ESCR 1

Running Head: ESCR

ESCR: A 21st Century Ethical Cul de Sac

John Alan Fox

Kenneth Jaynes

Lee Oikle

Darin Porter

Cindie Poulson

University of Phoenix

GEN/480 – Interdisciplinary Capstone

Matt Fellows

August 8, 2005

ESCR 2

Executive Summary

ESCR, or embryonic stem cell research, is one of the hottest topics for debate of this generation.

While proponents promise cures for many diseases, ESCR is unproven. Is ESCR unethical?

Does it open too many modern Pandora’s boxes? Questions arise such as when does life begin.

What role does choice play, and how does this affect our western civilization? Alternatively, is

being against ECSR a narrow-minded view? Does ESCR represent an ethical cul de sac?

ESCR 3

ESCR: A 21st Century Ethical Cul de Sac

Introduction

Do you have a relative suffering from Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s? What if embryonic stem

cell research could obliterate these terrible diseases? Would you be apt to rally for the cure? It

is probably a safe bet that most people want world peace, no disease or suffering, and no poverty

or hunger in the world. If research provided a solution to change even one of these ills in the

world, would it not be the ethical thing to do? Stem cell research appears to be a step toward

treating or curing some of the most debilitating diseases plaguing our modern world.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss both sides of embryonic stem cell research

(hereinafter ESCR) and then take an ethical stand against it. Following this introduction, the

paper will have the following: Overview; Con Argument; Pro Argument; Team Position,

Summary, and Conclusion. Herein you will notice a running theme: when does life begin?

Overview

Before expecting others to understand our ethical stand against ESCR, we must first clearly

define it. We must first understand what a stem cell is and what its technological potential is for

saving lives. We must differentiate between the types of research containing different stem cells

and recognize their application in therapy and research advancements. To begin, ―Stem cell

research has been around almost as long as microscopes, though it is only since the 1980s that

more sophisticated gene technology developments have allowed culturing (growing of cells) in

laboratories‖ (http://www.clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/stemcells.html#history, 2005).

Please see Exhibit I for a short history, from mouse stem cells to human.

ESCR 4

According to the National Institutes for Health, stem cells differ from other types of cells

found in the body (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics2.asp, 2005) with three general

attributes; they are unspecialized, not a specific type of cell such as a red blood cell or nerve cell;

they evolve into specialized types of cells; and they are able to divide and renew for sustained

periods Please see Exhibit II for the illustration and document entitled What are Stem Cells?

A stem cells acts like no other cell because it is unspecialized. It has the ability to be

introduced into specialized cells such as blood cells, nerve cells, and heart muscle cells, and in

turn stem cells can ―give rise‖ to them – please see illustration marked as Exhibit III.

Stem cells differ from other cells by their ability to replicate and remain unspecialized.

When cells change to a specific type, there are internal and external factors that influence the

change. What signals these changes? Scientists are still researching in this area:

―Addressing these questions is critical because the answers may lead scientists to find new

ways of controlling stem cell differentiation in the laboratory, thereby growing cells or

tissues that can be used for specific purposes including cell-based therapies‖

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics2.asp, 2005).

There are two types of stem cells: adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Again quoting

from the National Institutes for Health, ―The adult tissues reported to contain stem cells include

brain, bone marrow, peripheral blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscle, skin and liver‖

(http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp, 2005). The NIH further define embryonic stem

cells as, ―Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically,

embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized

invitro – in an in vitro fertilization clinic and then donated for research purposes with informed

consent of the donors‖ (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp, 2005). Please see

Exhibit IV for document entitled Why we call them stem cells.

ESCR 5

Research has shown that adult stem cell differs from embryonic cells in terms of their limited

ability to differentiate. This means stem cells from the liver replicate as liver cells, brain cells

replicate as brain cells, etc. Adult stem cells also have a shorter shelf life, meaning limited self

renewal, whereas embryonic stem cells have been shown to replicate up to ―300 times‖

(http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/rltdsci/stemcell/z4.html. 2005). Please see Exhibit V for

document entitled How it works.

The foregoing is a basic overview of stem cells and the differences between embryonic and

adult stem cells. What is the ethical issue? ―The main controversy is the use of human

embryonic stem cells‖ http://www.clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/stemcells.html#history,

2005). The controversy arises due to the source of stem cells. Some scientists believe that stem

cells from human embryos have a greater potential to produce results than cells from other

sources. For illustration of Stem Cell Cultivation, please see Exbibit VI.

