Making Sense of Bush, Stem Cell Research, Ethics and Misinformation

Granted, sometimes even Bush may not understand Bush, so I am not going to claim that I have any answers in my crystal ball on why he is threatening to veto the stem cell research bill. However, I do think that is what I would do in his shoes. My reasons have to do with the misinformation (a nice way to say that the public and maybe capital hill have been deceived) and the ethical issues that follow.

Let’s start with the deception of the public. First, the general public seems to think that the only stem cells are embryonic stem cells and that is not true. One clue is found in the name “embryonic.” If there is only one kind, this label would not be meaningful unless it was some sort of rhetorical device created by pro-life groups. It turns out that there are Adult stem cells too (and maybe more kinds). Although adult stem cells are now being talked about, they are slanderously discussed with the tone of “limited” and “narrow” words that make them sound like 3 day old leftovers.

Second, embryonic stem cells are getting lots of attention and lots of promises are made about their potential. This potential is real. However, to my knowledge there are no known treatments that work, while there are over 80 successful treatments developed from adult stem cells. The crazy part is that the very potential of the embryonic cells is what seems to make them difficult to use. If you are a gambler, they seem to be a long-shot that will not likely pay off. But if it did, it would be a big pay-off. These cells are fully totipotential. This means that this cell has the ability to become any cell in the body. The hard part is that the scientific community has no idea who the foreman of the work crew is. Thus, if you don’t know who is running the show, you can’t take his seat. Genes function like the steering wheel, and steering wheels play a legitimate causal role in the direction of the vehicle. Although there is high potential, the probabilities are not in favor of a pay-off.

In response, someone might claim that the only reason this is true is that so little research has been done. Although there is some merit to this reply, it makes other problematic assumptions about the nature of persons and has an unfalsifiable perspective. For example, this perspective is of the same sort as the statement “I could have beat Michael Jordan one-on-one if I could score more points.” Also it is smart investing to work on adult stem cells which will likely suffer less complications like there will probably not be rejection issues because they come from your own body. Of course that leads into the question of cloning oneself and parting your other self out. The point here is that there has been enough evidence that to show that embryonic stem cell research is a difficult path and probabilities and actual successful treatments make adult stem cells a better candidate for research.

Another key issue is the very nature of personhood is in the balance. Bush and I agree (I think) that an embryo is a person. Have you seen the Matrix? Imagine thousands of people in pods hooked up to machines, only instead of being utilized for energy by an army of crazy machines; there are doctors who cut them up for their parts. The issue of personhood is central to the debate, and certainly it is not settled. Even if you are inclined to think that an embryo is not a person, consider the ramifications if you are wrong for one minute. The stakes are too high to call it science and simply proceed without serious thought. I’ll save this one for another post, and finish with a “just suppose.” Suppose that I told you that one month babies are people yet and that by taking their organs we could save thousands of lives. This is obviously wrong because we know these are little people. So, when does life begin? – Conception. When personhood begins makes a big difference– I think it begins at conception. When you draw the line and why? If embryos are people, then it is a “no-brainer.” If they are not, then alternative constructions of what it means to be human may seriously undermine more than we might ever gain.