THE TIME HAS COME TO SUPPORT EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
Throughout history, brave men and women have pushed the
frontiers of knowledge where others have said they should not go. Like Prometheus, they offer precious gifts to
mankind, and are often chained to a rock for their trouble. Time will tell if Bill Frist is such a man.
Senator Frist is not a medical researcher, merely a doctor
who left medicine for politics.
Nonetheless, when he publicly broke with the President on the Senate
floor by calling for support of stem cell research, he displayed true moral courage.
Stem cells have the astonishing ability to become different
kinds of human cells, based on a process we don’t yet understand. Adult stem cells (ASCs) have a limited form
of this property; they can grow into some kinds of tissue but not others. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs), harvested from a
cell ball known as a blastocyst, seem to be more flexible. They can turn into almost any type of cell
the organism needs: muscle tissue, brain
cells, blood, it doesn’t matter.
Somehow, in one of nature’s most intriguing mysteries, this
mass of identical cells can transform itself into a highly differentiated
organism. This organism in turn could
become a human being.
And that, of course, is the problem.
No social consensus exists on when personhood begins. The personhood of a blastocyst is not
self-evident in the same way that the personhood of a newborn baby is. Equating the two requires a leap of faith.
Fortunately, we have it.
It lies in the open, honest, and thoughtful deliberations that
characterize modern democracy. It lies
in understanding that some things are wrong in and of themselves, but for
others we have to consider the consequences.
It lies in listening to the voice of religion, but also to the voice of
science, and the voices of those who have little interest in either but just
want their lives to be better. They
count too.
There are many advantages to a pluralistic approach to tough
policy questions. First, it doesn’t tie
you down to dogma. We might conclude
that something shouldn’t be allowed because the time is not right, and then
later change our minds in light of new evidence. As human knowledge grows, our understanding
of ethics should grow along with it.
Pluralistic approaches also allow for honoring personal
observances of right and wrong. It
allows people to lead by example on difficult moral issues, when the
alternative of legislation would lead to chaos. Do you believe homosexuality is
wrong? Don’t sleep with members of your
sex! Do you believe eating meat is
wrong? Be a vegetarian! Do you believe stem cell research is
wrong? Refuse its benefits! No one is going to strap you down and
forcibly cure your diabetes.
I’m not being fanciful here.
Stem cell therapy offers the possibility of curing some of mankind’s
most awful afflictions. You shouldn’t
oppose ESC research unless you can look
into the eyes of a mother of a leukemia patient and say “I’m sorry, but your
daughter has to die.” Perhaps, armed
with the courage of their convictions, some people are prepared to say this
very thing. I cannot do so in good
conscience.
Like most Americans, I believe using blastocysts for ESC
research is the right thing to do. I
don’t believe it’s murder, and I haven’t heard any convincing arguments to the
contrary. Giving the green light doesn’t
mean killing the elderly, cloning people for their organs, or throwing babies in the trash. That’s just scare talk. One thing doesn’t have to lead to another if
we don’t want it to.
Throughout the history of human inquiry, there has always
been a desire to draw a line and say “this far, and no further.” But in open, free societies, that line moves
as we learn more about the world. We may
leap across that line with reckless abandon.
We may gingerly tiptoe over it.
We may walk up to it, look around, and decide we’re not yet ready.
But cross it we will.
It is what we do.