B. Biology: Tissues, Organs, and Systems of Living Things · Tissues, Organs, and Systems of Living Things

Ethics in Systems Biology: Stem Cells, Cloning and Organ Transplants

B1.1 A1.3 A1.7 A1.9 A1.10 A1.11About 75 minutes

Learning goals

I can explain the science of stem-cell research, cloning, organ transplants and transgenic (animal-to-human) transplants.
I can identify the ethical issues each raises, including consent, safety, fairness and respect for different values.
I can use a step-by-step framework to analyse an ethical issue and justify a position with evidence.
I can evaluate sources for reliability and bias and communicate my findings.

Words to know

ethics
The study of what is right and wrong, and how to make good decisions when values conflict.

informed consent
Agreement given freely by a person who understands the purpose, risks and benefits of what they agree to.

somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)
Cloning technique: the nucleus of a body cell is put into an egg cell whose own nucleus has been removed.

reproductive cloning
Making a whole new organism that is genetically identical to another.

therapeutic cloning
Making a cloned embryo only to obtain stem cells for treatment or research.

organ rejection
When the immune system attacks a transplanted organ because it recognizes it as foreign.

xenotransplantation
Transplanting cells, tissues or organs from one species to another, such as from a genetically modified (transgenic) pig to a human.

stakeholder
Any person or group affected by a decision.

Just because we can...

Science can now grow new tissues from stem cells, copy a whole animal from one cell and move organs from one body to another, even from a pig to a person. Each breakthrough raises a question science alone can't answer: should we? Ethics is not about finding the "nice" answer. It is about thinking clearly when good values clash: saving a life vs. respecting a person's choice; helping people now vs. avoiding unknown risks later. In this lesson you'll learn a method for analysing these issues and defending a position with evidence.

A five-step framework for analysing an ethical issue in biology. Good arguments start with accurate facts, consider all stakeholders, weigh benefits and harms, name the values in conflict, and end with a justified position.

Issue 1: Stem-cell research

You learned that embryonic stem cells are pluripotent and could become almost any tissue. Obtaining them destroys an early embryo (a ball of about 100 cells, a few days old).

Arguments for: potential treatments for spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease, diabetes and heart damage. Embryos used in research are usually left over from fertility (IVF) treatments and would otherwise be discarded.
Arguments against: some people, including many religious traditions, believe an embryo has the moral status of a human life from the beginning and should not be destroyed.
Middle ground: adult and iPS stem cells avoid using embryos, though they have their own limits and risks (for example, some reprogrammed cells can form tumours).
In Canada: research using human embryonic stem cells is allowed only under strict national guidelines, using embryos donated with informed consent after fertility treatment. Buying or selling embryos is prohibited.

Another real-world issue: some private clinics advertise unproven stem cell therapies for many conditions. Health Canada warns that these can be ineffective or harmful.

Issue 2: Cloning

In somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), scientists take the nucleus from a body cell and put it into an egg cell whose own nucleus has been removed. The egg is triggered to divide. In 1996, scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland used this method to create Dolly the sheep, the first mammal cloned from an adult body cell.

Reproductive cloning places the embryo into a surrogate mother, producing an animal genetically identical to the donor. Animals such as cattle, horses, pets and even endangered species have been cloned. Many cloned embryos fail, and some clones have health problems.
Therapeutic cloning grows the embryo only to obtain stem cells that would genetically match the patient, so they would not be rejected.

In Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2004) makes it illegal to create a human clone for any purpose. Animal cloning is legal but raises questions about animal welfare, genetic diversity and food safety.

Cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer. The embryo's DNA comes from animal A's body cell, so the result is genetically identical to A. What happens next decides whether it is reproductive or therapeutic cloning.

Issue 3: Organ transplants

When an organ such as a kidney, liver, heart or lung fails, a transplant can save a life. Canadian surgeons have been pioneers: the world's first successful single-lung transplant (1983) and double-lung transplant (1986) were performed at Toronto General Hospital.

Deceased donors can give organs and tissues (such as corneas and skin) after death. One donor can save up to 8 lives.
Living donors can give one kidney or part of their liver (the liver regrows).
The transplanted organ must be matched as closely as possible; otherwise the immune system attacks it (rejection). Patients take anti-rejection drugs for life, which make infections more likely.

Ethical issues:

Shortage and fairness: there are far more people waiting than organs available. How should organs be allocated: by medical urgency, by how long people have waited, by the chance of success? (Canada uses medical criteria, not wealth or fame.)
Consent: Ontario uses an opt-in system: you register your consent (you can register at age 16) and tell your family. Nova Scotia switched in 2021 to deemed consent: adults are presumed to be donors unless they opt out. Which respects people more?
Buying and selling organs is illegal in Canada, to protect poor and vulnerable people from being exploited.
Living donors take on real surgical risk to help someone else; their consent must be free of pressure.

Issue 4: Transgenic (xenotransplant) organs

Scientists have genetically modified pigs so their organs are less likely to be rejected by humans. In 2024, surgeons in the United States transplanted a gene-edited pig kidney into a living patient for the first time. This could one day end the organ shortage. Issues include animal welfare, the risk of passing animal viruses to humans, unknown long-term effects, and some people's cultural or religious objections to using pigs.

Consent and community: a key ethical principle

Research ethics today puts informed consent first, partly because of past wrongs. In 1951, cells were taken from Henrietta Lacks, a Black woman being treated for cancer in the United States, without her knowledge. Her "HeLa" cells became one of the most important tools in medical research, but her family was not told for decades. In Canada, blood samples given by Nuu-chah-nulth people in British Columbia in the 1980s for a study of arthritis were later used for other genetic research without their consent. Cases like these are why many First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities today insist on controlling research about their own people and data (for example, through the First Nations principles of OCAP®: ownership, control, access and possession). Respecting consent means asking every time a sample or data is used for a new purpose.

