Remaking ourselves? The ethics of stem-cell research

Commonweal, Dec 4, 1998 by Thomas A. Shannon

However, prior to that time, these human cells are indifferent to becoming specific cells in this particular body. They are not, I would argue, morally privileged by virtue of individuality or, a fortiori, by personhood. True, they are morally privileged by being human cells, cells that manifest the human genome, and as such are an entity that represents the essence of human nature. This is the second reason why the preimplantation embryo can be understood in terms of Scotus's "common nature." Essentially such research would be utilizing cells that in fact represent what is common to humans in the most basic sense; our common human nature in the blastomere is preindividual and prepersonal. And because these cells are our common human nature and not individualized human nature (the minimal definition of personhood), I argue that cells from this entity may be used in research to obtain and develop stem cells for use in transplantation or to develop specific human tissue or perhaps even organs.

Clearly those from whom such entities come must consent to this research, and the blastomeres must be handled with respect. But ultimately, such research is not research on a human person. It is research on our common human nature, and as such is morally justifiable.

RELATED ARTICLE: The cows come home

The announcement (New York Times, November 12, 1998) that scientists have implanted a human nucleus in the enucleated egg of a cow - have in fact produced a hybrid entity that is largely but not entirely human - demonstrates not only the speed at which such research moves but also the-ever-more complicated ethical tangles into which we have gotten ourselves.

Can we slow this down a little so that we can think about what we are doing?

Creating stem cells by fusing human cells with cow eggs is qualitatively different from other kinds of stem-cell research because we really don't know what will happen until we do it. Even though the human material reportedly took over rapidly and began producing human proteins, the interaction between bovine cytoplasm and human DNA cannot be fully modeled mathematically. And there are at least two other problems. If bovine mytrocondrial DNA remains in the cytoplasm, will it interact with the human DNA, and with what consequences? Will the blending of the two species be the occasion for cross-species diseases?

Although this particular research has not been verified or published, it was announced to test its public acceptability. While public reactions should certainly to be taken into account, what ethical method uses market research as a criterion? One would think that the company (Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Massachusetts) would want to argue that its research is both worthwhile and ethical, not simply that the public does not object to it.

If the bovine cytoplasm were to act only as a nutrient source, and if the human DNA were to take over totally, the resulting organism would have the human genome and would qualify as human. But that presents a whole new set of problems. For even though the technology was ostensibly developed to generate stem cells, other applications would be sure to follow - for example, a ready supply of bovine eggs for use in assisted human reproduction.