Most difficult interview topic: stem cell research

[CenteredDoc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

"Based on your knowledge, what is your opinion concerning the government's standing in regard to stem cell research?" - Dr. Kenneday, Assistant Dean of Admission, LSU School of Medicine in Shreveport.

I just got stuck on this question. I guess I should've done my hw. but i'm pretty sure this question will come up again on my future interviews. so how should i approach it?

 

[gogo110182]

just to let you know, you're asking yourself..... how should "I" approach it...... not how should "others" approach it.....

 

[Chris127]

just to let you know, you're asking yourself..... how should "I" approach it...... not how should "others" approach it.....

Thats what I was about to say

You said it yourself Gameboi, you should have done your homework. Just research the topic a little, thats all. Have a general idea on whats happening with stem cells around the world, and how our government compares to foreign goverments in terms of monetary and legal limiations on what can be done with stem cells.

 

[Chopianista]

You need to do your research. Evaulate the pros, cons, & ethical issues... formulate an opinion, and support it with facts. I think there is another thread somewhere that posted a good link regarding stem cell research. Anyone know what it was?

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Just be able to discuss both sides of the argument, but I would recommend coming down on the side of arguing to do the greatest good for the greatest number (i.e. Bush is wrong, that stem cell research is going to do far more good than harm and there is very little ethically wrong despite the religious right's best efforts to convince otherwise). At least given stem cell research then something good comes from an abortion.

 

[maddscientist]

Just be able to discuss both sides of the argument, but I would recommend coming down on the side of arguing to do the greatest good for the greatest number (i.e. Bush is wrong, that stem cell research is going to do far more good than harm and there is very little ethically wrong despite the religious right's best efforts to convince otherwise). At least given stem cell research then something good comes from an abortion.

Sorry, your post is wrong and this is why people get tripped up by these "hard" questions. Usually, the embryos from which human stem cell lines are derived are the byproducts of in vitro fertiliztion, NOT abortions. They have thousands of these embryos hanging out in liquid nitrogen storage. It would be "unethical" to dispose of them because they could give rise to a child if implanted, but nobody is using them. This is what is ironic about the pro-life position-they have no problem if somone uses medical technology to help a couple concieve a child via IVF, but they make no mention of the fate of the embryos created as a byproduct. Current researchers just want to be able to derive new stem cell lines from these embryos because of the difficulty in obtaining one of the few publically available lines.

The current administration's policies are having a chilling effect on biological research. Stay out of my lab and I'll stay out of your church

 

[DrMike24]

How is stem cell research the most difficult interview topic? There are so many harder topics, i.e. abortion, euthenasia, jehovah's witness and surgery, etc. Just do a little research and you should be alright. I wish I was asked about stem cell research, I could go on forever about our terrible policies; instead I got all my examples 🙁

 

[Pewl]

Personally I think euthanasia is the toughest subject.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Sorry, I misunderstood a basic fact, but the gist of my post (that you need to understand both sides of the argument) still stands. But then again I've not really investigated the source of stem cell lines (I don't have a big interest in cell biology- frankly it bores the hell out of me) and I'm still quite a ways from interviewing so I have no imminent reason to read up.

But I do agree strongly with the sentiment about staying out of the lab......

 

[Suppuration]

"Based on your knowledge, what is your opinion concerning the government's standing in regard to stem cell research?" - Dr. Kenneday, Assistant Dean of Admission, LSU School of Medicine in Shreveport.

I just got stuck on this question. I guess I should've done my hw. but i'm pretty sure this question will come up again on my future interviews. so how should i approach it?

For your homework, Arthur Caplan (the director of the U. Penn Center for Bioethics) has been fairly prolific in addressing the stem cell debate. A search on google will yield leads on the articles he's written on the subject over the last few years. You'll also find opposing opinions that reference his columns. It's by no means comprehensive or unbiased, but he does manage to distill things down nicely. Good talking points for interviews.

 

[Chris127]

Usually, the embryos from which human stem cell lines are derived are the byproducts of in vitro fertiliztion, NOT abortions. They have thousands of these embryos hanging out in liquid nitrogen storage. It would be "unethical" to dispose of them because they could give rise to a child if implanted, but nobody is using them. This is what is ironic about the pro-life position-they have no problem if somone uses medical technology to help a couple concieve a child via IVF, but they make no mention of the fate of the embryos created as a byproduct. Current researchers just want to be able to derive new stem cell lines from these embryos because of the difficulty in obtaining one of the few publically available lines.

