Ever since the beginning, mankind has been besieged by disease. Many of these diseases have been healed by scientists in their respective laboratories, but there are still many diseases that have escaped solution: Diabetes, Heart disease, Parkinsons disease, Lou Gehrigs’ disease and many other illnesses and devastating disabilities. A promising avenue for research that might lead to possible cures is the ESC or the Embryonic Stem Cell. Critics point this out, but also acknowledge that such research destroys embryos and that pursuing such means would show insufficient regard for human life. Since human embryos are morally important, it follows that substantial limits must be imposed on continued research.
Those who oppose such research take into consideration its potential and the possibility of its one day yielding substantial medical benefits. They do not lose sight of the fact that there are other chances for progress in basic research and for developing models to study different diseases. Recent results in research involving non-embryonic and adult stem cells point out that scientists may be able to make progress in regenerative medicine without resorting to cloning for biomedical research.
There is in existence the so-called “Nuremberg Code of Research Ethics” which enunciates the principle that experimentation should be “such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study.” Unfortunately, because of the bulk of scientific uncertainties and the possible avenues of research, the problem at present evades solution. If we contemplate the fact that research using cloned embryos may yield knowledge and benefits that cannot be derived from any other means, what reasons could we have for saying “no” – for turning down cloning for biomedical research?
Since no one can possibly know or predict for certain which avenues of research will prove most successful – not the scholars, not the moralists, not the patients whose suffering we all hope to alleviate – it would be wise to leave this possible avenue to medical progress open. This approach forces us to think about embryo research generally; however cloning, even only for purposes of research raises its own concerns, since only cloned embryos couls one day become cloned children.
The analysis of those against cloning for biomedical research proceeds along three pathways; what we owe to the embryo; what we owe to society; and what we owe to the suffering. They differ among themselves, or the relative importance of the various arguments presented. But they all agree that moral objections to the research itself and prudent consideration about where it is likely to lead, suggest that they should oppose cloning for biomedical research.
This brings us to the subject of the embryo and what we owe to the embryo. The embryo has always been a puzzle to us. Basically, the embryo is a fertilized egg – a human organism in its germinal stage. It is not just a clump of cells; it is an integrated, self-developing whole, capable of the condiment organic development characteristic of human beings.
Most people believe that it is wrong to allow a cloned embryo to develop into a human being to avoid that wrong, we would have a duty to destroy any such cloned embryo. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research hold that we have a duty to kill it and that it is permissible to start projects that might lead to such mistake and result in such a duty. The reason is because of the kind of moral importance the embryo has. An embryo is not an entity that can be harmed by the loss of its future. This is not stating that we should not destroy the embryo because it is bad for the embryo. We are not saying either that the continued existence o embryos cannot be good for them. After all, an embryo does not have and never has had the capacity to sense, perceive or experience anything.
All are in agreement that the embryo does not yet have, except potentially, the full range of characteristics that differentiates the human species from others; but one does not necessarily have those characteristics in evidence in order to belong to the species. Human beings at any stage of life, do not forfeit their humanity simply because of the lack of evidence of these distinguishing characteristics. There are different points in the life story of any human being – a beginning, a zenith and a decline, but none of these points is in itself the human being. That being is, rather, an organism with a continuous history.
Those who do not subscribe to cloning for biomedical research (position 2) believe that the embryo is in fact “one of us”; a human life in process – an equal member of the species “Homo Sapiens” in the germinal stage of his/her natural development. Those who oppose going forward with cloning for biomedical research maintain their stand that it is not only incoherent but self-contradictory to claim that human embryos deserve “special attention” and yet to endorse research that requires the creation, use and destruction of these organisms especially when done routinely and on a large scale.
If from one perspective, the fact that the embryo seems to amount to little, may invite a weakening of our respect; from another perspective, its seeming insignificance should awaken in us a sense of shared humanity since this was our own condition. Because the embryo seems to amount to so little, our responsibility to respect and protect its life correspondingly increases. Hans Jones maintains that a true humanism would recognize “the inflexible principle that utter helplessness demands utter protection.”
We would be missing something if we stopped with what is owed to the embryo. An embryo may seem insignificant, but that very insignificance tests not only the embryo’s humanity but our own. Even those who are uncertain about the precise moral status of the human embryo, have sound ethical reasons to refrain from using embryos for utilitarian purposes. There are principled reasons why people who accept research on left-over IVF embryos created initially for reproductive purposes should oppose the creation and the use of cloned embryos explicitly for research. There are also powerful reasons to worry about where this research will lead us. All these objections have their ground not only in the embryo’s character but also in our own. Also in concern is not only for the fate of nascent human life, but for the moral well-being of society as a whole.
Cloning for biomedical research and cloning to produce children both begin with the same act of cloning – the production of a human embryo that is genetically identical to its progenitor. Both uses of cloning mark a significant leap in human power and human control over our genetic origins. Both involve deliberate genetic manipulation of nascent human life. If we say “yes” to cloned embryos in laboratories, we are saying “yes” to an ever-expanding genetic mastery of one generation over the next.
The final question to be considered is what we owe to the suffering. Both sides in the debate believe it to be less than human to turn a blind eye to those who suffer and need relief or to stand silent in the face of suffering and premature death. In saying “no” to cloning for biomedical research, we are not closing the door on medical progress. We are just acknowledging the fact that, for very strong moral reasons, progress must take place by means that do not involve the production, use and destruction of cloned embryos and that do not reduce nascent human life to a resource for exploitation.
We are not deaf to the voices of those who desperately want biomedical research to continue. We can feel that desire within ourselves for all of us, for those we love most and who could one day be patients desperate for cure. We know that the relief of suffering, although a great good, is not the greatest good. We all value health and a longer life; however, we also know that life loses its value if we care only for how long we live and not also for how we live.
The scientific enterprise is a moral one, not only because of the goals scientists seek, but also because of the limits they honor. It is precisely the acceptance of limits that stimulates creative advance that forces scientists to conceive of new and acceptable ways of conducting research. Therefore before society takes a step that cannot be undone, it should think seriously of the moral implications of accepting cloning even for research. We must first consider with wisdom and with courage what we owe to the embryo, to our society and to the suffering.