With stem cell legislation pending on Beacon Hill, proponents and opponents
have taken to the airwaves, as lawmakers and citizens struggle to think their
way through the ethical and scientific thicket. In Massachusetts, the real
debate is not about stem cell research as such, but about whether scientists
should be allowed to use cloning techniques to create embryos for stem cell
research.
The bills passed this week by the Legislature would permit stem cell cloning;
Governor Mitt Romney would ban it. While much of the discussion has focused on
scientific complexities, the debate is at heart about ethics.
There are two main objections to cloning embryos for stem cell research—the "right-to-life" objection, and the "brave new world" objection.
The right-to-life objection regards the embryo as inviolable, as morally
equivalent to a fully developed human being. Since extracting stem cells from
the blastocyst (the cluster of cells that comprise the early embryo) destroys
it, those who consider the embryo a person regard such research as the taking
of a human life.
The brave new world objection worries less about the embryo than about where
our new scientific powers may take us. It fears that allowing scientists to
use cloning techniques for stem cell research will lead us down a slippery
slope to dehumanizing practices such as cloning human babies or growing
fetuses in the lab for spare parts.
How persuasive are these objections? The right-to-life objection raises hard
questions about the origins and sanctity of human life. But it is important to
notice that the right-to-life question is not really at issue in the debate
between Romney and the Legislature.
At first glance, Romney's opposition to stem cell cloning seems to be based on
the idea that the embryo is inviolable and should never be destroyed for the
sake of science. The principle at stake is that "no life should be exploited
for the benefit of another," Romney wrote in explaining his opposition to the
stem cell bill. "Every human being has inalienable rights, and first among
them is life."
But this principle is too broad for Romney's position. For if he believes that
embryos are human beings with inalienable rights, he should oppose all
embryonic stem cell research, not only research on cloned embryos. If
extracting stem cells from a blastocyst is morally equivalent to yanking
organs from a baby, then it is abhorrent no matter how the embryo came into
being.
But Romney favors stem cell research on embryos left over from fertility
clinics, provided the parents consent. Given the rigors and uncertainties of
in-vitro fertilization, most fertility clinics create more fertilized eggs
than are ultimately implanted. The "spare" or "surplus" embryos are
typically frozen and ultimately discarded. Some argue that, even if embryos
are persons with inalienable rights, those already doomed might as well be
used for stem cell research.
As Romney reasoned in a radio ad that aired this week, "These embryos would
otherwise be destroyed."
The doomed embryo argument seems to offer Romney the distinction he wants: It
is ethical to sacrifice surplus embryos that will die anyway, but deplorable
to create embryos for the sake of research. But the distinction does not hold
up, because it evades the question whether the surplus embryos should be
created in the first place. The fact that US fertility clinics are allowed to
create and discard excess embryos is as much a policy choice as whether to
permit cloning for stem cell research.
If Romney believes that embryos are persons, he should condemn the creation
and destruction of excess embryos in fertility clinics as vigorously as he is
opposing stem cell cloning. If, on the other hand, he believes the creation
and sacrifice of embryos in fertility clinics is morally acceptable, it's not
clear why he doesn't consider the creation and sacrifice of embryos for stem
cell research also acceptable. After all, both practices serve worthy ends; in
fact, curing diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's is at least as
important as treating infertility.
There is nothing inconsistent in a principled right-to-life position that
opposes all stem cell research and all fertility treatments that create and
discard excess embryos.
But Romney can't have it both ways. He cannot oppose stem cell cloning on the
grounds that it violates the embryo's inalienable right to life and at the
same time defend fertility treatments that create surplus embryos and stem
cell research that uses them.
In the face of this difficulty, Romney might retreat to the brave new world
objection. Permitting scientists to use cloning techniques for stem cell
research, he might argue, will lead down a slippery slope of exploitation and
abuse—therapeutic cloning today, cloned human babies tomorrow.
The danger that embryo research will lead to exploitation and abuse is worth
taking seriously. But sensible regulations can prevent our sliding down the
slippery slope.
Rather than ban cloning for stem cell research, the governor should join the
Legislature in banning human reproductive cloning, limiting the length of time
that research embryos can be grown in the lab, and restricting the
commodification of eggs to prevent the exploitation of women.
Such regulations are the friend, not the foe, of responsible science. They can
enable us to redeem the promise of biomedical advance while saving us from
slouching toward a Brave New World.
Michael J. Sandel teaches political philosophy as a professor of government at Harvard University. He is a member of the Weatherhead Center's Executive Committee.