New ESCR Technique

A new technique for extracting stem cells without killing the embryo has raised some hopes of avoiding moral concerns.  Unfortunately, it doesn't do that. 

Dr. Robert George, of Princeton University and the President Bio-ethics Board, pointed out that this still amounts to experimentation on a human being.  We can't foresee what the long term affects might be on this child as it develops and grows.  Adverse affects might not present until adulthood, and how many people by then would we have subjected to this experimental procedure?

It's not only wrong to kill one human being for the benefit of another, it's wrong to experiment on one for the benefit of another.  Before this technique is used on nascent human beings, it should be thoroughly tested on primates so we can foresee what might happen.

George helpfully distinguished between this type of experimentation and experimental treatments used on patients every day.  In the later cases, the patient usually has given permission and the patient themselves receive the beneficial affect of the experimental treatment, as well as possible future patients.  In the case of this new technique, the embryos are being treated as guinea pigs, test animals.  (I wonder if PETA is as concerned about experiments on human "animals" as they are about other animals?)  They can't consent to the experiment that will make them test cases for the rest of the lives.

Let's credit scientists with trying to address the moral concerns with alternate treatments.  But long term testing has to be done before we can declare this a moral alternative.

Comments

[Red Loser]

Considering that neither side of the debate really likes this technique, I don't see it catching on.

[William Tanksley]

I don't see a direct problem with the technique; it (superficially) solves the problem, although at some risk. The question is whether the risk can be worth it to the patient being operated on.

The answer is clearly NO, and will not be otherwise for a while yet. The reward would outweigh the risk if there was a procedure that could benefit the embryo that required a cell of the embryo to be extracted. One example would be testing for a curable genetic defect; another would be banking the ESCs for later use (assuming, of course, a breakthrough that actually made them useful).

Unfortunately, the only reason we have NOW to take a cell from a zygote is to see whether the zygote is Lebensunwertes Leben (a life unworthy of living). If the cell tests positive for a genetic disorder, we kill the zygote. (I've seen _many_ excited news reports about a "new technique" of one kind or another to "prevent genetic diseases". When read closely, they're all the same thing so far.)

In principle, this need not always be the case; it's conceivable that we'll be able to perform genetic surgery using tailored retroviruses, for example; such surgery could only possibly work at a VERY early stage of development.

At any rate, we're definitely not in a position to be doing this yet; and in my opinion we're a long way from it. Some other solution will have to be found.

By the way, I don't find the "they can't consent" argument to be strong at all. Neither can a newborn -- the parents can consent for him or her. The rest of your argument is better, particularly the part about the procedure bearing NO benefit for the zygote.

-Billy