A Utilitarian Argument in Support of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
For decades, governments all over the world have researched ways to improve human life through scientific innovation, including remarkable discoveries of regenerative medicine through human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research. HESC research leads to life saving discoveries that benefit the greater good by offering solutions for pain, disease, and illness. A HESC is “a self-renewing cell line that gives rise to all cells and tissues of the body.” Thus, these stem cells can be injected as a fully functioning healthy cell into a failing one as a form of regenerative medicine (Holland, Okarma I.1 p. 4). I intend to argue that given its increasingly promising discoveries, human embryonic stem cell research is morally permissible and vital for pursuing knowledge that leads to less human suffering which benefits the greater good.
HESCs for the purpose of scientific research are created in vitro, or outside of the womb in a test tube, after around five days of growth or development (Thomson et. al). At this point of its development, the HESC has anywhere from 200 to 250 cells. These cells construct the trophoblast and the blastocyst. The trophoblast is the outermost layer of the blastocyst, made up of 30 to 34 cells, which is removed from the blastocyst. The embryo is thus prevented from growing or developing any further, in effect, destroying it as a functioning HESC for the purpose of human life. When the cell is taken apart, the HESC cultures are derived for the inner cell mass which is used for experimentation for regenerative medicines and therapeutic trials (Siegel). Given our obligation to the pursuit of knowledge and its benefit for the greatest number of people, utilitarianism offers strong reasons that support this life saving research.
In contrast, opponents of HESC research present far less developed arguments constructed from highly challenged science with little to no universal consensus on when exactly human life begins, which pushes against the utilitarian perspective. Those against the research rise from the Pro-Life movement with the argument that a human embryo is a human life, and thus, its destruction for the purpose of scientific research would be considered murder. Those in opposition maintain that the research is unethical and should be illegal. Such arguments rely on disputed science and conspiracy, ignoring the benefits to the greater population. I will argue that from a utilitarian perspective, pursuing human embryonic stem cell research is not only morally permissible, but necessary for our progression as a society.
Stem Cell Research Leads to Scientific Discoveries
HESC research has led to some regenerative medicinal treatments that “are in clinical trials for a range of conditions, including macular degeneration, spinal cord injury, type I diabetes, heart disease and Parkinson’s disease.” The results of which have been incredibly successful, leading to repaired eyesight, reduction of painful symptoms, and increased daily comfort (Dewitt p. 194). Given the increasingly promising findings from stem cell research, there is a moral obligation to pursue such knowledge to better our quality of life. Human beings have a duty to seek out truth and garner a better understanding of our reality as it gives us the power to optimize human potential. In pursuing this knowledge and finding more of these life changing therapies and treatments, human flourishing and happiness can be maximized to a greater extent which, from a utilitarian perspective, is extremely beneficial, necessary, and ethical. “On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good – that is, consider the good of others as well as one’s own good” (Driver). Meaning, when applied to HESC research, that this is an ethical pursuit because it “maximizes the overall good,” by finding life-saving treatments and contributes to the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Therefore, the more people that are alive, healthy, and well, the happier and more successful our world can be. Thanks to this innovative branch of science, HESCs which are so distinct in their composition, can allow scientists to discover treatments that contribute to human flourishing.
HESCs, unlike any other cells, are incredibly unique and offer promising results that allow for these incredible discoveries. They have “special properties […that…] have the potential to help us not only understand but treat human diseases such as juvenile diabetes, various cancers, and immunodeficiency disorders” (Jenkins). Even beyond therapies that assist in decreasing human suffering, the research has led to the “permanent repair of failing organs by injecting healthy functional cells developed from them, an approach called regenerative medicine. The significance would be to broaden the definition of medical therapy from simply halting the progression of acute or chronic disease to include restoration of lost organ function” (Holland, Okarma). Improving the quality of failing organs not only saves lives and extends a person’s life span but improves their quality of life.
From a utilitarian perspective, efforts that lead into the maximizing of a person’s happiness and life span are ethical pursuits and should be conducted for that purpose. “According to the Proportionality Doctrine […] utilitarianism holds ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’” (Brink). Human beings need to seek out this research to improve the livelihoods of so many who suffer from chronic illnesses, suffering, and disease, to promote happiness for the greatest amount of people. Seeking out this information allows for unique answers to complex biological problems that when fixed, maximize human flourishing. Classical utilitarian thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, “held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number,’” which stem cell research most certainly does (Driver).
