The Stem Cell Sell

In his latest Against the Grain commentary, CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer sorts through the debate over stem cell research.

Stem cell research is the sleeper hit policy issue of the summer. It's debated on the food-fight cable talk shows, covered on the front pages of all the newspapers, and postured over in numerous congressional hearings. And oddly enough, all this seems to reflect genuine public interest. Lots of people are trying to sort out their views on this one. It's not easy.

Embryonic stem cells are unique cells extracted from newly formed embryos that have the capacity to differentiate into most of the cells and tissues of the human body. As such, they, "hold enormous promise for new approaches to tissue and organ repair," according to the most recent survey by the National Institutes of Health. The general idea in simplistic terms is that stem cells could someday be used to repair human tissues and organs that have previously been irreparable – nerves, heart muscle, the brain, for example.

In 1995, Congress banned federal funding for research that could lead to destruction of human embryos; the research itself was not banned, just the federal funding. But in 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services ruled that this ban did not apply to embryonic stem cells. The department later issued rules that would allow federally funded scientists to experiment with cell lines derived from embryos, so long as they didn't extract the cells themselves. The embryos used were fertilized eggs that had been frozen for use in fertility treatments and which would otherwise have been destroyed or kept frozen indefinitely.

Stem cells are also found in adults. They share some of the "plasticity" of embryonic stem cells, but behave differently and pose other research obstacles. Scientists want to proceed full speed with research on both embryonic and adult cells, but clearly believe the work on embryonic cells has much more immediate promise.

The arguments here roughly mirror the abortion debate, but not precisely. The primary objection to embryonic stem cell research is that any embryo, no matter how early or infinitesimal, is a form of human life; therefore it is morally, ethically, or religiously wrong to destroy it for any reason.

Another objection to this research is that it is somehow Frankensteinesque or some kind of science fiction nightmare. Richard Doerflinger of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops said, "The whole brave new world in which human life becomes a commodity for manipulation is opened up." This is similar to what was said about "test-tube babies" 25 years ago.

Oddly, the first objection is increasingly les persuasive to many anti-abortion public officials. And some pro-abortion rights activists, who dismiss the "right to life" argument out of hand, are moved by the "brave new world" argument.

Part of what has increased the pressure on President Bush this summer has been the parade of prominent, anti-abortion Republicans who have come out in favor of stem cell research - including HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Ut., and Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn. They argue that while, in Frist's words, there must be "respect for the moral significance of the human embryo," this research is still permissible, even morally required, because of its life-saving and healing potential.

This is extremely troubling for the solid opponents of embryonic stem cell research. They believe they have already made an enormous compromise by merely pushing for a ban on federal funding rather than a prohibition against the research altogether. After all, if destroying a frozen embryo is wrong, it is wrong whether it is paid for by the government or by private sources. Morally, they argue, it is irrelevant.

Scientists and other advocates of this course of research also believe they are making ethical compromises by accepting some of the controls. They believe that the moral imperative is to find medical cures and remedies to help people and save lives as soon as possible. Limits on the research intended to express "respect for the human embryo" slow this down.

Many of these scientists and research advocates happen to believe that embryos, even in their earliest form, are a type of life, worthy of respect, and that destroying them does exact a moral cost. And they recognize that other peoples' religious and moral beliefs are important values to be respected. But they put greater value on saving and improving the lives of children and adults.

Similarly, some who flatly oppose embryonic stem cell research believe their opposition also has a moral cost. They recognize that it may hinder medical advances and delay alleviating great suffering.

In other words, there are some on both sides who recognize that not all of our highest values fit neatly together. Sometimes our values are incompatible and they collide.

President Bush and some of his counselors have given indications they are not prepared to bring the same intellectual honesty to the debate. Some of their preliminary comments hint that they may try to bury the moral arguments in a heap of pseudo-science by arguing that embryonic stem cell research really doesn't have such great medical potential, or that research with adult stem cells is just as useful.

But if George W. Bush really has been agonizing over these quandaries, he will have to make and discuss moral compromises, not just political ones. It will be fascinating to see where he comes down, and why.

© MMI, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved