or brain cells (neurons, glia, etc.). (, Krause, D.S., Theise, N.D., Collector, M.I., Henegariu, O., Hwang, S., Gardner, R., Neutzel, S. and Sharkis, S.J. Some will certainly argue that the parthenote is not an embryo; parthenogenesis would then be classified as an ‘embryo‐saving’ strategy. Since by some definitions an embryo is the result of fertilization of an oocyte by sperm, there is no absolute consensus that nuclear transfer gives rise to an embryo (see below). The problem with research using hFSCs is that they may come from a dead human fetus. One answer to this objection is to consider each case individually rather than reject all cases out of hand. (, Shamblott, M.J., Axelman, J., Littlefield, J.W., Blumenthal, P.D., Huggins, G.R., Cui Y., Cheng, L. and Gearhart, J.D. Which side is right? Therapeutic cloning can only be morally acceptable if there are no good alternatives. A related distinction is the ability of tissues derived from these cell lines to be rejected after transplantation. These include: the burdens and/or risks of the different options for the patient and his or her environment; the chance that the alternative options have the same (probably broad) applicability as hES cells from pre‐implantation embryos; and the time‐scale in which clinically useful applications are to be expected. In particular, the stimuli to drive cells in particular directions of differentiation may be common to both cell types, while methods of delivery to damaged tissue are as likely to be common as complementary.
Therefore, federal and/or state funds should be allocated for such research (i.e., through grants or awards). (De Wert et al., 2002) Even though many countries do forbid pregnancy‐for‐transplantation, it has been argued that it could be morally justified as a last resort, on the basis that sacrificing a fetus (a potential person) may be justified in order to rescue the life of a person. Respecting culture while educating communities, Race, Authoritarianism, and a Posse Comitatus Act Violation, The media’s overwhelming indifference to the existence and impact of environmental racism, Global Philanthropy, Sustainability & Privilege, The disingenuous use of free speech by big data and big pharma to the detriment of medical data privacy, Understanding the Role of Traditional Healers and Their Role in Approaching Africa’s Ebola Epidemic, Bioethical perceptions about mourning caused by COVID-19 in Brazil, the priority narrative in public health ignores secondary health effects influenced by the economy, COVID-19 highlights a need for ethical improvements, Lessons from the COVID–19 Pandemic and the Need for Stronger, Ethical Disease Surveillance. The status of the pre‐implantation embryo is the most sensitive and disputed point in the debate on isolation of hES cells for research. Making humanized mice from only human blood stem cells — like from the umbilical cord — gives comparable research results to humanized mice made from both human fetal thymus and blood stem cells. Enough ethical alternatives to using such materials are available, so it seems there are no longer any adequate reasons for continuing to fund and allow research that relies on killing an innocent human being. The question remains, however, should a moratorium be imposed on isolating hES cells for research in cell therapy in the light of the indisputably promising results from adult stem cell research? For certain genetically based diseases, autologous transplantation may not always be appropriate since the transplanted tissue will bear the same genetic defect. However, fetal stem cells are also found in extra-fetal tissue, such as amniotic fluid, the placenta, umbilical cord, and other tissues. It is embryonic stem cells that cause controversy. Stem cell research is highly dynamic, with many questions and ‘unknowns’. In that case, therapeutic cloning can be morally justified on the basis of both the principle of proportionality and the principle of subsidiarity. Again, the apparent automatism is disputable: if we reject pregnancy‐for‐abortion as being unacceptable, we can continue its prohibition. The question whether therapeutic cloning should be allowed, becomes acute if research with spare embryos suggests that usable transplants can be obtained in vitro from hES cells and if the possible alternatives for therapeutic cloning are less promising or need more time for development than is currently expected. On one side of the spectrum are the ‘conceptionalist’ view (‘the embryo is a person’) and the ‘strong’ version of the potentiality‐argument (‘because of the potential of the embryo to develop into a person, it ought to be considered as a person’). This option is purported to be the optimal medical use of hES technology since the nuclear DNA of the cells is derived from a somatic cell of a patient to receive the transplant, reducing the chances of tissue rejection (see Barrientos et al., 1998; 2000). The main difficulty is, according to these critics, the ‘grey area’ between these two extremes. A second category might be toxicology, more specifically research on possible toxic effects of new drugs on early embryonic cells which are often more sensitive than adult cells (drug screening). (, Vogelstein, B., Alberts, B. and Shine, K. (, Xu, C., Inokuma, M.S., Denham, J., Golds, K., Kundu ,P., Gold, J.D. The results of a phase I (safety) trial using these cells in 11 stroke victims in the USA have recently been published and permission granted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a phase II trial (effectivity) (Kondziolka et al., 2000).
The transplant may then be tolerated without being genetically identical, and lower doses or no immunosuppressives required. (Kiessling, 2001; Hansen, 2002) However, to restrict the definition of ‘embryo’ to the product of fertilization in the post‐Dolly era is a misleading anachronism.
First evidence that this might be feasible demonstrated direct reprogramming of fibroblasts to neural cells and T‐cells in culture by temporary permeabilization of the fibroblasts to allow them to take up extracts of neural and T‐cells, respectively (Hakelien et al., 2002). Collection is relatively non‐destructive for surrounding tissue compared, for example, with the collection of neural stem cells from adult brain, although their numbers are low: 1 in 108 of these cells exhibit the ability to form populations of nerve, muscle and a number of other cell types and they only become evident after several months of careful culture. Various strategies should be considered. Voices in Bioethics focuses on pressing bioethical issues. This is also true for hES cells. If it is considered acceptable to create embryos for research aimed at improving ART (freezing of oocytes; IVM of oocytes, etc…), then it is inconsistent to reject therapeutic cloning beforehand as being disproportional.