Bush and Stem Cell Research: An Ethically Confused Policy

Who would have thought one year ago that the first decision President George W. Bush spent significant time deliberating and then discussing in his first national press conference, would concern funding of stem cell research? He was lobbied by the Pope to oppose funding. He was lobbied by conservatives like Orin Hatch, by friends of his father's like Nancy Reagan, and by many scientists and medical ethicists from NIH and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to support the research. I will focus on why I believe he did not successfully address the ethical issues.

Stem cell research holds great promise for the cure of many terrible human illnesses. But that alone does not settle the matter. Unethical or immoral research should not be done, even if it could provide great benefit. Sometimes, it is true, one must balance the benefits and burdens of research and support a project if the harms it causes are small and the results it promises are very important. But absolutely no results are important enough to justify the killing of a human being. So the claim of those who say that embryonic stem cell research means the killing of a human being must be examined.

The source of human embryonic stem cells for research is excess embryos created by fertility clinics to help infertile couples have children. This process usually involves stimulating the growth of several eggs in the woman, and then capturing them for fertilization outside her body. Because this is not an easy process for the woman to go through, doctors try to capture and fertilize as many eggs as possible, often a dozen or more at once. In general, not all of the eggs fertilize, and of course you can't put them all back into the womb at once--it would be very unlikely any of them would survive. Usually a few are used. The rest are frozen for later use if the first attempt fails.

But what if the first attempt to have a baby succeeds? The fate of the remaining embryos is generally determined by the two donor participants in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process (by virtue of being the two progenitors of the embryos, not the parents of the new baby). They can pay to keep the embryos frozen for later use. However the embryos should not be frozen indefinitely, because the cost gets prohibitive, the embryos become less likely to work over time, and of course you want to avoid being left with "orphan embryos" after the progenitors have died.

Another alternative is for the donor participants to donate their embryos to another infertile couple who can't produce their own embryos (e.g., if the woman doesn't have any eggs). But there isn't a great demand for embryos for one couple from another couple, not nearly enough to use the thousands of excess embryos created each year in the United States. Furthermore, many people feel uncomfortable with the thought that their own genetic children are alive and being raised by someone else, much like the resistance of many people to give their children up for adoption. The third option for donor participants is to have the remaining embryos destroyed. But many couples feel equally uncomfortable with both destruction and donation for implantation in someone else and would welcome other options.

Is each excess embryo that is destroyed a potential human life? This is at best a misleading statement, because potentiality is a vague notion. If the claim is that each embryo is destined to become a person, it is clearly false. Biologically, if every one of those embryos was put into a woman, perhaps 10% or 20% would survive to birth. Many would not implant successfully, and many of those that did implant would end up spontaneously aborted for one reason or another. That's why the fertility treatment process likes to...