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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The structure of this argument is based loosely on DeGrazia’s [14] work on animal ethics.
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.
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
Baylis, F. (2008). Animal eggs for stem cell research: A path not worth taking. American Journal of Bioethics, 8, 18–32.
Baylis, F. (2009). The HFEA public consultation process on hybrids and chimeras: Informed, effective, and meaningful? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 19, 41–62.
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.
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.
Benjamin, M. (1990). Splitting the difference: Compromise and integrity in ethics and politics. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas.
Bortolotti, L., & Harris, J. (2005). Stem cell research, personhood and sentience. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10, 68–75.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (2008). Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, Vatican City.
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.
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.
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.
Devolder, K. (2005). Human embryonic stem cell research: Why the discarded-created-distinction cannot be based on the potentiality argument. Bioethics, 19, 167–186.
Devolder, K. (2006). What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 43–48.
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.
Devolder, K., & Harris, J. (2007). The ambiguity of the embryo: Ethical inconsistency in the human embryonic stem cell debate. Metaphilosophy, 38, 153–169.
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.
Dickenson, D. (2004). The threatened trade in human ova. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 167.
Dworkin, R. (1994). Life’s dominion. An argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom. New York: Vintage Books.
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.
Feinberg, J. (1992). Freedom and fulfillment: Philosophical essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
George, K. (2007). What about the women? Ethical and policy aspects of egg supply for cloning research. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 15, 127–133.
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.
Gottweis, H., & Minger, S. (2008). iPS cells and the politics of promise. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 271–272.
Gruen, L. (2007). Oocytes for sale? Metaphilosophy, 38, 285–308.
Gruen, L., & Grabel, L. (2006). Concise review: Scientific and ethical roadblocks to human embryonic stem cell therapy. Stem Cells, 24, 2162–2169.
Guenin, L. M. (2005). Wishful thinking will not obviate embryo use. Stem Cell Review, 1, 309–315.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
International Society for Stem Cell Research. (2008). Guidelines for the clinical translation of stem cells. Deerfield, IL: International Society for Stem Cell Research.
Klimanskaya, I., Chung, Y., Becker, S., Lu, S., & Lanza, R. (2006). Human embryonic stem cell lines derived from single blastomeres. Nature, 444, 481–485.
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.
Liao, S. M. (2005). Rescuing human embryonic stem cell research: The Blastocyst transfer method. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(6), 8–16.
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.
Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. Journal of Philosophy, 86, 183–202.
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.
Master, Z. (2005). Can we really bypass the moral debate for embryo research? American Journal of Bioethics, 5, 27–28.
Master, Z. (2006). Embryonic stem-cell gametes: The new frontier in human reproduction. Human Reproduction, 21, 857–863.
Master, Z., & Crozier, G. K. D. (2011). Symbolism and sacredness of human parthenotes. American Journal of Bioethics, 11, 37–39.
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.
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.
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.
Meyer, J. R. (2008). The significance of induced pluripotent stem cells for basic research and clinical therapy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 849–851.
Minger, S. (2007). Interspecies SCNT-derived human embryos—a new way forward for regenerative medicine. Regenerative Medicine, 2, 103–106.
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.
Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Robertson, J. A. (1995). Symbolic issues in embryo research. Hastings Center Report, 25(1), 37–38.
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.
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.
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.
Steinbock, B. (2004). Payment for egg donation and surrogacy. Mt Sinai Journal of Medicine, 71, 255–265.
St John, J., & Lovell-Badge, R. (2007). Human-animal cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, mitochondria, and an energetic debate. Nature Cell Biology, 9, 988–992.
Sugarman, J. (2008). Human stem cell ethics: beyond the embryo. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 529–533.
Sullivan, S., & Eggan, K. (2006). The potential of cell fusion for human therapy. Stem Cell Review, 2, 341–349.
Takahashi, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126, 663–676.
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.
Testa, G., & Harris, J. (2005). Ethics and synthetic gametes. Bioethics, 19, 146–166.
Van Willigenburg, T. (2000). Moral compromises, moral integrity and the indeterminacy of value rankings. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 3, 385–404.
Waldby, C., & Cooper, M. (2008). The biopolitics of reproduction. Australian Feminist Studies, 23, 57–73.
Warren, M. (1973). On the moral and legal status of abortion. Monist, 57, 43–61.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-011-0171-2