Some believe these embryos should be used for research since many will eventurally be

destroyed. Others believe human life – even at its most immature stage – should not be used

like this, and that to a degree, the lack of regulation and public scrutiny of the infertility industry

is the real reason behind both this ―opportunity‖ and controversy. As Fellows admonished us in

Class 2 of Gen/480 – Interdiciplinary Capstone, we have tried to ―Go where the evidence takes

you‖ (Poulson, Lecture Notes, 2005). And the sheer volume of data on this controversial

subject is overwhelming, thus our paper can provide only a thumbnail’s sketch.

The following sections of the paper will present arguments both sides of the ESCR debate.

These presentiments will be based upon the opinions of researchers, ethics, and critical thinking.

Our position will follow, then the summary, and finally the conclusion.

ESCR 6

Con Argument

ESCR has generated heated debate, political rhetoric, and inflamed opinion – please see

Exhibit VII for one example labeled ES Farm. Advocates claim ESCR could cure a multitude of

diseases and imperfections such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, spinal cord damage, and others.

The main arguments against ESCR follow the same lines as abortion. These are best summed up

with one question: when does life begin? (Porter, Team Notes, 2005). According to one Internet

source, (http://www.clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/stemcells.html, 2005), ―Issues are

when is a human human, [and] misuse.‖

If life begins at conception, then ESCR is murder. All the ethical questions surrounding the

issue revolve around this question. The Pro-life camp holds the

view that life begins at conception. As soon as the egg is

fertilized, it is a human. To be fair, it is generally felt that

fertilized eggs are incapable of feeling. However, the potential

of each egg is at stake. Several ethical questions must be

answered when evaluating whether or not ESCR should go on. For this team, ESCR can be seen

as the lesser of two evils.

Dr. Tom Peters asked a relevant first question, ―What’s in the Petri dish, property or

person?‖ (emphasis added, http://www.meta-library.net/stemtp/index-frame.html, et al. 2005).

Pro-life advocates feel life begins at conception. Thus, the Petri dish contains a person, not

property for experiments. Richard Land, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission

of the Southern Baptist Convention stated,

―Human cells, tissues, and organs should not be commodities to be bought and sold in a

biotech slave market. Some researchers have established in their own minds an arbitrary

lesser moral status for human beings in their embryonic stage of development‖

(O'Leary, Christianity Today, 1999, Pg. 27).

ESCR 7

Also, the Catholic Church sees full human personhood, dignity, and moral status from the

moment of fertilization on – see Donum Vitae, a Papal encyclical by Pope John Paul II on

discussing ―The dignity of procreation [as it] replies to certain questions of the day‖

(http://www.vatican.va/romancuria/congregations/cfaith/documents/rcconcfaithdoc19870222resp

ect-for-human-lifeen.html, 2005).

Will ESCR be fair, or will it further divide classes rich and poor, smart and not so smart,

upper and middle class and so forth? This research could increase the desire for ―perfect‖ eggs

and sperm. For example, if in the future we are able to grow things from these stem cells, certain

traits may be desired. Maybe we need a sports star’s stem cell; so a well-known sports star could

be paid a large sum of money to ―donate‖ to the cause. Maybe a very intelligent trait is wanted;

so we could grab a genius scientist – not literally. Those on the bottom or in the middle will be

left out. This is along the same lines as the research the Nazis did during World War II, trying to

cultivate the master race. They had their view of perfection and brutally proceeded accordingly.

―Will the funding of stem cell research lead to increased embryo destruction and abortions?‖

(Peters, http://www.meta-library.net/stemtp/index-frame.html, 2005). We are currently

harvesting more eggs in fertility clinics than will ever be used. If ESCR is funded, the demand

for harvested eggs may increase. This also goes back to another ethical question, are these

fertilized eggs property? And if so, whose? If eggs are the property of the donating parties, then

they could be paid for their services. Is selling living beings ethically viable? Moreover, if

funding is federal, a political conflict of interest has arisen. This could have serious implications.

Adult stem cell research has enjoyed success, versus none yet with ESCR. Therefore, we

should proceed with adult research. Because adult cells do not require the destruction of

embryos, there is no potential for the loss of human life.

ESCR 8

An article found on a website called The Great Stem Cell Debate provides the perfect

conclusion to the section. The authors stated:

―Embryonic stem cell research is still very immature in progress and has not been able to be

clinically tested. More attention needs to be spent on adult stem cell research; the only type,

which includes using aborted fetuses, that does not require the halting the potential of a fully

developed life. Adult stem cells are available from many sources such as bone marrow,

human fat cells, placenta, and blood from umbilical cords. There are limitations to the types

of tissues they are able to form, unlike embryonic stem cells, but do not cost potential lives‖

(Day, Gibson, Parikh, 2005, http://student.xu.edu/~parikhkp).

