Webloggin » More Embryonic Stem Cell Science from the "They Don’t Get It" Files

Why It Won't Fly

The New York Times published an article last week that trumpets the claims of a research company that has devised a new method of extracting stem cells from an embryo without damaging the embryo itself.

The ballyhoo surrounding this “news” is an indication that many people just don’t get it; nor do they wish to.

I have also discovered that some blogs and conservative radio hosts on the right may have jumped the gun here in their proclamation of this as a something that could potentially open up the door to federal funding. I disagree with that assessment for the following reasons:

The point that is intentionally missed by those who celebrate the claims in this article is that conservative opposition to this research is centered on the belief that the harvesting of human embryos for scientific research is immoral. This is really a very simple concept.

Yet the New York Times manages to dig up “nonpartisan experts” who make the most ignorant of statements such as “It paints the pro-life community into a corner,” said Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan analyst of Congressional races. “As a rule, you don’t want to oppose scientific advances.” This argument is designed to deflect judgment by moving the guilt to those who would dare stand in the way of scientific research rather than confront the morality of the procedures in question.

Thus we are lead to believe that there is no longer any reason to oppose this research on a moral ethical basis. But that suggestion intentionally ignores the very real moral and ethical questions surrounding preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) even in the absence of stem cell research.

In other words, it would be a lie to state that PGD does not come without risk.

The procedure involves giving a woman high doses of hormones to stimulate egg production; as is done with invitro fertilization. There are questions as to whether or not the excessive hormones have any lasting detrimental affect on the developing child. It is also not known with any certainty that the biopsy itself (the removal of the stem cell blastomere) does not cause genetic damage to the resulting child.

These are considered acceptable risks in the circles of those who keep expanding the definition of acceptable. For instance, it may be acceptable and morally responsible to use PGD to test for genetic problems for couples who are predisposed to passing them on. However, the risk is not the same for doing a biopsy for no other reason than to procure stem cell lines. Thus one must ask if the risk is acceptable in that case. Especially when science is quickly developing other methods that do not pose a risk to a future child in any way shape or form.

Apart from the risks associated with PGD we have to consider the proposal in its entirety. Just because some company came up with a way to potentially leave the embryo undamaged does not mean that the embryo will be used for any reason other than to harvest stem cells.

Further, if ever there was an indication that the researchers in this particular case have a liberal agenda it can be seen in the timing of the release a month before elections. The statement made by the lead researcher lends credence to my opinion.

“There is no rational reason left to oppose this research,” Dr. Robert Lanza, vice president of Advanced Cell Technology and leader of the research team, said in an interview.

Oh really? How about the reasons I stated above? Coming up with a method to extract stem cells from human embryos does nothing to prevent the harvesting of embryos. Moving the bar in a typical liberal fashion does not change that fact.

It also does not address the very real concern that this science actually moves us backward. We are now experimenting on potential full term children in the very delicate developmental stage.

But the New York Times can not be deterred as they go through the rolodex to find experts with titles that are intended to dissuade even the biggest opponents. Thus we are presented with an ethicist who has taken it upon himself to rationalize away our objections.

Ronald M. Green, an ethicist at Dartmouth College and an adviser to Advanced Cell Technology, said he hoped the new method “provides a way of ending the impasse about federal funding for this research.”

Oh that makes it better; an “ethicist” says it is ok. We can all go away now; the ethicists have arrived!

Simply speaking, proponents of this research are blinded by an ideology that intentionally forgoes any moral conviction for the greater good of the potential benefit. There is a line in this type of science. For conservatives that begins with the slippery slope of harvesting human embryos for medical research and is compounded by adding unnecessary risk to a future child. Did these people learn nothing from the Nazis?

No, I am not comparing embryonic stem cell researchers to Josef Mengele. This is clearly different. However the point being made is that the blurring of the lines between what constitutes experiments on humans is diminished by those who refer to embryos as a simple clump of cells.

Let us consider that this new method works most of the time. The slim chance that the embryo can be damaged by the procedure opens up the door to mistakes that may cause a future full term child to have serious genetic problems. Thus extracting stem cells from a developing child in embryonic form is equally if not more reprehensible than doing so on an embryo destined for destruction.

Even the most irrational of scientific researchers should be able to rationalize this as an unacceptable and needless risk.

This procedure actually opens up the door to many more questions than it answers. Will the same people be in favor of PGD if it turns out that scientists discover a gene that determines if the child will be gay? People could potentially use the very same procedure to screen out that child based on that finding. So somehow I doubt that every advocate of the procedure today would be so objective in the face of something like this in the future.

Those who want to use “the advancement of science” as a spring board for political power and the furthering of an ideological agenda should think long and hard about the path they are headed. They may not like the destination if that science backfires on their motives.

Others Bloggin on this Issue: