General Medicine

» tinuviel - Stem cell research

You know P_Al, when reading certain arguments being proposed by members of the scientific community whose breadth of knowledge is daunting, lay people (like me) might not always be able to pounce on precisely what is wrong in those arguments. But they can usually smell it. You read in my last post what my stance is on the stem cell research issue: I understand the need for it, but I am not about to deny the gravity of the situation by reducing the status of the foetus as a human and a life.

The reason I am here again arguing is that I detect a lack of honesty in the arguments of these proponents of stem cell research who base its acceptability on the idea that a zygote or embryo is not a life. All the arguments in the "genetic view" section of the article you linked to resemble desperate attempts at finding elusive justification for doing something that has already been decided on. I know because those are precisely the kinds of arguments I present to myself when I want the freedom to do things I probably shouldn't do. It's called rationalization. I get the feeling these scientists are trying to convince themselves. Sometimes the feeblest of arguments are enough to convince us of things that we already want to believe.

Here is the article again: http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

(I should note that these are not necessarily the views of the author, Scott Gilbert)

Several of the points presented in Scott Gilbert's book chapter "When does human life begin?" rely on the fact that zygotes and embryos face challenges in their journey toward birth. We hear arguments that tell us there's a 50% chance that the foetus will be aborted or become a part of the placenta (I suppose this refers to the placenta of another developing embryo?). Yet all this really proves is that the foetus lives in a hostile environment. This just means that the female body possesses what the foetus needs to survive, but it also contains hazards. This can be compared to the situation of a fully grown human whose chances of making it from birth to old age are complicated by the many hazards present in our environment. I've never heard anybody argue that because people's chances of living till old age are less than 100%, it is acceptable to randomly select any one of them for lethal research procedures that will be of benefit to the race as a whole. This particular argument is therefore a very feeble one.

Another argument Gilbert presents is the possibility of the zygote's splitting into more than one individual of similar genetic makeup. What surprises me is that this argument is used to *decrease* the importance of the zygote. It is more sensible to me for such a possibility to make it *less* palatable to scientists to casually conduct this destructive type of research. It is almost as though they are arguing that because identical twins have identical genes, they are not to be considered as important as other people. They might not have thought of it (or even meant it) in that way, but that is the next logical extension of such an idea.

In my opinion, an individual is unique once no other identical body exists beside it. If and when the zygote does split, then the two become distinct, and are individuals for other reasons.

But, the feeblest argument of all is the one in which scientists say "there is no 'moment of fertilization' at all." Gilbert here cites the fact that fertilization takes 12-24 hours to complete. He cites all the time that it takes for sperm to get ready for fertilization, plus the time it takes for the sperm to penetrate the ovum, plus the further time it takes for the 'diploid-ization' to be complete. My question here is this: when exactly do scientists harvest these stem cells? Before or after the "the formation of a diploid individual."?

Virtually everyone who considers fertilization to be the beginning of life takes it to mean that life begins *once fertilization is complete.* The fact that fertilization is an extended process is no argument against the idea that fertilization, once complete, gives rise to a human life. This so-called argument is an interesting bauble meant to distract from the real question. The same is true of the possibility of a split zygote to recombine before being implanted into the uterus. It is an interesting and amazing fact, but it doesn't contradict the idea of the zygote as representing life (whether it be one or many).

We kill animals for food, and though we might disagree on whether or not it is wrong, no one denies that the act constitutes killing or that these animals once possessed life. This is an analogy, not an identity: I know that a full grown animal cannot be compared to a zygote. However, the point I am making here is one about honesty and integrity. All I want to see scientists do is, with integrity and maturity, acknowledge the gravity of the situation that exists when a zygote is used for stem cell research. A zygote represents one of the earliest stages in the development of a human being. Yet, it is also a very important stage. No grown person--no scientist--could have existed if they had been destroyed in the embryonic stage. What I'm saying to scientists is this: take responsibility for what the research represents, or let us all as humans share it, but don't deny its seriousness.

-- posted by tinuviel