Applied Business Research And Ethics For Zika Virus: Stem Cell Research And Ethical Considerations Essay.

Discuss about the Applied Business Research and Ethics for Zika Virus.

To understand why stem cell research is so valuable it’s vital to know what a stem cell is. A stem cell is defined as , “an unspecialized cell that gives rise to differentiated cells” ( Merriam-Webster,2009), meaning that stem cells don’t have a specific cell type, like a skin cell or a muscle tissue cell, but instead it will adjust to help a certain type of cell in need. By having this quality stem cells are thought to have the potential to find cures for many dreaded diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer, paralysis and even to reduce the development of microcephaly in the unborn babies of pregnant women who have become infected with Zika Virus.

There are two types of steam cell research. The first is adult also called somatic or germ line stem cell which exists throughout the body after embryonic development such as in brain, bone marrow, skin and liver. The second is embryonic stem cell which usually comes from in vitro fertilisation. The embryos are usually four or five days old, and they are called the blastocyst. The blastocyst consists of three parts: the trophoblast, which surrounds the blastocyst, the blastocoel, which is a hollow cavity inside the blastocyst and the inner cell mass, which is a group of about thirty cells at one end of the blastocoel. Scientists grow the embryonic stem cells by isolating the inner cell mass in a Petri dish. In order for these cells to continue dividing and living, they are contained in a nutrient medium.

In relation to research for stem cell that reduces microcephaly, it is necessary to identify genes that trigger the development of the cerebral cortex.  Knowing this is important because microcephaly is a neurological birth defect in which abnormal brain development occurs in a child inside the womb or during infancy. Vogel (2016) suggest that it is caused by genetic abnormalities or by toxins and viruses exposed to fetus that damage development of brain tissue. Identification of specific gene related to development of cerebral cortex will give an idea about the development and evolution of brain. The cortex is made up of stem cells and the methods of division of stem cells influences the size of the cerebral cortex. Thus controlling the division of this cell will help in controlling the size of cerebral cortex in microcephaly (Nowakowski, 2016). Therefore, ABC Company can proceed with researching about neural stem cells. This is important because human microcephaly occurs because of mutation of genes that encode proteins for regulation of neural stem cell function (Christopher, 2016). Thus, ABC organization can start research into identifying regulators of neural stem cells to reduce the incidence of microcephaly during child birth.

Ethical and Legal Background of Stem Cell Research

Ethical and Legal Background of Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research is often at the forefront of heated ethical debates due to its assessment of human life. If stem cell research cannot be ethically defended, then it should not be conducted. “You cannot defend a study ethically unless the presumed cost is lower than expected benefits. The cost-benefit analysis of scientific research needs to include human/animal discomfort/risks, environmental issues, material costs, etc” which is necessary to support the positive outcome which the research claims to provide (experiment-resources, 2008).

The two opposing ethical arguments which have to be defended morally are that of utilitarianism and deontology. “Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines the moral value of an act in terms of its results, and if those results produce the greatest good for the greatest number. As a consequential theory, it is contrasted with no consequential theories, such as deontology” (Mosser, 2011). The Utilitarian argument of stem cell research is that, although the most valuable research has been derived from aborted human fetuses, stem cell research can cure multiple diseases and greatly advance science and medicine, so this is what should be done.

“Deontology is the study of moral obligation and necessity, finding the source of ethical correctness in the rules according to which one acts. It rejects utilizing the results or consequences of an act to evaluate an act as moral and thus is a non-consequential theory. It is standardly contrasted with the consequential theory of utilitarianism” (Mosser, 2011). Skeptics with a deontological view would counter-argue saying that it is unethical to destroy human life to save human life, so this should not be done.

