"Facts" on Stem Cells

Today's Washington Post has this essay, "Facts on Stem Cells," by Ruth Faden and John Gearhart (both of John Hopkins). The essay opens with promise, noting that "translating science into political symbols and slogans comes at a price" and conceding that "there is hype on both sides" of the stem-cell-research issue. Ultimately, though, I was disappointed by the essay.

For starters, the essay presents as one of the "facts" from which the debate should begin the claim that "no non-embryonic sources of stem cells -- not stem cells from cord blood or from any 'adult' sources -- have been shown to have anything like the potential to lead us to viable treatments for such diseases as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injury that stem cells derived from very early embryos do." But this essay by Hadley Arkes, reporting on the research of his former student (and my current student) Cason Crosby, suggests that the "facts" are, at least, more complicated.

More frustrating, though, is the authors' hollow-ringing claim to respect the "values" of President Bush and of those who have doubts about the moral justifiability of destroying human embryos for research purposes. Here is how the authors put the issue:

The science is clear. The only way to ensure that we realize the promise of stem cell research as quickly as possible is to permit federal funding to be used to create new embryonic stem cell lines and to support research with new lines. President Bush's values are also clear. He believes that the destruction of embryos can never be morally justified, no matter how much human suffering might be alleviated, even if the embryos are only still a clump of cells not visible to the human eye and even if the embryos will be destroyed in any event in fertility clinics where they are no longer needed.

I assume that President Bush (and others with reservations about embryonic stem-cell research) would say that the embryos in question are not "only . . . a clump of cells[.]" That's really the whole point, isn't it? I suspect that those with reservations might state their position more like this: "Human life may not be intentionally taken, even when that intentional taking of human life holds out the prospect of alleviating suffering. What's more, given that much suffering could be alleviated through less troubling research programs, the less troubling programs ought to be preferred. Finally, given the principled and non-trivial objections of many Amerians to embryonic stem-cell research, it is appropriate for the government not to fund such research."

For my own part, I am afraid that Hadley Arkes may be right, when he observes that:

For many, it appears, the passion for sweeping away the moral reservations about stem cells is bound up with the argument over abortion. The prospects for research are evidently far less important than the possibility of proclaiming, once again, that the human embryo, or the nascent human life, has no standing, and no rights, that the rest of us need to respect.

I should emphasize that, as I see it, this issue raises difficult scientific questions, and questions of moral philosophy, that go beyond my own training and expertise. Still, I am confident that my reservations are sufficiently informed and serious that my democratic government ought to hesitate before requiring me to fund these projects, notwithstanding the enthusiasm of Drs. Faden and Gearhart.

Rick