Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ethics of Moral Compromise for Stem Cell Research Policy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the US, stem cell research is at a moral impasse—many see this research as ethically mandated due to its potential for ameliorating major diseases, while others see this research as ethically impermissible because it typically involves the destruction of embryos and use of ova from women. Because their creation does not require embryos or ova, induced pluripotent stem cells offer the most promising path for addressing the main ethical objections to stem cell research; however, this technology is still in development. In order for scientists to advance induced pluripotent stem cell research to a point of translational readiness, they must continue to use ova and embryos in the interim. How then are we to ethically move forward with stem cell research? We argue that there is personal integrity and value in adopting a ‘moral compromise’ as a means for moving past the moral impasse in stem cell research. In a moral compromise, each party concedes part of their desired outcome in order to engage in a process that respects the values and desires of all parties equitably. Whereas some contend that moral compromise in stem cell research necessarily involves self-contradiction or loss of personal integrity, we argue that in the US context, stem cell research satisfies many of the key pre-conditions of an effective moral compromise. To illustrate our point, we offer a model solution wherein eggs and embryos are temporarily used until non-egg and non-embryonic sources of pluripotent stem cells are developed to a state of translational readiness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The structure of this argument is based loosely on DeGrazia’s [14] work on animal ethics.

  2. Resnik [54] outlines several principles in the ethics of science one of which is that scientists should use limited resources efficiently which includes economic, human, and technological resources.

  3. Embryos can be created for reproductive purposes, for research towards improving assisted reproductive technologies, to train technicians, and to test materials for toxicity. For example, when testing a new culture medium against a gold standard, gametes are placed in the two different media and their potential to fertilize and develop is evaluated. After embryos are scored, they are typically discarded since they cannot be used for reproductive purposes. Our suggestion is that these surplus embryos, which were once created for different credible intents, should be used to derive pluripotent stem cells instead of being discarded.

Abbreviations

ANT:

Altered nuclear transfer

hESC:

Human embryonic stem cell

iPSC:

Induced pluripotent stem cell

SCR:

Stem cell research

References

  1. Baylis, F. (2008). Animal eggs for stem cell research: A path not worth taking. American Journal of Bioethics, 8, 18–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baylis, F. (2009). The HFEA public consultation process on hybrids and chimeras: Informed, effective, and meaningful? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 19, 41–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baylis, F., & McLeod, C. (2007). The stem cell debate continues: The buying and selling of eggs for research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 726–731.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Benditt, T. M. (1979). Compromising interests and principles. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Compromise in ethics, law, and politics (NOMOS XXI) (pp. 26–37). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Benjamin, M. (1990). Splitting the difference: Compromise and integrity in ethics and politics. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bortolotti, L., & Harris, J. (2005). Stem cell research, personhood and sentience. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10, 68–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Camporesi, S., & Boniolo, G. (2008). Fearing a non-existing minotaur? The ethical challenges of research on cytoplasmic hybrid embryos. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 821–825.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Carens, J. H. (1979). Compromises in politics. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Compromise in ethics, law, and politics (NOMOS XXI) (pp. 123–141). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chung, Y., Bishop, C. E., Treff, N. R., Walker, S. J., Sandler, V. M., Becker, S., et al. (2009). Reprogramming of human somatic cells using human and animal oocytes. Cloning Stem Cells, 11, 213–223.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chung, Y., Klimanskaya, I., Becker, S., Marh, J., Lu, S., Johnson, J., et al. (2006). Embryonic and extraembryonic stem cell lines derived from single mouse blastomeres. Nature, 439, 216–219.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (2008). Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, Vatican City.

  12. Congress. (1995). H.R. 2127 EH; 104th Congress. House of Representatives. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:3:./temp/~c104SnlQUb. Last accessed March 20, 2011.

  13. Cowan, C. A., Atienza, J., Melton, D. A., & Eggan, K. (2005). Nuclear reprogramming of somatic cells after fusion with human embryonic stem cells. Science, 309, 1369–1373.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. DeGrazia, D. (2005). The ethics of animal research: What are the prospects for agreement? In T. Mappes & D. DeGrazia (Eds.), Biomedical ethics (pp. 289–299). New York: McGraw-Hill College.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Devolder, K. (2005). Human embryonic stem cell research: Why the discarded-created-distinction cannot be based on the potentiality argument. Bioethics, 19, 167–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Devolder, K. (2006). What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 43–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Devolder, K., & Harris, J. (2005). Compromise and moral complicity in the embryonic stem cell debate. In N. Athanassoulis (Ed.), Philosophical reflections on medical ethics. houndmills (pp. 88–108). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Devolder, K., & Harris, J. (2007). The ambiguity of the embryo: Ethical inconsistency in the human embryonic stem cell debate. Metaphilosophy, 38, 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Devolder, K., & Ward, C. M. (2007). Rescuing human embryonic stem cell research: The Possibility of embryo reconstitution after stem cell derivation. In L. Gruen, L. Grabel, & P. Singer (Eds.), Stem cell research: The ethical issues (pp. 105–123). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dickenson, D. (2004). The threatened trade in human ova. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 167.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dworkin, R. (1994). Life’s dominion. An argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Faden, R. R., Dawson, L., Bateman-House, A. S., Agnew, D. M., Bok, H., Brock, D. W., et al. (2003). Considerations of justice in stem cell research and therapy. Hastings Center Report, 33, 13–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Feinberg, J. (1992). Freedom and fulfillment: Philosophical essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. George, K. (2007). What about the women? Ethical and policy aspects of egg supply for cloning research. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 15, 127–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Golding, M. P. (1979). The nature of compromise: A preliminary inquiry. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Compromise in ethics, law, and politics (NOMOS XXI) (pp. 3–25). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gottweis, H., & Minger, S. (2008). iPS cells and the politics of promise. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 271–272.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Gruen, L. (2007). Oocytes for sale? Metaphilosophy, 38, 285–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gruen, L., & Grabel, L. (2006). Concise review: Scientific and ethical roadblocks to human embryonic stem cell therapy. Stem Cells, 24, 2162–2169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Guenin, L. M. (2005). Wishful thinking will not obviate embryo use. Stem Cell Review, 1, 309–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hammond, N., & Holm, S. (2008). Resolving the ‘egg supply problem’ in human embryonic stem cell derivation through technical means: A legal and ethical analysis. Medicine and Law, 27, 167–178.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Harris, J. (2002). The ethical use of human embryonic stem cells in research and therapy. In J. Burley & J. Harris (Eds.), A companion to genethics (pp. 158–174). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harvey, O. (2010). Speculative stem cell futures: Some prospective commercial models for induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell based therapies. Journal of Future Studies, 14, 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Heng, B. C. (2006). Donation of surplus frozen embryos for stem cell research or fertility treatment: Should medical professionals and healthcare institutions be allowed to exercise undue influence on the informed decision of their former patients? Journal of Assisted Reproductive Genetics, 23, 381–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Huangfu, D., Maehr, R., Guo, W., Eijkelenboom, A., Snitow, M., Chen, A. E., et al. (2008). Induction of pluripotent stem cells by defined factors is greatly improved by small-molecule compounds. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 795–797.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hurlbut, W. B. (2005). Altered nuclear transfer as a morally acceptable means for the procurement of human embryonic stem cells. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48, 211–228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hyun, I., Hochedlinger, K., Jaenisch, R., & Yamanaka, S. (2007). New advances in IPS cell research do not obviate the need for human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 1, 367–368.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2008). Guidelines for the clinical translation of stem cells. Deerfield, IL: International Society for Stem Cell Research.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Klimanskaya, I., Chung, Y., Becker, S., Lu, S., & Lanza, R. (2006). Human embryonic stem cell lines derived from single blastomeres. Nature, 444, 481–485.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kuflik, A. (1979). Morality and compromise. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Compromise in ethics, law, and politics (NOMOS XXI) (pp. 38–65). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Liao, S. M. (2005). Rescuing human embryonic stem cell research: The Blastocyst transfer method. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(6), 8–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Marques-Mari, A. I., Lacham-Kaplan, O., Medrano, J. V., Pellicer, A., & Simon, C. (2009). Differentiation of germ cells and gametes from stem cells. Human Reproduction Update, 15, 379–390.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. Journal of Philosophy, 86, 183–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Martin, P. A., Coveney, C., Kraft, A., Brown, N., & Bath, P. (2006). Commercial development of stem cell technology: Lessons from the past, strategies for the future. Regenerative Medicine, 1, 801–807.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Master, Z. (2005). Can we really bypass the moral debate for embryo research? American Journal of Bioethics, 5, 27–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Master, Z. (2006). Embryonic stem-cell gametes: The new frontier in human reproduction. Human Reproduction, 21, 857–863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Master, Z., & Crozier, G. K. D. (2011). Symbolism and sacredness of human parthenotes. American Journal of Bioethics, 11, 37–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Master, Z., Laforce, D., McLeod, M., & Williams-Jones, B. (2008). The ethics of human embryos and embryonic stem cell research. Journal of Stem Cells, 3, 127–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Master, Z., McLeod, M., & Mendez, I. (2007). Benefits, risks and ethical considerations in translation of stem cell research to clinical applications in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 169–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Melton, D. A., Daley, G. Q., & Jennings, C. G. (2004). Altered nuclear transfer in stem-cell research—a flawed proposal. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 2791–2792.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Meyer, J. R. (2008). The significance of induced pluripotent stem cells for basic research and clinical therapy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 849–851.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Minger, S. (2007). Interspecies SCNT-derived human embryos—a new way forward for regenerative medicine. Regenerative Medicine, 2, 103–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Rand, A. (1964). Doesn’t life require compromise? In A. Rand (Ed.), The virtue of selfishness: A new concept of egoism (pp. 79–81). New York: A Signet Book.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Robertson, J. A. (1995). Symbolic issues in embryo research. Hastings Center Report, 25(1), 37–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Rugg-Gunn, P. J., Ogbogu, U., Rossant, J., & Caulfield, T. (2009). The challenge of regulating rapidly changing science: Stem cell legislation in Canada. Cell Stem Cell, 4, 285–288.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Ryan, M. A. (2001). Creating embryos for research: On weighing symbolic costs. In P. Lauritzen (Ed.), Cloning and the future of human embryo research (pp. 50–66). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Steinbock, B. (2001). Respect for human embryos. In P. Lauritzen (Ed.), Cloning and the future of human embryo research (pp. 21–33). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Steinbock, B. (2004). Payment for egg donation and surrogacy. Mt Sinai Journal of Medicine, 71, 255–265.