Worked example

Let's analyse an issue with the framework

Should Canada allow pig-to-human kidney transplants in clinical trials? Use the five steps.

1. Facts: thousands of Canadians wait for kidneys; dialysis keeps many alive but is demanding. Gene-edited pig kidneys have been transplanted into a small number of people; long-term results are not yet known.
2. Stakeholders: patients on waiting lists and their families; trial volunteers; doctors; the animals; the public (possible virus risk); taxpayers in a public health system; communities with cultural or religious objections.
3. Benefits and harms: benefits: could save many lives and reduce waiting. Harms: surgical risk and unknown long-term effects for volunteers; animal suffering; small but serious risk of new infections spreading.
4. Values: beneficence (doing good) vs. non-maleficence (avoiding harm); autonomy (patients choosing for themselves with informed consent); justice (fair access); respect for animals and for diverse beliefs.
5. Position (one possible answer): allow small, carefully monitored trials with fully informed volunteers, strict virus testing and animal-welfare rules, and review the results publicly before expanding. Counter-argument: "it's too risky." Response: trial rules limit risk to consenting volunteers, and the status quo also costs lives.

A justified position names the facts, stakeholders, benefits and harms, and values, then answers the strongest counter-argument. (Other positions can be equally strong if well supported.)

Worked example

Let's evaluate sources for reliability and bias

A student researching stem-cell therapy finds three sources: (A) a private clinic's website offering stem cell injections for arthritis for $8000; (B) a Health Canada advisory about unproven stem cell treatments; (C) a 2023 review article in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Rank them for reliability and explain any bias.

(C) is most reliable for scientific evidence: peer-reviewed, written by experts and checked by other experts; the date shows it is recent. Still check who funded it.
(B) is reliable and authoritative for safety and law; its goal is protecting the public, so it focuses on risks.
(A) is least reliable: the clinic profits from selling the treatment, so it has a strong bias. Testimonials are not controlled evidence.
Documentation: record each source with author or organization, date, title and URL, in the format your teacher requires (often APA).

C, then B, then A. A has a financial conflict of interest; use it only as an example of marketing claims, not as evidence.

Just for fun

Funny but true: Dolly, the world's most famous sheep and the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, was named after the country singer Dolly Parton. Few singers have had a namesake who changed science.

Hands-on activity

Kitchen-table ethics panel

You need: paper, a timer, and at least one family member or friend (two or three is better).

Pick one issue from this lesson (for example: "Should Ontario switch to deemed consent for organ donation, like Nova Scotia?").
Research for 20 minutes using at least two reliable sources (such as a government site, a hospital or a peer-reviewed article). Write each source down properly.
Fill in the five-step framework for the issue on one page.
Each person takes a role (patient on a waiting list, family of a deceased donor, doctor, faith leader, ethicist). Each gets 2 minutes to speak from that role.
Afterward, write a paragraph with your own position, your two best reasons with evidence, and a response to the strongest counter-argument.

What to look for: facts that are accurate and sourced; more than one stakeholder; a clear position; respect for people who disagree. Talking about organ donation can also be a chance for your family to share their own wishes, but no one should feel pressured.

Your turn

Why does research on embryonic stem cells raise ethical concerns that research on iPS cells does not?

Describe somatic cell nuclear transfer in three steps.

What is the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning?

Why must transplant patients take anti-rejection drugs, and what is the downside?

Compare opt-in and deemed consent for organ donation.

Name two ethical concerns about xenotransplantation.

Why is informed consent important in research using human tissue? Give an example.

More practice: warm-up

What was Dolly?

Is human cloning legal in Canada?

Which organ can a living person donate part of because it regrows?

At what age can you register your consent to organ donation in Ontario?

What is a stakeholder?

More practice: on your own

A student writes: "Cloning is wrong because it's unnatural." Explain why this is a weak argument and suggest a stronger one.

Give one argument for and one against allocating organs by time spent on the waiting list.

Why does Canada ban the buying and selling of organs?

Explain why therapeutic cloning might avoid organ rejection.

A website claims a supplement "regrows stem cells" and cites a study it funded. Identify two warning signs.

Challenge

Write a short justified position (4 to 6 sentences) on whether Ontario should switch to deemed consent for organ donation. Include a counter-argument.

Explain how the history of research without consent (such as the Nuu-chah-nulth samples) connects to modern principles like OCAP®.

Identify a value conflict in living organ donation and suggest how hospitals can manage it.

Check your understanding

Quiz

In somatic cell nuclear transfer, where does the clone's DNA come from?

Which type of stem cell is made by reprogramming an adult cell?

What is organ rejection?

Which province uses deemed consent for organ donation?

Which source is likely the most biased about a stem cell injection?

Which is the strongest ethical argument?

For parents and teachers

Big idea: expectation B1.1 asks students to analyse, on the basis of research, ethical issues related to a technological development in systems biology (such as cloning, stem-cell research, live organ transplants and transgenic transplants) and communicate their findings. There is no single right answer: marks come from accurate facts, considering stakeholders, and justified reasoning.

Sensitive topic: these issues touch faith, culture and personal experience (some families have experience of transplants, IVF or loss). Encourage respectful disagreement. If you discuss organ donation, let your teen form their own view without pressure.

How to help: Be a role-player in the ethics panel. Ask "What's your evidence?" and "What would someone who disagrees say?" Help them check sources: who wrote it, when, and who benefits?

Common difficulties:

Giving opinions without evidence, or evidence without a position.
Confusing reproductive and therapeutic cloning.
Using biased sources (sellers, advocacy sites) as if they were neutral.