Pro Argument

What advantage do embryonic stem cells have over adult stem cells? What is the potential of

ESCR? Is it ethical to kill a zygote? When does life begin? ―It is a gift to give life to others‖

(Oikle, Team Notes, 2005). Here is the Pro-choice argument: if ESCR helps others, it is

unethical not to do so. Questions like these frame this super-heated debate, polarizing America’s

conscience: please see Exhibit VIII for article entitled House passes embryonic stem cell bill.

This shows why ESCR is important and should continue, as does this section of the paper.

An article, Research Ethics and Stem Cells, from the National Institutes of Health, said:

―Stem cells show potential for many different areas of health and medical research; studying

them can help us understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells

that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and

birth defects, are caused by problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better

understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct

errors that cause these medical conditions‖ (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/ethics.asp, 2005).

Embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are similar in many ways. They both self-replicate

indefinitely and specialize in the human body. Both can also be isolated from other cells and kept

in a laboratory environment unspecialized. When transplanted into an animal with a lowered

immune system, these cells will travel to the injured or diseased area, replicate, and specialize

(http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/rltdsci/stemcell/z4.html, 2005).

So what are the advantages of embryonic stem cells? Let us look at some facts.

ESCR 9

Embryonic stem cells are abundant and easily identified. We have already shown their ability

to double up to 300 times. Adult stem cells are rare and harder to find. They also have limited

replication abilities. Other differences are that embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner

cell mass of a blastocyst, a five-day-old embryo, whereas adult stem cells are derived from

developed, specialized tissues. Also, embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any cell

in the body, referred to as ―pluripotent,‖ whereas adult stem cells are limited to become only

certain cell types, referred to as ―multipotent.‖ Embryonic stem cells could potentially become

replacement cells for any body part, whereas adult stem cells can only replace the same tissue

that the cell came from (http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/rltdsci/stemcell/z4.html, 2005).

Pro-life opponents of ESCR claim life is destroyed when zygotes are used for this research.

But where do these zygotes come from? They are donated with written consent from the donors.

When conceiving in vitro, more eggs are fertilized than can be used, and not every egg will be

viable. Usually 4 or 5 fertilized eggs are inserted into a recipient’s womb, but sometimes more as

we will see later. Again, not all these eggs will attach to the uterus and become babies. Spare

eggs can be frozen in case the pregnancy fails, therefore these eggs can be used for another try.

Once the couple has no use for the remaining zygotes, the eggs can be frozen, donated to other

infertile couples, released for research, or destroyed.

―What could be more pro-life than working for a cure for a loved one?‖ asked Rep. James

Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat. Langevin suffered a spinal cord injury at age 16 and is

unable to walk (see http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/stem.cells, 2005.) Another

question is, do we see life in terms of intrinsic value or in terms of its utilitarian value? If a

possibility exists to help the paralyzed walk, repair a damaged, or fix a failing heart, do we not

feel compelled to help these individuals? Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the correct choice.

ESCR 10

If these zygotes could potentially enhance the lives of countless individuals; that would be a

great gift. That is why ESCR holds such great potential, because stem cells are

―undifferentiated,‖ meaning these cells have not started to turn into a specific part of the body,

Scientists hope to learn how cells differentiate. This is where many serious medical conditions

and birth defects occur. What scientists need to research is how signals turn genes on and off to

influence the differentiation of stem cells (http://stemcells.nih, 2005).

Perhaps the most important use of stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues. Donated

organs and tissues are now being used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue. There is currently a

far greater need for these organs and tissues than are available. Stem cells, when differentiated

into specific cell types, may be a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues and be able

to treat diseases including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke,

burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis (http://stemcells.nih, 2005),

If scientists can know how cells differentiate, they may potentially be able to treat many other

diseases or birth defects and improve the quality of life for many who now suffer.

To summarize, the promise of stem cell therapies is exciting. Embryonic stem cells are

important because they replicate quickly and are undifferentiated, which means they hold more

potential to repair more diseases or defects.

We may not even be able to imagine the advancements in human health that could be

possible through the use of embryonic stem cells. That is why more research is so important.

Our Position

Is ESCR ethical? We cry a unified ―No!‖ This section will show why in three ways.

