In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 10 Stem Cells, Cloning, and the Human Person John F. Morris In this chapter I will explore the contemporary controversy surrounding stem cell research and cloning, and, from the perspective of the AristotelianThomistic personalist tradition, how these technologies are impacting human persons both individually and in society. Now, immediately some may object that as a philosopher, and not a scientist , I have no business addressing these growing areas of scientific research . I have been told that I, and others like myself who raise questions about the ethics of cloning and the destructive aspects of some forms of stem cell research, should simply “leave science to the scientists.” The thrust of this statement is, I believe, twofold. First, the implication is 252 Readers will note the numerous Internet sources referenced here. Given the open-ended nature of the Internet and the problem of “disappearing” postings, there has been a growing debate over the scholarly use of web-based resources. While I acknowledge the reality and serious nature of the concerns that are being raised, I have included such references here for two key reasons: First, the wide variety of websites referenced offers a better understanding of just how broad the debate over stem cell research is, including its international dimensions. Second , the field of stem cell research has expanded so much and so quickly over the last few years that many professional and scientific research journals, experiencing a growing backlog of articles waiting for publication, have begun to use the Internet for “pre-publishing” or “webpublishing ” papers and research findings well before they appear in print. Thus, to keep up on the very latest advances in the field, it is necessary to reference these web-based resources. However, whenever possible, I have cited hard-copy sources, or provided future publication information. that science and technological development are, and must remain, autonomous and pure in order to maintain the integrity of the scientific process. It has even been suggested to me and others that questioning the work of scientific research at all comes dangerously close to repeating the Galileo affair (at least as perceived by some in the scientific community) and hindering the pursuit of scientific knowledge.1 Second, the more subtle implication is that if problems do arise with science or technology, scientists will police themselves and prevent harm from being done to society. In sum, the suggestion is that the world of science and research ought to be a “morally free” zone. My response to this laissez faire attitude of “leaving science to the scientists ” is simple and direct—ABSOLUTELY NOT! In the late 1950s, the English philosopher Bertrand Russell led an effort known as “the Pugwash movement ,” with the goal of global nuclear disarmament. Russell himself noted: My purpose was to secure cooperation between Communist and anti-Communist scientists on matters lying within their technical competence, and, if possible, also on international measures related to nuclear weapons. I thought that a statement signed by some twelve of the ablest men living at that time would, perhaps, have some effect upon Governments and the public.2 Among the signatories was none other than Professor Albert Einstein. Certainly Russell led a noble cause here. Yet, Russell was by no means the only person concerned with the development of weapons of mass destruction. Countless other groups of people from all walks of life protested and fought for the same goal of nuclear disarmament—indeed, that struggle continues today. My point is this: was Russell’s document any more valid than the multitude of other protests simply because he gathered the signatures of prominent physicists involved with atomic theory to point out the dangers of nuclear warfare? Such a suggestion is ludicrous. The development of nuclear weaponry is more than a matter of atomic physics—it involves ethical issues that are appropriate for all human beings to be concerned about. In the same vein, I argue that I, as well as every human being, have both a right and an obligation to become involved with the debate regarding the destruction of embryos for some forms of stem cell research, and regarding human cloning as a method for obtaining more embryonic stem cells for such research. The destruction of embryos for research and the technology of cloning both affect the nature and future of humanity. These are issues for all of us, not scientists alone. Nor does the involvement of nonscientists hinder or impede the “freedom” of scientific researchers to do stem cells...

Share