| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
EDITORIAL |
The Oncologist does not ordinarily become involved in political debate, but the issue of stem cell research is likely to be the first of many confrontations between scientists at the leading edge of molecular research, and the lay public, which holds a diversity of views on the appropriate use of human embryos for research. The debate centers around the issue of when does an embryo become a human life. It would be a grave mistake to underestimate the importance of this debate, and to misjudge the ground on which it will be fought. We feel confident that science can create new organs, or even individuals, from stem cells. This is not a question of science. It is a question of when life begins, and when a "potential" life becomes a being, with the appropriate protection accorded other living individuals. Is that protection graded according to the stage of embryonic development, or is it absolute? And when do we have the right to use that "potential" life for our own purposes? Obviously religion and personal belief intrude strongly into this debate, but that does not de-legitimize the debate in any way, because all law is based on concepts of moral behavior.
Most of us would accept the concept that research on living individuals, or on deceased individuals, must be carefully scrutinized and limited in order to assure respect for the sanctity of life and the rights of the individual. But what limits should apply to embryos? Is it appropriate and moral to do research on "discarded embryos"; if so, should we limit their use to Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved experiments? Should we allow the generation of embryos for the sole purpose of providing research reagents? And further, should cloning of human beings, in any form and under any circumstance, be permitted? The stem cell debate is just the beginning, as the growing proficiency of science creates opportunities that will collide, inevitably, with religious and ethical barriers, barriers that may become law.
I do not have the answers, only opinions on where to set the limits. I favor use of stem cells from "discarded" embryos, with the understanding that these experiments would have institutional oversight akin to a preclinical "IRB" to examine the purpose and method of the experiment, and the source of cells. But this opinion only begins to address the many questions that will follow on other uses of human embryos for research, and ultimately, for clinical care.
With the expanding debate and importance of this subject in mind, The Oncologist invites thoughtful commentaries on these issues from its readers We will begin this debate with the following position paper from the former Distinguished Senator from Florida, Connie Mack, a gentleman who has devoted much of his political career to the support of biomedical research [1].
|
References
Related articles in The Oncologist:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| THE ONCOLOGIST | STEM CELLS | CME | ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS |
