John Jorgensen Bioethics 6/19/07 Stem Cell Research Introduction I have chosen to focus my final paper on the topic of stem cell research. I find myself initially drawn to this topic as a result of the overwhelming and awesome potential advances that may be made in the medical world as a result of stem cells. The ability for scientists to manipulate stem cells in such a way that due to their pluripotent manner allows them to be transformed into any type of tissue in the human body is nothing short of amazing. The implications of such a procedure for the medical world are huge: spinal chord injuries may be remedied and paralysis reversed, patients with cardiac problems may regenerate heart tissue, and even mentally crippling damage to the brain may be healed. Since the technology has such a promising future, any moral claim against the researching of stem cells that may directly or indirectly impede the funding of such research must be examined carefully and fully. The main moral qualm that opponents of stem cell research cite is the following: in order to conduct research on embryonic stem cells the cells must first be extracted from a five-day-old embryo, called a blastocyst, destroying the embryo in the process – an act that some say is unethical. My moral intuition tells me that sacrificing a five-day-old blastocyst in order to pursue a technique that, if mastered, could heal many if not all of the injuries and disabling conditions suffered by people everywhere, is ethical and should be monetarily supported by our leading body of government. Intuitively I believe that the negative impact diseases and injuries have on the lives of living and breathing adult humans is greater than any negative impact that may be imposed on a blastocyst by destroying it. Initially it seems to me that any damage “suffered” by a five-day-old embryo is simply hypothetical compared to the very real and physical pain felt by human beings that could be remedied as a result of stem cell research. Objective I’ve discovered a section dealing with the ethical implications of stem cell research in a book by Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation. Harris begins his discussion of stem cell research by stating that it is “one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every disease or injury process that human beings suffer” (29). Harris continues by highlighting more of the potential benefits of the research, namely that it “may also be essential for our understanding of cancer, along with a wide variety of developmental disorders.” Clearly the author is emphasizing the powerful medical developments that may be achieved as a result of the research, further evidenced by his statement that “it is almost impossible to exaggerate the promise of stem-cell research.” This particular point of stem cell researching having the possibility to create extremely positive, miracle-like healing results is one that virtually all authors, scientists and philosophers alike agree on (although some have reserves about whether these results will come to fruition). They would also agree on the facts of stem-cell research that Harris outlines, specifically that “research on embryonic stem-cells entails the destruction of [human embryos],” and that at the time of stem cell extraction the embryo involved is “a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst.” However, Harris’ following analysis surely deviates from the views of many who debate the topic. The author contrasts the number of 150 cells in a blastocyst with the fact that there are “more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.” Such a comparison is surely making a claim about the low intrinsic value of a blastocyst in the overall scale of life. Harris continues by stating that embryos destroyed as a consequence of stem cell research “do not have brains, or even neurons,” leading him to conclude “there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.” With this statement the author is insinuating that it is not immoral to destroy five-day-old embryos due to the fact that they are simply a very small collection of cells that have no brains and, as such, have no capacity to experience anything, let alone the capacity to feel pain. Harris then illustrates this point by framing it in the context of how we currently treat humans that are brain dead. Harris says that when a person’s brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. With this passage, Harris is reasoning that if it is widely ethically accepted to consider the body of a human being completely void of life after that body’s brain has died, it should also be ethically acceptable to consider a brainless, neuron-less collection of cells as nonlivvin and therefore expendable if need-be. Harris clearly defines this view by stating, “if you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst” (30). Harris’ argument for the value of an organism being based on that organism’s ability to suffer does not address the claim made by stem cell research opponents that blastocysts are not merely a collection of cells but the promise of a future human being and deserve to be protected. The author responds to this argument by saying that due to recent advances in genetic engineering, “almost every cell in your body is a potential human being.” Here, Harris is relying on the logic that if any cell in the body may now be manipulated in such a way as to produce human life, then stem cells are no longer unique in this regard and should not be treated as such. The author elaborates on this by saying “every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell’s potential gets you absolutely nowhere.” Again, the author is making the claim that the uniqueness of stem cells’ ability to potentially create life is completely diluted by scientific methods that can potentially turn the data from any cell in the human body into a new human being. Clearly, he is arguing for a soulless vision of five-day-old embryos. Harris goes on to point out that even if every blastocyst did contain a soul, what of the phenomenon of an embryo later splitting and creating two people, as with identical twins? The author asks, “is this a case of one soul splitting into two? … No