Navigating in
a
world of grays
Commentary
by ADAM TANOUS
"And
the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life." So said Sen. Gordon H. Smith,
R-Ore., arguing on the senate floor that life begins with the presence of
a soul.
When
senators, in debating federal financing of stem cell research, begin to
parse the text of the Book of Genesis, it seems clear we have arrived at a
fundamental question. And while the political junkies hold that President
Bush is only upping the political ante by delaying his decision, I think
the president is wise enough to realize he faces an ethical decision not a
political one. Further, it is an ethical decision predicated on
understanding some fairly involved science.
When an egg
and sperm come together they form a fertilized egg called a zygote. The
zygote then divides into two cells. Those two cells then divide so that
there are now four cells. The four divide again and so on. After eight
rounds of cell division there are 256 cells. The cells are considered
"stem cells" up to the point at which there are 200 to 300 of
them. The key feature of these cells is that they are undifferentiated,
meaning they have not developed the specific characteristics of any one of
the 200 cell types in the human body—types such as skin cells,
heart-tissue cells or blood cells. They are like clay; they can become
anything.
And therein
lies their value to researchers. Studying the way undifferentiated cells
become differentiated holds a tremendous promise for helping us understand
and eventually treat Parkinson’s and Alzheimer's diseases, cancer,
diabetes and organ damage. The research is an attempt at breaking
molecular and cellular biology down to its most fundamental problem.
What is the
source for these stem cells? Generally—but not always and I’ll come
back to this—they are isolated from frozen embryos scheduled to be
destroyed. These are embryos no longer wanted by infertile couples who
created them through in vitro fertilization.
The
question becomes, are we, as Richard Doerflinger of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops has said we are, "treating life merely
as an instrument for others"?
I don’t
think so, because I don’t see this collection of cells—also referred
to as a blastula—as life itself, but rather as the potential for
life.
It is true
that a cluster of undifferentiated cells has two sets of genes in place
and the building blocks of life, in general, ready to go. By
logical extension, one could put sperm and an egg in separate test tubes
and consider that potential life as well. Two sets of genes are
there, the building block cells are there. But is it life?
I think the
relevant moment of life is when the embryo begins to show individuation.
Cells need to show differentiation, genes need to begin to be expressed,
not just present within the same cell membrane or petri dish or
laboratory. I would hazard to say that individuality is what makes us
human.
And so, as
far as this very restricted ethical question goes, I think we can work to
help millions of people currently suffering from various diseases without
compromising life per se. Perhaps the only provision I would suggest to
the president is that couples be able to stipulate whether or not their
discarded embryos go to this end.
Unfortunately,
the subject is rife with ever more complicated questions to resolve.
Scientists at a private lab in Virginia, for example, have recently
announced that they would begin creating embryos themselves, purely for
the purpose of extracting the stem cells.
I’m not
sure I can articulate why, for me, this seems to be on the other side of
the ethical fence. Perhaps the difference is that the embryos are to be
consciously created for destruction. Or perhaps it has to do with a sense
that the decision to create an embryo that will ultimately become a life
should always remain one made by the biological parents. If, for a variety
of reasons, they choose not to proceed with the process, they should be
able to determine what happens to those eggs and sperm, which are, after
all, theirs.
Yet another
complication comes about from a technique called therapeutic cloning.
Scientists at a lab in Massachusetts are attempting to insert a donor cell—not
sperm—into a different donor egg that has had its nucleus removed. If
the experiment is successful, the egg will "reprogram" the genes
of the inserted cell so that it will direct the development of an embryo.
Stem cells would be isolated from the resulting embryo.
I’m not
even sure how we begin to think about this one—an embryo without
fertilization—but the fact remains we had better think about it. The
science is in place, and there are people out there who will try to push
the limits faster than we can set them.
Which
raises another reason the president should fund the research: pragmatism.
As William Safire wrote in a New York Times editorial, "The stem-cell
genie is out of the research bottle." The only way to ever control
where this research goes is through money. Federal funds have gone a long
way in shaping social policy on other fronts such as racial, sexual and
religious discrimination. That influence could play a role here too.
The ugly
fact of the matter is that there are no clean answers when it comes to
these decisions. We are forced to navigate through a world of judgments, a
world where sea, sky and land are just differing shades of gray. Our
instinct in dealing with them is be perfectly principled, but that doesn’t
always lead us down the most ethical path. It is tempting to take the
fixed and simple principles we’ve lived by in the past and extend them
as far as we can see into the future. But that can be like staring down a
set of train rails. Eventually the rails in your vision come together and
distinctions become hard to make.