Benefiting from 'evil': an incipient moral problem in human stem cell research

Against the use and publication of contemporary unethical research: the case of Chinese transplant research

Recent calls for retraction of a large body of Chinese transplant research and of Dr Jiankui He's gene editing research has led to renewed interest in the question of publication, retraction and use of unethical biomedical research. In Part 1 of this paper, we briefly review the now well-established consequentialist and deontological arguments for and against the use of unethical research. We argue that, while there are potentially compelling justifications for use under some circumstances, these justifications fail when unethical practices are ongoing-as in the case of research involving transplantations in which organs have been procured unethically from executed prisoners. Use of such research displays a lack of respect and concern for the victims and undermines efforts to deter unethical practices. Such use also creates moral taint and renders those who use the research complicit in continuing harm. In Part 2, we distinguish three dimensions of 'non-use' of unethical research: non-use of published unethical research, non-publication, and retraction and argue that all three types of non-use should be upheld in the case of Chinese transplant research. Publishers have responsibilities to not publish contemporary unethical biomedical research, and where this has occurred, to retract publications. Failure to retract the papers implicitly condones the research, while uptake of the research through citations rewards researchers and ongoing circulation of the data in the literature facilitates subsequent use by researchers, policymakers and clinicians.

Compliance with ethical standards in the reporting of donor sources and ethics review in peer-reviewed publications involving organ transplantation in China: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to investigate whether papers reporting research on Chinese transplant recipients comply with international professional standards aimed at excluding publication of research that: (1) involves any biological material from executed prisoners; (2) lacks Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and (3) lacks consent of donors.

DESIGN

Scoping review based on Arksey and O'Mallee's methodological framework.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Scopus and Embase were searched from January 2000 to April 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included research papers published in peer-reviewed English-language journals reporting on outcomes of research involving recipients of transplanted hearts, livers or lungs in mainland China.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted by individual authors working independently following training and benchmarking. Descriptive statistics were compiled using Excel.

RESULTS

445 included studies reported on outcomes of 85 477 transplants. 412 (92.5%) failed to report whether or not organs were sourced from executed prisoners; and 439 (99%) failed to report that organ sources gave consent for transplantation. In contrast, 324 (73%) reported approval from an IRB. Of the papers claiming that no prisoners' organs were involved in the transplants, 19 of them involved 2688 transplants that took place prior to 2010, when there was no volunteer donor programme in China.

DISCUSSION

The transplant research community has failed to implement ethical standards banning publication of research using material from executed prisoners. As a result, a large body of unethical research now exists, raising issues of complicity and moral hazard to the extent that the transplant community uses and benefits from the results of this research. We call for retraction of this literature pending investigation of individual papers.

Are there moral differences between maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer?

This paper examines whether there are moral differences between the mitochondrial replacement techniques that have been recently developed in order to help women afflicted by mitochondrial DNA diseases to have genetically related children absent such conditions: maternal spindle transfer (MST) and pronuclear transfer (PNT). Firstly, it examines whether there is a moral difference between MST and PNT in terms of the divide between somatic interventions and germline interventions. Secondly, it considers whether PNT and MST are morally distinct under a therapy/creation optic. Finally, it investigates whether there is a moral difference between MST and PNT from a human embryo destruction point of view. I conclude, contra recent arguments, that regarding the first two points there is no moral differences between PNT and MST; and that regarding the third one MST is morally preferable to PNT, but only if we hold a gradualist account of the moral value of human embryos where zygotes have slight moral value.

The science and ethics of cell-based therapies for Parkinson's disease

Parkinson's Disease (PD) is an age-related, disabling neurodegenerative disorder. Although sufferers usually respond to dopamine agonists for extended periods, the disease remains progressive and adverse drug effects can compromise effective long term treatment. Cell-based therapies have been the subject of much hype and optimism with regard to PD. Proof of principle was provided in the 1980s with fetal tissue transplantation trials demonstrating successful graft survival. Embryonic stem cells and reprogrammed or transdifferentiated somatic cells may provide alternative sources of tissue with the potential to overcome the material shortages and technical difficulties that have hindered fetal neural transplants. This article will review the state of the science for cell based therapies and examine the ethical issues that societies must negotiate regarding their clinical use.

The ethics of stem cells revisited

Stem cells constitute one of the most promising tools for regenerative medicine. Thus, it seems morally compelling to explore all the sources that might provide us with them. However, some of these sources, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer, embryo destruction, or even induced pluripotency obtained by reprogramming have raised deep ethical issues. The aim of this paper is to reflect on the stem cell ethical debate at the current moment through an analysis of the academic literature. It will also provide an analysis of the ethical implications of the most relevant scientific advances that have happened in recent months or those which seem about to merge.

U.S. Complicity and Japan's Wartime Medical Atrocities: Time for a Response

Shortly before and during the Second World War, Japanese doctors and medical researchers conducted large-scale human experiments in occupied China that were at least as gruesome as those conducted by Nazi doctors. Japan never officially acknowledged the occurrence of the experiments, never tried any of the perpetrators, and never provided compensation to the victims or issued an apology. Building on work by Jing-Bao Nie, this article argues that the U.S. government is heavily complicit in this grave injustice, and should respond in an appropriate way in order to reduce this complicity, as well as to avoid complicity in future unethical medical experiments. It also calls on other U.S. institutions, in particular the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, to urge the government to respond, or to at least inform the public and initiate a debate about this dark page of American and Japanese history.

