http://www.bionews.org.uk/
TOP NEWS STORIES
Trial to re-grow breasts after cancer surgery planned for next year
16 November 2009 - by Charlotte Maden
Scientists in Australia have developed a way for women diagnosed with breast cancer to regrow their breasts after a mastectomy. The group at the Bernard O'Brien Institute of Microsurgery in Melbourne plan to start clinical trials with the technique next year. It is believed that this will be only the second time in the world that tissue engineering has been carried out in a human....[Read More]
Stem cell treatment in irradiated rats offers hope for radiotherapy patients
16 November 2009 - by Marianne Neary
Following radiation to the head, rats transplanted with stem cells had greater improvements in learning and memory, showed a research team at the University of California....[Read More]
Public consulted on research involving animals with human genes
16 November 2009 - by Ben Jones
The UK's Academy of Medical Sciences has launches a broad study into the scientific, social, ethical and legal implications of research on animals containing human genetic material. Such animals, mostly mice, are found in labs across the UK and mostly consist of animals into whose DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) single sequences of human genetic code have been inserted. However, with developing stem cell and other technologies, there is a perceived ethical crisis point ahead which t...[Read More]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From reading the "Trial to re-grow breasts after cancer surgery planned for next year", I believe that the new technology opens the door to many new advances within the medical sphere. Specifcially, one of the possible benefits of this research is the regrowth of other organs that may be more useful to an individual. The possbilities are endless through the new technology.
ReplyDeleteHowever, where might an enthical issue rise? The issue at hand returns back to the idea of using stem cells in order to solve many new biological problems. By injecting the Stem cells and stimulating the re gowth of fat, the person is able to regrow their breasts. However, is this cosmetic enhancement worth valuable stem cells that may be used for other research or may not even be ethical to use at all? the question comes down to whether the use of stem cells reflects the use of human lives to cure various diseases. From a Kantian point of view it may not be ethical to use stem cells to fix more cosmetic things such as regrowth of breasts.
But in the end, the possibilities created by the reasearch are endless. What about the regrownth of important organs in the body. The overall advancemenet and utilitarian benefits greatly outweighs the negative ethical issues.
Tully Cheng
I agree with what Tully said. This opens up many great possibilities for organ regrowth due to loss of organs for many different illness, not just cancer. I also agree with the ethical issue brought up about the use of stem cells. Some information we are missing though is the source of these stem cells. Many people see no ethical issue in using umbilical cord stem cells or even the possibility of adult stem cells. Some stem cells have no potential of creating human life, so there is less an issue of harming life with these stem cells. If this these types of stem cells are used, they are going towards advancing medicine and research and will not be used otherwise. Another issue brought up was the issue of should these cells go towards helping more pressing issues than cosmetic changes after surgery. The problem is who is to judge what is pressing and what is not, and what research should be allowed to use these stem cells. These are all issues that also remain.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to follow this story into the clinical period and hear the results from people experiencing this new treatment. It will also be important as mentioned in the article to make sure that cancerous cells do not show up again in the newly grown fat tissue. I also agree with Tully that any current ethical issues are in my opinion not severe enough to not go forward with this research and see what else can come from it.
Tyler
After reading “Trial to re-grow breast after cancer surgery” I agree with Tully in that there are many future benefits that could come from this research. Considering how organ donation is such a difficult and complicated process, being able to produce organs from stem cells would be quite beneficial. However this particular trial brings about ethical issues that must be reviewed.
ReplyDeleteIs it ethical to use stem cells for a cosmetic procedure that is already possible? Breast implantation, enlargement, and reconstruction are all very prevalent procedures already. It is a very popular and relatively safe procedure performed on thousands of women each year in the United States alone. So should we be wasting valuable money and time on developing a different procedure that will give us the same result? I think that the money and research should be focused on re-growing organs from stem cells, something that is quite necessary and not yet heard of.
I disagree with Tully in that I believe Utilitarian ethics would be against this particular trial. I think that the greatest good for the greatest number would be to put the money towards prevention of breast cancer in order to protect millions from even having to be in this situation. Since breast cancer survivors already have another option, to get reconstructive surgery, the money could be put towards other medical advancements for conditions with no alternatives.
~Jenna Freitas
I would like to respond to the article, “Stem cell treatment in irradiated rats offers hope for radiotherapy patients.” Similarly to the breast cancer article discussed above, this article describes the use of stem cells to rehabilitate a certain body part after cancer treatment. In this case, stem cells were injected into the hippocampus of rats that had had radiation treatment (which is often used in humans to treat brain tumors). These rats were better able to regain their memory and learning skills. Scientists think that this technique could help human patients after cranial radiation to regain these skills, which are often affected by the treatment.
