"Using
Stem Cells from Embryos Will Make Human Flesh Profitable."
By Daniel McConchie
Unless there is a scientific discovery that removes
the perceived need for embryonic stem cells, the debate over their
use in research is not going away any time soon. Even though the
Bush administration is poised to make a decision on federal funding
of this research, it stands to reason that embryo research will,
like abortion, be the next interminable controversy, albeit along
very different battle lines--lines where economics is the unifying
force for immoral policy.
It has been two and a half years since stem cells
were first isolated and grown from human embryos by James A. Thompson
of the University of Wisconsin and John D. Gearhart of Johns Hopkins
University. In that time the United States has failed to resolve
the fight over federal funding of the research. In Germany, a
nation that is usually one of the strongest in Europe in defending
human dignity, some politicians have begun to show weakness when
the promises of stem cells are dangled before them.
In the United States the debate has been getting
emotional. Patients-advocacy groups have been trotting out on
the public stage people who suffer from some of the terrible ailments
that stem cell research is promising to address. Hollywood celebrities
such as Christopher Reeve (most famous for his portrayal of Superman)
who has a broken spine from a equestrian accident, Michael J.
Fox who suffers from Parkinson's disease, and Mary Tyler Moore
who is a diabetic, are testifying before Congress and lobbying
the public in support of destructive human embryo research using
their . Mr. Reeve and Mr. Fox are putting personal fortunes and
their celebrity fundraising power into foundations which help
to underwrite their cause. All this while they play on the favor
of fans.
For those who support all types of stem cell
research, the goal is simple. Open up every possible door of research
in hopes of finding a cure for otherwise incurable conditions.
It is a noble goal...a loving goal. But it is one that is fraught
with danger.
For those unfamiliar with stem cell research,
stem cells are "precursor" cells, less-specialized cells
which give rise to the more specialized cells of the body such
as brain, blood, skin, etc. There are two types of stem cells,
typically referred to as "embryonic" and "adult."
Embryonic stem cells come from embryos in the first few days after
fertilization and are the least specialized stem cells. The cells
are extracted from the embryo's inner mass, destroying the embryo
in the process. Scientists hope to learn how to steer these cells
to become the specific specialized cells a particular patient
might need.
There are many obstacles which lie in the path
of getting these cells to work. Scientists must learn how to steer
them properly, keeping them from "overgrowing" and turning
into a cancer, and prevent possible immune rejection if the cells
come from an embryo with a different genetic makeup. The last
of these problems is one reason why Britain has moved to allow
"therapeutic" cloning (cloning with the intention of
destroying the resulting embryo for "therapeutic" use)
and some in the United States only want to ban "reproductive"
cloning (cloning with the intention of bringing a cloned baby
to term). If using stem cells from embryos becomes a reality,
a patient might clone himself to obtain the stem cells for implantation
and thereby avoid tissue rejection. Yet, the question remains,
how many patients might be willing to kill their twin to achieve
their medical miracle?
In contrast to embryonic stem cells, adult stem
cells are more specialized and give rise to the cells that do
the everyday work of life. In contrast what their name implies,
adult stem cells are not only found in adults, but in everyone
from the youngest child to the eldest senior. When first isolated,
it was believed that adult stem cells could not change to be different
types of cells and tissues. However, adult stem cells have been
found to be very malleable. They have been able to change from
brain cells to blood cells, and from blood cells to muscle, nerve,
or liver cells. In addition, adult stem cells have proven much
more effective for medical treatment than embryonic cells. Several
adult stem cell therapies are in clinical trials in the United
States, while no clinical trials using embryonic cells have been
introduced.
One of the primary arguments for doing research
on embryonic cells is that adult stem cells have not been isolated
in every type of tissue. If adult cells cannot be identified in
all types of tissue, it would seem necessary to use embryonic
cells that theoretically have the capacity to become any type
of tissue. This argument seems premature at best given that research
is continually identifying new adult stem cell types (one of the
latest being in fat) and discovering new ways to manipulate the
cells. In addition, PPL Therapeutics, the firm that produced the
sheep clone Dolly, has indicated a breakthrough in the stem cell
research field--the ability to turn ordinary cells into adult
stem cells. Many in the research community are waiting in anticipation
for PPL's release of data, which will likely happen once they
receive a patent on their discovery. Kevin Fitzgerald, a cancer
researcher with Georgetown University in Washington, DC, says
that if true, this discovery alone could end the need to pursue
embryonic stem cells altogether.
But until a scientific white knight arrives,
this debate will continue. And, unfortunately for the public trying
to understand the issues, the frequent references to abortion
in public debate on stem cell research is misleading. Other than
the fact that human life ends in both cases, there are many other
differences that should be considered when evaluating the issue.
No one except extreme reproductive rights activists
are happy that abortion takes place. It is usually viewed in society
as a necessary evil. Surveys in the United States reveal that
about 70% of the public believe that abortion is the killing of
a human being while a similar percentage believes it also ought
to be legal. One reason for the seeming contradiction is a belief
that the mother has right to autonomy over her own body (the right
to do what she thinks is best for herself). In the conflict of
rights between child and mother, the mother wins.
Unless scientists have developed some sort of
"right to research" or patients have developed a "right
to be cured," there is no conflict of rights between embryos
and anyone else. The determination of whether research on embryos
or embryo parts should be legal should rest on our understanding
of human life, human dignity, and what protections human beings
should receive rather than from any perceived benefit dependent
upon the abuse of human life.
When a woman has an abortion, she does not gain
anything of benefit. Other than in cases of fetal abnormality,
abortion is usually an attempt to restore the mother's life and
body back to the point prior to pregnancy. No woman gets pregnant
so she has the opportunity to get an abortion. Regardless of the
perceived rightness or wrongness of abortion, the practice does
not turn human life into a commodity.
On the other hand, embryonic stem cell research
provides gain, both to the researcher as well as, potentially,
the patient. Through this research, human life is destroyed for
its parts, which can then be bought and sold as a therapeutic
agent. The world recoils in disgust at the global black market
in human organs. Recent Congressional testimony reports that the
Chinese government is participating in this trade by selling the
organs of prisoners. This disgust is appropriate because the commodification
of human beings, beginning with the small, weak, or defenseless,
is not only immoral, but threatens us all. If democratic, capitalist
societies allow living human parts to become a commodity, how
long before those who stand to make a profit from such sales begin
pushing for laws to expand the definition of what human flesh
can be traded?
The Germans debate on this issue is helpful to
analyze. Ever since the fall of the Third Reich, Germany has been
a stalwart upholder of human rights, remaining quite conservative
on issues while much of Europe begins legalizing all sorts of
inhumane activities. Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, president of Deutche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the central public funding organization
for academic research in Germany, said in a recent interview with
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that "We don't want to work
with embryos that have been produced for research purposes"
because of the problem of turning human beings into a commodity.
Mr. Winnacker misses the point that any research on embryos, and
the therapies which may result, require their destruction and
turn human life into a commodity because monetary value is now
found in the living parts of human beings. This is not only true
of embryos. For most people, their individual organs are worth
more on the black market than the value of their life insurance
plan.
It should be said that doing research on embryonic
parts is good science. But so is taking random people in the population,
giving them a deadly disease, and watching the progression. There
are certain things we just don't do because they undermine our
society and assault our humanity. During the annual "Berlin
Speech" on May 18th, German President Johannes Rau spoke
ardently in defense of human dignity and against the subjection
of human life to economic interests saying, "Surely we can
agree that an ethically unjustifiable act does not become allowable
simply by promising economic benefit." If economics begin
determining our ethics, if money is our ruler for how we treat
our neighbor, we will slowly begin to cannibalize ourselves. The
only protection from harm will become wealth and power.
The potential for economic benefit has become
the impetus for building coalitions that are defying ideological
divisions and party politics. Free-market capitalists and investors
have joined with patient advocates and scientists to favor an
unrestrained biotech future. The recent German Parliament debate
on bioethics is just one illustration of the political upheaval
that biotechnology is generating. Many worry about being left
behind in the biotechnological revolution. But willingness to
make economic criteria primary in social ethics, as German Chancellor
Gerard Schroder recently suggested, undermines the very social
structures that support that economic system.
The legalization of abortion has caused many
social problems of its own. But those problems are fundamentally
different and pale in significance to the risk society takes when
humanity becomes an object of trade and our moral foundation become
a product subject to market forces. The current debate should
focus on how to lead the world away from this cesspool of depravity
rather than joining in and grasp for profits. Contrary to popular
opinion in the west, there are some things money cannot buy.
|
