What Limits if any should be placed on the use of the following Biotechnologies. Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell in Research and Treatment

Authors Avatar by sza08 (student)

What Limits if any should be placed on the use of the following Biotechnologies. Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell in Research and Treatment

In this paper I will discuss the moral issues surrounding Cloning and Stem Cell research biotechnologies and whether appropriate restrictions need to be enforced to address many of the controversial aspects regarding the conduct of research.  

The use of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research is associated with many ethical controversies, as during the stem cell harvest process many embryos are destroyed. Many consider the destruction of nascent human life immoral and unethical. [1] To address this issue, the hESC policy debate in the United States focused on enforcing appropriate limits on the use of public dollar contributing to hESC research. [2] Many opponents to embryonic stem cell research believe it is morally unacceptable to fund what they perceive as being a highly controversial area of science. However, during the debate there was little disagreement on the legality of the research, and on August 9th 2001, President George W. Bush favored funding of stem cell research. [3] The guidelines set out by Bush agreed that the federal government should not fund hESC research, which required further destruction of embryos [2] (i.e. stem cell research conducted using only spare embryos from in-vitro fertilization estimated at more than 400,000 in the US alone [3]).

Furthermore President Bush limited expenditure to stem lines, and realized that a ban on federal funds would ultimately push research outside the reach of government control and therefore become privately funded. [1] The implications of research being conducted away from public scrutiny is viewed as opposite of what is required to control and limit the use of the controversial biotechnology. [1]  The Bush administration have accepted the conduct of stem cell research using spare embryos, that were initially intended to create human life (but became unnecessary), but objected the use of embryos created with the clear intention of extracting their stem cells. [2] 

In my opinion, the arguments presented in hESC policy debate support a utilitarian theory. This is because the Bush administration accepted the conduct of stem cell research using spare embryos, that would otherwise be discarded, and that if we get any use out of them at all, the ‘end justifies the means’ [4]. The reasoning appears sound, as the Bush administration objected the use of embryos created with the clear intention of extracting their stem cells [1]. However, opponents to stem cell research would argue that in either case, the outcome of the embryo is the same. Thus many consider the destruction of what they perceive as being nascent life immoral. [1] 

Join now!

R Blackford rejects the idea that embryos have a ‘right to life’. He states that unlike a human, early embryos have no interests, and if death is the misfortune for it, ‘it is certainly not in the same way as for an adult’. [5] Blackford insists that we cannot give moral weight to the interests possessed by ‘entities’, which are incapable of ‘suffering pain or frustration’. [5] 

Blackford viewpoints are immoral, and pay little attention to the potentiality of the early embryo. Even though, he is right to say that early embryos have no interests, his fundamental belief that embryos ...

This is a preview of the whole essay