The current administration's policies are having a chilling effect on biological research. Stay out of my lab and I'll stay out of your church

Nice post

 

[mustangsally65]

Sorry, your post is wrong and this is why people get tripped up by these "hard" questions. Usually, the embryos from which human stem cell lines are derived are the byproducts of in vitro fertiliztion, NOT abortions. They have thousands of these embryos hanging out in liquid nitrogen storage.

This is exactly what I was going to say. I had a biology teacher who told our class this, and I was flabbergasted. The pro-lifers try to keep this fact cleverly hidden, but in fact there are huge numbers of embryos created from in vitro fertilization, and it's cruel to think they are being thrown away instead of put to good use.

I don't advocate using abortion byproducts, but when you think about it, they're just going to be thrown away as well. What's the difference? As long as the abortion isn't solely to obtain stem cells, then it should be okay. If someone has an abortion for the normal and socially-accepted "reasons" that people have abortions, then why shouldn't the cells be used?

Try to be logical and don't let emotions get in the way. But at the same time, realize that the interviewer might have personal circumstances that might affect their answers to the questions. I remember the example of a girl who was a gymnast or something and she had an abortion when she was young because she didn't have time for a baby and wasn't ready. A few years later she found out she had uterine cancer and had to have a hysterectomy, and she regretted having an abortion. I had a teacher whose father was killed by a drunk driver, and she was really sensitive about drinking. Just try to have some tact and don't dig a hole for yourself.

I think interviewers know that there aren't right answers to these questions, they just want to see if you've put some thought into it and think logically and can problem-solve.

 

[indo]

What have embryonic stems cells given us thus far?

 

[Flopotomist]

I am terrified that I am going to be asked this question when i interview at Loyola. I really really like the school, and hope that my beliefs on this will not keep me out of a Jesuit school. Crossing fingers.

 

[humuhumu]

Nice place to start: http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp

I'd just say I support the position of the NIH:

"The development of stem cell lines that can produce many tissues of the human body is an important scientific breakthrough. This research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life. Given the enormous promise of stem cells therapies for so many devastating diseases, NIH believes that it is important to simultaneously pursue all lines of research and search for the very best sources of these cells."

 

[Turkeyman]

The subject isn't hard, personally I'm for receiving stem cells from leftover fertilility treatments, as well as those you can harness from the umbilical cord after birth because, as madscientist said, they simply aren't being used and happen to be leftovers of widely accepted procedures. However, I'm not exactly sure how I feel about simply "producing" an embryo through cloning techniques for the purpose of terminating it and harvesting those stem cells. Just do your research and you'll be fine.

Yeah, euthanasia is a very difficult one for me...I keep thinking about that issue over and over in my head, because it seems no matter what you end up doing...there's something either morally wrong/disturbing for the physician or extremely painful for the patient. Blah!

 

[sfbear]

It would also be helpful to keep abreast of new research. there are two recent methods to attempt to sidestep the ethical debate, and they might be interesting to talk about during an interview:

1. taking a cell from an 8-cell embryo (routinely done for genetic testing) and transforming that using established stem cell lines. the 7-cell embryo can then develop normally.

Now Bob Lanza and colleagues at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, say they have devised a way to avoid harming the embryo. They took a mouse embryo that had reached the eight-cell stage, and removed one cell. This was then placed alongside other ESCs. These produce signalling chemicals that instruct the lone cell to itself become an ESC, which can then be cultured into a potentially inexhaustible supply (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature04277).

2. genetically modifying the egg before fertilization by replacing it with the nucleus of a donor cell and infecting it so that it cannot develop a viable placenta, and therefore is not a potential life.

The second technique, called altered nuclear transfer, was devised by Rudolf Jaenisch and Alexander Meissner at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Whitehead Institute in Boston. ANT overcomes ethical objections to extracting ESCs from "transient cloned" embryos. These are created by removing the nucleus from an egg, and replacing it with the nucleus of a donor cell, such as a skin cell. An electric current then prompts the altered cell to develop into an embryo, which is destroyed when its ESCs are harvested. By using a patient's own skin cell, ESCs created this way could be used to make matched tissues for that person.
Jaenisch and Meissner took a mouse skin cell and infected it with a virus that blocks the action of Cdx2, a gene essential for formation of the placenta (see Diagram). The cell's nucleus was then placed in a mouse egg to create a modified embryo that, in theory, is not viable as it cannot implant in the womb (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature04257).

http://www.advancedcell.com/recent-...h-for-derivation-of-embryonic-stem-cell-lines

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18825224.000;jsessionid=PHDMLFNANMLI

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

It would also be helpful to keep abreast of new research. there are two recent methods to attempt to sidestep the ethical debate, and they might be interesting to talk about during an interview:

1. taking a cell from an 8-cell embryo (routinely done for genetic testing) and transforming that using established stem cell lines. the 7-cell embryo can then develop normally.

