Two methods of stem cell research have been developed recently.
One involves both adult and embryonic stem cells while the other
only uses embryonic stem cells. Both intend to avoid the standard
controversy caused by the destruction of human embryos in
traditional stem cell research by claiming that no human embryos
would be destroyed. With the exception of a part of one of these
methods, both developments seem to miss the basic assumption that
the human embryo is a human life deserving of our respect.
One type of research is somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which
the nucleus of an adult stem cell, containing two sets of DNA,
replaces that of an unfertilized egg. The second step of the method
requires the much more complex and delicate process of
reprogramming the genetic material of the cell so that it would
bypass embryogenesis and directly develop into adult cells. But as
of today, this bypassing capability remains to be proven, and it
does still involve the destruction of a human embryo at the very
early blastocyst stage. The hope of this method is that if these
adult cells could be formed directly, they would adopt the
developmental plasticity of embryonic stem cells, having the
capability to transform into almost any cell in the body.
Basically, this procedure is cloning because it seeks to
reproduce the DNA of one individual in a separate entity. Cloning
is an assault on human life because it denies the uniqueness and
individuality every person is owed. And as somatic cell nuclear
transfer is conducted today, a human embryo would be cloned, have
the “useful” parts taken from it, and still be
destroyed as a result of the research.
A different method from somatic cell nuclear transfer is altered
nuclear transfer. In the former method, the adult stem cell nuclei
replace nuclei of unfertilized ova, but in altered nuclear
transfer, the nucleus is altered before it is even placed in the
ovum so that it would lack any possibility of undergoing
embryogenesis. Studies done with mice have shown that this method
can produce cells like embryonic stem cells that are not capable of
becoming a human embryo and still are potentials for biological
organs and tissues. Altered nuclear transfer does indeed seem to
suggest a method of producing organisms and tissues in a way that
is not destructive to human life.
Richard Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology has developed another
method of producing stem cells while supposedly averting the
destruction of a human embryo. With some success, he has been able
to produce over five embryonic stem cells from a single cell, which
was taken from a mouse embryo while the embryo remained intact. He
wants to provide medicine the possibility of generating new
organisms without any damage to human embryos.
Although he has good intentions, Lanza misses the point that the
same respect due to all humans is due to human embryos. To take a
piece of an embryo in order to make other organisms or tissues is
simply using a part of a human’s body to achieve a goal
external to that person at some cost to the embryo, even though
Lanza claims it is a very minimal loss. This technique would deny
the right each person has to one’s own body.
Some scientists, politicians and judges assert that the debate
over stem cell research and cloning is driven by “sectarian
scruples” which should not have any influence on public
policy. Such arguments ignore that the protection of life and human
rights goes to the very heart of what it means to be a just
society. It is important you and I take a stand to defend the value
of each individual human life, even if it is diminished in the name
of advancing other medical techniques. A human embryo is deserving
of the same rights you and I are guaranteed in our Constitution and
first among those is the right to life. It is not in our
country’s interest to begin denying those basic rights to any
select group of persons: If some are excluded from having those
rights, then who’s to say who is included?
Goodwin is a third-year philosophy student.