Professor Robert George of Princeton wrote in response to some questions I asked about stem cell research:
I'm writing in response to the questions you posted on
Mirror of Justice
concerning the use of dead embryos to produce pluripotent stem cells.
Last year, the President's Council on Bioethics (on which I serve)
published a White Paper on Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem
Cells. We examined four proposals for obtaining pluripotent cells
without killing embyros, including the proposal about which you
inquired. Our report is available on line at
www.bioethics.gov.
(Click on "Reports.") On the basis of work being done at Columbia
University Medical School by two research physicians (Drs. Landry and
Zucker) the Council concluded that this approach should be explored
more fully and that funding for the basic research should be
encouraged. The goal is to identify criteria and technology for
distinguishing living human embryos from organismically dead embryos in
cryopreservation. There are some collateral issues as well, which you
can read about in the White Paper.
May I offer responses to your specific questions?
Does the moral objection to stem cells depend upon the assumption that embryos are ensouled?
No. The moral objection to embryo-destructive research is premised on
the fact that human embryos are human individuals in the earliest
stages of their natural development. A human embryo is not something distinct in kind from a human being—like a rock or potato or alligator. A human embryo, from the zygote and morula stages forward, is a whole, distinct, living member of the species Homo sapiens. The
embryonic human being requires only what any human being at any stage
of development requires for his or her survival, namely, adequate
nutrition and an environment sufficiently hospitable to sustain life. From
the beginning, each human individual possesses—actually and not merely
potentially—the genetic constitution and epigenetic primordia for self-directed development
from the embryonic into and through the fetal, infant, child, and
adolescent stages and into adulthood with his or her unity,
determinateness, and identity intact. In this
crucial respect, the embryo is quite unlike the gametes—that is, the
sperm and ovum—whose union brought a new human being into existence. You and I were never sperm or ova; those were genetically and functionally parts of other human beings--our parents. But each of us was once an embryo, just as each of us was once an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus. Of
course, in the embryonic, fetal, and infant stages we were highly
vulnerable and dependent creatures, but we were nevertheless complete,
distinct human individuals. As the leading
textbooks in human embryology and developmental biology unanimously
attest, we were not mere “clumps of cells,” like moles or tumors. So
the basic rights human beings possess simply by virtue of their
humanity—including above all the right to life—we possessed even then.
Obviously, there is a lot more to be said, and various lines of
objection to be answered, but (in short) it is not speculation about
"ensoulment," but rather the biological facts establishing the humanity
of the embryo, that are the basis of the objection to human
embryo-killing. (I am not here suggesting that we derive ethical norms
from biological facts. The principle of human equality and other
principles of human rights are not established by scientific inquiry.
What science can tell us is when we have a living human being (as
opposed to a gamete or pair of gametes, a mole or tumor, a corpse,
etc.). Ethical reflection must establish whether all human beings are
equal, or whether there are superiors and inferiors whose status is
determined by race, sex, ethnicity, age, size, stage of development,
condition of dependency, or what have you.)
Assuming the use of stem cells would otherwise be problematic, is there a moral objection to using stem cells from dead embryos?
So long as a practice did not encourage the creation of "excess"
embryos or promote or facilitate other objectionable practices, I don't
see a moral objection to using stem cells obtained by culturing inner
cell mass cells from embryonic remains. Drs. Landry and Zucker have
tried carefully to think through some of the issues here, and their
ideas are discussed in the President's Council's White Paper.
Is the “stopped developing naturally” criterion a proper one to determine the death of an embryo? If not, what is?
I think that the standard understanding of death is what we should bear
in mind in thinking through the problem. The core of that
understanding is that an organism (at any developmental stage) is dead
when it has irretrievably lost the capacity for integral organic
functioning. What we need to know is whether the cessation of cell
division in an early embryo (reliably) means that the embryo has in
fact irretrievably lost the capacity for integral organic functioning.
This is the question that Drs. Landry and Zucker have set out to answer.
I hope these responses are helpful.
One final point is that the Landry-Zucker strategy, even if successful,
will not (alas) make the debate go away. "Spare" embryos in
crypreservation in assisted reproduction (IVF) clinics, whether they
are living or dead, are all products of the genetic lottery. This
severely limits their utility in the most sophisticated scientific
work--especiall if regenerative therapies are meant to come from stem
cell research. That is why there is such pressure for the use of
cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) to create embryos whose genetic
structure is controlled. The truth is that the debate over federal
restrictions on funding of research involving the destruction of IVF
spare embryos is something of a side show. The real issue is SCNT. So
the most important goal for those of us who oppose human
embryo-creation and destruction is to find an alternative to cloning
for the production of genetically controlled pluripotent cells. The
Landry-Zucker proposal won't do that. There are, however, two
promising avenues -- "altered nuclear transfer" and somatic cell
"de-differentiation" (i.e., the epigenetic reprogramming of ordinary
body cells, such as skin cell) -- both of which are explained and
analyzed in the President's Council's White Paper. (Since the
publication of the Paper, advances in both of these areas have been
made. I would particularly mention work on altered nuclear transfer by
Dr. Rudolf Jaenisch at MIT, published in Nature, and work on de-differentiation by Dr. Kevin Eggan of Harvard, published in Science.
At the last meeting of the President's Council, I asked the staff to
update the White Paper in light of the research by these scientists and
others. They should have the update on line in a month or two.)
In USA Today, Jonah Goldberg disputes the common assertion that Islam needs to undergo a Protestant Reformation; in his view, Islam already has countless Martin Luthers -- what it really needs is a pope.
Rob
The Institute for American Values and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy have issued a new report, The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs. Produced by the Commission on Parenthood's Future (including Don Browning, Jean Elshtain, Robert George, and John Witte), the principal author is Elizabeth Marquardt. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:
Right now, our societies urgently require reflection, debate, and research about the policies and practices that will serve the best interests of children—those already born and those yet to be born. This report argues that around the world the state is taking an increasingly active role in defining and regulating parenthood far beyond its limited, vital, historic, and child-centered role in finding suitable parents for needy children through adoption. The report documents how the state creates new uncertainties and vulnerabilities when it increasingly seeks to administer parenthood, often giving far greater attention to adult rights than to children’s needs. For the most part, this report does not advocate for or against particular policy prescriptions (such as banning donor conception) but rather seeks to draw urgently needed public attention to the current revolutionary changes in parenthood, to point out the risks and contradictions arising from increased state intervention, and to insist that our societies immediately undertake a vigorous, child-centered debate.
Rob
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Peggy Steinfels, over at dotCommonweal, links to this. Click and read--including the comments.
