E-Letter responses to:

editorial: Janet D. Rowley, Elizabeth Blackburn, Michael S. Gazzaniga, and Daniel W. Foster Harmful Moratorium on Stem Cell Research Science 2002; 297: 1957 [Summary] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Presuppositions

Michael L. Sierk   (23 September 2002)

Presuppositions 23 September 2002
Michael L. Sierk, Postdoctoral Fellow University of Virginia Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Presuppositions	Several of the comments made in the Editorial by Rowley et al. demonstrate presuppositions that are widely accepted without question by the research community but are not accepted by the public at large, and certainly not by those opposed to embryonic stem cell research or human cloning. Namely, the research community assumes that human embryos are not deserving of protection, merely of "respect," and that the possibility of curing disease overrides whatever ethical or moral concerns one might have about the status of the embryo. This is reflected in such comments as "The need to fund research on the actual potential of human embryonic stem cells to treat human disease is urgent... Yet research with cells from human embryos requires great sensitivity and careful thought." This statement is true, but to most of the research community, careful thought does not include the possibility of not doing research on embryonic stem cells. It also does not explain what is meant by urgent. Certainly everyone is in agreement that we should endeavor to relieve suffering and cure disease, but is there some reason that these efforts are somehow more urgent now, as opposed to 20 years ago? Those suffering from disease now are not more deserving of treatment than those who suffered in the past. No one can reasonably argue that our country is not pouring huge amounts of resources into biomedical research. It is condescending to claim that countries that rush ahead with ES cell research without carefully considering the ethical and moral ramifications (of which there are very few at the moment) are somehow "more enlightened" than we are. The authors state that an Institutional Review Board "protects the health, safety, and privacy of the individuals involved in the project." This is exactly the point that is being debated. Opponents of embryo destruction argue that human embryos are "individuals" and should not be destroyed to serve the needs of the current adult population. Glossing over or ignoring this objection does not help the debate and also does not help answer the deep questions our society are facing about the moral rights of individuals, whether they are embryos, fetuses, infants, or adults. It is true that we are urgently in need of answers, but the question is not "what are the capabilities of embryonic stem cells," but "should we view human organisms as means to an end, as opposed to ends in their own right."