Stem Cells, Rationality, and Unicorns

News Type: Opinion — Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:47 PM EDT

science, research, stem-cells, rationality, unicorns

The real victim of stem cell research.

The stem cell debate is raging in the Senate, Bush is threatening to veto, and the future of rationality is dangerously close to the chopping block. Once again, America is allowing unjustified superstition to impede potentially stunning scientific progress.

On the one hand, there's a scientific community convinced embryonic stem cells hold the key to curing many of our worst afflictions, from spinal cord injuries to Parkinson's Disease. Against them is a contingent of religious conservatives treating this research as another beach front in the war against abortion.

This creates a strange butting of heads. The fate of a given kind of scientific research is being decided based not on empirical evidence or questions of logical morality but, instead, on grounds that are explicitly non-rational and non-scientific. The opponents of stem cell research hold their position because of one significant belief: the existence of the soul. Usage of embryos for science is morally wrong if and only if those embryos have an immaterial soul that makes them human.

With such a spirit in place, cutting up embryos is morally little different from vivisecting a ten year old. However, if there's no such thing as the soul, embryonic stems cells are no more immoral than harvesting fingernail cuttings or inner cheek swabs. Thus the future of a science rests in the belief in something that simply doesn't exist from a scientific perspective. Using the soul to bash down stem cell research is like saying we shouldn't investigate alternative fuel sources because unicorns will get hurt.

In opposition to this line of reasoning, the case is often made that embryos are potential humans and are therefore not the same as shed skin cells or blood samples. But the proposed research samples aren't to come from potential babies torn ruthlessly from a mother's womb. No, they're frozen already, in cold storage, and will eventually be thrown out if not pressed into the service of science. As such, they are not potentially human because we can assert with complete certainty that they will never become human. On the other hand, that blood sample might just become the basis of a clone some day, so ought we not protect it with as much rigor, too?

The simple fact is that, without the soul, the arguments against stem cell research collapse. And it seems particularly sad that this promising branch of science, one that might very well end the suffering of hundreds of thousands alive today and countless more in the future, is being held up by what is really little more than belief in unicorns.

13 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Aaron Ross Powell's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Atheism
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

5.3

{"commentId":211006,"authorDomain":"aamurphy"}

AA Murphy

Precisely so.

{"commentId":211006,"threadId":"5848","contentId":"291983","authorDomain":"aamurphy"}

#1 - Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:36 PM EDT

{"commentId":211361,"authorDomain":"brianford"}

Brian Ford

With such a spirit in place, cutting up embryos is morally little different from vivisecting a ten year old. However, if there's no such thing as the soul, embryonic stems cells are no more immoral than harvesting fingernail cuttings or inner cheek swabs.

I'm not sure that their arguments can be boiled down the existence of a soul.

This makes the argument:

We can't kill an embryo for the same reason that we can't kill a human: They have a soul.

If the counter argument to that is "there is no such thing as a soul"

Then that means that if we can justify killing an embryo we should be able to use the same justification for killing a human.

"Soul" or not is not an argument that anyone in favor of Stem Cell Research should humor. This (once again) allows the "morals" crowd to frame the debate in a way that makes those who oppose their crusade look like killers.

Dropping this into spiritual realms means that we lose the battle. The question is one of viability, in my view. Is it a viable living entity? We can then start to question why practices like IVF are acceptable (which results in a perpetually frozen or eventually discarded "human" life) while other practices that utilize the embryos are not.

At what point does masturbation become murder?

I think that there needs to be a distinction between an early stage embryo and a developed fetus. (Because, scientifically, there is one.)

I think it needs to be made clear that the "only" way that you can argue "human life" for these cells is through the veil of Religion. We can't let this debate be sidetracked.

{"commentId":211361,"threadId":"5848","contentId":"291983","authorDomain":"brianford"}

7 votes

#2 - Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:56 PM EDT

{"commentId":211596,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

Adam Kemp

That's a decent point, actually.

Do any embryos ever actually get created (by any means) for stem cell extraction? Or do they just use existing embryos? In the latter case I can't understand how any moral questions would arise at all. After all, no one is creating and destroying life for stem cells. They can't save the embryos, but they can do some good with them. No one complains when they use peoples' bodies for scientific studies after death. Why complain about this?

{"commentId":211596,"threadId":"5848","contentId":"291983","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

1 vote

#2.1 - Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:38 PM EDT

{"commentId":211672,"authorDomain":"powell"}

Aaron Ross Powell

It's my understanding that one of the bills in the senate right deals with prohibiting the creation of embryos specifically for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. That bill is expected to pass with wide support -- and I'm inclined to agree with it.

The stem cells that are collected now tend to come from frozen embryos left over from fertilization procedures in clinics. So a bunch of sperm and a bunch of eggs from two parents are joined in the labs, and one of the resulting fertilized eggs is implanted in the mother. The remaining eggs are frozen and eventually destroyed. The stem cells are to be taken from those.

{"commentId":211672,"threadId":"5848","contentId":"291983","authorDomain":"powell"}

1 vote

#2.2 - Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:15 AM EDT

{"commentId":211694,"authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

Adam Kemp

Exactly. How can using stem cells from these already-existing embryos be morally wrong? Why are they not clamoring to ban fertility clinics, which are actually responsible for creating the embryos and then destroying them? I can only assume that these people are completely ignorant of how this actually works.

{"commentId":211694,"threadId":"5848","contentId":"291983","authorDomain":"adamkemp"}

1 vote

#2.3 - Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:38 AM EDT

{"commentId":212059,"authorDomain":"powell"}

Aaron Ross Powell

On NPR yesterday -- or maybe the day before -- they did a story on the debate and played a clip from one of the senators against stem cell research. He was saying some stuff about not using humans as raw material for scientific experiments. But the part that might speak to your question was I guess he did it standing in front of a group of children who at one time where frozen embryos. So the argument goes that those cells in cold storage out there might some day become children. Therefore it is wrong to destroy them.

Of course, they're being destroyed anyway, which brings us back to your question about banning fertility clinics. It's likely just that the doing so isn't as politically feasible.

{"commentId":212059,"threadId":"5848","contentId":"291983","authorDomain":"powell"}

1 vote

#2.4 - Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:42 AM EDT

{"commentId":242759,"authorDomain":"williamrpierce"}

Bill P.

As with earlier comments, I'm not sure the debate is sufficiently evaluated by the soul notion.

When a stem cell is used in research, the embryo is destroyed. The cells by definition are organisms, despite its relativistic simplicity. The destruction results in the death of the cell. That cell is distinctly human. It will not develop into a tree or a cow. The DNA inside the cells contains the human genome that can ultimately only produce a human being. Each of us was once an embryo. While I certainly believe in the idea of a soul from a traditional Jew Dao Christian ethic, I believe the religious arguments do rest on tenuous grounds and are simple appeal to emotion fallacies that stirs the support of the pro life crowd. Frankly it's sloppy reasoning I agree that there is not empirical evidence to form such an argument. Yet, the before stated arguments are based on empirical fact.

I certainly believe the stem cell debate creates a slippery slope that has potential dangerous that I don't believe society should embrace. Furthermore, the research on embryonic stem cells has yielded questionable results.

Despite these concerns, I believe most do a disservice to the argument by ignoring the fact that the legislation vetoed by President Bush pertains only to federal funding. Opponents often cite the issue as being a ban on stem cell research, not funding. This is an important distinction within the issue.

{"commentId":242759,"threadId":"5848","contentId":"291983","authorDomain":"williamrpierce"}

1 vote

#3 - Wed Aug 9, 2006 12:24 AM EDT

{"commentId":243354,"authorDomain":"powell"}

Aaron Ross Powell

Bill-

Your argument seems to be an interesting form of the potential human one and, as such, I don't think it works for the same reasons. Specifically, you say

When a stem cell is used in research, the embryo is destroyed. The cells by definition are organisms, despite its relativistic simplicity. The destruction results in the death of the cell. That cell is distinctly human. It will not develop into a tree or a cow. The DNA inside the cells contains the human genome that can ultimately only produce a human being.

This is true. However, it is also true of the cells in the skin of my arm. If we are going to say that any cell with a human genome is sacrosanct, then we're in for an awful lot of trouble regarding nearly all medical research. Scientists do experiments with human tissue samples all the time without concerns about medical ethics being raised. But every cell in all that tissue has a human genome. Your argument constructs a slippery slope that leads directly to banning all such research.

As to the funding, you're right that money can come from other sources--at least technically. The problem with the ban on federal funds is a practical issue, though. Most labs doing medical research accept federal money. And even if they get external funding for their stem cell research, they don't remain free and clear. That's because, according to the regulations, no federal funds can go to stem cell activities. The result is that they can't even do stem cell research in the same lab, as there will be contamination of funding: federal funds might pay for the electricity, and the resulting light illuminates both the stem cell and non-stem cell researchers. Or equipment purchased with federal funds -- even if it's only pipettes -- cannot in any way be used for the forbitten research. What this means is that the labs, in order to keep getting federal dollars, have to, in effect, setup entirely seperate and self-contained laboratories just for stem cell research. Obviously, that is expensive. So expensive, in fact, that many labs just can't do it. So they have a choice of researching stem cells as one of their many activities or dropping federal funding all together.

{"commentId":243354,"threadId":"5848","contentId":"291983","authorDomain":"powell"}

1 vote

#3.1 - Wed Aug 9, 2006 11:42 AM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"5848","isPrivate":false}

	The Hypocrisy of Embryonic Stem Cell Politics	Webloggin Editor	Thu Jul 20	19
	Bush Readies Veto for Stem Cell Bill Today	Associated Press	Wed Jul 19	86

AARON ROSS POWELL

Backyard

Stem Cells, Rationality, and Unicorns

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: