WASHINGTON WATCH Bret Kincaid
Miracle at What Price? Physicians, scientists, and others desperately wanting treatment for an alphabet soup of diseases and injuries are eagerly seeking cures from the scientific research of stem cells. They seem to hold much promise. Adult stem cell (ASC) research has already led to cures for many ailments, and no moral controversy surrounds their use. That cannot be said of research on embryonic stem cells (ESCs), the cells that naturally multiply and differentiate into any kind of cell type, which can then (probably) be used to treat organ ailments. They have been crowned the “gold standard” in stem cell research because they “offer great benefit,” have “enormous life-saving potential,” and are most versatile—that is, “most useful.” These are the words we hear over and over again about these miraculous cells. But the miracle has its price: the destruction of the human embryo from which they come. Despite this cost, many in the pro-life camp are supporting President Obama’s recent lifting of some of former President Bush’s 2001 federal restrictions on financing embryonic stem cell research. In April, the National Institutes of Health issued their guidelines (open to public comment) that “allow funding for research using human embryonic stem cells that were derived from embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for that purpose.” A Rasmussen poll in March found that most selfidentified pro-lifers oppose Obama’s expansion of embryonic stem cell research, but about a third either support it or are undecided. Both sides in this internecine debate
in the pro-life camp use pragmatic arguments to make their case. Opponents appropriately point out how productive adult stem cell research has already been, but they often overstate its promise. And then even while leaders in this camp criticize scientists for claiming too much for the promise of ESC research— rightly pointing out that there are many known and unknown pitfalls not only in the research but also especially in translating research discoveries to viable cures—pro-life opponents promise too much from a recently discovered and celebrated method of reprogramming adult stem cells into “induced pluripotent stem cells” (iPSCs) that act like ESC for research and (hopefully) curative purposes. Likewise, pro-life supporters of ESC research rely heavily on the argument that since IVF embryos will be destroyed anyway, we should put them to good use. As Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, a pro-life
Christian pro-lifers should admit what science and “American can do” won’t: There are moral limits that science must not properly ignore or skirt. The biblical story makes this abundantly clear. If, for instance, one’s biblical interpretation leads one to an absolutist pro-life stance, then other competing goods are subordinate, whether executing a murderer deters crime, killing noncombatants wins a war, destroying an embryo saves an Alzheimer’s victim, or exaggerating the promise of iPSC research sustains the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, a law that prohibits the federal government from funding the production of ESC for purposes of experimentation. John H. Yoder used to remind us that when early Christians were a powerless, persecuted minority they had faith that God was in control of history, so they could be as patient with history’s direction as God was. Rather than killing others to make history turn out
There are moral limits that science must not properly ignore or skirt. Catholic, clumsily put it, “to be pro-cure is to be pro-life.” Coursing through both arguments is American pragmatism, a narrow focus on results.This is a problem not because results don’t matter. They do! But consequentialist reasoning in public discourse too often overwhelms the notion that some goods ought to be protected no matter what, that in some cases means cannot justify ends. As Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, “The means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.” In addition, in the public case made by opponents of ESC research, results language comes off as duplicitous, since most listeners already know that what is really driving the policy position of these pro-lifers is their fundamental conviction that embryos are human beings and that therefore nothing should be done to harm them. Less politic but more truthful, PRISM 2009
40
right, Christians loved their neighbor with every available ethical tool. But when Christians began to assume public leadership, the church came to believe that it was now responsible for history’s course. In our appropriate desire to be responsible and relevant, Christians since have grown increasingly compelled to reach beyond the public language and policy options worthy of a disciple of Christ. In love for our ailing neighbors we will naturally discern and weigh in on public policy designed to produce cures. The God of the biblical drama passionately wants the ill and injured restored to health and wholeness. But may we do it faithfully, as if the one who said “I am the Truth”— and not results — is Lord of history. ★ Bret Kincaid teaches political science at Eastern University in St. David’s, Pa.