Okay, let me clearly state for all the world to know, I am FOR UNFETTERED SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT. Yes, I think science should be funded and researched for nearly every cause. This is the first in what will be many posts about morality and morality and science.
Webster's defines morality as follows:
Main Entry:
mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural mo·ral·i·ties
Date:14th century
As the idea pertains to this posting, lets take the third definition: conformity to ideals of right human conduct.
On this front, I have essentially two things to argue for when combining science and morality: embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Lets give each of them adequate exploration.
Cloning
Okay, so I am starting with cloning first even though I listed it second... my previous English teachers might be a bit miffed, but que sera sera. As far as I understand it, the basic argument against cloning is that 1) we would be playing God (sorry to those of you that have multiple gods which would necessitate a lowercased 'g' in god thereby implicating multiple gods, but I figure that most readers of this blog are monotheistic and would greaterly prefer a capital 'G' in God... by the by, do you know why it is called 'lower-case and upper-case'? Supposedly, back in the day of typewriters, capital letters were gernerally kept in a case above the non-capital letters... hence upper case and lower case) by cloning humans or 2) the wealthy would pay for clones so they could harvest their organs a la The Island. Okay, lets address these topics individually.
The first arguement might be that by cloning humans, we would be playing God. The problem with this argument is that we are already doing that essentially. We have drastically reduced the infant mortality rate since the time we were all living in caves and had just discovered fire. Sure this is a bit absurd. Of course we have lowered the infant mortality rate since then, but how have we done so? Through science. Okay, so even if you don't accept that argument, think about this: a baby that is born prematurely now has a much greater chance of living than a child born similarly prematurely a decade ago. How is that not playing God? Unfortunately my analysis will end there because I don't have much information about infant mortality rates across history or what specific scientific advances have allowed our children to live longer no matter how many weeks they gestated.
The second topic here is creating clones so that we can harvest their orgrans etc to prolong our life or replace a severed limb. Okay... well this could be problem. I will admit that it would be possible for this to happen. This would lead to a whole host of other moral and ideological issues. The thing about that though is that it would be extremely capital intensive... So there are a limited number of places a place that did this could exist in our world today. Additionally, the technological expertise required would essentially prevent this technology's ability to be spread or sold. So what we would be left with is a finite group of people possessing the know-how and a finite number of places these activities could be carried out. My solution, although far from perfect, is that once we are able to clone humans, we make sure those scientists aren't ever in a position to be bought. (As in we actually take care of them with sufficient pay and access to research and information etc) Like I said, it isn't a perfect solution, but it is minimally acceptable. Do you have a better idea?
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Okay, now to my forte... if I had one between these subjects. Embryonic stem cell research, which I will just refer to as stem cell research because I am too lazy to keep typing 'embryonic', is typically argued against on religious grounds. The big problem with that is the religious scholars don't actually agree on anything really.... Go here for a pretty good, but outdated (as if that should matter... religions keep status quo for a very long time... so opinions from 1999 shouldn't be discounted) view of embryonic stem cell research from a purely religious point of view. Okay, let me put aside the religious arguments for just a moment... I will come back.
Okay, if your argument is that by harvesting embryonic stem cells, scientists need to kill a (potential) human by destroying a blastocyst (the stage at which embryos should be frozen to yield embryonic stem cells from IVF clinics), that is arguable. The legal definition of death, as defined by the Uniform Determination of Death Act, is when brain function ceases and/or cardiovascular and respiratory circulation ceases. This, by default, implies a definition of life: when brain function and/or cardiovascular and respiratory circulation begins. According to Assistant Clinical Professor in Pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine Leo Leonidas, human brain cells begin forming at ten weeks of gestation. At eighteen gestational days, a baby’s heart begins to beat according to the Time-Life book entitled Growth. In Life Magazine’s article “Life Before Birth,” babies start to breathe at eleven to twelve weeks of gestation. Based on this, obtaining embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst which is four to five gestational days old, there is no legal death (or murder) involved.
