Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human embryonic stem cell research and the discarded embryo argument

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many who believe that human embryos have moral status are convinced that their use in human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research can be morally justified as long as they are discarded embryos left over from fertility treatments. This is one reason why this view about discarded embryos has played such a prominent role in the debate over publicly funding hESC research in the United States and other countries. Many believe that this view offers the best chance of a compromise between the different sides in this debate. This paper focuses on what seems to be the most plausible argument for this view about discarded embryos. It shows that this argument is unsound regardless of how one understands the claim that embryos have moral status. It also discusses the implications of this conclusion for attempts to use this argument as a basis for public policy.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is also worth noting that during his campaign for the presidency of the United States, Barack Obama indicated that if he were elected president, he would reverse President Bush’s executive order so as to allow federal funding for hESC lines derived from discarded embryos after August 9, 2001. Now that his campaign has been a success, the expectation is that he will reverse the order soon after his inauguration [6].

  2. Some might think that the recent studies demonstrating that pluripotent stem cells can be obtained from dedifferentiating adult epithelial cells makes the discarded embryo argument less relevant to the debate over stem cell research. This is not true. Most researchers continue to insist that research utilizing hESCs is necessary, and this view is even shared by many of those who are actively pursuing research using adult dedifferentiated cells. In fact, most researchers continue to demand that federal funding for hESC research be expanded beyond current levels and that the federal policy be altered so as to allow funding for research involving hESC lines created after August 9, 2001. For recent studies demonstrating that pluripotent stem cells can be derived from dedifferentiating adult epithelial cells, see Yu, et al. [7] and Takahashi, et al. [8].

  3. There is, of course, a third view about the moral status of human embryos. Many believe that these embryos have no moral status at all. Here I do not discuss this view because I see no reason why those who hold it would find the discarded embryo argument persuasive. For them, the argument would be unsound because of the premise I added, and even if it were removed, there is nothing in the other premises to compel them to agree that hESC researchers should be restricted to using only discarded embryos.

  4. George and Tollefsen take this position [9, p. 210].

  5. Given that President Bush holds this view, one might wonder why he allowed hESC research to be federally funded for the first time in the United States when he issued his executive order in August 2001. Here is his explanation: “I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on …existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made” [3, p. 1151].

  6. President Clinton, however, did not support the panel’s finding that creating human embryos for research could be federally funded [13].

  7. Among those who accept this theory are Steinbock [16], Robertson [17], and Kukla [18].

  8. It is, however, worth noting that most of those who hold the strong view would not agree with George and Tollefsen that the use of IVF is moral in this case. Those in this group would insist that using IVF technology is always morally wrong, since the resulting person is the product of that technology and not the direct result of a loving sexual union of two persons.

  9. See also Agar [23, p. 201].

References

  1. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 1999. Ethical issues in human stem cell research. http://bioethics.gov/reports/past_commissions/nbac_stemcell1.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2008.

  2. National Institutes of Health. 2000. Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-050.html. Accessed 30 May 2008.

  3. Bush, George. W. 2001. Address to the nation on stem cell research from Crawford Texas. In Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 1149–1151. Washington, DC: GPO.

  4. U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress. 2005. H. R. 810: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-810&show-changes=0. Accessed 28 May 2008.

  5. Degette, Diana. 2008. Ethical embryonic stem cell research holds greatest promise. http://degette.house.gov/?sectionid=17&parentid=4&sectiontree=&itemid=892. Accessed 20 May 2008.

  6. Obama, Barack. 2008. Barack Obama’s answers to the top 14 science questions facing America. Sciencedebate 2008. http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40. Accessed 26 December 2008.

  7. Yu, Junying, Maxim A. Vodyanik, Kim Smuga-Otto, Jessica Antosiewicz-Bourget, Jennifer L. Frane, Shulan Tian, Jeff Nie, Gudrun Jonsdottir, Victor Ruotti, Ron Stewart, Igor I. Slukvin, and James A. Thomson. 2007. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 318: 1917–1920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Takahashi, Kazutoshi, Koji Tanabe, Mari Ohnuki, Megumi Narita, Tomoko Ichisaka, Kiichiro Tomoda, and Shinya Yamanaka. 2007. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131: 861–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. George, Robert, and Christopher Tollefsen. 2008. Embryo: A defense of human life. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kant, Immanuel. 1990. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd ed. Trans. Lewis White Beck. New York: Macmillan.

  11. Bush, George W. 2006. Remarks on signing the fetus farming prohibition act and returning without approval to the House of Representatives the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.” In Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 1363–1365. Washington, DC: GPO.

  12. Hatch, Orrin. 2001. Transcript of News Hour with Jim Lehrer. PBS Online NewsHour. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec01/stem_cells_7-10.html. Accessed 22 April 2008.

  13. Clinton, William J. 1994. Statement on federal funding of research on human embryos. In Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 2459–2460. Washington, DC: GPO.

  14. Human Embryo Research Panel Report. 1994. In Cloning and the future of human embryo research, ed. Paul Lauritzen, 251–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

  15. Callahan, Daniel. 1995. The puzzle of profound respect. Hastings Center Report 25: 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Steinbock, Bonnie. 1992. Life before birth: The moral and legal status of embryos and fetuses. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Robertson, John A. 1995. Symbolic issues in embryonic research. Hastings Center Report 25: 37–38.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kukla, Heather. 2002. Embryonic stem cell research: An ethical justification. Georgetown Law Journal. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_200201/ai_n9083773. Accessed 22 May 2008.

  19. Annas, George, Arthur Caplan, and Sherman Elias. 1996. The politics of human embryo research—avoiding ethical gridlock. New England Journal of Medicine 334(20): 1329–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tauer, Carol. 1997. Bringing embryos in existence for research purposes. In Contingent future persons, ed. Nick Fotion, and Jan C. Heller, 171–189. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Doerflinger, Richard. 1999. The ethics of funding embryonic stem cell research: A Catholic viewpoint. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9: 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Green, Ronald. 2002. Benefiting from ‘evil’: An incipient moral problem in embryo research. Bioethics 16: 544–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Agar, Nicholas. 2007. Embryonic potential and stem cells. Bioethics 21: 198–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my colleague Alexandra Bradner, Ph.D., and two anonymous reviewers for this journal for their helpful comments on the content of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department, Denison University, Granville, OH, 43023, USA

    Mark Moller

Authors
  1. Mark Moller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Moller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moller, M. Human embryonic stem cell research and the discarded embryo argument. Theor Med Bioeth 30, 131–145 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-009-9100-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-009-9100-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation