Day 3 stem cells: The ethics
Supporters and opponents of embryonic stem cell research look at the same facts but interpret them differently.
Opponents, like Chip Maxwell of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research, argue that scientific facts demonstrate an embryo is a human being, and therefore entitled to the same rights as any human patient or laboratory subject.
“The science is on our side,” Maxwell said.
He argues that any basic text on genetics or embryology makes it clear that as soon as an embryo is formed from the union of a sperm and egg, it has a full complement of DNA — the same it will have throughout its development into a fetus, and eventually a human baby.
“The No. 1 principle of medical research is that you don’t experiment on humans if the result is to destroy the subject,” he said.
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research don’t believe DNA alone is enough to give embryos a special ethical status. In fact, during an embryo’s first few days of existence it is a blastocyst — a mass of cells that has not differentiated, and could not develop into a human being unless implanted in a mother’s womb, explained Dr. David Crouse, associate vice chancellor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
“It has the potential to be a human being, but it isn’t if it’s not implanted,” he said.
Most people would agree that embryos growing in a laboratory don’t have the same moral value as a living, breathing human being, he said.
In a vivid hypothetical example, he asked: If there were a fire, and you could save a dish of embryos or a real baby, which would you choose?
Using ‘leftover’ embryos
A major argument for embryonic stem cell research is that the cells used are from “leftover” embryos produced during the process of in vitro fertilization.
Embryos not implanted would be destroyed anyway, so it makes sense to use them for research that could result in cures for such human diseases as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and diabetes, said Sanford Goodman, public advocacy director of Nebraskans for Research, a group that supports the use of embryos in research.
“For (many) years in this country we have accepted the creation and certain destruction of human embryos to treat the nonmedical condition of infertility,” he said. “Isn’t it better if they can be used for the advancement of science?”
One of the most vocal opponents of embryonic stem cell research is Greg Schleppenbach, state director of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities of the Nebraska Catholic Conference.
The basic question isn’t whether an “excess” embryo would be destroyed, but whether the embryo is a human being, he said. Schleppenbach and other opponents want to keep restrictions on federal funding to stem cell lines that were available before August 2001, so no new embryos will be destroyed. Many also would like to eliminate the production of excess embryos by fertility clinics, but that’s another issue.
Killing an embryo for research is just as wrong as Nazi doctors using prisoners for medical experiments, Schleppenbach said.
Opposition
not just religious
Both Schleppenbach and Maxwell say their opposition isn’t based on religious arguments, but on scientific evidence. The science is so convincing, Maxwell said, that “an atheist could be on our board of directors.”
According to several national polls in recent years, 60 percent or more of those questioned said they favor using embryonic stem cells for medical research. But a poll commissioned last fall by the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research indicated a majority of Nebraskans oppose such research.
Some critics have called it a “push poll” because the poll question stated that “embryonic stem cell research requires live embryos to be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain the stem cells,” and asked respondents if they support or oppose using tax dollars “to fund stem cell research that requires the destruction of embryos.” Of 500 recent voters interviewed in the random survey, 39 percent said they supported tax money for embryonic stem cell research, while 56 percent were opposed.
The poll was not unfairly biased in favor of a negative response, said Maxwell. In fact, he said, polls that have failed to make clear that embryos are killed have been biased in the other direction.
This year, Nebraska pro-life groups picked embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning as major issues to rally Nebraskans.
This winter’s March for Life in downtown Lincoln focused almost entirely on stem cells rather than abortion. They turned out en masse for a March hearing on LB700, a bill to outlaw cloning — both for reproductive purposes and therapeutic cloning, which is expected to play a key role in future stem cell research. The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee held the bill this session and plans an interim hearing later this year.
Religious views vary
In addition to the Catholic Church, a number of Protestant groups have taken positions against using embryos for stem cells. Lutherans for Life, some Orthodox groups and some evangelical groups also have raised questions about in vitro fertilization.
All three Nebraska bishops uphold the Catholic church’s position opposing both embryonic research and in vitro fertilization.
Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz has written about the evil of creating human embryos in the laboratory specifically to be “chopped up for scientific research or for such purposes as forming stem-cell lines that are alleged (with almost no evidence to support the claims) to be able to cure all sorts of diseases in the future.”
But there also are a number of denominations that either take a middle ground or favor both in vitro and embryonic stem cell research, within certain ethical guidelines.
Statements in 2004 by both the Rabinnical Council of America (Jewish) and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church support the right of couples in fertilization clinics to donate excess embryos for research, but oppose creating embryos solely to harvest stem cells.
The Rev. Nancy Huston, leader of the Nebraska Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, is a deacon in an Episcopal church in Papillion. Her organization supports a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion, and also supports embryonic stem cell research.
The coalition includes people from many faiths, including United Church of Christ, Episcopalians, Jews, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and other denominations, she said.
‘Pro life for choice’
Huston said she is sure there are some people who are pro-choice on abortion yet have reservations about stem cell research, and vice-versa. She herself doesn’t like the term “pro-life” being used only for abortion opponents.
“I’m pro-life for choice,” she said.
“In no way is (using embryos for stem cells) contrary to the will of God,” she said, noting that she also believes God wants people to pursue scientific research that result in saving lives and improving people’s health.
Betty Hoskins, a biology professor from Massachusetts, writes in a paper published by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice that it’s possible to believe embryos are worthy of respect but still can be useful tools to help develop cures for human diseases.
“So often in our society this is presented as an ‘either/or’ dilemma — either human tissue in any form or stage of development is sacred and therefore cannot be destroyed for any purpose, or the potential for life-saving cures overrides all other ethical considerations,” she writes.
As in all difficult ethical decisions, she says, there are no easy answers, but both the value of individual life and the potential benefits of the research should be considered.
Where does
God come in?
Despite the differing interpretations of science, it’s basically a religious issue, says Goodman, of Nebraskans for Research.
“We have a group of people committed to a particular view of humanity, defined by their religious viewpoints based on the Bible,” he said. “That leads them to the conclusion that says God breathes a soul into the fertilized egg.”
Goodman is not a scientist, but a number of medical researchers are part of his organization’s board. And several doctors and medical researchers sit on the board of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research, which opposes research involving embryos.
Goodman feels there is an ethical argument for promoting stem cell research, because blocking it could result in increased human suffering because potential cures for diseases would not be found.
Schleppenbach accuses Goodman of religious bigotry.
“The other side tries to marginalize us as pushing our religious views on society,” Schleppenbach said. “That’s just bogus. We never refer to it (the embryo) as a soul.”
Nevertheless, the religious differences on the issue can’t be ignored — especially since some supporters of the research use religious arguments to support their position.
“I believe in a God who is big enough to be graceful about the ambiguity we feel as we take the risk and receive the gift of stem cell research as Christians in the 21st century,” said the Rev. Lauren Ekdahl, district superintendent for the United Methodist Church in Scottsbluff.
There is biblical evidence, he said, for the view that human life does not begin at conception but at the first breath, because the first man, Adam, came to life when God gave him breath.
“I believe we can respect and honor life without idolizing its very basic incubatory stage, and thus refuse the gift of its potential ... to heal life-threatening diseases.”
“I would disagree with the idea that the embryo is a person,” said the Rev. M. Winston Baldwin, senior pastor of First Central Congregational Church in Omaha. Baldwin, a strong supporter of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, agreed with Goodman that opponents of embryonic stem cell research are “trying to impose their religious views on others.”
He believes following Christian teachings carries a moral obligation to promote medical research that helps cure diseases and save lives.
“Humankind is involved in the creation process, and I feel the creation is still happening,” he said. “We have a responsibility to care for that creation.”