ReplyDeleteThe ethical issue of utility is somewhat different in this case than in that of the breast cancer case above. Learning and memory skills are an integral part of a person’s ability to interact with his or her surroundings and live a fulfilled life. If a patient with a brain tumor is able to have it successfully irradiated, but at the expense basic cognitive skills, is that a quality of life they would want? It boils down to the fact that the breast cancer reconstruction is essentially cosmetic while brain injection of stem cells is much more important to daily life. I would never want to dismiss the physical and emotional scars of breast cancer survivors, but the brain cancer survivors might provide one of those examples where stem cells would elicit more benefit. The ‘greater good’ with this new technology would be to devote the stem cells to patients who need them for the healing of skills needed in daily life.
I would like to add that another pressing issue at hand is the source of the stem cells (embryonic vs. adult), as Tyler mentioned. The evolving debate of this issue will determine the future of stem cell therapies, but assuming stem cells are available for use, they should be dedicated to therapies for BLANK, rather than cosmetic uses.
-Rebecca Fink
I would like to respond to the article, “Stem cell treatment in irradiated rats offers hope for radiotherapy patients.” Similarly to the breast cancer article discussed above, this article describes the use of stem cells to rehabilitate a certain body part after cancer treatment. In this case, stem cells were injected into the hippocampus of rats that had had radiation treatment (which is often used in humans to treat brain tumors). These rats were better able to regain their memory and learning skills. Scientists think that this technique could help human patients after cranial radiation to regain these skills, which are often affected by the treatment.
ReplyDeleteThe ethical issue of utility is somewhat different in this case than in that of the breast cancer case above. Learning and memory skills are an integral part of a person’s ability to interact with his or her surroundings and live a fulfilled life. If a patient with a brain tumor is able to have it successfully irradiated, but at the expense basic cognitive skills, is that a quality of life they would want? It boils down to the fact that the breast cancer reconstruction is essentially cosmetic while brain injection of stem cells is much more important to daily life. I would never want to dismiss the physical and emotional scars of breast cancer survivors, but the brain cancer survivors might provide one of those examples where stem cells would elicit more benefit. The ‘greater good’ with this new technology would be to devote the stem cells to patients who need them for the healing of skills needed in daily life.
I would like to add that another pressing issue at hand is the source of the stem cells (embryonic vs. adult), as Tyler mentioned. The evolving debate of this issue will determine the future of stem cell therapies, but assuming stem cells are available for use, they should be dedicated to therapies for BLANK, rather than cosmetic uses.
-Rebecca Fink
In evaluating both articles and the responses that have been discussed so far, I believe an important ethical issue has been relatively ignored. Should embryonic stem cells even be used in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tully's statement that Kantian ethics would not support the use of stem cells for breast regrowth. However, I would go as far as to say that Kantian ethics would argue against any kind of stem cell use at all. Clearly the controversy over whether or not to use embryonic stem cells in medical therapy is a vast argument, however, I believe that from a deontological perspective the action is unethical. Deontological thinkers judge the morality of an act based on it's intent and by using embryonic stem cells, researchers, while also intending to do good in the future, are voluntarily ending a life. This does, somewhat, depend on one's opinion of when exactly life begins. Some believe life begins at conception while others believe life does not begin until the fetus is viable and can live outside the mothers womb. Despite either argument, however, it is a fact that the blastocyst destroyed in the process of obtaining stem cells does in fact have the potential to become a person. By stopping the process of development, no matter how early the stage, the intent to deny a life remains.
At this point, some might argue that many blastocysts do not go on to produce a life for various reasons and that is not seen as unethical. For example, IVF often implants several embryos, knowing that it is unlikely that each will attach and produce a child. While this is an instance where stem cells do not differentiate into human cells and are possibly prevented from doing so, the intent is much different. Here the intent is to create a life, not to destroy one.
Overall, I believe that Kantian ethics would oppose any medical therapy that involved the use of embryonic stem cells, no matter how beneficial the outcome may be. One of our most important normative values is to do no harm and certainly not to kill, therefore, by voluntarily preventing a potential life we are essentially killing and in deontological terms, that is truly unethical.
I would like to respond to the article titled "Public Consulted on Research Involving Animals with Human Genes". I think that this article raises a few ethical issues. The first issue that comes to my mind is informed consent. There are many unknowns in this study. We must consider where the DNA that is being inserted into the animals has come from. Do the people whose DNA is being inserted into animals know that this is happening? Did they give up some of their DNA for another purpose, and now it is being used for this study, or was it given up specifically for this study?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the article mentions the idea of human DNA in animals challenging what it means to be human. If these animals have human DNA in there genetic material does this make them human? If it does make them human, than a whole new set of rules applies. For example, if these animals are now considered to be humans, must they give their informed consent to be involved in this study?