"The angel of the house" in the realm of ART: feminist approach to oocyte and spare embryo donation for research

The spectacular progress in assisted reproduction technology that has been witnessed for the past thirty years resulted in emerging new ethical dilemmas as well as the revision of some perennial ones. The paper aims at a feminist approach to oocyte and spare embryo donation for research. First, referring to different concepts of autonomy and informed consent, we discuss whether the decision to donate oocyte/embryo can truly be an autonomous choice of a female patient. Secondly, we argue the commonly adopted language of gift is misleading and that calling for altruism could put female patients at risk of exploitation. Finally, we point out that the presence of gender stereotypes in the procreative area casts doubt whether even a more robust notion of informed consent manages to overcome this risk.

The science and ethics of induced pluripotency: what will become of embryonic stem cells?

For over a decade, the field of stem cell research has advanced tremendously and gained new attention in light of novel insights and emerging developments for regenerative medicine. Invariably, multiple considerations come into play, and clinicians and researchers must weigh the benefits of certain stem cell platforms against the costs they incur. Notably, human embryonic stem (hES) cell research has been a source of continued debate, leading to differing policies and regulations worldwide. This article briefly reviews current stem cell platforms, looking specifically at the two existing pluripotent lines available for potential therapeutic applications: hES cells and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. We submit iPS technology as a viable and possibly superior alternative for future medical and research endeavors as it obviates many ethical and resource-related concerns posed by hES cells while prospectively matching their potential for scientific use. However, while the clinical realities of iPS cells appear promising, we must recognize the current limitations of this technology, avoid hype, and articulate ethically acceptable medical and scientific goals.

Embryonic stem cells and property rights

This article contributes to the current debate on human embryonic stem cell researchers' possible complicity in the destruction of human embryos and the relevance of such complicity for the issue of commodification of human embryos. I will discuss if, and to what extent, researchers who destroy human embryos, and researchers who merely use human embryos destroyed by others, have moral use rights, and/or moral property rights, in these embryos. I argue that the moral status of the human embryo, however justified, places few restrictions on the latter researchers' use of it, and property rights in it, once it is destroyed. I argue that the former researchers have no property rights in the destroyed embryo but use rights in it to the extent allowed by the legitimate owners of the destroyed embryo. I discuss the implications of this account for previous and current US federal law regulating human embryonic stem cell research.

Complicity in stem cell research: the case of induced pluripotent stem cells

Many who object to human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research because they believe it involves complicity in embryo destruction have welcomed induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research as an ethical alternative. This opinion article aims to show that complicity arguments against hESC research are prima facie inconsistent with accepting iPSC research as it is currently done. Those who oppose hESC research on grounds of complicity should either (i) oppose iPSC research as well, (ii) advocate a radical change in the way iPSC research is done, (iii) demonstrate that complicity arguments against iPSC research are weaker than those against hESC research or (iv) reject complicity arguments against both hESC and iPSC research, either by adopting a more limited conception of complicity that allows acceptance of some hESC research, or by accepting that destroying embryos for important scientific research is not wrong.

Human embryonic stem cell research and the discarded embryo argument

Many who believe that human embryos have moral status are convinced that their use in human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research can be morally justified as long as they are discarded embryos left over from fertility treatments. This is one reason why this view about discarded embryos has played such a prominent role in the debate over publicly funding hESC research in the United States and other countries. Many believe that this view offers the best chance of a compromise between the different sides in this debate. This paper focuses on what seems to be the most plausible argument for this view about discarded embryos. It shows that this argument is unsound regardless of how one understands the claim that embryos have moral status. It also discusses the implications of this conclusion for attempts to use this argument as a basis for public policy.

Can we develop ethically universal embryonic stem-cell lines?

Human embryonic stem-cell (hESC) research faces opposition from those who object to the destruction of human embryos. Over the past few years, a series of new approaches have been proposed for deriving hESC lines without injuring a living embryo. Each of these presents scientific challenges and raises ethical and political questions. Do any of these methods have the potential to provide a source of hESCs that will be acceptable to those who oppose the current approaches?

Embryonic potential and stem cells

This paper examines three arguments that use the concept of potential to identify embryos that are morally suitable for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). According to the first argument, due to Ronald Green, the fact that they are scheduled for disposal makes embryos left over from IVF treatments morally appropriate for research. Paul McHugh argues that embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer differ from those that result directly from the meeting of sperm and egg in having potential especially conducive to the therapeutic use of their stem cells. I reject both of these arguments. According to the way of making distinctions in embryonic potential that I defend, it is the absence of a functional relationship with a womb that marks embryos morally suitable for ESCR.

Benefiting from past wrongdoing, human embryonic stem cell lines, and the fragility of the German legal position

This paper examines the logic and morality of the German Stem Cell Act of 2002. After a brief description of the law's scope and intent, its ethical dimensions are analysed in terms of symbolic threats, indirect consequences, and the encouragement of immorality. The conclusions are twofold. For those who want to accept the law, the arguments for its rationality and morality can be sound. For others, the emphasis on the uniqueness of the German experience, the combination of absolute and qualified value judgments, and the lingering questions of indirect encouragement of immoral activities will probably be too much.

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.

Ethos and economics: examining the rationale underlying stem cell and cloning research policies in the United States, Germany, and Japan

The governance of reproductive science is fraught with controversy in nearly every jurisdiction across the globe. Worldwide, legislators and policy makers have struggled to craft meaningful and ethical parameters for the regulation of this new and evolving area of biotechnology. In most countries, it is agreed that some form of regulatory oversight over reproductive technologies is necessary. There is far less consensus, however, as to the type of regulatory structure that should be established. Recent debates over reproductive science have focused on two of the most controversial practices in this area: embryonic stem cell research and cloning technology. Specifically, interested parties have struggled over whether these practices are so egregious that they should be altogether prohibited, or whether they ought to be permitted, but subject to particular legislative limits and regulatory oversight.

The difficulties that most countries have experienced in devising legislation pertaining to embryonic stem cell and cloning research emanate from the moral ambiguity that characterizes this area of science.