First, we will address the primal question, ―When does life begin?‖ As we will see, this is

truly the heart and core of the matter. This became our categorical moral imperative.

ESCR 11

Second, we will touch on two broad views dividing ethical thought, the Platonic/Socratic

view versus the Aristotelian. As we will see, this frames our debate.

Finally, we will compare these points against a fundamental concept Fellows styled in

GEN/480 – Interdisciplinary Capstone as ―the most important facet of western civilization . . .

the Salvific Paradigm‖ (emphasis added, Fox, Lecture Notes, et al. 2005). We are not sophists

practicing narrow-minded sophism; rather, our motive has been to have ethical congruence in our

discovery, debate and in the written and oral presentations. While we mean no offense to anyone,

we stake our position with conviction.

1. When does life begin?

After looking at many aspects and debating the pros and cons of ESCR, our team distilled

this issue to one question: when does life begin? Some feel life begins when the newborn first

inhales; one team member considered a baby breathing in the watery womb environment as

similar to aquatic breathing. Some see this as when a person receives the soul, whereas others see

each individual person as being a soul, a concept firmly based in Hebrew thought, ―Man became

a living soul‖ (Gen. 2:7, Holy Bible, 1970), where soul was translated from nephesh, which

meant a breathing creature (Strong, Concordance, Pgs. 80 and 960, 1890). Along with this was a

Hebrew concept discussed in our team meeting, that the life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11,

Bible), therefore the baby is alive in the womb. Others base their belief on the heart’s beat: when

it starts, we live; when it stops, we die.

Finally, others see life beginning at conception, i.e., at the

moment when the male sperm pierces the female ovum,

creating a zygote, ―a cell formed by the union of two sexual

cells‖ (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1974, Pg. 817).

ESCR 12

Regardless whether this occurs artificially in a Petri dish or naturally with sexual intercourse,

this conjoining is where life begins. That is the position of this team. There are numerous

ramifications with this view that we could neither escape, nor avoid. We had to confront issues

like:

Human dignity versus disrespect – would we freeze or discard another living being? Yet

that is what occurs with zygotes.

Freedom of a living entity’s right of choice versus slavery – this evil has already been

outlawed in our society, yet a living being can be robbed of its cells against its choice,

then it will be discarded. In another milieu, this is called dismemberment and murder.

Self defense versus genocide – in our society, it is lawful to defend one’s self against an

attacker, a right not allowed to the zygote held against its will in a cell; this is not unlike

other torture holding units; mass murder in the past was and still is called genocide.

Again, the fundamental issue at stake is when does life begin? If life begins at conception,

then all rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness accorded to infants, children, and

adults should be afforded to the zygote; otherwise, there is an ethical disconnect.

An issue we found abhorrent upon consideration was the removal of stem cells for

implantation into another zygote. What happens to the specimen whose identity has been

removed? It is selected for termination. What happens to the enhanced specimen? It is

implanted in vitro into a mother. Human life has been reduced to a commodity.

We came to see ESCR as an outgrowth of infertility clinics. We allowed for good intentions,

irrespective of the aforementioned aspect of greed and selling human beings. Nevertheless, we

unequivocally see the possibility of deconstructive use replacing constructive use, and we also

see the in vitro industry as gateway for two other industries:

ESCR 13

ESCR disease research – an unproven hypothesis fraught with issues of

conflicting medical ethics.

Cloning – a futuristic outgrowth of ESCR – this is genetic manipulation fraught with

potential issues of abuse, selective breeding and selected death.

More will be said about this in the third point of this section.

2. Two broad views

Fellows alluded to a fundamental issue in the opening lecture: ―To the degree that we’re not

God, we will have ethical disputes‖ (Fox). This carries weight, for God is seen in the religious

worldview as a life-giver, the One who makes the rules governing the giving and taking of life.

Yet many hold the view that life evolved without a Higher Power, therefore ethical decisions

respecting life, i.e., abortion or stem cell research, are ours alone to make. This impasse is

deeply rooted in the Platonic versus Aristotelian traditions and debates.

According to lectures notes (Fox), Fellows spoke about two main views:

Plato’s worldview was ―metaphysical and embraced dualism, a spiritual reality

behind the temporal physical‖

Aristotle’s view was ―earthbound and physical only, the here and now‖

This broad divergence in ethical philosophy was confirmed by Fox’s initial research. In an

article on Ethics from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm, July 5, 2005), Fox further learned that,

―Ethics can be divided into two basic perspectives, specifically whether moral values are

eternal truths that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply human conventions. Discussions are

either other-worldly or this-worldly” (Fox, Perspectives, Pg. 3, 2005).