It is also important to consider the future implications of inserting human DNA into animals. What is the benefit of this research? If this research is not going to benefit any specific population than it is unethical research. I am curious if this research could potentially be crossing lines and instead of being beneficial in any ways, be harmful. Like cloning, and other technologies that allow us to choose the DNA we want in future generations, could this research lead to the creation of a super race half man/half animal. The article does not lay out the benefit, or goal of inserting human genes into animals. There are many unknowns in this research.
Re: Public consulted on research involving animals with human genes
ReplyDeleteThis impending study addresses a blurry ethical line: what exactly constitutes a human when conducting scientific experimentation? Do animal whose embryos were inserted with human DNA deserve the same rights humans do when it comes to participating in research?
Regardless of one's position, these animals are obviously unable to assert the same rights a human would have in the same situation. They are unable to provide informed consent, ensure their privacy, or back out of an experiment: inserted human DNA or not. But do the rights exist anyway, and if they can't reasonably be asserted or respected, can experimentation on animals with human DNA ever be ethical?
A possible lack of ethicality in such studies must be weighed against the potential medical benefit of experiments on animals more closely related genetically to humans. Experiments that yield results more apt to be extrapolated successfully to humans. It seems to me that this research is, in the end, both ethical and favorable. The insertion of, in all cases, miniscule amounts of human DNA in animal embryos is an insufficent qualification for any transition from animal to human. No human fertilization takes place, and the animal DNA still predominates. What we define as human as a society has always, and deservedly, gone beyond mere genes. If that dispute can be settled as such, the issue of conflicting rights can be distilled to merely the rights of animals and those of humans, a conflict debated for years. In this dispute, the lives of animals have been weighed against the many human lives saved that result, and I agree with current convention that the potential benefit of animal research hugely outweights any harm to animals. Any harm/benefit analysis will inevitably fall on the side of saving human lives and from a utilitarian perspective this research certainly allows for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number (animal or human). As such, humane animal research remains ethical.
As research on animals whose embryos were inserted with human DNA can not reasonably be considered anything but research on animals. Such research should similarly experience no ethical limitations.
-Patrick Duggan
I’m writing in response to the article “Trial to re-grow breasts after cancer surgery planned for next year”. I think it’s a beautiful thing to possibly use the advances in the realm of science as a form of therapy for women in need. However, I think this article also demonstrates one of the major downfalls of a nation too smart for its own good… Of course when necessary, the use of biomedical enhancements are completely justified, but is our society relying too heavily on the use of technological advancements to cure everything? In addition, has our society’s priorities been so heavily skewed as to give priority to situations concerning improving the well rather than curing the ill? The major ethical issue that this article uncovers is the issue of what’s more dire, concerns within one’s mental health or one’s physical health?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the utilitarian perspective, Mills may argue that in order to produce the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people theses stem cells ought to be used for finding a cure for cancer rather than just fixing one of its immediate consequences. However, the downfalls of the utilitarian perspective is that according to utilitarians “the ends justify the means,” therefore regardless of the means one has to endure to get to their granted result as long as it makes the masses happy it’s worth it. However, the utilitarian perspective has the capability to trample on the rights and wishes of individuals within that current era. Thus according to utilitarians, simply because there’s a demand for biomedical enhancement doesn’t mean the result is worthwhile for society as a whole.
The adaption of a technological imperative is being widely supported throughout our society. Simply because there are more services within our rapidly modernizing society does not mean they produce better outcomes than the more typical forms of personal enhancement. Why use valuable stem cells for a cosmetic procedure that already has alternative solutions? Personally I am for the use of technology to help procure therapeutic results when necessary, but our society has to know when to draw the line between what is therapy and what is simply emphasizing the undire circumstances related to image; a concept our nation already places too much emphasis on.
I agree with many of the responses given above on the fact that this article "Trial to re-grow breasts after cancer surgery..." demonstrates the great accomplishments that medical technology will bring forth in the future to help a variety of different health conditions. However, I also think it is important to know what the source of the stem cells were, embryonic or adult? If embryonic stem cells are being used for a procedure that is cosmetic in nature, I think this raises an ethical issue. Embryonic stem cell research is already a highly debated topic and if we are going to make advancements in receiving support for such research we do not want to give the opposition a reason to doubt the work that is being done with it. I think it is risky to use such technology for cosmetic purposes due to the fact that there are so many conditions such as Parkinson's Disease that could greatly benefit from the use of those stem cells. From a Utilitarian point of view it is important to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In examining this, it would be more beneficial to use the stem cells in this research for helping find cures for cancer or diseases such as Parkinson's. Once we fix these problems and gain support for an already controversial research field, it would then be the time to create cosmetic treatments such as the one described in the article. Until then, I think it will only give the critics of embryonic stem cell research more reason to believe that the slippery slope is inevitable. If we put the resources used in this cosmetic research to finding a cure for cancer than we will save countless lives and the need for such cosmetic treatments will be no longer.
ReplyDeleteKristen Brady