A Wellcome debate
Embryo bill: An embryonic cell has little or no consciousness, so killing it may be no harsher than killing a plant for food
Anil Bhanot



About Webfeeds May 19, 2008 3:00 PM | Printable version
A debate was hosted by the Wellcome Trust last Friday on the ethics of the embryonic stem cell research (video here). http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk:...me_debate.html

It was prefaced by speakers on both sides of the argument with some prominent scientists making the case for it and the Catholic ethicists - including a Catholic archbishop - expressing their concerns about the slippery slope towards playing God with human life. The debate was chaired by Edward Stourton and the audience comprised of a small number of distinguished scientists, medics, philosophers and some faith leaders who were also invited to comment.

Stem cell research under the existing Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act 1990 is currently regulated by the HFE Authority (HFEA) and this has allowed research on adult stem cells where, for example, bone marrow cells have been transformed into nerve cells. However the regenerative potential of adult stem cells is far more restricted than that of the embryonic stem cells. Hence the new HFE bill proposes a new type of research on the human embryos relating to human reproduction.

The regenerative qualities of the embryo cells are so great that they can be transformed into any cell in the body, thus qualifying as pluripotent cells. This breakthrough gives a radical shift towards treating illnesses that we currently do not have a cure for. The scientists involved in the research are passionate about the benefits their research may lead to curing motor neurone disease, stroke, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and cancers of various sorts.

The ethical problem comes, however, in the way the embryonic cell is used and then destroyed. Although the embryonic cell is used from five to 14 days, ie at its very early stages, it is nonetheless life, potentially developing to a full human.

The embryonic cell is donated by the couples who undergo IVF treatment and 70% of such cells die anyway in that early process to fertilisation. Also one significant fact is that at this early state of the embryonic cell of 14 days, it does not feel any pain when it is finally destroyed.

Nonetheless the Catholic church feels that we would be killing a life, potentially a human being, and would like alternatives to be looked at, such as the umbilical cord blood cells (though scientists claim that the embryonic cell research is of much wider benefit). The Anglican church's position is softer in that it argues there should be a moratorium on this research for say, five years, after which it should be reviewed again.

From a Hindu position, I argued that although nonviolence is a central tenet of our faith we must also sacrifice for the greater good. Since the embryonic cell does not suffer pain at this stage the Hindu tenet of nonviolence, ahimsa, is not breached. Further, in Hinduism all life is sacred: humans, animals, plants and so on. However to Hindus what matters is not just "life" but also the different levels of "consciousness". In the case of this embryonic cell one may present a theological argument that at its early stage of life it has little or no level of consciousness and therefore killing it could be no harsher than killing a plant for food. The embryonic cell likewise seems to be used for a similar, if not nobler, reason for the survival of "other" human beings.

Moreover, according to the doctrine of reincarnation shared by all Indogenic faiths, we do not consider death as the end and if we were to extend the argument to an embryonic cell dying for a good cause, for helping others, one may say that the same cell may well get its just rewards and later incarnate into a better life.

Last week's debate was intense, not least regarding the hybrid embryos and transgenic embryos where animals and human cells and proteins are mixed to culture cells for use in humans. We do need more discussion but piecemeal legislation, with enforceable regulation through the HFEA body, is of the greatest importance in ensuring that the research stays on track. Perhaps the most sensible way forward is to give a green light for embryonic stem cell research but to take up the Anglican suggestion of a review in five years.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk:...me_debate.html