Now Bob Lanza and colleagues at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Massachusetts, say they have devised a way to avoid harming the embryo. They took a mouse embryo that had reached the eight-cell stage, and removed one cell. This was then placed alongside other ESCs. These produce signalling chemicals that instruct the lone cell to itself become an ESC, which can then be cultured into a potentially inexhaustible supply (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature04277).

2. genetically modifying the egg before fertilization by replacing it with the nucleus of a donor cell and infecting it so that it cannot develop a viable placenta, and therefore is not a potential life.

The second technique, called altered nuclear transfer, was devised by Rudolf Jaenisch and Alexander Meissner at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Whitehead Institute in Boston. ANT overcomes ethical objections to extracting ESCs from "transient cloned" embryos. These are created by removing the nucleus from an egg, and replacing it with the nucleus of a donor cell, such as a skin cell. An electric current then prompts the altered cell to develop into an embryo, which is destroyed when its ESCs are harvested. By using a patient's own skin cell, ESCs created this way could be used to make matched tissues for that person.
Jaenisch and Meissner took a mouse skin cell and infected it with a virus that blocks the action of Cdx2, a gene essential for formation of the placenta (see Diagram). The cell's nucleus was then placed in a mouse egg to create a modified embryo that, in theory, is not viable as it cannot implant in the womb (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature04257).

http://www.advancedcell.com/recent-...h-for-derivation-of-embryonic-stem-cell-lines

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18825224.000;jsessionid=PHDMLFNANMLI

(1) is interesting but somewhat ambiguous. I would have to be sure that the embryo was not harmed in any way. Even then I would still find the whole thing a bit murkey.

(2) is really very much like regular stem cell stuff, since you activate the "donored" oocyte into an embryo. The implantation/pregnancy is irrelevant. Also, donoring an oocyte is effectively giving you a human clone, which I don't agree with at all.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Sorry, your post is wrong and this is why people get tripped up by these "hard" questions. Usually, the embryos from which human stem cell lines are derived are the byproducts of in vitro fertiliztion, NOT abortions. They have thousands of these embryos hanging out in liquid nitrogen storage. It would be "unethical" to dispose of them because they could give rise to a child if implanted, but nobody is using them. This is what is ironic about the pro-life position-they have no problem if somone uses medical technology to help a couple concieve a child via IVF, but they make no mention of the fate of the embryos created as a byproduct. Current researchers just want to be able to derive new stem cell lines from these embryos because of the difficulty in obtaining one of the few publically available lines.

The current administration's policies are having a chilling effect on biological research. Stay out of my lab and I'll stay out of your church

This is silly. Not everyone agrees with IVF as it is being done currently. I, for one, believe in IVF if only a few embryos are fertilized and all are transfered for implantation.

As for your cliched little catch-phrases ("Stay out of my lab and I'll stay out of your church") - trash like that gets real old, REAL fast.

 

[Turkeyman]

This is silly. Not everyone agrees with IVF as it is being done currently. I, for one, believe in IVF if only a few embryos as fertilized and all are transfered for implantation.

As for your cliched little catch-phrases ("Stay out of my lab and I'll stay out of your church") - trash like that gets real old, REAL fast.

I was wondering if you knew, on average, how many eggs are actually sent in for implantation? I've heard each egg(or maybe each set of eggs?) costs close to 8k, and that couples spend an average of 64k when doing IVF. Seems like quite a lot of eggs if it were to be a "set" of eggs each time...they'd most likely have leftovers from each trial. Anyways not an expert on the subject, just wondering hahah.

 

[sfbear]

(1) is interesting but somewhat ambiguous. I would have to be sure that the embryo was not harmed in any way. Even then I would still find the whole thing a bit murkey.

(2) is really very much like regular stem cell stuff, since you activate the "donored" oocyte into an embryo. The implantation/pregnancy is irrelevant. Also, donoring an oocyte is effectively giving you a human clone, which I don't agree with at all.

I personally think that (1) is the most interesting because it uses a procedure which is currently performed routinely (and so there is extensive data on the development of 7-cell embryos), and that is removing a cell from an 8-cell stage embryo. The difference is that it is currently used for genetic testing, whereas here it would be to create a stem cell line.

I agree with you on (2), but some people feel that having the change made before fertilization is a very important distinction.

I only put up short blurbs and of course if you want more info, the Nature references are there. my point is that if you are concerned about these types of questions, it's really helpful to know something about the current events. I was definitely grilled on those in my interviews, and it doesn't hurt to be prepared.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I personally think that (1) is the most interesting because it uses a procedure which is currently performed routinely (and so there is extensive data on the development of 7-cell embryos), and that is removing a cell from an 8-cell stage embryo. The difference is that it is currently used for genetic testing, whereas here it would be to create a stem cell line.

I agree with you on (2), but some people feel that having the change made before fertilization is a very important distinction.

I only put up short blurbs and of course if you want more info, the Nature references are there. my point is that if you are concerned about these types of questions, it's really helpful to know something about the current events. I was definitely grilled on those in my interviews, and it doesn't hurt to be prepared.

I didn't mean to sound critical. I'm actually very grateful to you for putting up that info, since I didn't know about the first technique at all and very little about the second. Thanks.

 

[dajimmers]

Method two seems more useful for a scientific/medical purpose, as this "cloning" allows you to choose a nucleus (i.e. a donor who needs a certain organ replaced), rather than working with sexually-recombined nuclei.

However, I don't really see how a virus that prevents placenta formation is any different really than a tissue culture dish that prevents embryo growth. In both cases something must be changed (remove virus, implant embryo) for the embryo to really have the "potential" to become a human being.

I strongly believe that individuals have domain over their genetic information, until that information becomes a separate thinking (sentient) being. To me, this means that your genetic information is protected, you can have abortions (until sentience/thinking develops in the fetus- a difficult thing to time exactly), you can donate embryos to stem cell research, you can use contraceptives, and anything else you feel like doing with your gametes and "potential humans."

I'm sure many disagree with me, but this to me is the soundest argument I can believe in, and allows the research that can lead to remarkable discoveries and treatments.

 

[MissTreesh]

I totally agree with you. Rock on.

 

[Chrissy]

Method two seems more useful for a scientific/medical purpose, as this "cloning" allows you to choose a nucleus (i.e. a donor who needs a certain organ replaced), rather than working with sexually-recombined nuclei.

However, I don't really see how a virus that prevents placenta formation is any different really than a tissue culture dish that prevents embryo growth. In both cases something must be changed (remove virus, implant embryo) for the embryo to really have the "potential" to become a human being.

I strongly believe that individuals have domain over their genetic information, until that information becomes a separate thinking (sentient) being. To me, this means that your genetic information is protected, you can have abortions (until sentience/thinking develops in the fetus- a difficult thing to time exactly), you can donate embryos to stem cell research, you can use contraceptives, and anything else you feel like doing with your gametes and "potential humans."

I'm sure many disagree with me, but this to me is the soundest argument I can believe in, and allows the research that can lead to remarkable discoveries and treatments.

i know this may sound really bad...but does anyone know of a short book with summaries of common ethical/current issues in healthcare....something that might be perfect to read before an interview? thanks

 

[maddscientist]

This is silly. Not everyone agrees with IVF as it is being done currently. I, for one, believe in IVF if only a few embryos are fertilized and all are transfered for implantation.

As for your cliched little catch-phrases ("Stay out of my lab and I'll stay out of your church") - trash like that gets real old, REAL fast.

I'm glad to hear that you "believe" in a form of IVF, but I am sorry to hear that you do not respect the segregation of religious beliefs from the implementation of the law. Since you seem to be a quote connoisseur here is an apropriate one from Thomas Jefferson:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

 

[Uncle_Tbag]

I'm glad to hear that you "believe" in a form of IVF, but I am sorry to hear that you do not respect the segregation of religious beliefs from the implementation of the law. Since you seem to be a quote connoisseur here is an apropriate one from Thomas Jefferson:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

How trite.

You do know that the law must take a stance on what constitutes life?. Without a legal standard that takes into account the protection of life, the legal system wouldn't be good for much of anything.

Whether you like it or not, the government and the courts have a strong say in what goes on in your or any other lab and it has nothing to do with separation of C&S.

 

[ahd929]

The current administration's policies are having a chilling effect on biological research. Stay out of my lab and I'll stay out of your church

president bush has not "banned" stem cell research; he has decided not to allow federal money to be used to advance it. so, strictly speaking, he is "staying out of your lab."

the argument against stem-cell research is your standard slippery-slope scenario: once we accept that it is okay to destroy human embryos so that they may be used as unwilling participants in medical research, where does that take us? inmates on death row are "thrown out" too - shall we harvest their organs? or use their remains for medical research without permission? right now, it is considered unethical to create human embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them to harvest stem cells. but how far away is that from being the norm, given current trends?

the last thing you want to do is pretend as if there is not an ethical dilemma here - what i call the "why not?" argument for stem-cell research. ("should we use leftover embryos for stem-cell research?" "yes, of course, and why not?") i worked in a lab, and i recall the doc i worked for telling me that we would be violating ethical standards if we used anonymous patients' blood samples for purposes other than what we obtained consent to do (as in, we told the patient we would be testing their platelets, and instead - or in addition - we did a genotype). if that is a potential ethical bombshell, how can the destruction of embryos not be?

bottom line, know and understand both sides, know and understand that there is an ethical cost/benefit analysis that must be done in addition to the standard economic cost/benefit analysis, and be able to talk intelligently about the dilemma (and, like i said, don't pretend as if it doesn't exist). my two cents.

