Embryos created for research purposes

Therapeutic Potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in the Treatment of Epilepsy and Their Interaction with Antiseizure Medications

Epilepsy is a life-threatening neurological disease that affects approximately 70 million people worldwide. Although the vast majority of patients may be successfully managed with currently used antiseizure medication (ASM), the search for alternative therapies is still necessary due to pharmacoresistance in about 30% of patients with epilepsy. Here, we review the effects of ASMs on stem cell treatment when they could be, as expected, co-administered. Indeed, it has been reported that ASMs produce significant effects on the differentiation and determination of stem cell fate. In addition, we discuss more recent findings on mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in pre-clinical and clinical investigations. In this regard, their ability to differentiate into various cell types, reach damaged tissues and produce and release biologically active molecules with immunomodulatory/anti-inflammatory and regenerative properties make them a high-potential therapeutic tool to address neuroinflammation in different neurological disorders, including epilepsy. Overall, the characteristics of MSCs to be genetically engineered, in order to replace dysfunctional elements with the aim of restoring normal tissue functioning, suggested that these cells could be good candidates for the treatment of epilepsy refractory to ASMs. Further research is required to understand the potential of stem cell treatment in epileptic patients and its interaction with ASMs.

Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement

The new reproductive technologies have opened the door to different processes of germline genetic enhancement by which the characteristics of an individual according to the interests of the agents involved could be selected during its gestation. Although the initiative is apparently oriented towards developing individuals that would excel in society, critical voices raise the concerns about that this approach would generate and need for a reflection on the ethical, social and legal implications of these techniques and their implementation in society. We reviewed the literature about these issues throughout their historical records to date, focusing on the moral arguments and non-clinical aspects that affect the legal and social environment. We have observed various trends of thought with divergent positions (proactive, preventive, and regulatory) as well as a large number of articles that try to reconcile the different approaches. This review illustrates a series of concepts from the ethics and philosophy fields which are frequently used in studies that evaluate the ethical implications of germline genetic enhancement, such as dignity, benefit, autonomy, and identity. In addition, amongst the many unresolved controversies surrounding genetic enhancement, we identify procreative beneficence, genetic disassociation, gender selection, the value of disability, embryo chimerization, and the psychosocial inequality of potentially enhanced individuals as crucial. We also develop possible scenarios for future debate. We consider especially important the definition and specification of three aspects which are essential for the deployment of new reproductive technologies: the moral status of the embryo undergoing enhancement, the legal status of the enhanced individual, and the responsibility of the agents executing the enhancement. Finally, we propose the precautionary principle as a means to navigate ethical uncertainties.

Human embryonic stem cell research: why the discarded-created-distinction cannot be based on the potentiality argument

Discussions about the use and derivation of pluripotent human embryonic stem cells are a stumbling block in developing public policy on stem cell research. On the one hand there is a broad consensus on the benefits of these cells for science and biomedicine; on the other hand there is the controversial issue of killing human embryos. I will focus on the compromise position that accepts research on spare embryos, but not on research embryos ('discarded-created-distinction', from now on d-c-d). I will point out that this viewpoint is hard to maintain. The main focus is that the 'revealed beliefs' of its defenders are inconsistent with their 'professed beliefs', more specifically with their main argument, i.e. the potentiality argument. I will point out that (1) the defenders of d-c-d actually grant a relative moral status to the human embryo, (2) this moral status is dependent on internal and external criteria of potentiality, (3) potentiality seen as a variable value that also depends on external criteria cannot justify d-c-d, and (4) an approach to human embryonic stem cell-research that would also allow the use of research embryos is more compatible with the feelings, attitudes and values of those who currently defend d-c-d and, therefore, could lead to a broader consensus and to actions that alleviate individual human suffering.

Four moral questions for human embryonic stem cell research

Human embryonic stem cell research offers great promise for the treatment of many serious disease conditions in a variety of medical areas, including wound healing. Before this promise can be realized, society and individual researchers, clinicians, and patients will have to answer four ethical questions: 1) Can we ever intentionally destroy a human embryo? 2) Can we benefit from others' destruction of embryos? 3) Can we create an embryo to destroy it? 4) Can we clone human embryos? After outlining the issues raised by each question, the author concludes by indicating his own affirmative answer to each of these questions.