The Fight Between Science and Ethics

This election cycle, many Americans are concerned about their rights to healthcare and to an abortion. While for most people, this only concerns their ability to have an abortion and access in vitro fertilization (IVF), unused fetuses and embryos can transform the scientific community. However, its research is politicized, stalling our understanding of these diseases and their potential treatments. 

Abortions and IVF create two important byproducts—fetuses and blastocysts. Blastocysts are the stage after fertilization when the cells begin to divide. These cells are considered pluripotent and able to differentiate into any body cell. By the 11th week of pregnancy, the cells have formed a fetus, and organs and body systems begin to develop. Through studying unused blastocysts from IVF and from aborted fetuses, scientists can explore fields of study that offer promising outcomes for treating diseases. 

By extracting the group of cells within a blastocyst, scientists can extract embryonic stem cells (ESCs). ESCs’ ability to differentiate into any type of cell makes them extremely versatile for research. These pluripotent cells are invaluable, making them the center of research into cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and other prevalent diseases. As a Type 1 diabetic, I’ve watched this research evolve. Type 1 diabetes is an incurable disease, where the immune system destroys all insulin-producing beta cells. While there are procedures to manage my condition, the only future for a cure is through stem cell-derived treatments. Even though there are two million Type 1 diabetics in the country, the disease’s severity is often overshadowed by deadly cancers and the more prevalent Type 2 diabetes. Yet, as I live through each day, I have to recognize that my life expectancy is 10 years shorter than average, and having diabetes is a huge temporal and financial cost for my family. 

But ESCs offer a brighter future for new generations. Vertex Pharmaceuticals is already expanding its clinical trial, which has shown promising results. In its first two phases, a stem cell-derived therapy was injected into 12 patients, and 11 showed a reduction or elimination from exogenous insulin use after 90 days. Although these patients were required to be on immunosuppressants, this is promising research. This could lead to a breakthrough in Type 1 diabetes treatment without immunosuppressants, but at worst, it could help patients who are already on immunosuppressants for other conditions cure their Type 1 diabetes.

However, to some, stem cells are too immoral. During George W. Bush’s presidency, he banned funding any new stem cell lines and said that he did not support “the taking of innocent human life.” In 2020, Senator Roger Wicker (MS-R)—sponsor of a 1996 law that banned the creation or destruction of embryos—echoed similar sentiments as he led 94 pro-life legislators to try and end embryonic stem cell research. But their choice to classify a group of 100 cells as human life is misguided and confusing. Since ESCs are derived from donated frozen embryos, the embryos would have otherwise been destroyed and therefore rendered useless. There are also no incentives for the donator, ensuring that their donation was purely for the sake of improving the quality of others’ lives and has nothing to do with the taking of a life. Instead, the only outcome of investing in this research is the chance to improve the lives of the one-third of Americans who suffer from a chronic disease. 

Ironically, the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision to label frozen embryos as humans has been criticized as “extreme” by both political parties. Even former President Donald Trump is trying to separate himself from this ban in efforts to appeal to moderate Republican voters. However, senate Republicans blocked the Right to IVF Act, which would have guaranteed protections for IVF. This block on healthcare shows how even the most basic healthcare rights stop in the hands of politicians. Since treating diseases already costs taxpayers trillions of dollars, it would be significantly cheaper in the long term if we could invest in cures instead of treating their symptoms. 

As an alternative, Republicans have proposed using reprogrammed adult stem cells (iPSCs). This would allow scientists to extract skin or blood cells and reprogram them into embryonic-like cells. While this research has expanded, its application to humans in the last decade has been limited due to high cost and clinical trials that found a high mutation rate. These mutations can reduce the effectiveness of DNA for specific cell differentiation and introduce new issues in a patient. While more research is done to understand the genetic variability of iPSCs, ESCs remain the favored choice for promising results.

Another debate among scientists and politicians comes from the use of fetal tissue. This is the use of a larger range of differentiated cells that can be obtained from aborted fetuses. It is so valuable because fetal tissue can address hereditary conditions that grow during fetal development, but the cells are also capable of turning into their fetal cell lines. Fetal tissue has been used to study a wide range of conditions and cures, including work on degenerative eye disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Down syndrome, and Parkinson’s disease—all while reducing the rate of tissue rejection in patients. The 1954 Nobel Prize in Medicine, given for the development of the polio vaccine, originated with fetal tissue, and it is still used today to develop vaccines for other fatal diseases.

While there are also no incentives for donating an aborted fetus to medical research, some people are afraid that the option can influence a woman's decision to have an abortion. Yet, this argument is flawed, as people only consider donating after making their choice to have an abortion. Rather than influencing the decision itself, donating to science is just a means to contribute to scientific research after someone makes their choice. While pro-life advocates are against this federal funding toward medical research, if an abortion has already occurred, the person should have the option to invest in treatments for diseases instead of letting the fetus be disposed of. 

As part of Trump’s anti-abortion stance, he reportedly ignored the advice of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and ceased funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for its fetal tissue research in 2019. A temporary ban on fetal tissue research in December of 2018 had already halted NIH studies on cancer immunotherapy and HIV. Trump also created an ethics advisory board that would oversee any proposals for new funding. However, the members of the ethics board consisted of a supermajority of anti-abortion advocates, violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act that calls for boards to have diverse opinions and be open to the public. This board rejected 13 of the 14 funding proposals presented to them, limiting the potential medical advancements from studying fetal tissue. 

Trump’s stance on the issue is ironic, considering he has used this research to his benefit. In 2020, when Trump was infected with COVID-19, he received an experimental drug that was developed with the research of an aborted fetus. The actual dose he received was made entirely out of antibodies derived from stem cells. If he has no issues with the application of this technology when it comes to his own life, he cannot make the opposite decision for over a third of Americans suffering from a chronic disease. While stem cell research is not the only solution to some of these conditions, it is applicable to almost all of them. 

Shortly after taking office in 2021, Biden reversed the Trump administration’s fetus tissue ban, and it’s unlikely Harris would change the current policies. However, Harris’s lack of definitive policies has been problematic. She tries to separate herself from the Biden administration, but she simultaneously fails to have clear stances on key issues. While she is an avid supporter of abortion rights, she has never addressed her views on stem cell or fetal tissue research. Even though this research is not a key issue of any political campaign, it would be nice to hear policies that guarantee a future for medical research that could impact the lives of a hundred million Americans.

As disease prevalence grows, scientists must discover treatments and cures for people around the world. Breakthroughs in stem cell and fetal tissue research have already improved the lives of millions, but they cannot stop here. While I recognize the ethical complications this may present for people, it is in the best interest of humanity to invest in research and use the medical technology we have to reach cures. This discussion is overshadowed by other major concerns for Americans on both sides of the political spectrum, but it must be resolved soon. If we continue to politicize science, there will never be a better future for those impacted by diseases, and only more people will inherit lifelong conditions.