Copyright 2001 The Washington Post
The
Washington Post
July 01, 2001, Sunday, Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. B06
LENGTH: 524 words
HEADLINE:
Embryo Ethics
BODY: THOUGH STILL publicly
wavering on whether to support funding for stem cell research, the Bush
administration has begun wading into the tangle of issues that accompany the new
reproductive technologies. A health official testifying before Congress last
month signaled the administration's support for a bill to ban all
human
cloning. The cloning issue raises some of the same ethical questions as
the hotly contested matter of stem cells. But the moral calculus is different in
the two cases. Federal funding for cloning is already barred, but opposition to
cloning need not mean opposition to funding for experiments on embryonic stem
cells. The central issue in both debates is how to weigh respect for the special
status of human embryos against the good to be obtained from medical advances.
With embryonic stem cells, virtually all scientists agree, enormous relief from
human suffering can be achieved if existing research is stepped up. The
super-versatile early cells, not yet differentiated into organs, hold out the
hope of curing Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, juvenile diabetes and other
miserable diseases.
Some antiabortion groups argue an absolute moral
status for embryos and suggest that research be confined to "adult stem cells"
taken from other body tissues. But many other prominent antiabortion activists
-- and, a new poll shows, majorities of both American Catholics and evangelicals
-- reject the need for such a scientific sacrifice. No one knows yet if adult
stem cells have comparable potential. And scientific progress can lose years
when shunted into artificial pathways.
The proposed guidelines before
the Bush White House build in safeguards that reduce the moral conflict. They
would allow funding for research only on excess frozen embryos left over from
private-sector fertility treatments, slated for destruction and obtained with
donors' consent only after the decision not to implant them. Federally funded
scientists could use only stem cells derived by others. Far from creating a
culture of institutionalized callousness toward embryonic life, federal funding
rules would bring ethical restrictions to embryo research that now proceeds
privately without any. Indeed, such rules could well mean the destruction of
fewer embryos, because stem cells once derived reproduce indefinitely, and
publicly funded research could produce a public resource of available cells.
That can't happen if the rules are blocked and the research migrates underground
or abroad, or if existing stem cell "lines" remain in the hands of corporations
holding patents.
With cloning, too, many scientists argue that possible
scientific benefits outweigh moral qualms. But those qualms are larger because,
rather than using discarded embryos, so-called "therapeutic cloning" requires
creating new embryos and then destroying them in order to grow new tissues or
organs. Though the status of such embryos is debatable, the worry about a
coarsening of sensibilities cuts deeper. Setting the issues side by side only
underlines the strength of the argument for allowing stem cell funding to go
forward.
LOAD-DATE: July 01, 2001