AS I sat at the reception desk answering incoming calls and recording the views of constituents for Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) this past week I was surprised by the number of vehement supporters of HR810, The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. One woman in particular was memorable because she expressed support for the bill on the grounds that embryonic stem cell research would benefit her nervous system disorder. She spoke with a sort of urgency that indicated her belief in a quick cure. This crude assumption does not address current evidence about human embryonic stem cells or the moral issues that must be considered when attempting this scientific research.
In 2001, President Bush issued an executive order that allows federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research only when it uses embryonic stem cell lines created on or before his order. The legislation passed in the House over a year ago and passed just this week in the Senate overturns this order and allots federal funds for research on human embryos donated from fertility clinics with the consent of the parents from any date. Currently, there are approximately 400,000 embryos frozen in fertility clinics. However, according to Family Research Council, only 11,000 of the 400,000 meet the consent requirement. Two other bills were considered as a package and passed along side HR810. S2754 and S3540, however, do not pose the same important and immediate ethical questions.
The things science can do and promise are amazing. But in this instance it is important to examine the record on research. According to the Family Research Council, adult stem cells have been used successfully in the treatment of 72 disorders; zero human embryonic stem cells have been successful. Rats being treated with embryonic stem cells are more likely to develop tumors than rats treated for disorders with adult stem cells. There is of course promise in embryonic stem cells, but the public has been deluded into believing that unbelievable cures are right around the corner if only pro-lifers would stop trying to hold back the flood gates of scientific progress. On the floor of the Senate, members in support of HR810 brought out every anecdote and sob story possible about juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's disease and a plethora of other chronic illnesses. Many said if we could just pass HR810 the Americans suffering from debilitating disorders would find hope in embryonic stem cells. This sort of rhetoric is misleading.
But even if embryonic stem cells held the kind of cures commonly promised, we must still examine the ethical implications of destroying human embryos. It is still important to reflect on the means and the substance of our progress. By destroying embryos from fertilization clinics, tax-payers are asked to fund thousands if not millions of abortions for an indefinite amount of time. Calling the destruction of embryos -- essentially a clump of cells that will never have an opportunity to attach to a uterus and therefore never able to reach human form -- abortion is a very strict and fundamentalist way to look at it, I admit. But then of course, I am forced to ask: who reading this column was not once an embryo? Embryos are in fact human life and they require protection from scientific exploitation because of their potential, individual and unique DNA, and their utter lack of power. The destruction of donated embryos for the purpose of scientific research that may or may not yield life giving cells is unacceptable. Indeed, even if cells produced in the destruction of embryos were guaranteed to wield great scientific possibility the destruction of human embryos should not be the means.
Pragmatism in this case is found in S2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. Pluripotent stem cells are those cells that have the ability to become any type of cell in the body. It has been perpetuated in the popular discourse on stem cell research that only embryonic stem cells provide pluripotent cells. S2754 attempts to pursue alternative avenues to discover pluripotent stem cells that do not require the destruction of human embryos by providing $90 million during the 2007-2009 fiscal years. This is an amendable compromise between no research and research that requires the destruction of early human life.
But there is a larger point to all this debate: as we humans escape disease do we also, if inadvertently, escape our humanity? Indeed, it is emblematic of our age's disregard for human mortality. We are willing to sanction the abortion of fetuses because they're not convenient; we are willing to destroy embryos because they might, maybe, at some time yield cures for disease; many are willing to sanction euthanasia; in the scientific community and in the cosmetic community we are in search of perfect health with little work and responsibility. Indeed, the state and the medical community sanction a great many practices that collectively display a disregard for human mortality and responsibility. What we fail to see is that we are mortals, mere lowly mortals. However, mortality no longer humbles us. It makes many of us indignant and willing take any route, any ethical breach to conquer mortality and to shed our responsibility to the protection of human life. Embryonic stem cell research and the scientific age largely is much more than mere progress, it is independence from and defiance of our basic humanity. For that, it should be bridled and taken with more caution.
Christa Byker is a Cavalier Daily Opinion columnist. She can be reached at cbyker@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
