Stem cells are held out as the world’s best hope for cures for diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and many others. In addition, the research may enable doctors to repair damaged nerves, organs and even spinal cords.
The problem is that the raw material for this research, the stem cells, must be harvested from human embryos. These are primitive, unspecialized cells which have the potential to transform themselves into any type of tissue, including bone, muscle, skin, blood and nerves. Although stem cells may also be found in umbilical-cord blood and adult bone marrow, researchers prefer cells from em-bryos since these generally have not developed into specific tissue.
Research is going on in many countries, including Britain, Singapore and South Korea. In the United States, many individual states allow it although some explicitly proscribe research on live cells or prohibit it entirely. Some states allow local public funding for the research while others permit only private funding. Voters in California approved in November of last year $3 billion in state bonds for a stem cell research fund. Time Magazine reports that many other states have started to copy California’s example.
In August 2001, President Bush issued an executive order providing federal funding for research utilizing only cell colonies, or stem cell lines, that were already existing at that date. (A stem cell line is a colony of cells taken from a single human embryo.) However, the number of eligible stem cell lines is reportedly dwindling and most are contaminated with animal DNA, rendering them unfit for use on humans.
At the time he issued his order, Bush, according to Time, agonized that the issue "lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages." In a recent press conference, he said he made it clear to Congress that he would oppose "the use of federal money, taxpayers’ money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life."
The irony is that the bill in the US Congress has bipartisan support, a rare instance of cooperation between the two often combative camps. The betting is that it will wind up on Bush’s desk. If he vetoes the legislation, it will be his first time ever.
Time reports that the bill contains several safeguards. Among other things, it would apply only to embryos that would have otherwise been discarded. Embryos must have been created in vitrio by individuals in fertility treatment but "who then discovered that they had produced ‘in excess of the clinical need.’" Donors must give permission for the use of the embryos and are barred from receiving any compensation.
Public opinion polls conducted by Republicans show solid support for the federally-funded research, an acknowledgement perhaps that putting the enormous resources of the US government behind the effort may lead to earlier success.
Among the high-visibility backers of the research is Nancy Reagan, the widow of the late US president, who experienced first hand her husband’s valiant, but ultimately doomed, fight against Alzheimer’s. Senior citizen groups and organizations of paraplegics and victims of catastrophic spinal injuries are also lobbying for the bill.
The proposed law has predictably provoked opposition from the Christian right and pro-life groups that helped Bush’s re-election bid. There is concern that destroying an embryo to harvest stem cells is no different from abortion. Opponents cite South Korea, whose stem cell research has led to experiments in human cloning. Where all this scientific work can lead to is among the biggest nightmares of those who oppose any work in this field.
One argument of the proponents of the law worries me. They argue that since Bush’s order limiting federally-funded research to then existing stem cell lines, about 100 new lines have been created worldwide which should be studied with US federal funds.
This suggests that stem cell lines could be "imported" by researchers. This, in turn, opens up the possibility of an international gray or black market in embryos. While the US bill, as we’ve noted, would not allow compensation for donated embryos, other countries may not have such restrictions.
I wonder too whether the proposed American law is tight enough to avoid situations where ostensibly donated but, in reality, purchased embryos somehow wind up in US labs from third, probably dirt poor, countries. Unscrupulous businessmen in any country find a way to circumvent the law. Witness the illicit trade in human organs. We may eventually see those ghoulish "hatcheries" which, Time recalls, President Bush mentioned as among his main fears about stem cell research.
It’s an enormously wrenching issue, even as Catholic teaching on this seems to me to be clear and unambiguous. "Saving lives" or "improving the quality of human life" is not a universal excuse for tinkering with life itself. Comparisons with Nazi "genetic engineering," using Jewish prisoners as the subjects of experiments, come to mind, but are too facile an argument. The current debates over population policy and the use of contraceptives, in the name of economic development, are better indications of the complexity of the issue.
On the basis of our experience with the population policy, comparable legislation in this country on permissible stem cell research wouldn’t get to first base. This doesn’t mean other countries will stop research already in progress, particularly that using private money. It should be pointed out that, at present, such research has not produced any cure.
But what if, as many experts predict, it’s simply a matter of time. Would you avail yourself of the latest "miracle" cure, knowing it was a result of stem cell work? Does moral principle take precedence, or does the prospect of life?