The first half of 1999 has seen a flurry of activity regarding research on human stem cells. In January, Harold Varmus, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announced that this type of research could receive federal funds. Varmus, however, promised “a full and open and rigorous process to establish guidelines” for this research since “it is not without controversy.”
If Varmus understated how controversial this research truly is, the public response should have convinced him otherwise. A group of seventy House members and seven Senators wrote to the Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala claiming Varmus’ proposal violates federal law. Shalala replied that the funding decision was “both legal and appropriate.” A group of thirty-three Nobel Prize winners wrote to President Clinton claiming there was a “moral imperative” to pursue stem cell research. Some patient advocacy groups have stated “stem cell research is too promising to impede, slow, or stop.” In contrast, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity in Chicago, and various pro-life organizations have called the research “immoral” (see On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research).
What could be so controversial about funding research on these human cells? The answer lies in how they are obtained. Stem cells have the important ability to develop into almost any of the 210 different types of cells found in the body. Researchers hope to grow stem cells and coax them into becoming brain cells to treat Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease. For diabetic patients whose pancreases do not produce enough insulin, the stem cells would be pushed into becoming pancreatic tissue. In theory, almost any type of tissue could be grown from a batch of stem cells.
The desire to develop new therapies to bring relief to people with these diseases is completely understandable and laudable. Research in these areas is needed. However, research must always be conducted within ethical limits. As promising as potential uses for stem cells look, research is currently limited by their supply. Adults probably contain stem cells within many of their tissues, some having already been found in adult blood and adult bone marrow. However, finding and isolating them has proved to be painstakingly difficult.
Hence, some people greeted with great excitement the November 1998 announcement by two independent US research teams that they had found a new and plentiful source of stem cells: human embryos. Immediately after fertilization, the cells of the embryo start dividing and soon form what is called a blastocyst. Embryos at this stage contain significant proportions of stem cells, which can be removed and grown in research labs. However, these stem cells cannot be separated without destroying the embryos. Hence the central ethical question: Should human embryos be sacrificed for the potentially large benefits their tissues could bring to many human adults? Put another way: Is it okay to kill human embryos so that the lives of human adults may be improved and prolonged?
Central to the resolution of these questions is what we believe to be the status of embryos. Is the embryo a person, with all the rights of other human persons? If so, research on embryos should be conducted within the same guidelines as that on children who cannot give consent themselves. The internationally accepted position is that research involving these people is only ethically appropriate when the person may personally benefit from it and is placed at no significant risk of harm. Clearly, making and killing embryos to extract their stem cells would be unethical within this perspective.
On the other hand, what if embryos are not persons? The only alternative seems to be that they are a bunch of human cells that might become a person some day. In that case, they might be viewed more like human tissues that are transplanted, manipulated, and sometimes destroyed without any serious ethical qualms. This is the position taken by those who support stem cell research.
Yet at the same time, those supporting destructive research on human embryos still want to elevate them above the level of other tissues. When the NIH’s Human Embryo Research Panel reported in 1994 that some embryo research should be federally funded, it also claimed human embryos should be treated with “profound respect.” The respected bioethicist, Daniel Callahan, commented: “I have always felt a nagging uneasiness at trying to rationalize killing something for which I claim to have profound respect” (quoted in Scott B. Rae and Paul M. Cox, Bioethics: A Christian Approach in a Pluralistic Age, 1999, p. 174).
So what are we to think of these microscopic entities we call human embryos? Why do even those who are comfortable killing them for utilitarian purposes still want to claim they are treating them with profound respect? Those approaching these issues from a Christian perspective should always look to Scripture for guidance. Obviously, there is no section on embryo research in the Bible. However, we can still discern a general biblical attitude towards the unborn which should inform our views on these the tiniest members of the human species. A number of general principles can be elaborated.
The first is that Scripture does not state that some humans are persons and others are not. The Bible describes people as being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). There is no suggestion that we must first reach some stage of biological development before we become images of God. Being an image of God involves reflecting the character of God to the world. As such, even as adults we fall far short of how ‘developed’ we should be in this area (Romans 3:23). Only Jesus Christ is the true image of God (Colossians 1:15).
Yet God’s response has not been to destroy those who are less developed as His images. Instead, He offers His grace, strength, and protection to help us develop (Romans 8:29, Colossians 3:10). All humans, whether they accept God’s help or not, remain images of God. As such, he continues to pour his nourishment on them (Matthew 5:45). All humans are entitled to the same respect because all are images of God (Genesis 9:6, James 3:9). Just as humans can develop spiritually, they also develop biologically. But that does not change their status as persons and images of God.