ESCR 14

So in effect, our team took the other-worldly view, irrespective of individual worldviews.

Our position evolved as a virtue driven ethical construct, versus one rooted in utilitarianism and

moral relativism, i.e., where the individual decides.

Here was our team’s syllogism: if life begins at conception, and if we embrace this as true,

then we violate our truth by accepting any position not in keeping with our values. To do any

less would be . . . unethical. We saw this critical point in the following spotlight.

In the opening lecture of GEN/480 – Interdisciplinary Capstone, Fellows gave the following

challenge: ―We’re all capable of the major (meaning the big issues) but it’s all going to stem

back to the initial compromise of values in the smallest way‖ (emphasis added, Fox, Lecture

Notes, et al. 2005). In the second lecture, Fellows also said, ―A good ethical paradigm [always]

connects back to a source. Congruity – honesty and ethics – must be in the process. Ethics

[always should be] the common ground” (emphasis added, Fox). Finally, Fellows charged

students to ―Go where the evidence takes you and the consequences be damned‖ (Fox) and that is

exactly what occurred. As we explored and investigated and questioned, our team’s position

evolved and then solidified.

How ironic: as we evaluated ESCR, we each had to face our

ignorance and confront our beliefs, to examine where they

stemmed from. We tried to look at all angles. Through our

discovery process, we did find little areas for compromise – and

large areas, too. As we explored the issues, we came to see a

crossover as the graphic shows. Thus, in spite of our different

worldviews, we were able to arrive at consensus.

ESCR 15

That is not to say that we five share the same values. We do not. In actuality, only two of the

five share a similar theological construct. In fact, aside from the definitions, none of us can

categorically say that we know when life begins. Our position incorporated this scientific view,

in allowance with our individual worldviews. The class text confirmed that,

―We cannot be critical thinkers and accept the influence that the mass media continually

fosters. Whether our viewpoint is conservative or liberal; right, middle, or left; Christian,

Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, or atheist—we need to resist mass media influence in our

lives‖ (Elder and Paul, Pg. 134).

Thus, ours was a group dynamic of being Socratic, of asking questions, supported by

thorough research. Empiricism and polite but spirited debate sessions helped us arrive at

consensus. As a collective, regardless of background, we had to get out of our easy armchair of

faith, to employ a teammate’s aphorism discussed in class (Fox). What was the result?

One of us changed our view, from cautious pro to qualified con. One of us had to admit the

potential for future good – albeit this remains highly theoretical. Yet another team issue was the

issue of abortion, which we did not agree on as a team, yet this is in the background of our

debate. Because this also begs the primary question . . . when does life begin?

3. The Salvific Paradigm

Finally, it occurred to us that due to the primal problems of disease and infertility, science

was offering humankind a return to Eden, but without a redemptive character-driven component,

without a need for recognition of wrong behavior (sin) and the need for a sacrifice. In other

words, this became the Salvific Paradigm in reverse. This concept was discussed in Classes 2

and 4. As we debated, the thought gradually dawned on us how important a construct this was.

We came to see how we could be missing the point: we could be trying to avoid the natural

consequences of our actions which may well have caused the disease science offers to cure.

Rather than finishing the cycle to return to Eden, we are trying to short circuit the process.

ESCR 16

Whom does this include? All of us! From well-meaning scientists to those well-meaning

citizens among us who support ESCR to each one of us: we all try to avoid the natural

consequences of our actions. However, a major life lesson seems to be that life offers few

shortcuts. We cannot abrogate responsibility for our actions. As this illustration shows, taken

from the hand-drawn diagram taken in Class 4 (Fox, August 1, 2005), there is always a cycle.

A point not missed on this team is the prevalence of this cycle in both eastern and western

religious traditions. Another point not missed is the fact that this paradigm is not just a religious

allusion to the past that supports our western civilization.

Indeed, each us is part of that fabric, each one of us lives this cycle throughout our lives, each

of us is faced with this every day, for each one of us makes choices that lead us out of Eden.

Each of us can choose behavior to lead us back. Choice is the true power of the paradigm.

Let us not underestimate the importance of this value in our ethical consideration of ESCR:

―The main difference between the laws of cause and effect in the physical universe and cause

and effect in human affairs is that humans have the capacity to choose how they respond to

events‖ (Ruggiero 2004, Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues, et al. Pg. 118).

