Scientists are aiming at converting stem cells into sperm cells. A bit confused about the idea? Yes, its true.
And now scientists are claiming to solve the problem of several couples who cannot bear child due to infertility or physiological problems. They are also claiming to put a smile to those “social out-castes” as described by the orthodox men - the gays and lesbians, as the research promise them to gift them babies too.
So what is your take? Is this type of research will be helpful for the society, or it will create new ethical issues? Let us listen to a conversation between two medical students who defend their views for and against the notion about the utility of the research.
Andre: I am really taken aback, to think that you are arguing for such an issue. No way it is ethical to allow such practice. The research tries to produce sperm and egg cells from stem cells. This if brought into practice, people would gain a control on the nature. They will have the sole authority to produce sperm and eggs on their whims.
Bradley: I refute. Are the people not reproducing at their own will? Moreover why will we try to suppress this fact that this technology can find a solution for many. Those people who are failing to reproduce due to infertility can have babies. Those people who are suffering from insecurity at old age, and it is too late for them to have babies, they can also be helped through it.
A : Then you can well understand that where would our world population head to in a few years from now. In this world of increasing population leading to serious damage to environment, and there is scarcity in food, land, job vacancy. How can people support it?
B : These problems are prevalent. Do the people existing and having the power to reproduce are they thinking the same way? Are they thinking of not having sex and reduce the population burden? Then why we will deprive a section of the society and allow others to enjoy?
A : Don’t he know that if this practice is legalized, then lesbians and gay communities will be overjoyed and more people would be encouraged thinking the other way.
B : I think Mr A is becoming very skeptical in his issue. He is mixing it up. The issue deals with the validation of the research. And I hope he sticks to it only. Apart from that are not the lesbians and gays part of the society. May be they think the other way, doesn’t the Government gifts them this fundamental right of thinking independently. And we are no one to judge that they are thinking the other way since, no one has the right to dictate the others.
A : Don’t you think that this will rise to more crimes in the society. People would be gifted with a free license to create human beings for their own interest.
B : May be the malpractice of this may raise its head, but I hope the benefits are more compared to the faults. Moreover every new discovery has its own merits and demerits, the application depends upon the weight-age of that balance. Can you estimate how would the modern pharmaceutical researches would be benefited? Many researches that involve testing on sperm cells or egg cells, which are difficult to obtain, would become so easy. Don’t you realize it?
A : Don’t you think this is against the natural law? And this stem cell research is fighting to against the nature? Moreover we have seen that nature has always supported evolution and it has always selected the fittest for the survival. Adding to it, are these stem cell researchers who should have been working harder to find cures to the millions of dying patients, are diverting from their course? I personally find it is a waste of money and brains.
B :Nothing is a waste you see my friend. To site a small example, Mendel’s discovery did not receive any recognition in the midst of researches dealing with evolution of human beings. But was Mendel’s study a waste? I think its much more advanced thinking. And the most important point of all, are we objecting this research since it might be better for the so called “social out-castes”. We have to be liberal in our views and thoughts.
Since the very research is at a very prenatal stage and we cannot foresee the consequences. Both Andre and Bradley have points that are quite strong to cut each other apart. But in my view one idea should prevail and other has to perish for the development of the society. And to make the best decision any lawsuit of this world is not the best place, nor the politicians or religious leaders are the best men to judge. As this research is for the people the decision should also be taken by the people.