What's
it about?
Like a comet that has emerged suddenly from behind the sun, the stem cell debate has
burst into the public consciousness as a fully-fledged moral and legal issue that seems to
find media space on an almost daily basis. But what is more confounding is that most of
us, despite efforts to breach the obstacles of jargon and technical ignorance, have little
understanding of the science and law that underpins the debate.
In Australia this was brought into sharper focus in the middle of August, when hopes
for a treatment for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, using adult brain stem cells,
were raised by research at the famed Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. At present a Federal
Government Committee is looking at the use of stem cells that can be collected from
embryos discarded from the IVF process. And recently $11m has been allocated by the
Government to the establishment of the National Centre for Advanced Cell Engineering.
So what is all the fuss about?
A stem cell primer
According to the American National Institute of Health, there are approximately sixty
"stem cell lines" available for research. These contain human cells that are
extracted from embryos that have been created in the IVF program, but have not been used
to produce a foetus. At less than a week, an embryo begins to develop these stem cells
that are suitable for research. Crucially for the promotion of research, these cells can
theoretically be made to grow into any human cell, and so are valuable in the research of
many conditions like diabetes, Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries. From a legal
and ethical viewpoint, the problematic issue is that these cells are extracted from
embryos.
So what's the difference between a stem cell and a "normal" cell? Stem cells
are the raw materials that the body uses, in a state where they remain unspecialised, and
can therefore be grown to fit the use determined by researchers (although there is serious
doubt about the ability of scientists to create the specific cells). So, for instance, a
stem cell can theoretically be turned into cells that form muscle, heart, nerve and blood.
But here's the rub - in order to extract an embryonic stem cell, it is necessary to
destroy the host embryo. Hence the world-wide legal, ethical and moral debate.
Is an embryo a person?
Yes, it's a legal and ethical quagmire. If you look at the three different sources of
stem cells - embryos discarded in the IVF process; embryos created specifically for
research; and cloned embryos from human cells - each present their own legal dilemmas.
In his 1995 encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II wrote: "Human
embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and are subjects with rights; their dignity and
right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to
produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable biological material."
As we have explained, IVF is not the only way to obtain stem cells. They can be
extracted from adults (although they are not as usable for research, embryonic stem cells
have the greatest ability to divide) or from an umbilical cord after a child is born. The
Catholic Church has no objection to research using stem cells in those ways. Presumably
these methods do not give rise to issues of the legal (and moral) definition of an embryo
- the Catholic Church's opinion is emblematic of many groups, and turns on the
determination that an embryo is a human life, and therefore the destruction of the embryo
is a crime (both legal and moral).
In black and white, either these embryos are human beings or they are not. Ronald
Bailey, science editor of Reason magazine, makes an interesting argument that since (in a
theoretical sense, on the basis that cells have the necessary genetic information to
produce a complete human embryo) cloning of humans is possible using any cells, for
instance skin cells, it is only logical that human embryos are no different from such
cells. And as he argues, it would be patently ludicrous to claim that a skin cell is a
human being.
The counter argument is that although stem cells are clearly not human beings, they are
derived from human embryos that have the potential to become human beings. The Catholic
Church, for instance, does not protest the use of stem cells as such, but rather the
destruction of the host embryos that takes place in order to obtain them.
The comfort zone
There is no easy legal response to this issue. If an embryo is a cell, or group of
cells, that by itself can develop into a whole human, then the scientists and policy
makers are murderers, no matter how altruistic their motivations. If you believe that an
embryo is, at best, a mere potential life, then the practical use of embryos to defeat
disease is the only moral and legal response.
On August 9th this year President Bush announced that federally funded stem cell
research could proceed, but it would be restricted to cell lines that are already
established in laboratories. This is classic dancing on the head of a pin - yes, it
rejects the use of stem cells created for the process of research, but it takes the
practical view that those cell lines already in existence might as well be used. In other
words, as we say in Australia, it's having a bit each way. Bush's political solution is no
solution at all, because it does not address the most basic dilemma that separates the two
sides in this debate and opts instead for the comfort zone.
What is life? We all wish there was a simple definition, but in truth it is the most
ambiguous term in the dictionary. For what it's worth, this writer is impressed by Ronald
Bailey's argument. Although a one week old embryo is certainly alive on a cellular level,
molecular biology now suggests that the capacity for life is contained not only within an
embryo, but also within adult cells. If that is so it means that the potential for life
will no longer be a sufficient argument to sustain the protection of the law. After all,
we daily slough-off skin cells in the shower. And though it is no simple solution, it
seems preferable to afford legal protection to those already alive and suffering from
diseases that can be alleviated by the use of embryonic research.
By Geoffrey Winn
Creative Director
www.law4u.com.au