However, like this perhaps not-so-mythical scenario, ESCR is also a paradox. While science

potentially offers solutions to disease, this remains highly theoretical – see Exhibit IX for the

document entitled, Does ECR work?

ESCR 17

Summary

In our view, the Aristotelian scientific method has yet to offer a verifiable proven hypothesis

with respect to ESCR, whereas the potential risks as touched on herein are a given. Stem cell

research potentially offers life. Yet this life – in the form of impregnated eggs – is catalogued,

stored, manipulated, frozen, sold or discarded. All these are unethical ways of treating living

entities, including now being able to discard embryos in advance for health reasons , a chilling

thought for viable citizens with birth defect: see website Aborting Embryos with Genetic Defects

(http://forums.livingwithstyle.com/archive/index.php/t-162733.html, 2005).

Another dichotomy involves the case where a mother was implanted with the standard eleven

zygotes in her uterus. Typically, only one survive, but in her case, ALL survived! The mother

was physically unable to carry and then give birth to eleven children. She had to choose which

fetuses lived and which ones died. Yet a cloning organization stated there was no issue because

―it is normal for 11 out of 12 natural embryos to die. That is a 91% failure rate for natural

embryos today‖ (Rader, http://www.humancloning.org/essays/embryos.php, 2005). Despite this,

none of us wanted this choice of power of life over death. Where does life begin? As another

site put it, ESCR involves new origins of life.

Worse still was the potential future we could envision involving cloning. What if we could

create smarter people? Alternatively, what if we could make more athletic and healthy citizens?

This falls into the mindset of the übermensch, German for superman:

―Nietzsche coined his thinking around a mythical superman ―who lived beyond the

conventional standards of good and evil. Superior to all others, he was morally justified in

using force to achieve goals (emphasis added, (Article on Nietzsche, Columbia

Encyclopedia, 2003, Pg. 2016).

As in all capitalistic societies, donors offering their stem cells for impregnation could do so

and be paid a lot – why? Because sellers would market to buyers willing to pay a lot of money.

ESCR 18

This is the law of supply and demand. We based our scenario on the current expense of in

vitro fertilization, as witnessed by two team members. One teammate called all of this ―the

slippery slope of genetic manipulation‖ (Poulson, Team Notes, 2005) while another called it

“genetic racism” (Fox, Team Notes, 2005). The key seems to be intent. As shown, ESCR

extracts stem cells from a zygote and implants those into a host specimen. This results in the

death and discarding of the now violated zygote – a life. The intent is for good, but the result

kills the living. When it comes to selection, how is this different from the Chinese policy of

killing female babies? In Nazi Germany, the sick were selectively killed and medically

experimented on. It was noted that two team members would not be alive today had selection

been carried out (Jaynes, Team Notes, 2005). ESCR is selection, and we find this ethically

wrong because it is abortion – please see Exhibit X for Important Definitions.

Here is a syllogism worth considering: if life begins at conception, and it is unethical to take

life except in self defense, then ESCR is an ethical cul de sac. As Fellows said in Class 2, ―Life

without progression is entropy – death‖ (Jaynes, Lecture Notes, 2005). This is exactly what

ESCR does, it stops the progression of life. To repeat, ESCR is an ethical cul de sac.

―Too often, we think of an embryo as a thing that can be donated or thrown away, the way

someone donates unwanted clothes to charity or throws them in the trash. Yet a human

embryo is a living human being – a being with a human destiny and a purpose. History has

proven the greater good" type of utilitarian logic to lead to horrible abuses, whether on

mentally ill patients in Nazi Germany, or on minorities injected with syphilis at Tuskegee, or

on soldiers exposed with radiation during World War II. Applying the logic that aborted-

babies-are-dead-anyway-so-why-not-use-them, Ken Connor writes, look for using victims of

partial birth abortion as the next objects of medical research‖ (quote taken from article at

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/hodges_stem_cell_research.htm).

It is important to consider that embryonic stem cell research and cloning are both based on a

similar premise: the genetic DNA can be manipulated and replicated. One of our teammates who

took the pro position said, “Where do we stop?” (Fox, Team Meeting Notes, et al. 2005).

ESCR 19

Again, the key question to ponder is where does life begin? We cannot escape this issue.

Another issue worth mentioning is that we viewed this entire debate as a no-win scenario.

Moreover, we feel it was thrust upon society with perhaps little thought for the ethical

repercussions of fertility centers with frozen and discarded zygotes, not to mention other ethical

disconnects associated with the fertility industry – and we use that term in its fullest sense.

