Human Dignity in the Biotech Century

Nigel Cameron

Why the Stem Cell Stakes Are so High

What’s really at stake for science policy, human dignity, and the future prospects of our biotechnology in the current debate on stem cells? President Bush’s policy on federal funding of embryonic stem cells is a compromise, but a principled compromise. I have supported it, as it stands as a beacon of sanity in an increasingly frenzied debate that does not augur well for the capacity of our democracy to cope with the challenges of what has been called the “biotech century.”

To begin, I would like to survey what the advocates on untrammeled embryo stem cell research really want; then make some comments on what this debate means for the biotech century ahead.

First: They want cloning. Behind the stem-cell research debate lies the plan for human cloning for research. The emotional case that was made by celebrities like Christopher Reeve and Nancy Reagan is for so-called “therapeutic cloning,” in which one-on-one medications are developed for degenerative diseases from specially cloned embryos. The public seems to think this is just around the corner, but even if it were to work (and some key stem cell research advocates themselves now acknowledge that it will not) it would be many, many years away.

They want to clone human embryos. They are not really interested in a few more cell lines, or access to so-called “spare” embryos in in vitro clinic freezers. These make good debating points, but they are peripheral to their main aims. So-called “therapeutic cloning,” which has proved so powerful in mobilizing the public imagination, requires the manufacture and destruction of millions upon millions of embryos, each one of which requires an egg from the ovary of a woman. What few Americans realize is that around the world nation after nation has outlawed this unethical research. Germany, France, Canada, and Norway have all decided to turn “therapeutic cloners” into felons.

Second: They want to patent embryos. Pro-cloning campaigners have asserted their right to the ownership of embryos that had been altered or engineered. Both BIO, the biotech industry trade group, and the so-called “campaign for medical research,” went on the offensive in response to an effort led by Congressman Dave Weldon to ensure that patents would not be granted on human embryos. They claimed that this would prevent “cures.” They were defeated, but they are expected to try again.

Third: They want to grow cloned human embryos—and then it gets even worse. They want to implant them, and to harvest the developing fetus for experiments and spare parts. This horrific scenario would have been thought unbelievable before New Jersey passed its “stem cell research” policy. It permits cloning for experimental purposes all the way through to birth. And the Biotechnology Industry Organization—to its everlasting shame—testified and lobbied in favor of what is plainly the worst biotech law in the world.

Fourth: They want to play with the English language to try and shape the terms of the debate. In a manner that has deeply troubling implications for the health of democracy, there has been a series of efforts at changing the meaning of plain words to deceive the public. So, for example, in S. 303—the Senate bill proposed by Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Feinstein (D-CA) to protect embryo research cloning—the word cloning is defined in a wholly novel way, to refer to the implantation of the embryo. (In the New Jersey law, cloning is defined as birth!) Yet S. 303 denies that the clonal embryo is an embryo at all, and makes up a new term for it: an “unfertilized blastocyst.” Without honest language, democracy is dead.

What lies behind this debate?

Whatever our views may be on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell work, three home truths are becoming clearer by the minute.

First: The real debate is about the capacity of our society to ensure that biotechnology, with its Pandora’s box of possibilities, will serve the human good. We recognize that there are huge safety issues (remember thalidomide, the drug used in pregnancy that led to the birth in Europe of thousands of limbless babies? And look at how readily embryonic stem cells cause tumors). We don’t want “designer babies” who have “features” picked by their parents. We may disagree about where exactly we need to draw lines, but we take it for granted that drawing lines is going to be necessary if these new technologies are going to be used in ways that are not just profitable but ethical and safe.

Second: If you think that is just an expression of opinion, look at the biotech market. Investors are not investing in embryo stem cell technology. They have the best information, and they are used to investing in products with 10–15 year timelines. Like the big pharmaceutical companies, they know better than to put their money into something so speculative. So—surprise, surprise—the researchers and their celebrity advocates are asking for public funding!

Third: The media has consistently refused to tell the whole story. We need more and better information. How many Americans are actually aware that so-called “adult stem cells” have led to cures in many terrible diseases, and hundreds of patients? How many are aware that cloning and other biotech abuses (such as embryo patenting) are opposed by leading progressive voices as well as conservatives? How many know that cloning has been comprehensively banned in nations as diverse as Germany, Norway, Canada, and France? Each of these nations has now made it a crime to clone embryos, whether for research, to produce babies, or for any other purpose—precisely the position that has been endorsed by President Bush.

These questions are as big as they come. What are the chances that the democracies will be able to handle these extraordinary new technologies? In a culture inebriated by a fawning love of celebrity and a brittle fear of degenerative disease, will it ever prove possible to say no?

Put the question another way: As we advance into the biotech century, will any future president dare to wrestle with a profound ethical dilemma, propose a principled compromise, and draw a line—knowing that he or she is liable to face the unprincipled hype of a celebrity-led “cures now” campaign?

We need solid answers to these questions, and it behooves those of goodwill on all sides of the embryonic stem cell debate to start worrying about what they will be.  

Dr. Nigel M. de S. Cameron is President, Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future and a recent scholar-in-residence at Osprey Point. This article is adapted from a speech he gave to a group of members of Congress.

1 Responses • Guest Speakers, Mon 19 Mar 2007