Stem Cell Research: Debates and Divides
By Tarris D. Rosell,
Associate Professor, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO
The presidential debates of 2004 are long over, elections decided and inaugurations complete; but a great divide remains between people of faith over many issues on which the candidates also disagreed. One ongoing battle pertains to the moral status of microscopic human life and what might be done with it ethically.
Stem cell research is not mostly about human embryos, of course. I am told that comparatively little research of this sort actually utilizes human tissue, much less embryos or fetuses. The stem cells of other species are studied especially, and then human adult stem cells taken from blood or marrow or body tissue. We hear some skepticism regarding actual therapeutic potential versus the media hype, regarding stem cell research funding versus other basic research (or basic healthcare) priorities; but in general, stem cell research is not a contentious matter until human embryos or fetuses get involved.
At that point, the ground opens up between us. Those who imagine that human personhood and rights begin at conception or very soon thereafter may object to any stem cell experimentation on prenatal human life. Some are inclined to side with President Bush’s stated objections to using all but a few already existent and usable stem cell lines (estimated now at about a dozen of the 78 or so existing lines). If all post-conception human life is ensouled personality, the destruction of newly created embryos for purely utilitarian reasons seems wrong, no matter how well-intended.
Others of us imagine personhood and rights arising out of relationships occurring at a more advanced stage of fetal development, or even not until birth. Profound respect but not absolute rights might be accorded the human blastocystor embryo on the basis of its human origin and potential. On this account, cautious and respectful research utilization is permissible, perhaps even obligatory, for the greater good of alleviating human suffering via hoped for medical breakthroughs.
In either case, we are engaging in imaginative work since there is no imaginable way to prove our claims about the conception of personhood.
As one of those whose convictions fall within the “permissible” cohort, I have added my name to thousands on a petition to the president. The “People of Faith for Stem Cell Research” petitionf1 begins, “As men and women of religious faith, we request that you expand the current federal funding policy regarding stem cell research.” On the reasonable premise that human stem cell research will lead to the alleviation of suffering and saving of lives, petitioners ask for public policy revision, noting that religious faith leads us to advocacy even as it has motivated others to oppose expanded research protocols.
“In fact, this research is endorsed by people of all political perspectives and all faiths. Our religious traditions teach an obligation to pursue research that promotes healing and health. This duty is consistent with the principle of full respect for the dignity of human life.” In a letter circulated by email, “People of Faith” petition organizers acknowledge the religious divide on matters of stem cell research. They pledge respect for “the positions of those of you who are religiously and morally compelled to regard blastocysts as fully ensouled humans with full ethical status.” Still a plea is put forth to all people of faith for agreement at least on this: “Science is not the adversary of religion, but on the contrary can help advance religion’s ideals of compassion and healing.” That may be the best we can do on this research ethics issue as a divided people of faith. Yet others hope to do somewhat better in the consensusbuilding department.
William Neaves, PhD, is president and CEO of the Kansas City based Stowers Institute of Medical Research. He is an internationally respected research scientist and a minister’s spouse (of the Reverend Priscilla Neaves). Dr.
Neaves attempts to bridge the religious divide over human stem cell research historically, conceptually and semantically. In a recent public lecture at William Jewell College, Neaves traced the history of his research interest and the widely varying religious responses to it. This approach mostly demonstrates the same point made by “People of Faith” petitioners, that faith is not necessarily the enemy of scientific exploration of the human blastocyst.
The term “blastocyst” is used rather than “embryo,” which more properly designates a later implanted stage within the uterus. Embryonic stem cell research is a misnomer, according to Neaves. What he wishes for is agreement on the ethical and legal permissibility of doing research on an undifferentiated clump of “early” non-sentient pre-embryonic stem cells.
In an earlier presentation at the Center for Practical Bioethics, Dr. Neaves took another tack aimed at ethical religious consensus on rational scientific grounds.
He articulated a distinction between blastocysts derived from reproductive fertilization and those that are a research product of “regeneration.” Neaves believes this procedural difference is one that should make a moral difference as well.
The fertilization process mating male genetic material with that of a female ovum needs no further explanation. This is also the means often used in assisted reproductive therapy with couples experiencing infertility.
“Regeneration” involves a less well understood process entailing “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” otherwise known as cloning. Dr. Neaves explains, “Regeneration starts with an egg from which its own genetic material has been removed… This incomplete egg, now lacking its own genetic material, never meets a sperm. Instead, the genetic material (46 chromosomes) from an ordinary body cell of a person is placed inside the egg.” The newly created cell regenerates and multiplies “into a small ball of stem cells” for use in basic research, not for reproduction of a human being.
The (pre)embyronic results of either process will look identical and may have similar developmental potential. But the laboratory process and research protocol distinctions otherwise are substantial. Do different initial means and intentional ends constitute a plausible moral difference of relevance to stem cell debates? Dr. Neaves hopes so. With perhaps less optimism about bridging the divide, so do I.
Endnotes
1 Accessible at www.pfaith.org.
