I have read with interest the thread that Michael Scaperlanda initiated regarding the emerging debate in the United States regarding embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Having worked on this issue for some time in the international sphere, I would like to offer these several reflections regarding these momentous matters that I have developed over the recent past.
I think it safe to say that today the Church is largely supportive of scientific research geared to bettering the human condition, and this is especially true of most research in the medical sciences geared to promoting human welfare—all human welfare. In the context of the re-emerging national debate on stem cell research, it is important to take stock of the fact that the Church adds its voice to those who hold that the procurement of human stem cells, as long as they are not harvested from live embryos, that is, so-called “adult” stem cells, for medical research can provide and has provided the path for many positive breakthroughs for morally acceptable medical treatments for a wide variety of ailments; however, the use of embryonic stem cells is not.
Notwithstanding the “promises” associated with arguments to permit embryonic stem cell research, it must be acknowledged that research had already progressed with adult stem cells from bone marrow, cord blood and other mature tissues; however, embryonic stem cell research has not enjoyed the success or progress to success claimed by its advocates. In this context, we need to recall the falsified claims made by a Korean scientist that led to his resignation and placing into question many of the claims about the merits of embryonic stem cell research that he advanced.While there had been claims of success in developing embryonic stem cells, even in some animal experiments, this turned out not to be the case.
One important basis for the objection of using embryonic stem cells was the fact that it necessitated the creation of human embryos with the intention of destroying them. While the goals of aiding sick people seem quite noble, this was incompatible with respect for the dignity of the human being. We must also take stock of the indisputable fact that cloned embryos would be indistinguishable from embryos created by in vitro fertilization.
From the medical and scientific perspective, it is vital to be clear on the nature of the embryo. As O’Rahilly and Müller state in their 1996 Human Embryology and Teratology, “It is to be remembered that at all stages the embryo is a living organism, that is, it is a going concern with adequate mechanisms for its maintenance ....” As they further posit, “life is continuous, as is also human life, so that the question ‘When does (human) life begin?’ is meaningless in terms of ontogeny. Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”
There is a need to be clear about the meaning of terms used in the debates surrounding human cloning. While most of us may not have foreseen the scientific development of human cloning technology even a few years ago, we can neither ignore nor deny generally the important contributions that scientific development makes to human beings and their improvement on numerous fronts. But science can be used in ways not geared to the service of humanity. It can be misguided thereby harming rather than advancing the individual and the common good. While those who support embryonic stem cell research argue that the goal is to aid humans plagued by diseases that presently escape cures, their project can be used in such as way as to constitute a disservice to human beings.
The fundamental distinction between adult stem cell cloning and embryonic cloning is that a new human existence is not generated with adult stem cell cloning; however, new life is created with embryonic cloning. In the case of cloning technologies that employ the adjectives “reproductive,” “therapeutic,” “scientific,” or “research,” a new human life is brought into the world through the creation of an embryo through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) or similar technologies. These technologies are designed to generate an embryo like the embryo that each of us was in the earliest stages of our human life.
Embryonic cloning raises critical issues in bioethics and morality. The cloning techniques I just listed are alike in that they require the creation of new human embryos. In “reproductive” cloning, the goal is to develop a child who will eventually become a mature adult. The embryo is implanted in a womb (human or artificial) and promoted through nine months of development until the baby's birth. Hollywood did this in the film “The Boys from Brazil” where Dr. Joseph Mengele, the Nazi doctor, escapes to South America with a sample of Adolph Hitler’s DNA and clones many new young Hitlers. While some organizations like the Raelians claimed to have reproduced a cloned human baby, evidence supporting these claims has not materialized as of yet.
“Research” cloning differs from “reproductive” cloning only in the context of the objective. Whereas reproductive cloning is directed toward the end of producing a new walking, talking person, the objective of “research” cloning differs in that the embryo is generated for the sole purpose of extracting stem cells from the evolving human life. While this embryo is cloned to enable the extraction of cellular material, its inevitable destiny is to be ultimately and premeditatively destroyed. However its brother or sister embryo could be destined for reproductive ends. But in the final analysis, the difference between “reproductive” cloning and “research” cloning is non-existent. The distinction is only in the objective of the procedure but not the procedure itself.