 

[dajimmers]

I hate slippery slope arguments. Too "predictive" of what one thinks "might" happen as a result. Yes, we now work with human cells in labs, but not ones with the potential (well, Natural potential) to become whole humans. But they are alive. I guess the slippery slope argument would be that we will move on to cells with a Natural potential to become whole humans (embryos), and from there, to what?

But the slippery slope argument often does not hold true. We used to experiment on living humans against their will (mentally disabled, Africans, concentration camps), but we don't today experiment on even more people against their will.

Another argument against stem cell research is that embryos have the potential to become whole humans, and current research (not including the new study noted above) requires the "destruction" of an embryo during the harvesting of stem cells. But why is this eight-celled embryo growing in a dish used as the fixed point of human potential? My gametes right now have some potential to become a human. The frozen embryos left over from IVF treatments have some potential.

But, in each case, something must be done to actually allow the cell to become a human. The gamete must be fertilized, and the embryos must be moved from a dish to a living uterus. It's like suggesting that I myself could repopulate the Earth- no, I'd need something else, in this case a fertile female (weak analogy, but it's late).

The argument I've mentioned above ("sentience") has the same flaw- when exactly does sentience form in the developing fetus? But, it avoids issue with stem cell research and first-trimester abortions, and even gives suggestions for end-of-life matters for the brain-dead or nearly brain-dead.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I hate slippery slope arguments. Too "predictive" of what one thinks "might" happen as a result. Yes, we now work with human cells in labs, but not ones with the potential (well, Natural potential) to become whole humans. But they are alive. I guess the slippery slope argument would be that we will move on to cells with a Natural potential to become whole humans (embryos), and from there, to what?

But the slippery slope argument often does not hold true. We used to experiment on living humans against their will (mentally disabled, Africans, concentration camps), but we don't today experiment on even more people against their will.

Another argument against stem cell research is that embryos have the potential to become whole humans, and current research (not including the new study noted above) requires the "destruction" of an embryo during the harvesting of stem cells. But why is this eight-celled embryo growing in a dish used as the fixed point of human potential? My gametes right now have some potential to become a human. The frozen embryos left over from IVF treatments have some potential.

But, in each case, something must be done to actually allow the cell to become a human. The gamete must be fertilized, and the embryos must be moved from a dish to a living uterus. It's like suggesting that I myself could repopulate the Earth- no, I'd need something else, in this case a fertile female (weak analogy, but it's late).

The argument I've mentioned above ("sentience") has the same flaw- when exactly does sentience form in the developing fetus? But, it avoids issue with stem cell research and first-trimester abortions, and even gives suggestions for end-of-life matters for the brain-dead or nearly brain-dead.

Garbage. The whole viability argument is trash. Following that logic, a baby left on a table is only potentially human, because it is not "independent," for it will surely die of dehydration if someone does not take care of it.

The simple fact is that, whereas a sperm or an egg is a part of a larger, genetically distinct, individual, a zygote is an entirely new entity that is genetically distinct. And that's just the biological argument - no ethics there.

As for sentience - equally weak. We have no idea what degree of consciousness a three day old baby (or even a two year old) might have - but it is almost certainly not at the level of an adult. And, we have no way of finding out. Are babies, mentally ******ed, and senile people thus less human and less deserving of life than adults of average or above average intelligence? Is an unconscious person or someone in a coma no longer human?

What does it really mean to be human? It obviously isn't sentience/consciousness, nor is it some sort of "autonomy". My conclusion is that he or she who is created in the image of God is a human being (regardless of his independence, intelligence, beauty, etc.), and that an individual human comes into existence when the sperm and the egg fuse to form a whole new organism.

 

[Suppuration]

Garbage. The whole viability argument is trash. Following that logic, a baby left on a table is only potentially human, because it is not "independent," for it will surely die of dehydration if someone does not take care of it.