Let me briefly return to the religious argument, and I mean briefly. If you read the Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research Volume III: Religious Perspectives that I linked to, you will see that, generally, the major monotheistic religions agree that harvesting embryonic stem cells from blastocysts is not murder, particularly if the blastocysts are from IVF clinics, and that we have an obligation to do anything in our power to increase our life expectancy. So essentially, they are for embryonic stem cell research. Brief enough?
Okay, so let's assume for a minute that we all agree on this point (that there is no death involved in harvesting embryonic stem cells from blastocysts). So let's then go back to what I said about IVF clinics. At IVF clinics, 1) embroys are typically frozen at a later stage than blastocyst although this isn't really necessary, and 2) approximately 20 (pre- in some cases) embryos are discarded once the woman successfully becomes pregnant. These embryos could be frozen at the blastocyst stage instead of later on (as they usually are) and could, thus, potentially yield embryonic stem cells.
Okay, let's assume, for my sake, that you agree with my analysis. So what is it that I am saying really? What I mean is directly analagous to this Scott Adams quote on gun control: "I believe everyody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string." Again, what am I saying? I am saying that I think the government (the US governement and every other government that can afford to do so), fund human embryonic stem cell research for the sake of scientific advancement. Based on all the existing research and theories, embryonic stem cell research is a panaceia. The problem all governments face is how to regulate the industry.
Regulation
As you will come to see in my later posts, I am also part economist and as such, am typically against regulation. Even though us "free marketers" are taking a lot of grief right now, I still stand by the free market and, therefore, against regulation. But I will agree, somewhat illogically, that government needs to regulate the use of stem cells. I think that they should only be used to treat life threatening issues, not just quality of life improving issues. This may seem kind of harsh, but I am opposed to unfettered use of the results of our stem cell research. I think we should be able to test an embyro's DNA to see what potential genetically defined problems it will face, but I do not think we should actually do it.
In a sense, my argument boils down to a question of should we be able to play God and, if so, should we actually play God. My answer is that we should research any and all technologies until we can play God, but we should not regularly play God.
4 comments:
Very interesting and controversial post. I think you made a really good case overall (I especially like the quote from Scott Adams) except for your final argument. Though I agree with what you're suggesting, and I feel it's the right way to tackle this problem, I don't think it is economically or socially viable to say that we should entrust this information to several scientists and then ensure they cannot be bought. Anyone and anything can be bought. Assume we pay these scientists an obscene amount of money. Even so, recent economic theories suggest that personal utility comes from the relative wealth of the individual, i.e. its wealth compared to its peers' wealth, or compared to what he might receive in the future. As an example, an employee of a very successful firm earning let's say 10,000$/month will start to be unsatisfied if 1) he finds out his colleague doing the same job is paid 11,000$ or if 2) he anticipates he could get a raise. Based on this idea, I argue that scientists can at any time be bought by a group that makes a considerably better offer. And given the economic rent from an activity like cloning for organs, I feel the incentive to do this is very high. Another solution would be to select people with very high moral standard.. but you cannot be sure that these people have the necessary skills and know-how to make technological advancements...
The second problem to what you propose is, in my view, the fact that you sort of put the results of the research in government's hands, since it is the one that's funding it. This raises a big threat to our morality-related fears, because the government is everybody and, therefore, the government is nobody. What I mean is that, depending on the interests they have, groups of power can lobby extensively and manage to pass laws or otherwise obtain access to and right to make use of these discoveries, which of course they will put to their personal benefit. Which in turn is likely to include, as argued before, immoral activities, since they will certainly be economically profitable.
That being said... I have no solution to offer... And sorry for the long comment, thanks if you read it through here :)
True, recent economic theories suggest that wealth-based utility is not measured in absolute, but rather in relative, terms. This does present a problem in terms of satisfying the scientists in question.
