Introduction

The biological sciences, which was considered to be sedate and descriptive by many has shot into fame for all the wrong reasons. Almost all the major breakthroughs in biology have been mired in controversy owing to the fact that the new facilities at the disposal of the new-age scientists can go as far as altering life forms and modifying the precious gene pool. One branch of biology that is increasingly facing bouquets and brickbats in more or less equal measure is stem cell research, which seems to hold much promise for the future.

Analysis

Stem cell research involves the use of undifferentiated cells to grow and harvest fully formed cells that may be used to augment or replace the existing but degenerated cells in the human body. In therapeutic cloning, the cells are impregnated with the DNA of a donor and are then allowed to multiply. After a certain stage of cell division, the cells are harvested and transplanted on to the donor. This is also called stem cell transplant because the stem cells from the pre-embryo are removed, so that it may be allowed to develop into tissues or whole organs that can be transplanted into the donor. Such a procedure has many medical advantages. The patient does not have to use immunosuppressant and the question of the donor's body rejecting the new organ tissue is almost non-existent because the cells are derived from the donor. The fact that immunosuppressants need not be administered is in itself a great medical achievement. Such procedures can drastically reduce the need to obtain organs from donors. The risk associated with the organ transplant can also be reduced to a great extent. In addition the receiver will not have to wait for a donor since the technique can be used to create as many donor organs as required

Scientists, who oppose stem cell research are alarmed at the fact that today, if harvesting cells from an embryo that is a few days old is justified due to medical reasons, tomorrow, medical compulsions may justify harvesting cells from embryos that are fully grown. The thin line between medicine as a recuperative science and a science that removes the quality and diversity in human life would be further obliterated due to such practices [ Gardner, 2003].

The ethical question is whether we should ensure the destruction of our future generations in the name of medical science finding a cure. The medical science has the responsibility to save a life and ideally should not tolerate partiality between Lives: however insignificant it might seem to be. In the case of therapeutic cloning, the life of the embryo is sacrificed for saving the life of a person who can either afford to do so or who is held in so much high esteem that lives can be wasted for his exclusive use. It is possible that that this person is highly valuable to society but when the question of life is concerned, he and the insignificant embryo are equal. It seems that the medical science would conveniently like to forget this fact, which is a basic truth and requirement of this branch of science. Only unethical practices would find a difference between the embryo and the grownup. It is shuddering to note that the human embryo could be 'farmed' in the future to cure many diseases. . Pro life supporters, who believe that the embryo is a human person, object that manipulating and killing a human embryo accounts to nothing short of murder. They feel that during cloning, embryos are treated as a commodity and not as a living human being [Wilson, James 1998]

Most scientists also believe that there is nothing wrong with encouraging dormant cells to multiply in a manner as required by the scientists. However, many people argue that tampering with nature can give rise to consequences that could be out of the limits of the limited comprehension of modern science. It is for this reason that many scientists argue that stem cell research is a Pandora’s Box that could give rise to many new and totally confounding issues that may be difficult to handle [Dobson, 2004]. While agriculture and animal husbandry has got a tremendous boost because of cloning endeavors, the fact that human cloning cannot be merely seen in a scientific perspective makes the ethical and moral aspects of human cloning a highly contended issue. For example, do we have the right to make 'copies' of human beings whose qualities and capabilities are, to a reasonable extent, selected and manipulated by us? Stem cells are the first steps in creating full fledged individuals and so they can be misused for further research [ Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, 2004; McGee, Glenn , 2002]

Professional ethics are not even considered when applying stem cell research in modern labs. For example doctors have no qualms in ‘harvesting’ tissues taken from human cells because they feel that the undivided mass of cells do not have an identity. Similarly, scientists do not have qualms about consigning human derived living material as fodder for scientific research. This sends out clear signals that in the future man would be considered more as a machine than as an individual with emotions and pains that is well beyond the realm of science.