Embryos Are Not Human Beings
The debate around HESC research is surrounded in controversy with evidence that typically lacks much basis. Opponents protest for a myriad of reasons: “Some ethicists and scientists comment that the transition to human worth is gradual and continuous, and that any distinction therefore reflects an instrumental choice about how to balance desired outcomes” (Taylor). While these debates continue to fester with varying arguments on both sides, “[…] the ethical controversies surrounding this research press chiefly in two directions: 1) the other-regarding motive to benefit human sufferers, and 2) the moral status of the embryo” (Outka p. 586). As previously stated, the discussion around benefiting human sufferers lacks validity as the benefits of HESC research far outweigh any imagined cons, as the research has led to numerous discoveries that improve a person’s quality of life and assist in decreasing physical human suffering. The debate concerning the destruction of the human embryo resulting in a supposed murder of an infant, lacks much evidence and is widely challenged.
The primary argument maintaining that the research is equitable to infanticide, has little basis in proven science and is highly disputed. Opponents of HESC research believe that the separation of the trophoblast from the blastocyst to use the inner cell mass for experimentation, is murder, as that manipulation eliminates the potential for the embryo to grow into a human being. Using that logic, the research then results in the mass killing of human beings (Strong). This argument is not only highly disputed but lacks a basis in biological science. The HESC cells, “[…] do not act like the specialized cells of the adult…[and] are not committed to becoming any particular type of differentiated cell.” After “about five days of development,” the inner cell mass “maintain[s] the potential to form any cell type of the body” (Holland, Thomson). Thus, at five days of development when the embryo is manipulated for the purpose of research, the cell lacks any distinctive qualities from different clusters of cells that lack the potential for human life. Given that these cells behave and appear to be no different than cells that do not usher in human life, they are not human beings. Thus, their destruction or manipulation for the purpose of research leading to regenerative medicine and solutions to human suffering, is not murder, but a manipulation of a cluster of cells.
Assuming, for the sake of the opposing argument, that using HESCs for research is morally impermissible and counts as infanticide or murder, it still does not align with other values that are considered ethical. Often organs are taken from murder and drunken driving victims to be used for other patients in need of a transplant. This is considered a good and ethical practice to benefit the greatest amount of people. Following the opposition’s line of logic from a utilitarian perspective, if the researcher is not directly involved in the destruction of the embryos, as the doctor is not directly involved in the circumstances that lead to organ harvesting, then it would be morally permissible to utilize those cells for a greater good (Robertson). It is often the case that those doing the experimentation are not directly responsible for the derivation of the HESCs and therefore those who oppose the destruction, would take a utilitarian approach, and approve of the utilization of those clusters to maximize the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. While one may argue that the researcher is complicit, it is difficult to argue the intent of the researcher and their knowledge of the destruction of the embryo prior to the manipulation of the cells. For their complicity to be valid, the researchers deriving the HESCs would have to have done it without any “external demand for the cells” (Siegel, 2004).
Conclusion
HESC research still faces many obstacles as the science is new, just emerging within the last few decades. The discoveries thus far have proven to be incredibly important, contributing to the decrease of human suffering and expanding our understanding of regenerative medicine that will fix failing organs and save lives. While scientists continue to face ethical dilemmas in this field, human beings have a moral obligation to pursue knowledge that will, from a utilitarian perspective, create the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. HESC research does not harm anyone, but instead decreases physical human suffering and saves lives which maximizes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. In lessening that suffering, a human being can live a longer and healthier life which increases their happiness as well as the happiness of those around them. Human embryonic stem cell research is full of life changing treatments and therapies that far outweigh any supposed cons rooted in highly challenged science that maintains the humanity of an embryo. Utilitarianism encourages this research that improves and saves lives, maximizes happiness, and aids in creating a healthier population to thrive.
Works Cited
Brink, David, "Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
Dewitt, Trounson A., Nat Rev Molecular Cellular Biology., 2016 Mar., 17(3); p. 194-200.
Holland, Suzanne, et al. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. The MIT Press, 2001. Book I.2 p. 15.
Jenkins, John B., “Translational Stem Cell Research: Issues Beyond the Debate on the Moral Status of the Human Embryo.” Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. Edited by Kristina Hug and Goran Hermeren. New York: Humana Press (Springer). p. 127.
Outka, Gene. "The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Principle of Nothing is Lost." Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, vol. 9, no. Special Issue, 2009, p. 585-602.
Robertson, J., 1988, “Fetal Tissue Transplant Research is Ethical,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 6(10): 5–8.
Siegel, Andrew, "Ethics of Stem Cell Research", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
--Siegel, Andrew. 2004, “Temporal Restrictions and the Impasse on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” The Lancet, 364(9429): 215–18.
Strong, C., 1997, “The Moral Status of Preembryos, Embryos, Fetuses, and Infants,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 22(5): 457–78.
Taylor, Patrick L. ABA Health Law; Section: The Health Lawyer. Vol. 17, No. 2. “Closing the Ethics Gap: Coordinating Review of Legal, Ethical, and Scientific Issues in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” 2005. p. 3.
Thomson, J.A., et al., 1998, “Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts,” Science, 282: 1145–47.