Reach Bob Reeves at 473-7212 or breeves@journalstar.com.
Opponents, like Chip Maxwell of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research, argue that scientific facts demonstrate an embryo is a human being, and therefore entitled to the same rights as any human patient or laboratory subject.
“The science is on our side,” Maxwell said.
He argues that any basic text on genetics or embryology makes it clear that as soon as an embryo is formed from the union of a sperm and egg, it has a full complement of DNA — the same it will have throughout its development into a fetus, and eventually a human baby.
“The No. 1 principle of medical research is that you don’t experiment on humans if the result is to destroy the subject,” he said.
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research don’t believe DNA alone is enough to give embryos a special ethical status. In fact, during an embryo’s first few days of existence it is a blastocyst — a mass of cells that has not differentiated, and could not develop into a human being unless implanted in a mother’s womb, explained Dr. David Crouse, associate vice chancellor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
“It has the potential to be a human being, but it isn’t if it’s not implanted,” he said.
Most people would agree that embryos growing in a laboratory don’t have the same moral value as a living, breathing human being, he said.
In a vivid hypothetical example, he asked: If there were a fire, and you could save a dish of embryos or a real baby, which would you choose?
Using ‘leftover’ embryos
A major argument for embryonic stem cell research is that the cells used are from “leftover” embryos produced during the process of in vitro fertilization.
Embryos not implanted would be destroyed anyway, so it makes sense to use them for research that could result in cures for such human diseases as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and diabetes, said Sanford Goodman, public advocacy director of Nebraskans for Research, a group that supports the use of embryos in research.
“For (many) years in this country we have accepted the creation and certain destruction of human embryos to treat the nonmedical condition of infertility,” he said. “Isn’t it better if they can be used for the advancement of science?”
One of the most vocal opponents of embryonic stem cell research is Greg Schleppenbach, state director of the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities of the Nebraska Catholic Conference.
The basic question isn’t whether an “excess” embryo would be destroyed, but whether the embryo is a human being, he said. Schleppenbach and other opponents want to keep restrictions on federal funding to stem cell lines that were available before August 2001, so no new embryos will be destroyed. Many also would like to eliminate the production of excess embryos by fertility clinics, but that’s another issue.
Killing an embryo for research is just as wrong as Nazi doctors using prisoners for medical experiments, Schleppenbach said.
Opposition
not just religious
Both Schleppenbach and Maxwell say their opposition isn’t based on religious arguments, but on scientific evidence. The science is so convincing, Maxwell said, that “an atheist could be on our board of directors.”
According to several national polls in recent years, 60 percent or more of those questioned said they favor using embryonic stem cells for medical research. But a poll commissioned last fall by the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research indicated a majority of Nebraskans oppose such research.
Some critics have called it a “push poll” because the poll question stated that “embryonic stem cell research requires live embryos to be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain the stem cells,” and asked respondents if they support or oppose using tax dollars “to fund stem cell research that requires the destruction of embryos.” Of 500 recent voters interviewed in the random survey, 39 percent said they supported tax money for embryonic stem cell research, while 56 percent were opposed.
The poll was not unfairly biased in favor of a negative response, said Maxwell. In fact, he said, polls that have failed to make clear that embryos are killed have been biased in the other direction.
This year, Nebraska pro-life groups picked embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning as major issues to rally Nebraskans.
This winter’s March for Life in downtown Lincoln focused almost entirely on stem cells rather than abortion. They turned out en masse for a March hearing on LB700, a bill to outlaw cloning — both for reproductive purposes and therapeutic cloning, which is expected to play a key role in future stem cell research. The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee held the bill this session and plans an interim hearing later this year.
Religious views vary
In addition to the Catholic Church, a number of Protestant groups have taken positions against using embryos for stem cells. Lutherans for Life, some Orthodox groups and some evangelical groups also have raised questions about in vitro fertilization.