doubt theologians are struggling even now to determine what becomes of the extra human soul in such a case” (31). It is for this reason that Harris sees the idea of each embryo containing a soul unfounded and “intellectually indefensible.” He goes on to say that in addition, it is “also morally indefensible, given that it now stands in the way of some of the most promising research in the history of medicine.” Harris concludes by proclaiming, “there is, in fact, no moral reason for our federal government’s unwillingness to fund [stem cell research]. We should throw immense resources into stem-cell research, and we should do so immediately” (32). Reflective Sam Harris is a convincing author, and beyond that, I feel that many of his points are valid. The main body of his argument revolves around the value of blastocysts. The fact he points out, that only 150 cells make up a blastocyst while there are over 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly, is one that definitely puts things in perspective for people unfamiliar with the sheer number of cells present in all living creatures. When he contrasts a fly brain with the much smaller-celled blastocyst, it caused me to think more concretely about what exactly it is we are debating when discussing the value of a fivedaayold embryo. Sure, the blastocyst may potentially develop into a human being, barring any problematic occurrences or changes during pregnancy. The reality of that embryo becoming a person, however, is a long ways off. This, however, is not the view of the Catholic church as outlined in Evangelium Vitae: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized” (num. 60). In Thomas Shannon’s overview of stem cell ethics, “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy,” he observes that the claim of an embryo being conferred the rights and respect of a human being at the moment of conception does not take into account “the fact that fertilization is itself a process requiring at least 24 hours to complete” (816). Shannon goes on to note that even after the completion of fertilization, “there are several more critical stages of development before there is a clear division between inner and outer cell mass.” While the potentiality of a human being does exist, at the moment when we are discussing an embryo that will be destroyed for the purposes of stem cell research we are talking about a collection of merely 150 cells. In terms of living organisms on this planet, this number is miniscule, as Sam Harris’ fly comparison illustrates. The fact pointed out by Harris that at this stage in the process blastocysts do not even have neurons is representative of these embryos not yet being any developed type of organism or life form. To again quote Thomas Shannon, “the acorn is an oak tree in potency but is not actually an oak tree.” Harris’ point about the embryos not suffering when they are destroyed because they do not have brains or the capacity for experience is one that would probably not be refuted by Catholic stem cell opponents, who may simply argue that whether the blastocysts suffer as a result of their destruction or not is inconsequential as it does not address taking away that “human’s” potentiality for life. I, however, do think that the point is a valid one and should not be discarded. If the medical advances that are purported to result from stem cell research are in fact achieved, than the suffering of an untold number of patients could be alleviated. This is real, concrete suffering that is experienced both physically and psychologically by living human beings as a result of conditions that stem cell research may heal in the future. If minimizing suffering is a noble and ethical goal to pursue, which I believe it is, then stem cell research should not be opposed on the grounds of destroying embryos alone. While I do agree with Harris on this point, his argument about every cell on your body being a potential human life due to new genetic methods does not resonate with me. Although it may be technically true, I don’t think that this scientific advancement has relevance to the stem cell debate; when destroying embryos we are manually stopping a work-in-progress of a human being, which is simply not the case for cells on a human nose, for instance, that could be used to form a person only with the help of artificial scientific procedures. Harris’ point about blastocysts not containing souls because of the occurrence of embryos splitting and combining after the five-day mark brings up an interesting side of the argument, and in this case I also happen to agree with him. Maybe it’s because I’m not religious, but regardless of if you believe in God or not it I think it’s logically clear that this aspect of souls and embryos doesn’t completely make sense. Conclusion In conclusion, I believe Sam Harris brings up valid points in the stem cell research debate, particularly where embryos are concerned. The only way to discuss such a sensitive, intricate topic is to approach it from a lucid, rational point of view, something I think Harris has accomplished. After considering his arguments and contrasting them with literature we have reviewed during the course, I believe that embryonic stem cell research should be pursued and that the destruction of blastocysts does not pose an ethical problem of enough significance required to stop the research. An issue that Harris did not address is the topic of justice, which is an interesting facet of the stem cell debate and one that is not generally focused on primarily as it is frequently placed second in importance to the destruction of embryos. The question of whether our government should put billions of dollars into stem cell research when there are millions of people all over the world that do not have basic resources necessary for survival such as food, clean water and access to healthcare is a difficult one that I currently remain undecided about. However, I think whether stem cell research should be funded and to what extent is a question that concerns the ethics of government policy more than the ethics of conducting the research itself. Works Cited Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York: Random House, Inc., 2006.