Conclusion

This was a huge assignment with too many side roads and countless cul de sacs. Yet we

were able to agree on life beginning at conception; we clearly saw a bifurcation with respect to

divergent ethical paths; and we came to embrace the Eden paradigm proposed by Fellows. With

ESCR, we have opened a modern day Pandora’s box, in every sense of the metaphor. Consider

the topics found on just one website listing articles on topics ranging from,

Conflicts over so-called designer babies

Divorcing couples fighting over zygotes

What happens to the zygotes if both parents die, are the eggs they kept or tossed?

Lesbian and gay couples and subsequent parental rights

The risk of HIV with in vitro fertilization (IVF)

Lawsuits over in vitro mistakes

Possibilities that IVF could cause cancer or Down’s Syndrome

One BBC article styled fertility clinics as ―baby factories‖

There was even an article entitled ―So what about a man’s right to choose?‖

(http://www.a-little-wish.org.uk/www.a-little-wish.org.uk/End%20index%20comp/Articles/IVF.htm, 2005).

Yet another website, Cambridge University Press, compared ―disability to enhancement‖

(Dickenson, http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521662664, 2005).

ESCR 20

All of this involves the slippery slope referenced earlier. The ethical cul de sacs stemming

from ESC are countless and frightening fodder for exploitation and litigation. Candidly, even in

our team debates, we found concepts we both liked and wrestled with. Yet this prevalence for

ethical dissonance helped us take a firm position against embryonic stem cell research.

In fact, Fellow argued this was a sign of a healthy society versus totalitarianism. Moreover,

―Ideals, like obligations, do not always harmonize . . . In many situations, they compete‖

(Ruggiero, Pg. 109). We experienced the frustration of having to ―determine which ideal

represented the greater good or the lesser evil‖ (Ruggiero, Pg.110) as we considered ESCR.

So this ESCR project forced each one of us to research, dig deeply, and then produce an

ethical conclusion in harmony between ―our ought and is‖ (Fox, Lecture Notes, July 11, 2005).

Fellows warned that hypocrisy is the distance separating our ―values and behavior,‖ whereas

―character is the unifying link‖ (Fox, June 26, 2005). Since the Socratic ideal is unity (Fox), we

were able to achieve that goal.

Additionally, we learned in the best Hebrew fashion, for as Fellows reminded us,

―Knowledge is that which is acquired through experience‖ (Fox). We have more knowledge

about a difficult topic, ESCR, and we have gained practical experience – since class taught us no

education is ―worth its salt unless there is applicability‖ (Fox), we are truly better off.

In conclusion, suffice it to say we came to see ESCR as similar to the path Indiana Jones

crossed over in the 1989 movie The Last Crusade: one false misstep and he plunged to the abyss.

The primal question we returned to repeatedly herein has been when does life begin? If we

believe that life begins at conception, then we must act on this ethical conviction, regardless of

personal opinion or desire. To act otherwise would be . . . unethical.

ESCR 21

References – Page One

Article on Nietzsche. Columbia Encyclopedia (2000) (6th

Ed.). Columbia Press. New York.

Conan-Davies, Richard (2005). Why are stem cells called stem cells? Accessed August 5, 2005

via http://www.clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/Extrastemcellinfo.html.

Dawn Bennett; Laura Alexander-Hartman (2003). Employment Law for Business (4th

Ed.)

Accessed via https://mycampus.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/resource.asp, April 25, 2005.

Day, Alexis; Gibson, Christopher, Parikh, Keyur (2005), http://student.xu.edu/~parikhkp,

August 3, 2005.

Definition of Selective Abortion. Accessed August 7, 2005 via

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/abortion_selective.jsp.

Dickinson, Donna (2002). Ethical Issues in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Accessed August 7, 2005

via http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521662664.

Donum Vitae or ―Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of

Procreation; Replies to Certain Questions of the Day‖ (1987). Accessed August 3, 2005 from

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rcconcfaithdoc19870222

respect-for-human-life_en.html.

Elder, Linda; Paul, Richard (2002). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your

Professional and Personal Life. Financial Times, Prentice Hall, Inc. Pearson Education, Inc.

Accessed via https://mycampus.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/resource.asp August 1, 2005.

Fox, John (2005). Lecture Notes. Matt Fellows. GEN/480. Interdisciplinary Capstone.

June 26-August 1, 2005. University of Phoenix. Salt Lake City, UT.

Fox, John (2005). Team Meeting Notes. August 3rd

and 4th

, 2005.

