Decision deferred: stem-cell research

The U.S. Congress adjourned for the midterm elections before having time to consider Sen. Arlen Specter’s roadblock-breaking bill that would finally authorize federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research. Decision deferred.

Meanwhile, the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine to Robert Edwards in honor of his pioneering work in the 1970s, together with Dr. Patrick Steptoe (deceased in 1988), to develop the “in vitro� fertilization (IVF) procedure for treating human infertility. The award comes about 30 years after the fact, largely because of religious objections at the time.

It is difficult for us today to understand the religious objection and outcry against IVF three decades ago. The medical procedure involved retrieving an egg from the ovary of the prospective mother, fertilizing it in a glass container or “petri dish,� with her husband’s sperm, and re-implanting it in the mother’s uterus so she could give normal birth to a perfectly normal child. What could be wrong with that? Millions of couples have benefited.

The IVF procedure opened the door for embryonic stem-cell research, in which a human egg (left over in a fertility clinic and doomed for destruction) could be fertilized with male sperm to become an embryo or “blastocyst� from which pure stem cells could be harvested.

Originally, an embryo was by definition a fertilized embryo. This was thought to have religious implications because in many faiths it was assumed that a human soul was created at the precise moment of fertilization. Others believe that the soul pre-exists physical life, and still others maintain that there is no distinction between the soul and the body.

Today the situation has become more complex, both scientifically and theologically. It is now possible in principle to tweak an unfertilized egg to become an embryo or blastocyst without fertilization, that is, without male sperm being involved. This has been done in animals but not in humans, where there are serious medical and legal concerns.

Nevertheless, a number of highly successful stem-cell therapies have been developed and applied, particularly outside the United States, making use of new methodologies such as “nucleus transfer� to develop embryos or blastocysts and harvest stem-cell lines without using a fertilized egg. I call these “unfertilized embryos,� even though conventionally this appears to be a contradiction in terms. The old rules are out.

Unfortunately, all these methodologies for creating an embryo and extracting stem cells to date result in the destruction of the embryo and thus the loss of actual or potential future life. Therefore, we have to take the religious objection seriously and meet it head on : Are we “playing God�? Are we killing a human life or soul? Is it murder?

No, quite the opposite. When we lay down the lives of human cells or embryos to save actual human lives and health, we obey the highest moral commandment of all: to love and save others.

It would be ironic if, 30 years from now, the Nobel Committee were to award Nobel Prizes for work in embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutics, and we had to shamefully look back and ask ourselves what on earth or in Heaven were our objections to such an obviously humane, altruistic and, frankly, religious practice giving life and health to all.

Sharon resident Anthony Piel is a former director and general legal counsel of the World Health Organization.