Revisiting Inexorable Moral Confusion About the Moral Status of Human–Nonhuman Chimeras

2021 ◽  
pp. 179-196
Author(s):  
Jason Scott Robert ◽  
Françoise Baylis

In “Crossing Species Boundaries” (Robert and Baylis 2003), the authors explored the history, ethics, and prospective future of stem cell research involving chimeras made in part from human cells. They dismissed the various then-extant ethical objections to the creation of such chimeras, finding them all inadequate. In their stead, they sketched (but did not elaborate or defend) an alternative response—namely, that their creation would create a kind of inexorable moral confusion. Since then, a variety of alternative objections to—as well as justifications for—this research have emerged, alongside advances in the technologies for introducing genetic and cellular material across putative species boundaries. In this chapter, the authors revisit the notion of inexorable moral confusion, further specifying and elaborating the original concept in light of recent scientific and technical developments and ethical insights.

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Twine

AbstractThe United Kingdom government regards its regulations for stem cell research as some of the most rigorous in the world. This paper chronologically outlines the important stages in the evolution of these regulatory measures over the past twenty years, including the Warnock Report, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the subsequent series of reports and consultations, and the establishment of the UK stem cell bank. Attending both to the discursive framing of stem cell research and the ethical issues faced, an assessment is made in terms of the appropriateness, adequacy and effectiveness of the UK's regulatory measures. Although institutional learning is detected in areas such as improving public engagement, the UK regulatory process has been open to the accusation of a scientific community regulating itself. This paper recommends that in order to avoid any possible complacency further improvements in public inclusiveness and interdisciplinary representation on regulatory committees should be sought.


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 760-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian J. Koplin ◽  
Julian Savulescu

Brain organoid research raises ethical challenges not seen in other forms of stem cell research. Given that brain organoids partially recapitulate the development of the human brain, it is plausible that brain organoids could one day attain consciousness and perhaps even higher cognitive abilities. Brain organoid research therefore raises difficult questions about these organoids' moral status – questions that currently fall outside the scope of existing regulations and guidelines. This paper shows how these gaps can be addressed. We outline a moral framework for brain organoid research that can address the relevant ethical concerns without unduly impeding this important area of research.


2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan W. Brock

The intense and extensive debate over human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research has focused primarily on the moral status of the human embryo. Some commentators assign full moral status of normal adult human beings to the embryo from the moment of its conception. At the other extreme are those who believe that a human embryo has no significant moral status at the time it is used and destroyed in stem cell research. And in between are many intermediate positions that assign an embryo some degree of moral status between none and full. This controversy and the respective positions, like the abortion controversy, is by now well understood, despite the lack of progress in resolving it. I have argued briefly elsewhere that early embryos do not have significant moral status, but I do not want to reenter that debate here. Instead, I want to focus on an issue that has had relatively little explicit and separate attention, but is likely to loom larger in light of the Obama administration’s partial lifting of the Bush administration’s restriction on the embryos that can be used in stem cell research that receives federal funding.


Human Affairs ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Lara

AbstractMedical stem cell research is currently the cause of much moral controversy. Those who would confer the same moral status to embryos as we do to humans consider that harvesting such embryonic cells entails sacrificing embryos. In this paper, the author analyses critically the arguments given for such a perspective. Finally, a theory of moral status is outlined that coherently and plausibly supports the use of embryonic stem cells in therapeutic research.


2021 ◽  
pp. 250-268
Author(s):  
Julian Koplin ◽  
Olivia Carter ◽  
Julian Savulescu

Brain organoid research raises ethical challenges not seen in other forms of stem cell research. Given that brain organoids recapitulate the development of the human brain, it is plausible that brain organoids could one day attain consciousness and perhaps even higher cognitive abilities. Brain organoid research therefore raises difficult questions about these organoids’ moral status—questions that currently fall outside the scope of existing regulations and guidelines. This chapter offers a novel moral framework for brain organoid research. It outlines the conditions under which brain organoids might attain moral status and explain what this means for the ethics of experimenting with these entities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document