Fox, John (2005). Which Way is Best? Two Ethical Perspectives. June 11, 2005. Matt Fellows.

GEN/480. Interdisciplinary Capstone. University of Phoenix. Salt Lake City, UT.

Graphic of Fellows’ Salvific Paradigm created by Ken Jaynes (2005). Adapted from hand drawn

diagram by John Fox. Lecture Notes. GEN/480. Interdisciplinary Capstone. August 1, 2005.

University of Phoenix. Salt Lake City, UT.

House passes embryonic stem cell bill. May 25, 2005. Article accessed August 6, 2005 from

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/stem.cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluripotency, August 5, 2005.

http://forums.livingwithstyle.com/archive/index.php/t-162733.html, August 7, 2005.

ESCR 22

References – Page Two

http://image.pathfinder.com/time/2001/stemcells/images/stemcells.jpg, August 5, 2005.

http://pedsinreview.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/20/8/e34, August 7, 2005.

http://pregnancyandbaby.com/read/articles/5580.htm, August 7, 2005.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp#whatare, August 5, 2005.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp, August 5, 2005.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/research/mouselit, August 5, 2005.

(http://www.a-little-wish.org.uk/www.a-little-wish.org.uk/End%20index%20comp/Articles/IVF.htm, 2005).

http://www.clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/stemcells.html, August 5, 2005.

http://www.clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/stemcells.html#history, August 5, 2005.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/hodges_stem_cell_research.htm,

August 5, 2005.

http://www.stanford.edu/groups/hopes/rltdsci/stemcell/z4.html accessed August 3, 2005.

http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/anisamples/stemcells.html, August 5, 2005.

Image downloaded via http://academy.d20.co.edu/kadets/lundberg/invitro/, August 4, 2005.

Image downloaded via http://www.clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/Extrastemcellinfo.html,

August 5, 2005.

Image downloaded August 5, 2005 via http://cmgm.stanford.edu/biochem118/images/Stem%20Cell%20Slides/04%20Pluripotent%20Stem%20Cells.jpg.

Imagine downloaded via http://www.clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/stemcells.html,

August 5, 2005.

Image downloaded via http://www.ethics.org.au/images/article_0149a.gif, August 4, 2005.

Image downloaded via http://student.xu.edu/~parikhkp/criticalessays/embryonicdrawbacks.html,

August 4, 2005.

Image downloaded via http://whyfiles.org/127stem_cell/stem_cell_graphic.html,

August 7, 2005.

ESCR 23

References – Page Three

Jaynes, Ken (2005). Team Notes. GEN/480. Interdisciplinary Capstone. August 3, 2005.

University of Phoenix. Salt Lake City, UT.

Materials Safety Data Sheet. http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/p5631.htm,

August 7, 2005.

Neumayr, George (2005). The Abortion debate that wasn’t. Seattle Post Intelligencer.

July 17, 2005. Accessed via http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/232776_focus17.html,

August 7, 2005.

Oikle, Lee (2005). Team Notes. GEN/480. Interdisciplinary Capstone. August 3, 2005.

University of Phoenix. Salt Lake City, UT.

O'Leary, Denyse (1999). Embryo Research Contested. Christianity Today. May 24, 1999.

Peters, Tom (2005). The Stem Cell Debate: Ethical Questions. Accessed August 4, 2005 via

http://www.meta-library.net/stemtp/index-frame.html.

Porter, Darin (2005). Team Notes. GEN/480. Interdisciplinary Capstone. August 3, 2005.

University of Phoenix. Salt Lake City, UT.

Poulson, Cindie (2005). Lecture Notes. Matt Fellows. GEN/480. Interdisciplinary Capstone.

July 11, 2005. University of Phoenix. Salt Lake City, UT.

Poulson, Cindie (2005). Team Notes. GEN/480. Interdisciplinary Capstone. August 3, 2005.

University of Phoenix. Salt Lake City, UT.

Rader, Linda (2005). Killing Embryos. Accessed August 7, 2005 via

http://www.humancloning.org/essays/embryos.php.

Research Ethics and Stem Cells. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/ethics.asp, August 5, 2005.

Ruggiero, Vincent (2004). Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues (6th

Ed.). McGraw Hill.

Accessed June 27, 2005 via https://mycampus.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/resource.asp.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (1890, 1977) (36th

Ed). Abingdon Press. Nashville. TN.

The Holy Bible (1970). Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville, TN.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1974). Pocket Books. Simon and Schuster. New York, NY