Main Entry: vi·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL
1 : capable of living; especially : capable of surviving outside the mother's womb without artificial support <the normal human fetus is usually viable by the end of the seventh month>

 

[ahd929]

I hate slippery slope arguments. Too "predictive" of what one thinks "might" happen as a result. Yes, we now work with human cells in labs, but not ones with the potential (well, Natural potential) to become whole humans. But they are alive. I guess the slippery slope argument would be that we will move on to cells with a Natural potential to become whole humans (embryos), and from there, to what?

But the slippery slope argument often does not hold true. We used to experiment on living humans against their will (mentally disabled, Africans, concentration camps), but we don't today experiment on even more people against their will.

Another argument against stem cell research is that embryos have the potential to become whole humans, and current research (not including the new study noted above) requires the "destruction" of an embryo during the harvesting of stem cells. But why is this eight-celled embryo growing in a dish used as the fixed point of human potential? My gametes right now have some potential to become a human. The frozen embryos left over from IVF treatments have some potential.

But, in each case, something must be done to actually allow the cell to become a human. The gamete must be fertilized, and the embryos must be moved from a dish to a living uterus. It's like suggesting that I myself could repopulate the Earth- no, I'd need something else, in this case a fertile female (weak analogy, but it's late).

The argument I've mentioned above ("sentience") has the same flaw- when exactly does sentience form in the developing fetus? But, it avoids issue with stem cell research and first-trimester abortions, and even gives suggestions for end-of-life matters for the brain-dead or nearly brain-dead.

you're right that a common weakness with slippery slope arguments is that, in general, we are moving toward a more humane, more ethical approach to medical experimentation. however, in this case we are dealing with technology that is relatively new (embryos in a lab, only since the 70's) and, if anything, are becoming more and more cavalier about how those embryos are treated. we used to keep them indefinitely, then we "threw them away" (is burying a dead adult not "throwing away"?), and now we are using them for research. that's why i invoked the slippery slope, because it would seem so apt here.

an embryo requires means to survive and grow - as you said, a uterus. i also require means to survive and grow, which is why i eat and drink every day. neither my need for food nor an embryo's need for implantation necessarily negates our basic rights - among them the right not to be used as an unwilling participant in medical research.

sentience is likewise irrelevant for the reason you gave: nobody knows when "sentience" begins, and i for one don't care.

i know people don't tend to change their minds on this issue and issues like it, but for the purposes of the interview (the reason this thread was started), being able to understand both sides in a serious way is what you really need. go blue.

 

[crzyemeni]

The subject isn't hard, personally I'm for receiving stem cells from leftover fertilility treatments, as well as those you can harness from the umbilical cord after birth because, as madscientist said, they simply aren't being used and happen to be leftovers of widely accepted procedures. However, I'm not exactly sure how I feel about simply "producing" an embryo through cloning techniques for the purpose of terminating it and harvesting those stem cells. Just do your research and you'll be fine.

Yeah, euthanasia is a very difficult one for me...I keep thinking about that issue over and over in my head, because it seems no matter what you end up doing...there's something either morally wrong/disturbing for the physician or extremely painful for the patient. Blah!

The fact that they are not being used doesn't rule out the fact that they can be used. That is the only weakness in that argument.

Recent research has found that embryonic stem cells can be harvested without harming the fetus. This is where I am putting my money. This has only been done in monkey's and mice, but they say the potential for human experimentation is def there.

I honestly have yet to have a stem cell type ethical question. I think it may come up if you are lacking in the research end of your application.

stem cells are cool 😍

 

[qwerty123]

I remember my pre-med advisor telling me that these types of questions were "illegal" (stands on abortion, stem-cell research, religion, etc). Have I been misinformed??

 

[dajimmers]

ahd and others- good points. Honestly, it's an issue that simply can't be resolved, and I don't think it should be. The healthy debate we've been having is good for research, and good for society.

I do appreciate the new methods that potentially save the embryo, but wonder of what use this embryo would be? I doubt parents would willingly decide to go with a seven-celled embryo as opposed to an unblemished eight-celled embryo if undergoing IVF. They already have enough concerns, let alone a procedure that will most likely (though not necessarily) reduce their chances at producing a healthy baby. And I don't think money should be an incentive to use the stem cell harvesting method over the normal method- you'd be forcing poorer families to go with a riskier procedure in the name of science. Also, if you just did the procedure with the "extra" embryos left over from IVF, wouldn't you still be left with an embryo that will not be a human, just with a temporal shift between harvesting stem cell and terminating embryo?

 

[crzyemeni]

I remember my pre-med advisor telling me that these types of questions were "illegal" (stands on abortion, stem-cell research, religion, etc).


Have I been misinformed??

YUP!!

That sort of a statement would make me question everything that advisor told you.

Its the "meat and potatoes" of the interview and its a way to gauge your personality and ethical standpoints.