All three Nebraska bishops uphold the Catholic church’s position opposing both embryonic research and in vitro fertilization.
Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz has written about the evil of creating human embryos in the laboratory specifically to be “chopped up for scientific research or for such purposes as forming stem-cell lines that are alleged (with almost no evidence to support the claims) to be able to cure all sorts of diseases in the future.”
But there also are a number of denominations that either take a middle ground or favor both in vitro and embryonic stem cell research, within certain ethical guidelines.
Statements in 2004 by both the Rabinnical Council of America (Jewish) and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church support the right of couples in fertilization clinics to donate excess embryos for research, but oppose creating embryos solely to harvest stem cells.
The Rev. Nancy Huston, leader of the Nebraska Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, is a deacon in an Episcopal church in Papillion. Her organization supports a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion, and also supports embryonic stem cell research.
The coalition includes people from many faiths, including United Church of Christ, Episcopalians, Jews, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and other denominations, she said.
‘Pro life for choice’
Huston said she is sure there are some people who are pro-choice on abortion yet have reservations about stem cell research, and vice-versa. She herself doesn’t like the term “pro-life” being used only for abortion opponents.
“I’m pro-life for choice,” she said.
“In no way is (using embryos for stem cells) contrary to the will of God,” she said, noting that she also believes God wants people to pursue scientific research that result in saving lives and improving people’s health.
Betty Hoskins, a biology professor from Massachusetts, writes in a paper published by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice that it’s possible to believe embryos are worthy of respect but still can be useful tools to help develop cures for human diseases.
“So often in our society this is presented as an ‘either/or’ dilemma — either human tissue in any form or stage of development is sacred and therefore cannot be destroyed for any purpose, or the potential for life-saving cures overrides all other ethical considerations,” she writes.
As in all difficult ethical decisions, she says, there are no easy answers, but both the value of individual life and the potential benefits of the research should be considered.
Where does
God come in?
Despite the differing interpretations of science, it’s basically a religious issue, says Goodman, of Nebraskans for Research.
“We have a group of people committed to a particular view of humanity, defined by their religious viewpoints based on the Bible,” he said. “That leads them to the conclusion that says God breathes a soul into the fertilized egg.”
Goodman is not a scientist, but a number of medical researchers are part of his organization’s board. And several doctors and medical researchers sit on the board of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research, which opposes research involving embryos.
Goodman feels there is an ethical argument for promoting stem cell research, because blocking it could result in increased human suffering because potential cures for diseases would not be found.
Schleppenbach accuses Goodman of religious bigotry.
“The other side tries to marginalize us as pushing our religious views on society,” Schleppenbach said. “That’s just bogus. We never refer to it (the embryo) as a soul.”
Nevertheless, the religious differences on the issue can’t be ignored — especially since some supporters of the research use religious arguments to support their position.
“I believe in a God who is big enough to be graceful about the ambiguity we feel as we take the risk and receive the gift of stem cell research as Christians in the 21st century,” said the Rev. Lauren Ekdahl, district superintendent for the United Methodist Church in Scottsbluff.
There is biblical evidence, he said, for the view that human life does not begin at conception but at the first breath, because the first man, Adam, came to life when God gave him breath.
“I believe we can respect and honor life without idolizing its very basic incubatory stage, and thus refuse the gift of its potential ... to heal life-threatening diseases.”
“I would disagree with the idea that the embryo is a person,” said the Rev. M. Winston Baldwin, senior pastor of First Central Congregational Church in Omaha. Baldwin, a strong supporter of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, agreed with Goodman that opponents of embryonic stem cell research are “trying to impose their religious views on others.”
He believes following Christian teachings carries a moral obligation to promote medical research that helps cure diseases and save lives.
“Humankind is involved in the creation process, and I feel the creation is still happening,” he said. “We have a responsibility to care for that creation.”
Reach Bob Reeves at 473-7212 or breeves@journalstar.com.
Copyright © 2002-2008 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.