I’ve spent a bit of time thinking about the ethical controversy in the whole embryonic stem cell debate and have come to a conclusion: there are no non-religious ethical arguments against destroying embryos. That is not, of course, to say that such an argument is invalid. But, let’s be very clear, the embryonic stem cell debate is nothing like the abortion debate. As best as I can figure, from almost any perspective one can consider (even accepting the thesis that “life begins at conception”), supporting destruction of embryos for medical research is defensible and should be encouraged, in moderation.
Let’s clear up something about what is being destroyed in order to use embryos for medical research. Embryonic stem cells are extracted from the inner cells of a 4-5 day old blastocyst, containing perhaps 100 cells total. When these stem cells are extracted the blastocyst, and thus the embryo itself, is destroyed. At this point, none of the embryonic stem cells has differentiated. Thus, there are no organs, no neural pathways, no skin, fingers, toes, beating hearts, or anything else. Those 100 cells are incapable of producing life outside of the placenta, and thus cannot be themselves considered a living organism. There are part of a symbiotic organism, i.e. the pregnant mother.
The importance of that last paragraph is this: there is no slippery slope here. Unlike the abortion debate, where it can be argued that allowing very early term abortions is essentially the same as killing babies because there is no scientifically-proven point at which “life” begins, it is very clear that there is no biologically living organism that is capable of suffering when an embryo is destroyed. I will not argue that it’s the same as clipping your fingernails or other such nonsense, of course it’s not. The embryo, in the right circumstances, could become a human. Nevertheless, no physical suffering results from the destruction of a human embryo. Embryonic stem cells cannot be harvested from fetuses capable of suffering.
For many, including myself, this is enough. I do not believe that it is unethical or immoral to destroy an organism incapable of life outside of its symbiotic host that is also incapable of feeling or thinking; indeed it possesses no cells that could even be said to form the crudest representation of the faculties necessary for suffering to result. A fly suffers more than an embryo when it is destroyed. Of course I would like to minimize the number of embryos destroyed, and I would greatly limit the bounds to which researchers could go to obtain them (i.e. payment for fertilized embryos, we must avoid turning humans into organ or cell factories at all costs).
Over the entire course of embryonic stem cell research, perhaps a few thousands of embryos will be destroyed. From those few thousand embryos, the potential savings are tremendous. Thousands of lives each year could be saved, and the numbers of people whose suffering may be alleviated will be in the millions. Even more, those few thousand embryos that might be destroyed would very likely have been disposed of as medical waste, thus the net destruction of embryos in conducting such research will be very near to zero.
It’s clear then that the ethical and moral argument, as long as it’s not constructed in lieu of a religious one, is in favor of stem cell research. Thus, the President’s first veto last week was based on a purely religious ethical standpoint, and one which the great majority, 61%, of Americans disagree with (I don’t normally link to FOX News, but it mentions the Gallup poll midway down). So, the President is expressing a minority religious viewpoint by vetoing the bill. There is no legal definition of the destruction of an embryo that could lead him to declare it “murder” only a religious definition of the beginnings of life.
Even accepting the “life begins at conception” thesis, the destruction of a few thousand embryos that would be thrown away regardless is totally defensible. Each year, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of fertilized embryos near or at the blastocyst stage are destroyed in “miscarriages” that are essentially the onset of the female’s menstraul cycle before the embryo could embed itself to the uterine lining. Conception occurred, and the lives of these poor souls were destroyed as well. Those who believe in life-at-conception should push for a law prohibiting sex outside of a narrow window at most 14 days after the cessation of menstrual bleeding. This way, all fertilized embroys would get a chance to safely begin their development and halt the menstrual cycle.
But of course I’m being ridiculous there. My point is that arguing for a few thousand organless embryos against the lives and livelihoods of thousands to millions is inhumane. This all-or-nothing religious fervor is a big part of what has helped to keep abortions high in this country. If the advocates on both sides of that debate would focus on the socio-economic factors that lead to a decision to abort, we could meet a fairly universal goal of reducing abortions to near-zero. Though the analogy with embryonic stem cell research is not perfect, it is an example of how the suffering of many (if you accept the religious thesis) is aggravated by an unwillingness to accept anything viewed as moral compromise.
As I’ve alluded to above, however, there are perfectly defensible ethical and moral arguments against abortion that do not involve any sort of religious belief. I cannot state strongly enough that I see no such arguments in the embryonic stem cell debate, however. Bush was acting out of religious belief, against the will of the majority of his people, and against an intelligent interpretation of the sanctity of life-that-already-is versus life-that-may-be.
It’s time to stop talking about the “ethical controversy” over embryonic stem cell research and call it for what it is, a minority religious viewpoint.
I agree with your statements about abortion, but I think you’ve got some misconceptions and misinformation about the entire stem cell debate. The first, and most directly relevant, is the misconception that Bush’s veto outlawed embryonic stem cell research. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research, Bush’s veto only outlawed the federal funding of ESC research (or rather, kept the federal funding illegal). Private companies are still able to obtain and research ESC on their own money, and in fact have been doing so for years.
The second thing about stem cell research that you perhaps do not know about is the reason I am opposed to ESC research, and it is entirely non-religious. ESC are a scientific red herring, politicized for the sake of fighting politics. Despite all the research that has been done with ESC, there are no useful treatments *even for animals* that have been created with them. The supposed promise they show is due to the fact that they differentiate even easier than Adult Stem Cells, however, that differentiation has made them hard to control in the laboratory, and the treatments they try and apply to mice usually end up growing tumors fairly quickly. In addition, you have to worry about rejection issues, since the ESC aren’t native.
Adult Stem Cells, on the other hand, have already been successfully differentiated into every type of cell desireable. It may be slightly more difficult to do, but it’s more stable. There are a large number successful treatments that have been seen *on humans* in the laboratory, even more on animals, and even several treatments currently undergoing FDA approval. They can regrow livers (undergoing FDA approval). A formerly quadripolegic woman in S Korea now walks, they regrew her spine (and it wasn’t blasted all over the news because of stupid medical politics)! Practically every treatment hoped for with stem cells is in the works *right now* with Adult Stem Cells. Furthermore, since ASC are taken from the patient who will be treated with them, it is their own tissue, and rejection is not an issue.
When I take all these facts together, I think funding for ESC, even privately, should be focused into ASC. Any ASC vs. ESC treatment for the same thing is better to begin with just on the rejection issue (let alone the tumor issue), and ASC is so much farther ahead that I see no reason to research ESC other than as a followup to increase our knowledge of biology and life sciences. I could, for instance, see ESC research lead to cancer breakthroughs as ESC essentially become cancerous so easily (preliminary research has even suggested that stem cells of all types might be the fundamental cause of cancer), however, I think that, especially at this point, almost anything we could learn from ESC we could learn from ASC, and would learn faster and end up with a better result. Avoiding the religious controversy is merely a bonus.
–Ian
Ian,
You’re right that I was a little sloppy on how I discussed what Bush’s veto was. It was, of course, not a veto that banned research, merely it banned the use of federal funds for such research. I have no misconceptions there. The money for ESC research is very limited because of that ban, and as a result our country is not the hotbed of that research as it should be.
Embryonic stem cell research is much-hyped, yes. But it is not a scientific red-herring. It is completely untrue that it has not yielded treatments in animals, and if I had more time I would provide some links.
There are, of course, concerns with rejection, but that does not make such treatments a red-herring. Rather it just means that like most all medical treatments, the reality is more complicated than the over-hype.
Your enthusiasm for adult stem-cell research is appreciable. However, the differentiation that has been achieved is very difficult and extremely low-yield. Also, not all types of cells have been produced from adult stem cells. There are many treatments that will be best done with adult stem cells, and others that will be best accomplished with ESC.
When I take all of the facts together I don’t reach the same conclusion. The ESC funding is capable of achieving things that ASC funding never will. Adult stem cells have already differentiated, and thus will be extremely difficult to get to form all types of cells. It’s a misnomer to even refer to a single type of adult stem cells. There are bone marrow stem cells, for instance. And there are others (again, short on time to do the research this moment). On the other hand, there is one ESC, and that ESC is capable of producing each and every cell in your body. Sure, let’s fund ASC, but the funding for ESC in the long run looks capable of far more. Where the balance in use will lie requires funding, and that is what Bush blocked with his veto.
I just want to say that I applaud your pure form of writing. This article is full of emotion and well-supported points. America would benefit from such raw media as this, as it is we are fed scripted opinions and half-stories edited to be political.
I agree that ESC should be better funded, we will not know our true medical limits without the research. Also, your argument about the stage of development that the embryo is in convinces me that this is indeed not a scientific debate. The scientific community basically agrees that a living organism must survive on its own (ie bacteria are alive, but viruses are not). Since the embryo has no way of surviving outside of the woman’s body then it is difficult to say that it is alive. Also you bring up a good point about thousands of fertilized eggs (embryos) that are flushed through the body due to menstration.
Thank you for this article - I can sense that you feel strongly about this and I appreciate your candidness.
Have I misunderstood you? Did I miss something? Are you saying that the definition of life centers on whether or not an organism suffers or is capable of living without a symbiotic relationship? If so, it is an odd definition.
First let me complement you on taking time to think this difficult concept through. Unfortunately, it seems a rare thing on both sides. I also appreciate the tone of your post. That being said, I believe you made a wrong turn at the beginning and continued down the wrong path.
I cannot accept your contention that opposition to ESC harvesting is a “purely religious decision.” It is true, that many of the opponents to ESC research have some kind of religious background, and many base their opinions on those spiritual beliefs. That does not make void their argument. Many others, however, oppose the research without an appeal to any religious dogma. Some oppose it based on the obvious eroding of human dignity.
Your piece argues that a blastocyst is not alive because it contains “no organs, or neural pathways, no skin, fingers, toes, beating hearts, or anything else.” It takes a far too narrow a focus to consider that proof that the embryo lacks the status of life. Every senator that voted, President Bush who vetoed the bill, me, you, and everyone else was once such a collection of cells. Life should be defined by what it is at the moment, but what it is becoming. The genetic material for all the toes, organs and other things you mention are present and given the opportunity to thrive will yield a recognizable baby.
You spent time telling us why a blastocyst is not alive, but no time telling us when it becomes so. At what point does life begin? That is the crucible, not “wasting” frozen embryos (that’s a different and important topic), not whether or not the U.S. will lose its edge in this field, not if states will lose money, but whether or not we are shredding humans at the embryonic stage. It is more comfortable to think not, but is that the fact. If life begins a conception then ESC requires the destruction of a being and that is difficult to swallow even for what may be worthwhile advances in science. The question isn’t medical advances. Everyone wants to see the end of cancer, Parkinson’s, diabetes and so on. The question is whether or not we are sacrificing life on the alter of advancement.
So instead of telling me an embryo is not alive, tell me when it becomes alive.
Again, thanks for the post.
AG
Alton,
Thank you for the reply.
One of the most important points I was trying to convey is this: ESC research avoids the problem of defining when life begins altogether (that’s it’s primary crucial difference from the abortion debate). Sure, an embryo implanted in the uterus will develop into human life. But, an embryo never implanted in a uterus cannot develop into life. It is these embryos, frozen waiting for their implantation day that will never come, that would be sacrificed to yield ESCs.
If you have to define the beginning of life, it is most certainly defined at the moment of fertilization. There is no “definition of life” that all scientists agree upon, and that makes my last sentence personal opinion. Nevertheless, just because something is alive does not mean that its destruction is a moral decision. Every time you scrape your elbow or skin your knee, you destroy life. Every step you take, every breath you exhale destroys life. There is a point at which destruction of life becomes invested with moral and ethical importance, but aside from religious considerations, I don’t see how one could make an argument that that point is reached before the blastocyst is destroyed for ESC research.
So, again my primary argument is that because there is no capability for suffering of the 100 or so cells in the blastocyst, their destruction is not strictly an ethical concern. However, as you said we do fundamentally respect human life. That makes my case even stronger. There are millions suffering from conditions that are physically painful and emotionally destructive. Those symptoms and maladies may someday be cured by the destruction of a few thousand embryos. Respecting life here is to make that tiny sacrifice towards a very worthy cause.
And, there is no slippery slope here. Destruction of embryos for ESCs does not degrade the value of human life. It turns something that would merely be discarded into a potential cure for millions. Blastocysts themselves are destroyed in the thousands if not millions by the body’s natural processes. Here we would seek to elevate a few of those unfortunate victims to the status of life savers.
I would never advocate harvesting eggs for the sole purpose of ESC research. But, if embryos can be obtained from the waste stream of a purpose that society has deemed morally acceptable (fertility treatments), then that is all the better. Again here there is no slippery slope. Society is capable of deciding acceptable practices and defining clear limits. That is, in fact, what two of the other stem cell bills did. But to decide that federal funding toward new stem cell lines harvested from frozen waste embryos is illegal is simply a religious decision. It’s a moral one, sure. But no secular morality that I see is capable of defending that decision.