Ever since last week's monumental breakthrough by UW-Madison's own researcher Dr. James Thomson, which turned human skin cells into stem cells without using a human embryo, people have misunderstood its significance.
Many on this campus have asserted that this discovery should not mean the demise of embryonic stem cell research. They seem shocked by the idea that science should be influenced by a moral standard. The real problem for these people is that they don't share the same morality as those who oppose the destruction of embryos. They're missing the point - that this breakthrough should mean the eventual end of embryonic research.
Even Thomson struggled with the ethics of working with human embryos. He said in the New York Times, If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.""
Science does, and should, adhere to certain moral principles. Imagine the progress that could potentially be made in the field of psychology if researchers were allowed to extensively manipulate the environments of adult human subjects. Ethical concerns prevent them from doing so, and most people understand that. So what's different about embryonic research?
Mostly, disagreement over a crucial point: the question of when life begins. To those who view conception as the beginning of life, research that results in the destruction of an embryo is essentially murder. Others say an embryo is not yet a person, and doesn't have the right to life yet. Let's look at the facts.
The embryo is the product of both a female ovum and a male sperm, and it contains the same genetic makeup that it would if it fully developed into an adult. Does that not define a person's identity in some respect? Every human who's ever lived was once an embryo. The embryonic stage of development, about the first eight weeks after conception, is simply one stage of a person's life. Yet many people cannot believe that those cells could be called a person.
If you accept the premise that an embryo is a person, which is not too unreasonable, then the following question is presented: Is it justifiable to destroy any human life for the sake of potential benefits for others? Does the end justify the means? If an embryo is human life, then there's no fundamental difference between its destruction and the destruction of an adult, in the same way that there's no fundamental difference between the murder of a 20-year-old and the murder of a 30-year-old. No matter how beneficial it is to scientific progress, destroying or subjecting an embryo to significant harm isn't justified.
It's too early to claim an end to the debate over embryonic research, but that time will come. Of course, more research is needed to determine if these new cells really do offer all the same benefits as embryonic cells. If this is the case, then embryonic research should not continue. With a less controversial alternative available, federal funding would be less likely than ever. The legacy of embryonic stem cell extraction will be that it led to the discovery of this non-embryonic method, and shifted the focus of the field.
I care deeply about scientific progress in treating and curing all medical conditions, but not at any cost. This breakthrough shows that we don't have to bend our ethical principles for progress. That's the greatest promise of this discovery - it allows us to continue advancing our biological knowledge, without sacrificing the moral high ground.
Brian Bisek is a sophomore with an undecided major. We value your feedback. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