There is no doubt that the cloned human embryo is a human being. From the very beginning of its existence, it is a unique human life that will eventually mature through its natural progression in which every person has joined. It is at the entrance of the continuum of human life. This human life has commenced the natural vocation of fetus, birth, maturation, and death. Unlike those of us who continued this natural progression, the embryo produced for “research” is destined for a planned, premature death when the stem cells necessary for the research to proceed, but which are also necessary of the embryo to continue his or her life, are removed from the embryo.
In many discussions by intelligent, often highly educated people throughout the world today, the reality and the science of human embryology is often disregarded when the case of embryonic stem cell research is under discussion. I suspect that a source of this view is related to the thinking—or lack of thinking—taken by pro-abortion advocates who use language that denies the scientific reality of the human life the procedures which they advocate will take. While formulaic norms about human existence may be limited in both value and scope, there is something to be said about the intersection of right reason of the Catholic intellectual tradition and the formulation of ethical norms that guide the moral reasoning essential to sound scientific research.
Does the right reason that directs us to the transcendent, moral order justify research on embryos that inevitably leads to their destruction? The drive to conduct such destructive experimentation on the nascent human life of cloned embryos is strong in our world today. But such research, if it were permitted to continue, defies the dignity to which each human being, each person is entitled.
To ban “reproductive” cloning only, without prohibiting “research” cloning, would be to allow the production of individual human lives with the intention of destroying these lives as part of the process of using them for scientific research. The early human embryo, not yet implanted into a womb (natural or artificial), is nonetheless a human individual, with a human life, and evolving as an autonomous organism towards its full development into a human fetus. Its location does not determine the reality of its ontological nature. Destroying this embryo is therefore a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate suppression of an innocent human being.
Another major problem involves the number of human eggs that would be needed to carry on the research necessary to advance the claims of advocates for embryonic stem cell research. Pressure on women to donate eggs and to increase their egg production through financial and other incentives would likely emerge. The past revelations of the current scandal emerging from the Korean program sponsored by Seoul National University and the Korean national government support the grave concerns about the pressures applied to women to donate, sell, or provide eggs through other means. Associated with the problems of egg collection is the potential use for “drug therapies” that would increase the promotion of egg production but carrying grievous health risks for the woman who takes such drugs in order to increase her egg production. In short, serious are the problems associated with securing the vast number of human eggs that would be needed and the exploitation of the women who might be induced to supply them. This process would use the body of women as a reservoir of eggs without any consideration being given to the number of donations and her procreative future. She would become one stage in an assembly line of human life destined for destruction.
Associated with the number of eggs needed for stem cell research requiring the production of new human embryos are the catalysts for a global market in human life. Human cloning would encourage the development of a trade in cloned human embryos and their derivatives for scientific research or for industrial research and development purposes. The massive demand for human eggs would probably affect the poor and marginalized of the world bringing a new type of injustice into existence. Women from developing countries might be more likely to serve as sources for eggs in order to receive a small compensation that could mean much to her and her family if she has one. The world has made great progress in eradicating slavery even though this curse still exists and flourishes in parts of the world today. But while progress may be made on reducing traditional forms of slavery, a new form of slavery would be involved in the market of human embryos needed for stem cell research since human life, like slaves of the present and past, would become a commodity available for purchase on sale on a global market.
One other immediate concern accompanies these problems. Scientists have made great strides in mapping the human genome. With the securing of a thriving industry in manufacturing embryos for research purposes, there would lurk the temptation for genetic manipulation. In other words, the manufacturing of embryos for research could open doors for altering the genetic code or other forms of genetic manipulation to produce a more perfect embryo that would in turn produce more perfect stem cells. The foundation for creation of a super-race looms in the future.
During the final stages of the international debate in which I took part in late 2004, some countries promoting “therapeutic” or “research” cloning advanced the views of Lord May, President of the Royal Society (the United Kingdom’s National Academy of Science) that the banning of research cloning involving the creation of new embryos would be “an act of intellectual vandalism comparable to papal censorship of Galileo and Copernicus.” When he signed his recantation of the heliocentric theory, it was subsequently reported by Galileo’s supporters that he uttered these words, “And yet ... it [the Earth] still moves.” Thus, we must not today forget that undisputed science demonstrates that the human embryo is human life, and this life is one in which we all shared at the beginning of our own respective existence. To borrow from Galileo, it might thus be said of the embryo (whether produced by cloning or IVF technology) that is intended for destruction by stem cell research, “And yet ... it lives.” It is not simply a clump of cells that can be exploited and then discarded. It is a human life that lives. And are we not called to protect this precious gift of human life not only for now but for our future posterity as well?
RJA sj
