The Ethics of Stem Cell Research

As I write this column, a Stem Cell Bill is making its way to President Bush, who has promised to shoot down the measure with his first use of a presidential veto. It is unlikely that there is sufficient support to override the Bush’s veto. So what is gained and lost this week?

Stem cells may hold the key to repairing damaged heart muscle tissue after a heart attack, replacing destroyed neurons in the brains of persons suffering from Parkinson’s disease, and transplanting insulin-producing cells into the pancreas of a person with diabetes. In fact, these three examples are just the beginning of the potential good that can come from stem cells. The research could lead to dozens of cures for chronic diseases, relieving untold suffering of millions.

While no one close to the research doubts that stem cells hold out the promise of miracle cures for a wide range of diseases, the question is whether the end result therapies justify the means of using human embryos in research.

Stem cells are a type of cell that has the potential to develop into any human organ. Properly cultured, a stem cell can grow into brain neurons, muscles, cartilage. Stem cells have the potential to become any specialized human cell. Once created, the stem cells are then grown and cultured in a stem cell line. The stem cell line continues to grow, creating new embryonic stem cells without the need to destroy more embryos.

There are three sources of stem cells—week-old embryos, aborted fetuses, and adult cell donors. Federal funds had been funding research only on adult stem cells. In 2001, President Bush, following a Clinton Administration ruling, expanded the use of federal funds to include existing stem cell lines. This means that the federal government will not fund the portion of the research that actually destroyed the human embryos. Instead, Bush’s ruling set up a set of criteria saying that federal dollars can only go to stem cell lines which existed by 9 p.m. EDT on August 9, 2001. Further, those embryonic stem cells must have been obtained with the informed consent of the parent donors, who also must not have been paid for the donation. This list of criteria ensured that government funds would not go to ending the life of an embryo.

Where did the embryos come from to start with? Embryos for stem cell research were obtained from left over embryos created for use for in vitro fertilization (so called test tube babies). If you are not opposed to in vitro fertilization, then there is no reason to oppose stem cell research from the unused embryos, which are routinely destroyed. Yet, if you consider life to begin at conception, then embryonic research should be troubling to you. However, stem cell research on existing embryonic stem lines is not the battle ground, as it is too late to save the lives of the embryos used in creating the existing stem lines and Bush’s 2001 decision made destruction of more embryos financially unsound.

The 2001 measure worked for five years, but problems have intervened. First, the 60 lines approved by Bush have deteriorated in the lab over the five years. Researchers say that genetic abnormalities have become common in the cultured stem cell lines approved for federal funding. Second, other countries have pushed ahead their research with no thoughts to the ethics of ending embryonic life.

The new legislation would permit federal funding in using stem cell lines derived since the Bush decision in privately funded labs in this country and labs in other countries not working under similar restrictions. Research would still be limited to stem cell lines derived from embryos created for in vitro fertilization and then unused by the couple.

President Bush’s stand comes from the principles that embryos are human life and taking life is unethical, even for potentially life-giving research. The truth is that no matter what action either congress or the president take, embryonic stem cell research will continue. The rules only relate to federal funding of research. Plenty of work is being done in other countries and in this country using private funding. The question is not what work will take place, but who will fund it. What is certain is that federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would speed the pace.

However, embryonic stem cells are not the only research option. I hate to see this rush to fund embryonic stem cell research dampen the enthusiasm for work on adult stem cells. There are obstacles to adult stem cell research. The adult stem cells cannot currently be differentiated into all types of cells. However, adult stem cells are available without the ethical concerns (beyond the usual concern for informed consent of the donor) surrounding embryonic and fetal cells.

Furthermore, the research on adult cells is initially more promising, as only the adult stem cells are currently understood well enough to be used in creating therapeutic treatments. In fact, the only treatments now in place using stem cell are those that use adult stem cells.

Any decision on embryonic stem cells should be balanced with vigorous funding of the proven techniques in adult stem cell research. After all, research on adult stem cells is considered ethical by a broad spectrum of Americans, and funding incentives would help prod science in this direction.

(The Rev. Frank Logue is pastor of King of Peace Episcopal Church, Kingsland. www.kingofpeace.org)

previous         Return to Religion Column page       next