A second principle is that when Scripture refers to people before their birth, personal continuity is always expressed (see Rae and Cox’s fourth chapter here). For example, in Psalm 139, King David shows that he viewed himself as the same person at the time of writing and when he was an “unformed substance” in the womb. In repenting of his adult sinfulness, David notes that this is part of who he has been all along: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). Descriptions of Samson, Job, Isaiah and Jeremiah reveal the same pattern (Judges 13:3-5; Job 3:3; 10:8-11; Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah 1:5). Only continuity is suggested. In Greek, the same word (brephos) is used of the unborn John the Baptist (Luke 1:41, 44), the infant Jesus (Luke 2:12, 16) and older children (Luke 18:15-16). Continuity is the pattern. No change in moral status is suggested. The person who is an adult was also a person when he or she lived in the womb.
A third biblical principle deals with the vulnerability of embryos, and the unborn in general. Throughout the Bible, one of God’s concerns was for the well-being of the weak and vulnerable. Whether it be the widows, orphans, and the poor of the Old Testament, or the women, children, and lepers of the New Testament, God wants them cared for and protected. Jeremiah 22:16 declares that pleading the cause of the afflicted and the needy is central to knowing God.
Protection is frequently an aspect of the Hebrew words used in reference to the unborn, but this is often lost in English translation (see my, “The Bible and Abortion: What of the ‘Image of God’?” in Bioethics and the Future of Medicine, 1995, pp. 199-211). The word sakak conveys the protective aspect of coverings, but is translated “weave” (Psalm 139:13) and “knit” (Job 10:11) in relation to the unborn. In Psalm 139:15 seter is translated “in secret” but actually means a hiding place or shelter. The unborn are not just out of sight in the womb; they are protected there.
Throughout Psalm 139, David reflects on how God’s intimate knowledge of him started in the womb, as did God’s protection. David is therefore encouraged that God will continue to protect him even though his enemies are close by. Elsewhere, God reminds the Israelites that he formed them in the womb so that they will know that he will not forget them, or cease to bless and protect them (Isa.44:2, 21, 24). God’s activity in relation to the unborn is intimately tied to protection. Therefore, protection should also be foremost in the minds of images of God as we interact with the unborn.
Who could be more vulnerable than the embryo? They are too small to see with the naked eye, too underdeveloped to defend themselves, and apparently too inconsequential to warrant defending. Yet the consequences of killing human embryos are the same as those for killing any other human-for that individual at least. Anyone’s premature death is difficult because of the loss of potential. Who might this person have become? What might she have done? Yet precisely the same questions may be asked of every single human embryo who is torn apart to supply stem cells for medical research. Who would this embryonic person have become, if only she had been protected? That is the tragedy of premature death, whether it comes from cancer, AIDS, violence, or being researched to death.
But others face the prospect of premature death from the illnesses which stem cells might some day alleviate. What about the potential for helping them? Only in a utilitarian system do the ends justify all means. Scripture is clearly opposed to such a way of making ethical decisions. For example, Jesus tells us that many will seek to enter heaven because they had done many good deeds. But he will refuse them entry if they did not know him personally (Matthew 7:21-23). God is not just concerned about good outcomes, but cares about how those results were obtained. Such laudable goals and intentions as developing treatments and saving lives do not justify killing other humans, even the smallest human embryos.
Lost in the controversy over embryo research is the fact that much progress has already been made without killing embryos. Stem cell research can continue without killing embryos. Researchers have taken stem cells from adult bone marrow and found ways to make them grow to become either fat, bone, or cartilage cells (Laura Johannes, The Wall Street Journal, 4/4/99, p. B1). Another group coaxed stem cells from adult blood to develop into a variety of different blood cells. Adult stem cells have numerous advantages over embryonic stem cells because they are more developed, more is known about them, and they are much closer to being available as treatments. Elsewhere, drugs are being developed to stimulate stem cells within people’s tissues to replace diseased tissue. This would eliminate the difficult stage of finding stem cells in each type of tissue. Embryos do not have to be killed to develop many of the treatments everyone would like to see available.
The 1994 NIH recommendations to use human embryos in research were never implemented. In 1996, Congress banned all federal funding for research in which human embryos were destroyed, or created purely for research purposes. The stem cell research for which federal funds are now sought would cover only research using stem cells; it would not pay for the destruction of the embryos to get their stem cells. This suggests that some realize there is a moral problem with killing human embryos.
However, the suggestion has been made that the researchers are absolved of all moral responsibility for the deaths of the embryos if they do not directly participate in the killing. Research on embryonic stem cells will be morally tainted by how they are obtained. To claim otherwise means we can turn a blind eye to how everyone obtains their possessions. To suggest otherwise is as incomprehensible as claiming researchers profoundly respect human embryos while killing them. This is only justified by a utilitarian ethic in which the end justifies the means.
God’s ways are different. He calls on us to protect, not destroy, even the smallest and most vulnerable stage of human life. To claim otherwise is to hold that some humans are means to the ends of others. History teaches that this belief only leads to profound injustice and violence.
