|
||||||||
|
MEDICAL ETHICS Panelists Frame Ethics of Stem Cell DebateWhen privately held Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester announced on Nov. 25 that it had produced human embryos by cloning, the stem cell debate leaped back to center stage where it had been before Sept. 11. The research, published online in e-biomed, stirred criticism from some scientists as preliminary and censure from President Bush as "morally wrong." The purpose of the work was to advance therapeutic cloning, using somatic cell nuclear transfer to create pre-implantation human embryos; these would be a source for immune-compatible, totipotent stem cells to treat injury or disease in the patient-donor. Good ScienceThis polarizing debate was the subject of a program at HMS the following week, on Dec. 3, which featured the president and CEO of the company, Michael West, and three other panelists. Their consensus was that scientists need to become more vocal in the national stem cell dialogue to ensure that arguments are guided by ethics and grounded in science. The event was sponsored by the HMS Division of Medical Ethics.As a sidelight, the U.S. Senate, spurred by West and company's announcement, was considering that same day a moratorium on human cloning, a bill that ultimately failed in a vote that evening. The ethicist on the panel, Walter Robinson, HMS assistant professor of pediatrics at Children's and associate director of the Medical Ethics Division, characterized the current national debate as having a lot of heat but not much light. He said approaches to stem cell research cannot be viewed as either scientific or ethical because science and ethics cannot be separated. West made a case for federal support of stem cell research, giving an overview of the science at Advanced Cell Technology and explaining its therapeutic potential. Curing illness and saving lives with immune-compatible embryonic stem cells does not come at the price of destroying a life, he said, because stem cells can be harvested after six days of development whereas the embryo takes two weeks to individualize--up to that point identical twins can still form. Speaking of the early embryo, he asked, "How can we as a society say that it should have the rights of a person if it's not an individual, and how should that override the needs of people who we know and care for?" Robert Kuttner, founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, added this caveat to the discussion: "Unless the scientific community really gets engaged and thinks about ethical criteria, forces in society with less pure motives and less clean hands than you are going to take this over." The Basis of JudgmentThe most heated exchange came in response to an audience member identifying himself as a pastor-theologian, who said it would be better to begin with the ethical issues instead of the science. "There are some people for whom scripture is a way of thinking about these matters. The question is how do you read scripture?"Kuttner quickly took exception. "Science is not about liturgy," he said. "Science is about experimentation that is falsifiable by empirical inquiry." Responding to another question, panelist Joseph Antin, HMS associate professor of medicine at Dana- Farber and chief of its adult stem cell transplant program, addressed President Bush's Aug. 9 decision to restrict stem cell funding. He said of the research, "Allowing federal funding for it actually is the most useful thing to keep the debate out in the open, where you want it." The panel presentations and sharp point-counterpoint of the question period were moderated by Gwen Acton of MIT's Whitehead Institute. Hosting the event was Joel Roselin, program coordinator for the Medical Ethics Division. --Robert Neal |