The ethical concern that arises in stem cell research is that great objection is faced by researcher because it involves destruction of blastocyst which they consider unethical. Since research depends on donation of female oocytes, many people oppose stem cell research due to the exploitation of pregnant women. There is also legal objection regarding the mixing of human and non-human stem cell for the purpose of research (Barker & de Beaufort, 2013). Unethical implications have included use embryo research and aborted fetuses. The controversy over using aborted fetuses for research was much higher prior to 2007. At this time, scientists defend this method on the bases that it would be better to use the fetuses to help humanity as opposed to throwing them away as waist. Scientists defend embryo research on the bases “that week-old blastocysts are not human beings, and that destroying those embryos does not constitute killing. At one week, embryos are merely a cluster of cells and not deserving of the protections afforded to others, they say. When conceived naturally, a blastocyst has not been implanted in the uterus by that time. Most scientists argue that an embryo is not a person until it is at least two weeks old, when it develops a so-called primitive streak, the first evidence of a nervous system” (FoxNews.com, 2001).

The Facts and Steps That ABC Company Should Consider To Ensure That Research is Ethical

However ABC can take appropriate steps to address the ethical and legal issues in stem cell research by following appropriate guideline for carrying out ethical research. First task of ABC would be to take informed consent regarding the use of donated embryo. However consent depends on the purpose of research (Harper et al., 2014). For example research on determining the treatment for chronic disease or infertility will be acceptable, but deriving stems for patent of commercial products may lead to objection. Thus informed consent will help address the diversity of views. Waiver in consent can also be achieved by taking those embryos or oocytes that fail to develop and are discarded. The rationale for this is that there is minimum ethical risk involved in it and it does not lead to breach of confidentiality too. The policies and guidelines for research practice in different countries differ. Mainly restriction is on monetary inducements, gap between clinical decisions and receiving voluntary informed consent from donors (Panno, 2014). Since there is minimum attention to policies surrounding transfer of human embryonic stem cells, ABC can also investigate about the mechanism by which neural stem cells can localize in the host cells.  A survey on policies and guidelines for stem cell research shows that there is prohibition on use of 14 day older embryo after fertilization (Lowenthal et al., 2012). Hence, ABC needs to act within current clinical guidelines and relevant policies and regulations to stem cell research. Secondly, such research should be reviewed by stem cell review committee along with support from expert in science of stem cell. ABC also needs to give informed consent to donors and patient along understanding of risk involved. They should follow a common reference standard and have appropriate management system in place for handling such stem cells. Another critical step is to clinically test the stem cells for potential toxicities in it. The specimen trialled should be monitored for adverse effects regularly.

To ensure that stem cell research is ethical firstly we must have  a morally sound body of law governing stem cell research and tissue donation so that we harness and promote the common good. In Australia the use of human embryos to derive human embryonic stem cell lines for research is governed by the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The Act allows the use under licence of embryos created through ART that are no longer required by the couples or that are unsuitable for implantation. The Act also allows the creation and/or use of certain other types of embryos for research under licence.

Also this body should encourage scientists in doing more and more researches ethically and legally. Currently, in Australia human embryos can only be used for research purposes if authorized by a license issued by the NHMRC embryo research committee (Australian Government National health and  Medical Research Council) . There are currently ten active licenses issued by the NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee.

Secondly, federal and private involvement would increase the pool of talented scientists who could study the cells, and thus accelerate the pace of the research” (FoxNews.com, 2001). The Australian government funds stem cell research through various grant schemes. Information about project recently funded by NHMRC is provided on the NHMRC website.

Involvement of private organization to raise money for stem cell reach can be done by increasing public awareness. The famous characters of stem cell research supporters in America, Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox who supported embryonic stem cell research (Article of Sarah J. Flashing October 2004, an ethicist for the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, “Thinking About Christopher Reeve and The Legacy We Leave”.) started a foundation, trying to raise money from private organizations for stem cell research. They also attract a lot of media, which helps them get their thoughts and beliefs across to the public via television, newspapers and the Internet.

They basically started supporting this considering their own medical conditions. Christopher Reeve passed away due to complications from his paralysis from neck down. He supported embryonic stem cell research to find a cure for his condition. Reeve believed that embryos, from which the stem cells were derived, were killed in the process, as he believed that they were alive. However, he still hoped that with the death of these embryos, a cure for spinal cord injury could be found. He believed in sacrificing lives for a good cause, which would later save millions.

By  listening to what scientist and other people talk about stem cell research and seeing what it is actually does, Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, in charge of determining whether Embryonic stem cell research is ethical or not, declared that it is completely ethical to perform embryonic stem cell research. However, they explained that there are special guidelines that have to be followed in order to extract stem cells and perform stem cell research.

The whole entire process has to be explained in detail to the donors. The consent process consists of various point, including confidentiality and privacy. Final decisions must be made by the donors in person. In rare cases, if the donors are not available for any reason, and have in advantage agreed to donating their embryos in writing, doctors could use their embryos for research. If couples do not want to participate, it is their choice, and medical treatment cannot be affected by their decisions in any way. Embryos cannot be bought, sold and they cannot have any monetary value. They can only be donated or produced in vitro. After following these rules and guidelines, the Ethics Committee regards embryo research as ethically acceptable if it is likely to provide significant new knowledge that will benefit human health and if it is conducted in ways that accord the embryo’s respect.” (Ethics committee).

Thirdly conducting survey to find out people's opinion on stem cell research give more comfort before carrying  out further research .There is a survey conducted in United State by Univ. of Nevada, Reno faculty members Mariah Evans (lead author) and Jonathan Kelley provide decision-makers with a much clearer picture of how their constituents truly feel about the subject of human embryonic stem cell research. They surveyed a large, representative national sample of 2,295 respondents in 2009. Their most significant findings include: More than two-thirds of respondents approved of using therapeutic cloning (nuclear transfer of the patient’s own genes) and stem cells from in vitro fertilized embryos to cure cancer or treat heart attacks, while only about one in six respondents did not approve. Therapeutic cloning remains banned in the U.S. today. About one in six respondents had mixed feelings or were undecided. Less than 15 percent did not approve. About one in five had mixed feelings or was undecided. Almost half (43 to 47 percent) of respondents also approve of the use of therapeutic cloning, stem cells from in vitro fertilized embryos and stem cells from an adult to treat allergies, but slightly over one in four do not. And, 28 to 29 percent have mixed feelings or are undecided in this regard. These findings indicate that while more respondents approve of the use of these methods for treatment of less-serious conditions than disapprove of it, the approval is not as strong as it is for using these methods to treat more serious conditions and diseases, such as cancer or heart attacks. Respondents were not as approving of use of these methods for cosmetic purposes, such as creating new skin to restore someone’s youthful appearance. Almost one-half (45 to 50 percent) disapproved of this use, while only slightly more than one-quarter (25 to 29 percent) approved of this use. About one-quarter had mixed feelings or were undecided. Respondents did not support human reproductive cloning, neither of themselves nor of a child who had died, with almost three-quarters (71 to 73 percent) disapproving and only about one in 10 approving. About one in five had mixed feelings or was undecided. Respondents were quite evenly divided in their thoughts on animal cloning with slightly over a third approving, slightly over a third disapproving and about one-quarter having mixed feelings or being undecided.

Evans also found it interesting that the majority of respondents trusted their own judgment most when deciding on their approval or disapproval on stem cell research issues, rather than looking to their church or other authorities, such as governmental ethics committees. The vast majority, over two-thirds, says that in deciding whether it is right to allow these treatments, they would follow their own judgment. Only 4 percent gave greater moral weight to the Catholic Church than to themselves, and even among committed church-going Catholics, only about one in five defer to the church on these matters. Even those in the most disapproving demographic group, churchgoing fundamentalist women, were still more in favor than opposed” (Univ. of Nevada, 2011).

Conclusion 

With all of this said, I feel that stem cell research is extremely important and ethical. An embryo which is four or five days old, from which stem cells are derived, is not a human being yet, because it’s brain is nonfunctional and it’s heart is not beating. So destroying it would not be murder, it’s just a beginning of a long process of obtaining stem cells from it.

When researchers are only allowed to use embryos that are no longer required by the couple, or that are unsuitable for implantation along with the other guidelines put in place,(Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 Australia) I personally do not see how this is a destruction of life. I actually find myself thinking that this is a way to use the life within each embryo to potentially extend and save the lives of others. I find that no matter the act in question one can definitely have more than one view. Do I find it right to end one human life to save another? No. Do I think it is right to use human embryos that will not be used to help the common good? Yes. No matter what stage I believe an embryo is in when obtained for research, I find that it is better to utilize it than to just throw it away.

I’m in favor of stem cell research and utilitarian ideals, because I believe in striving for the greater good of all mankind. Utilitarianism believe that if the act is done with the common good in mind then the act is right (Mosser 2010). On the other hand Deontology rejects utilizing the results or consequences of an act to evaluate an act as moral and it would counter-argue saying that it is unethical to destroy human life to save human life, so this should not be done.

While both of these theories bring different ways of looking at something they both have challenges as well. Utilitarianism can help provide answers to decisions that can be backed by facts, provided that ethical problems are solved . In this scenario ethical issues can be solved by collecting and using facts and knowledge such as receiving federal and private support in terms of setting polices and  funding requirements ,educating public and get their thoughts and beliefs across to the public via television, newspapers and the Internet, conducting surveys . With knowledge one can create a true opinion about an issue and make their own justifiable views.

Overall I believe that stem cell research is beneficial. After researching deeper in to it I have come to realize that the good outweigh the bad. When people are not using embryos which are being just discarded why not use them for some good? The loss of life could help save another. In my eyes that is extremely beneficial in a world today where diseases are growing and we need to have cures.

References 

Australia Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002/guidelines/publications/hc38

Barker, R. A., & de Beaufort, I. (2013). Scientific and ethical issues related to stem cell research and interventions in neurodegenerative disorders of the brain. Progress in neurobiology, 110, 63-73.

Christopher A. Walsh, MD, PhD. (2016). Hsci.harvard.edu. Retrieved 9 September 2016, from https://hsci.harvard.edu/people/christopher-walsh-md-phd

EuroStem Cell, (2011). Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Ethical Dilemma. Retrieved from https://www.eurostemcell.org/factsheet/embryonic-stem-cell-research-ethical-dilemma Gold, R. B. (2004).

Harper, J., Geraedts, J., Borry, P., Cornel, M. C., Dondorp, W. J., Gianaroli, L., ... & Morris, M. (2014). Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. Human Reproduction, deu130.

Lowenthal, J., Lipnick, S., Rao, M., & Hull, S. C. (2012). Specimen collection for induced pluripotent stem cell research: harmonizing the approach to informed consent. Stem cells translational medicine, 1(5), 409-421.

Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu

National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007)/guidelines/publications/e72

Nowakowski, T. J., Pollen, A. A., Di Lullo, E., Sandoval-Espinosa, C., Bershteyn, M., & Kriegstein, A. R. (2016). Expression analysis highlights AXL as a candidate Zika virus entry receptor in neural stem cells. Cell stem cell, 18(5), 591-596.

Panno, J. (2014). Stem cell research: medical applications and ethical controversy. Infobase Publishing.

Science Daily. (2012). Adult Stem Cells. Retrieved fromhttps://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/adult_stem_cell.htm

Stem cell information. The National Institute of Health. Available https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics

Stem cell research. Available https://www.bioethics.com/stemcell.asp

Stem cell." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.Merriam-Webster Online. 14 November 2009

The misleading debate on stem cell research. August 20, 2004 Available https://www.townhall.com.  

Thinking About Christopher Reeve and the Legacy We Leave. October 15, 2004 Available https://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/flashing_2004-10-15.htm

Vogel, G. (2016). A race to explain Brazil's spike in birth defects. Science,351(6269), 110-111.