, recent research by biologists suggests that stem cells could be used to treat Parkinson’s disease once and for all. A recent study, published in Nature in 2017, used induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells to improve symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. The team re-differentiated iPS cells into dopamine-producing cells and transplanted them into the brains of monkeys with Parkinson’s disease, and after two years of observation, the dopamine-producing cells survived for more than two years and did not form tumors. Currently, stem cell research is only able to alleviate the symptoms of Parkinson’s, but as the technology improves, it may be possible to completely replace destroyed neurons. Stem cells could also be used to treat childhood diabetes, which is caused by the immune system attacking the body’s own beta cells and preventing them from producing insulin.
Despite these benefits, opponents of embryonic cloned stem cells oppose research on ethical grounds. They argue that embryonic stem cells could be misused to clone humans, and that unethical situations such as unauthorized harvesting of embryos could occur during experiments. However, this can be prevented through legal regulations. The “Act on Bioethics and Safety” states that “embryo production medical institutions may provide residual embryos for research purposes only if the consent holder has consented to the provision of residual embryos for research purposes after the expiration of the preservation period,” and that “when providing residual embryos and residual germ cells, the institutional committee of the embryo production medical institution must submit and deliberate on the use plan and research plan from embryo research institutions, somatic cell cloning embryos, and other research institutions.” In 2005, Dr. Woo-Seok Hwang’s cloned embryo research was highly controversial, not only for falsifying papers but also for forcibly removing eggs from female researchers in his team. Currently, opponents of embryonic stem cells argue that there is no guarantee that this will not happen again. However, this is not a problem with embryonic stem cells per se, but rather a lack of legal regulation. The Bioethics Act clearly states that embryos cannot be used for anything other than consensual residual embryos and cannot be created for any purpose other than pregnancy. If the government or country regulates and manages the process sufficiently as stated in the law, unethical situations in experiments should not occur.
You may wonder why embryonic stem cells, which are highly ethically controversial, should be used at all, since the advantages mentioned above can be achieved by using reverse differentiated stem cells or adult stem cells. However, embryonic stem cells cannot be replaced by other stem cells at this time. Adult stem cells or reverse differentiated stem cells have limited differentiation capabilities and are difficult to study, making it difficult to conduct advanced research. Adult stem cells have a pre-determined way of differentiating, which limits the ability of researchers to make them differentiate as desired, and the use of other people’s cells can lead to immune rejection. There is also a limit to how much they can multiply. For example, using adult stem cells for Parkinson’s disease requires a large number of aborted fetal cells for cell transplantation. However, with embryonic stem cells, the cells can be grown and then differentiated into the dopamine cells needed for treatment, making them more readily available for research.
Reverse-differentiated stem cells are free from the problems of adult stem cells, but they have a lower success rate and safety concerns. According to Lawrence Goldstein’s team at the University of California, Los Angeles, they carry a significant amount of mutated genes, some of which are linked to cancer. The team deciphered the genomes of 22 re-differentiated stem cells and found an average of six mutated genes in each. These mutated genes were related to cell growth, and some were associated with cancer. This is more than 10 times higher than the mutation frequency of typical cells. The viruses used to introduce genes into cells to create reverse-differentiated stem cells also pose safety concerns because they can interfere with the genes in the cells, causing mutations and activating oncogenes. Embryonic stem cells are relatively free from these problems, allowing for safer research.
So far, we’ve discussed the utility of embryonic stem cells, the need for research, and the logical flaws in the opposition. While embryonic stem cells may provide a cure for difficult-to-treat degenerative diseases such as type 1 diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, as well as a solution to the problems of organ transplantation, they cannot be replaced by reverse-differentiated stem cells or adult stem cells and should be researched. Furthermore, the argument that embryonic stem cell research is unethical can be addressed through legal regulation. It is hoped that embryonic stem cell research will solve some of the medical problems that currently have no solution.