The article below appeared on Page D7 of today's Philadelhia Inquirer. It may be read on the web at the following address:
http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/99/Oct/10/opinion/BEVILACQUA10.htm
E-mail responses may be sent to : [log in to unmask] (300 words or less)
Block stem-cell research
By Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua
Lately, the issue of embryo stem-cell research has received growing attention, in anticipation of new guidelines to be put forth by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Certain cells identified within the human embryo, known as embryonic stem cells, might be able to be directed toward developing into any of the 210 kinds of tissue that make up the human body.
Despite the apparent good that embryonic-stem-cell research seems to promote, I believe it is terribly wrong.
This practice is wrong because it inescapably requires the killing of embryonic human beings, whose lives are reduced to research material. A range of state, national and international laws and covenants therefore prohibit it.
At present, a congressional ban prohibits federal funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos. The ban explicitly prohibits "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." The President's own National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC) has acknowledged the morally conflicted nature of this research. It necessitates the killing of embryonic human beings, and this conflicts with the consciences of millions of Americans, who hold that the life of a human being begins at conception (fertilization).
Many states specifically protect vulnerable embryonic human beings outside the womb; most, like the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prohibit destructive human embryo and human fetal research. International documents such as the Nuremberg Code, the World Medical Association's Declaration of Hel–sinki, and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights reject the use of human beings in experimental research without their informed consent. Research on incompetent subjects is permitted only if there is a legal surrogate, minimal risk, and therapeutic benefit for the human subject.
By no means should we allow federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research; such research would co-opt the consciences of many Americans. It conflicts with both religious and scientific convictions. The international consensus of embryologists is that the life of a human being begins at fertilization - that is, when the genetic code is complete and operative. Even for scientists, then, the early embryo, even before implantation, is far more than a "bunch of cells" or merely "a potential human being."
"But," say proponents, "this research would use only 'spare' embryos from fertility clinics, embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway." But that does not change the nature of what is being done. The crisis of thousands of embryonic human beings, languishing in the deep freeze of suspended animation in fertility clinics, is itself a profound moral issue. The use of these embryos as research material would only reinforce fertility clinics' practice of generating more embryos than needed, so that these "spares" will be available for what will be an ever-increasing demand.
Proponents claim there is a "good end" - the healing of disease - but that does not justify the killing of embryonic human beings. This further step down that dark road of treating human life as a thing can only feed the cancer that has infected our world: the loss of respect for the dignity of human life.
There are alternatives. When the NBAC issued its 1997 report "Cloning Human Beings," it stated that "because of ethical and moral concerns raised by the use of embryos for research purposes, it would be far more desirable to explore the direct use of human cells of adult origin to produce specialized cells or tissues for transplantation into patients" [italics mine]. But this area of research has not received enough attention to be part of the public discourse.
Research has demonstrated that adult stem cells could be as effective - or even more effective than - embryo stem cells because the adult cells do not carry the risk of rejection. The use of adult stem cells would be morally defensible since their origin would be within the patient's own body, and no living embryos would be sacrificed. Other advances include the use of growth factors to generate new blood vessels and nerve tissue, and the use of enzymes such as telomerase to promote tissue regeneration. It is to these areas of research that funding should be directed.
Scientific research should be guided by a fundamental moral norm: respect for the dignity of human life. Based on this criterion, embryo-stem-cell research cannot be justified morally or scientifically. The congressional ban and NIH guidelines should prohibit private as well as federally funded research involving the production and destruction of living human embryos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua is archbishop of Philadelphia.
