Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The basis of the most high profile of these objections, that
harvesting stem cells destroys the embryo in the process, is somewhat
debated. Some scientists object, for example, that the embryo is not
necessarily destroyed by cell harvesting but that the embryos are
discarded after harvesting, which is no different to what happens in
IVF (Tuch, 2010). In theory, this suggests that the embryo could still
be used for reproductive purposes, but in practice this is not how it
works. Social scientists have described the ways that embryos are
collected for stem cell research as being part of an 'embryo supply'
where embryos not used in an IVF context may then become available
afterwards for research purposes (Franklin, 2006; Glasner, 2005).
Moreover, this process has been described as mostly a 'one-way'
model, where little benefit flows back into IVF (Franklin, 2006).
There are also potential difficulties in ensuring the ethical provenance
of the embryo supply when stem cell lines become, in effect, immortal
(Glasner, 2005). However, both of these studies refer to the UK
where only embryos deemed to be 'excess' or 'surplus' to IVF
requirements may be donated to research.
Media coverage of the stem cell debate has also typically tended
to polarize the discussion over human embryonic stem cell research
into an either/or choice about what to do with embryos. In Australia
in 2001 and 2002, for example, it was not uncommon to find whole
pages of local newspapers dedicated to explicating the stem cell
debate in terms of scientists and patients arguing for the potential
benefits of hESC research on one side, and religious leaders against
the destruction of embryos on the other (Harvey, 2005). This reflects
a similar pattern that occurred in the UK. One study of the UK
debate suggests that the media focused exclusively on the status and
potentiality of the embryo, with competing sides of the debate
mobilizing different rhetorical strategies about the values attached to
embryos in order to support their views (Williams et al., 2003).
One of the effects of such limited media debate is a lack of social
and political critique of medicine and science more generally
(Williams et al., 2003). Moreover, focusing solely on the role of the
embryo limits any sense of a broader debate about the development
of hESC research (Williams et al., 2003; Goggin and Newell, 2004).
An example of this has been shown in an analysis of how disability