They may be illegal on job interviews, but this is an entirely different ball park.

 

[SMRT]

I do appreciate the new methods that potentially save the embryo, but wonder of what use this embryo would be? I doubt parents would willingly decide to go with a seven-celled embryo as opposed to an unblemished eight-celled embryo if undergoing IVF. They already have enough concerns, let alone a procedure that will most likely (though not necessarily) reduce their chances at producing a healthy baby.

Actually the removal of one cell at the 8-cell stage and subsequent implantation of a 7-cell embryo is done fairly routinely during IVF for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. For certain indications such as advanced maternal age, or where one or both parents carry or are affected by a single-gene disease, the couple can opt for PGD. Of course this situation is quite different than harvesting the single cell in order to produce a stem-cell line. In PGD the couple has a potential benefit, whereas in the other case they don't (other than the greater good I guess). Removal of a cell for PGD is not without its own controveries as well.

Some info on PGD: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3520.htm

 

[Babooshka]

Main Entry: vi·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL
1 : capable of living; especially : capable of surviving outside the mother's womb without artificial support <the normal human fetus is usually viable by the end of the seventh month>

If the baby can survive by humans, it's living. If it takes a machine, operated by humans, it's not alive. BTW, I can't wait to tell my friend with diabetes (who uses a blood sugar monitor) he died (is dead). Talk about random trivia!

 

[Babooshka]

Honestly, it's an issue that simply can't be resolved, and I don't think it should be. The healthy debate we've been having is good for research, and good for society.

Ofcourse it can be resolved, why not? Here, let me come up with a scenerio. One side of the argument convinces the other, people change their minds, and start acting differently.
And why wouldn't you want it to be resolved? The implications are whether or not people are dying, and you'd rather we just debate about the issue without actually figuring out any answers?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Ofcourse it can be resolved, why not? Here, let me come up with a scenerio. One side of the argument convinces the other, people change their minds, and start acting differently.
And why wouldn't you want it to be resolved? The implications are whether or not people are dying, and you'd rather we just debate about the issue without actually figuring out any answers?

Thanks for taking him up on that. The insidious and perfidious "logic" foisted by the liberals leads to atrocious nonsense. Why would an argument about killing (with the killing continuing at full speed) be "good for society"? We should stand firm against these minions of moral madness.

 

[dilated]

Thanks for taking him up on that. The insidious and perfidious "logic" foisted by the liberals leads to atrocious nonsense. Why would an argument about killing (with the killing continuing at full speed) be "good for society"? We should stand firm against these minions of moral madness.

What are you going to do when someone in South Korea or the EU discovers a cure for a disease using embryonic stem cells (and it's probably just a matter of time)? Are you going to say that US citizens should die so that no embryos are destroyed while South Koreans and EUers live? Good luck with that one; resistance to ESC research will recede to the hard core right wing immediately and it will become political suicide to be against it. Unless one accepts the highly dubious proposition that nothing useful will ever emerge from embryonic stem cell research, it's just a question of whether we're going to do the groundwork for it in the US or not and how long it will take.

 

[Babooshka]

What are you going to do when someone in South Korea or the EU discovers a cure for a disease using embryonic stem cells (and it's probably just a matter of time)? Are you going to say that US citizens should die so that no embryos are destroyed while South Koreans and EUers live? Good luck with that one; resistance to ESC research will recede to the hard core right wing immediately and it will become political suicide to be against it. Unless one accepts the highly dubious proposition that nothing useful will ever emerge from embryonic stem cell research, it's just a question of whether we're going to do the groundwork for it in the US or not and how long it will take.

Our point doesn't have to do with what people will do, but what people ought to do.

Are you going to say that US citizens should die so that no embryos are destroyed while South Koreans and EUers live?

You see, my formula is simple. The unborn and born are a subset of people. So, your question can be simplifed into "Are you going to say that US people should die so that no people are destroyed while South Korean and EU people live?" Yes, I am saying that we should not kill people over there to save people over here.

--Cheers,

 

[Babooshka]

Thanks for taking him up on that. The insidious and perfidious "logic" foisted by the liberals leads to atrocious nonsense. Why would an argument about killing (with the killing continuing at full speed) be "good for society"? We should stand firm against these minions of moral madness.

I'm with you but I don't even think this is an issue with liberals. It's a problem of not critically analyzing an argument. If some believe it is the case that embryos are not living, then they ought to know what it means to live. Too often, they don't. It's a byproduct of our postmodernist culture (liberals especially) to think emotions and feelings make an opinion true, or even worse, that the truth value of an opinion is arbitrary (as per Dajimmers's post). It doesn't offend me that people are pro-abortion/embryonic dismantling, I used to be one of those people, because I assume they haven't thought about the subject in depth or do not appreciate the gravity of its implications. But I do get frustrated when without rational reason, they hold unto their opinions because of their irreverence for the truth.