As to your point about the government, I suggest that the government be the keeper of the technology for a couple of reasons. First of all, I am not opposed to private industry taking the lead on this project at all... I just think that it would be more economically feasible for the government to do the research since they can just print money instead of needing to raise capital. And people don't donate enough to make the private sector wealthy enough to do this on its own. Secondly, if a private company has a secret (not in the sense that nobody knows about it, but in the sense that nobody knows their processes etc), and it is stolen, that is industrial espionage... Not a good thing, but punishments aren't that stiff really. If the government has this technology, on the other hand, it could be considered espionage which does carry rather stiff penalties. So by having the government possess this knowledge, we create a rather high hurdle people have pass in order to obtain the technology. (Many of the same economic studies that suggest we measure wealth-based utility in a relative sense also indicates that we are, by and large, risk averse. So this deterrent might be enough to prevent some people from trying to steal it...) Third, the private sector offers no more protection from special interest groups than the government does... So I see what you are saying, but I don't think that by having the private sector develop this technology, we are eliminating this possibility.
And to respond to another point, out of order of course, yes these technologies would provide a very high economic rent. But, cloning humans in order to harvest organs etc would be essentially non-economically viable if we simultaneous develop (or perhaps more specifically enhance) our embryonic stem cell capabilities. One of the undeniable facts about embryonic stem cells is that they could be used to grow any organ or tissue with a zero percent chance of rejection because they would replicate the donor's (not the donor of the stem cells, but the donor of the tissue or bone etc in question) DNA. Admittedly, one of the major problems with embryonic stem cells is that we (at least last time I checked) have lots of difficulty inducing differentiation and then stopping the cells. So as this technology is developed, cloning for organs would be unnecessary...
And I definitely welcome all comments, long or short, and I definitely read them all the way to the end lol.
Yeah now I see your point about government holding the technology. I still have one comment though. You said it's easy for government to finance it because they can print money instead of raising capital... I must say that government must raise capital in any case since it does not own an economic activity that would make it rich. The problem is only how it does that: either directly,through taxes or debt (government bonds), or indirectly, through printing money. Printing money generates inflation, which is an indirect and more vicious form of taxation because it allows government to finance that project by reducing the citizen's purchasing power... So honestly I'd prefer to be taxed, at least you know up to where that goes.
Interesting point about developing stem cells and cloning technologies at the same time. I think indeed the incentive for cloning for organs would fall... but we would be confronted with another problem: the industry of new-born babies "harvested" for their stem cells... For example, having women artificially inseminated with reproductive cells of the person in need, to carry the baby only as much as to be able to take the stem cells and then abandon/kill the newborn. That's cruel I admit. There is a softer way to it though: "harvesting" stem cells from the babies that are born dead...
True, if the government just prints money to take care of everything instead of using actual cash it has, there are some pretty big problems, but printing money with no real backing is an option the government has that private industry does not have... But government taxation and debt is another post.
As far as the stem cell sources go, I see what you're saying, but there are quite a few sources that could yield embryonic stem cells. IVF clinics, as I mentioned in the post, fertilize many more eggs than they actually implant, so those embyros could be frozen at the blastocyst stage and, once the client is successfully pregnant or gives up on becoming pregnant, these excess embryos could be donated to have the stem cells harvested. As I argue, at the blastocyst stage there is no life (as defined by the inverse of the UDDA), so this wouldn't be murder. Additionally, aborted fetuses could be used to harvest stem cells... better than what currently happens to them. Or still born babies, as you mention. So there are plenty of sources already existing, but the problem is that 1) scientists do not have access to these sources and 2) even if they did, under the Bush administration in the US, they could not get federal funding for their research.
As things stand right now, a scientist has to use one of the few already derived lines of embryonic stem cells in order to obtain federal funds. The problem here is that there are only a few and they were derived quite some time ago, so they have had to be regenerated, if you will. Imagine a document that you need to get copied. You place the original in the copier and make your copy. It usually turns out fine. Let's say that you then copy the copy. Then you copy the copy's copy. Repeat this a couple times and you will have a copy that looks very little like the original. That is what happens when scientists have to keep using the long-ago derived stem cells... Sure they are embryonic stem cells, but they lack a certain je ne sais quoi lol. But seriously, I'm not sure what the problem is, but my research has indicated that there is a problem with doing this.
I should mention... I have no first-hand knowledge of any of what this post is discussing. My arguments are founded on research that I have done for several essays and speeches...
Post a Comment