    Google Scholar 

  60. St John, J., & Lovell-Badge, R. (2007). Human-animal cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, mitochondria, and an energetic debate. Nature Cell Biology, 9, 988–992.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Sugarman, J. (2008). Human stem cell ethics: beyond the embryo. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 529–533.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Sullivan, S., & Eggan, K. (2006). The potential of cell fusion for human therapy. Stem Cell Review, 2, 341–349.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Takahashi, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663–676.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Tannsjo, T. (2007). Why no compromise is possible. In L. Gruen, L. Grabel, & P. Singer (Eds.), Stem cell research: the ethical issues (pp. 188–201). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Testa, G., & Harris, J. (2005). Ethics and synthetic gametes. Bioethics, 19, 146–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Van Willigenburg, T. (2000). Moral compromises, moral integrity and the indeterminacy of value rankings. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 3, 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Waldby, C., & Cooper, M. (2008). The biopolitics of reproduction. Australian Feminist Studies, 23, 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Warren, M. (1973). On the moral and legal status of abortion. Monist, 57, 43–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Widdows, H. (2009). Border disputes across bodies: Exploitation in trafficking for prostitution and egg sale for stem cell research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 2(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Yu, J., Hu, K., Smuga-Otto, K., Tian, S., Stewart, R., Slukvin, I. I., et al. (2009). Human induced pluripotent stem cells free of vector and transgene sequences. Science, 324, 797–801.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Zarzeczny, A., Scott, C., Hyun, I., Bennett, J., Chandler, J., Chargé, S., et al. (2009). iPS cells: Mapping the policy issues. Cell, 139, 1032–1037.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Zhao, X. Y., Li, W., Lv, Z., Liu, L., Tong, M., Hai, T., et al. (2010). Efficient and rapid generation of induced pluripotent stem cells using an alternative culture medium. Cell Research, 20, 383–386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Françoise Baylis and the Novel Tech Ethics research team, Dr. David B. Resnik, Dr. Andrew Fenton, and Ms. Sasha Kontic for valuable feedback. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript for thoughtful feedback. This work was supported in part by a grant from the Stem Cell Network. ZM was affiliated with the Sprott Centre for Stem Cell Research and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa when initially writing this manuscript. GKD Crozier was affiliated with the Department of Philosophy, Loyola University Chicago when first drafting the manuscript. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not reflect the positions of their academic institutions, Health Canada, or the Government of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Law Institute, Rm 462, Law Centre, University of Alberta, 89 Avenue and 111 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H5, Canada

    Zubin Master

  2. Department of Philosophy, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, ON, P3E 2C6, Canada

    G. K. D. Crozier

Authors
  1. Zubin Master
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. K. D. Crozier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zubin Master.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Master, Z., Crozier, G.K.D. The Ethics of Moral Compromise for Stem Cell Research Policy. Health Care Anal 20, 50–65 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-011-0171-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-011-0171-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation