Earlier this summer [2006], Harvard University granted approval for their Stem Cell Institute to perform human embryonic stem cell research, making this the first noncommercial effort in the United States to use human embryonic stem cells (as opposed to animal stem cells). After two years of discussion amongst eight institutional review boards at five institutions, leading Harvard stem cell researchers will now be able to attempt to create disease-specific embryonic stem cell lines in an effort to develop treatments for a wide range of now-incurable conditions afflicting countless millions of people every day. What makes embryonic stem cells unique is that they’re master cells of the body, capable of developing into any tissue type.
Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers called the approvals “a seminal event in the University's effort to advance this tremendously promising area of science and fulfill that promise as quickly as possible for the countless patients suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, cancers, and a host of other illnesses.” (Harvard Gazette, 6 June 2006)
Whereas researcher Doug Melton believes Harvard “has done the right thing”, there are some stem cell researchers who disagree with this particular kind of research on moral grounds. For James L. Sherley, Professor of Bio-Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, human embryonic stem cells are indeed “living human beings”, and therefore have the same rights as any human being, whether they’re five years old or five seconds old. (Harvard’s Stem Cell Misstep, MercatorNet, 28 June 2006)
Gunter S. Schemmann further expounds upon the personhood of a human embryo in his article, Human Stem Cell Research – A Christian Perspective. Using the Bible as his primary source, Schemmann’s deduces that life clearly begins at the moment of conception—for God knew people before they born (Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5). In fact, according to Gunter, there’s such a “stark contrast” of destroying an innocent life to obtain a benefit for one’s own life, that human embryonic research would be in direct opposition to Jesus’ call for us to lay down our own lives for others (John 15:13). Therefore, “clear opposition to human embryonic stem cell research is called for.”
Furthermore, Gunter sees scripture communicating that the creation of an individual is an “active process” (cf. Psalm 139:13). Even without direct appeal to the Bible, Gunter cites a rational argument with the same conclusion:
“Because human beings in the embryonic, fetal, and infant stages do not differ in kind from more mature human beings, but differ only in such morally irrelevant factors as age, size, stage of development, and condition of dependency, they are equally entitled to legal protection and may not legitimately be reduced to the status of mere means to benefit others.”
Although the question of when a human life begins is critical to consider, many human embryo stem cell advocates argue from a utilitarian standpoint: even if a human embryo is a living being, its death will (potentially) save countless lives. Dennis P. Hollinger articulates this ethical paradigm well by defining this “utilitarian calculus” as the greatest good (defined as happiness or pleasure) for the greatest number of people.
Thus, “the end goal of healing justifies the destruction of human embryos to procure stem cells. Healing is regarded as the ‘greatest good’ which will usher in the most happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people. Therefore, it should be pursued at the expense of [human] embryonic life.” (Stem Cells & Our Moral Culture, 15 Nov 2001)
But this perspective leads to even more moral questions: Why should the “human happiness” for the greatest number of people be the defining end of moral action? Are there some means to “happiness” that are problematic (e.g. immoral)? On what basis—if not the Bible, as Gunter would purport—does one calculate and measure the “greatest good”?
While human embryonic stem cell research might be posing more questions than alleged answers, there are available solutions that circumvent the controversial moral and ethical issues, such as extracting natural adult stem cells from informed consenting adult donors. There is “so much potential for biomedical applications from stem cell research that does not require the death and exploitation of human embryos,” according to Professor Sherley. For him, the question is almost rhetorical: “Why pursue this uncertain path that requires destruction and exploitation of human embryos, when adult stem cells can be used instead?”
According to Gunter, a Christian can perceive these other ways as “gifts of God for our good, as long as they are pursued in a legitimate and responsible manner.” A Christian’s response on human embryonic stem cell research should be one of grace and truth—caring for those who need healing, mercy to those who’ve ignorantly destroyed human embryos, and truth to those who do not equally value life at all stages.
Go back to Jarrod's home page.