On November 6, 2015, NPR aired a story about the controversial topic of stem cell research. This story can be used as the basis for a philosophical discussion of a variety of topics, including what it is to be human and the ethics of medical research. Here is a link to the story:

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/11/06/454693391/should-human-stem-cells-be-used-to-make-partly-human-chimeras

This story focuses on the decision by the National Institutes of Health to halt the practice of placing human stem cells into the embryos of nonhuman animals for research purposes. This process creates “dual-species chimeras;” that is, biological entities that are hybrids of two different species. Their existence raises several philosophical and ethical questions.

There are great scientific benefits to creating these chimeras, as scientists might be able to discover and better test new treatments for human diseases. However, the article also introduces several ethical considerations to consider before pursuing this kind of research.

Teachers might discuss the characteristics that distinguish human animals from nonhuman animals. What is the ethical relevance of these differences? Do these differences justify treating nonhuman animals differently with regard to scientific research?

Further, the story raises questions about the role of government in creating policy to regulate scientific research practices. What, if any, are the proper limits of scientific research?

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

• Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a professor of gene expression at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, said, “We don’t have enough organs for transplantation. Every 30 seconds of every day that passes, there is a person that dies that could be cured by using tissues or organs for transplantation.”
  a. Can you formulate an argument in support of organ transplantation from non-human animals?
  b. Using the story from NPR, what arguments can you think of against the practice?
  c. Which position do you think is stronger and why?
  
  
• Françoise Baylis, a bioethicist at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, says the engineering of creatures that are partly human and partly nonhuman animal is objectionable because the existence of such beings “would introduce inexorable moral confusion in our existing relationships with nonhuman animals, and in our future relationships with part-human hybrids and chimeras.”
  a. What is Baylis’ argument against the creation of dual-species chimera?
  b. Do you think that Baylis’ argument is conclusive?
  c. Can you think of other issues that might once have been thought to “introduce inexorable moral confusion” into our moral beliefs, and have since been resolved?
  
  
• Hank Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University, worries about the possibility that human cells could end up in the brains of animals and “will somehow give the animal a human consciousness, human mental capabilities.”
  a. Can you formulate an argument against conducting this type of research based on Greely’s concern?
  b. Can you think of other areas of research that might give non-human beings human consciousness?
  c. Do you agree with the notion that giving non-human beings human consciousness is a reason not to conduct this kind of research?
  
  
• Placing human stem cells in the embryos of other animals raises the possibility of two mice having a human offspring.
  a. Does this possibility lead to the conclusion that the practice should be prohibited?
  b. Should the government be in the business of deciding what avenues of scientific research should be pursued? Why or why not? If yes, who should be involved in these decisions?