--Cheers,

 

[Babooshka]

i know this may sound really bad...but does anyone know of a short book with summaries of common ethical/current issues in healthcare....something that might be perfect to read before an interview? thanks

Chrissy,

I suggest you read up on the moral law. Know what is moral. Live that way. In interviews, your response will be more substantial and attentive to details than if you knew a handful of specific ethical threads.

--Cheers,

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

What are you going to do when someone in South Korea or the EU discovers a cure for a disease using embryonic stem cells (and it's probably just a matter of time)? Are you going to say that US citizens should die so that no embryos are destroyed while South Koreans and EUers live? Good luck with that one; resistance to ESC research will recede to the hard core right wing immediately and it will become political suicide to be against it. Unless one accepts the highly dubious proposition that nothing useful will ever emerge from embryonic stem cell research, it's just a question of whether we're going to do the groundwork for it in the US or not and how long it will take.

This argument is not about what is useful. It is about what is moral. Therefore, yes, if such a discovery were made, I would not support its implementation in the US or anywhere.

Regarding usefulness, is there any evidence of embryonic stem cells effecting cures in animals, particularly of conditions that adult or umbilical stem cells couldn't?

Lastly, I am very disturbed by the fact that the EU, US, South Korea, and others are making an enormous deal about a morally and practically dubious technique, rather than focusing on diseases that are killing tens of millions of people all over the (mostly developing) world. Where is the hepatitis C vaccine? The cures for hep B and C? AIDS cure? Immunotherapeutics for autoimmune diseases?

Quite simply, embryonic stem cells are not going to produce what they promise.

 

[indo]

So, why aren't biotech companies throwing tons of money into embryonic stem cells rather than adult stem cells?

 

[tacrum43]

My conclusion is that he or she who is created in the image of God is a human being (regardless of his independence, intelligence, beauty, etc.), and that an individual human comes into existence when the sperm and the egg fuse to form a whole new organism.

But that's just it, a blastocyst (let alone a zygote) is not a whole organism. It has the entire genetic code of one, but it isn't one. I would argue that a "human" at this stage has no soul, because it can split to form two separate people.

2/3 of all blastocysts abort naturally, do you really think God would allow 2/3 of his creations to die before they were even born? I don't. And therefore I don't think you can consider a blastocyst to really be alive. It has the potential for life, yes, but it's not alive yet.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

But that's just it, a blastocyst (let alone a zygote) is not a whole organism. It has the entire genetic code of one, but it isn't one. I would argue that a "human" at this stage has no soul, because it can split to form two separate people.

2/3 of all blastocysts abort naturally, do you really think God would allow 2/3 of his creations to die before they were even born? I don't. And therefore I don't think you can consider a blastocyst to really be alive. It has the potential for life, yes, but it's not alive yet.

First of all, it IS a whole new organism. Whether it has a soul or not has nothing to do with its biological status as a whole new organism.

As for the soul not entering because of possible splitting, that's an interesting argument, but as I have no proof that in such a situation the already present soul wouldn't go to one of the new embryos, and the other would receive a new soul, I won't go into the specifics of when a soul might enter. As I had said before, I believe it is when a whole new human organism arises. In this case, that would mean that when the twins split off, a whole new organism has arisen (and thus received a soul).

As for the 2/3 stat, it doesn't really concern me. That is God's affair, and I would venture to say that such things are a consequence of sin and the Fall, just like aging, death, and disease are, and that it is not the result of God's oversight.

 

[docbill]

That would be a great question for me. Since I work on Adult Stem cells. For those who don't know what it is, look it up. IT would be a good way to divert the conversation to safer grounds.

PS. SOrry if someone already mentioned this. I did not take the time to read through all the posts.

 

[tacrum43]

As for the 2/3 stat, it doesn't really concern me. That is God's affair, and I would venture to say that such things are a consequence of sin and the Fall, just like aging, death, and disease are, and that it is not the result of God's oversight.

Well that is your opinion. My opinion is that a loving God would not kill off 2/3 of the people He creates. I think that it is just a selection process of getting a viable human body, which can then receive a soul.

If you believe that suffering, disease, etc are the result of sin, how can you pursue medicine? Wouldn't you effectively be trying to undo God's will by curing people of these diseases?

There are many scientists who believe stem cells have enormous promise, so while you can argue against them ethically because of your faith, you can't simply dismiss them as without medical potential.