Is Bush’s Stem Cell Policy Vindicated?

Recently, scientists discovered a method of coaxing ordinary skin cells into becoming stem cells, thus avoiding the ethical quandary of having to harvest stem cells from embryos. Conservative commentators have seized on the apparent breakthrough to argue Bush’s stem cell policy – which denied federal funding for stem cell research derived from human embryos – has been vindicated. Indeed, Charles Krauthammer hyperventilates that "the embryonic stem cell debate is over. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president -- so vilified for a moral stance -- been so thoroughly vindicated."

Not so fast. Conservative pundits have been taking a licking on issues like global warming, Iraq, and Bush’s counter terrorism strategy so it’s little wonder that they’d like to turn the tables for once and insist the "debate is over." A closer look at the issue, however, reveals that Bush’s stem cell stance yielded few, if any, genuine moral benefits. Indeed, the supposed "moral clarity" Bush exercised in delineating the bright red line around "human embryos" had far more to do with abortion politics than any ethically or scientifically defensible principle. To put it simply, Bush’s policy did not save lives or uphold the sanctity of life. But curtailing federal funding for stem cell lines created from human embryos will have an ongoing pernicious effect in so far as federal dollars and ethical oversight go hand in hand. Let me explain.

At the crux of the matter is the question: is a human embryo a person? The term "human embryo" is at least somewhat loaded in so far as it implies that an embryo meets the criteria to count as an individual. It does not, for this reason: as late as two weeks after conception a single embryo can spontaneously split in two and begin developing as twins. Simply put, individuality, personhood, and the soul are not concepts that can be appropriately applied at an embryo’s earliest stages. This point is reinforced by the fact that as many as 75% of fertilized embryos spontaneously abort before implanting. Nature is simply wasteful and indifferent in the extreme.

Right-to-life advocates, however, are wedded to the doctrine that life begins at conception. This view is often attended by wooly metaphysical dogma about the infusion of soul and body taking place at conception. This view, of course, is difficult to square with the facts cited above (the vast majority of embryos spontaneously abort and a single embryo can spontaneously become twins two weeks after conception).

It doesn’t follow from this, however, that the moral value of an embryo is nil. Given the right circumstances an embryo has the potential to become a human being. Thus, when we speak of a "human embryo" we should remember that we are using that designation primarily to refer to the genetic material as being distinct from that of other species, but we are not referring to a distinct individual that has the moral status of a human person. If we were, then it would be wrong to create surplus embryos to help infertile couples have children. But even most on the religious right aren’t too keen on creating a fuss over surplus embryos created as a byproduct of helping infertile couples have children.

Nevertheless, conservative pundits use the term "human embryo" as a rhetorical sleight of hand, subtly implying each and every embryo is a unique human being. But deep down, most serious people don’t believe this because, or there would be calls to ban in vitro fertilization and outlaw privately funded embryonic stem cell research. As it stands, Bush’s policy does not prohibit embryonic stem cell research that is privately funded. Since federal funding invariably entails greater ethical oversight, however, Bush’s policy actually creates the worst of all possible worlds; less dollars where they are needed and less oversight where it is needed.

The discovery that scientists can coax ordinary skin cells into becoming stem cells is a remarkable breakthrough. The ability to bypass even a perceived ethical quandary is welcome, but it would be mistaken and way premature to insist that this new procedure vindicates Bush’s decision, it does not. Bush’s decision, and the reasoning behind it, deserve respect as a serious effort to grapple with profound and difficult questions. The approach of countries like Great Britain, however, has been even more high-minded and serious because the debate there has not been distorted by abortion politics. Those crowing about Bush stem cell policy being vindicated should be a little way of declaring "mission accomplished."

Sphere: Related Content