Stem cell research offers great promise for treating some of our most serious diseases. Scientists speculate that these primordial human cells—that multiply tirelessly and can grow into every kind of human tissue—will allow them to grow replacement tissues for individuals with such conditions as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes. They also theorize that such research will enhance scientific understanding of human development and enable them to devise more effective drugs. Already investigators have used stem cells to grow skeletal muscle, bone, neurons, and blood vessel cells, as well as human heart muscle cells that beat in unison in a laboratory dish. Since the most promising sources of stem cells are human embryos and fetuses, however, this research has also given rise to daunting ethical and religious questions.
The ethical question raised most often by religious thinkers is whether it is acceptable to use embryos—which are necessarily destroyed—in the course of stem cell research. Some maintain that from the moment of conception embryos are full-fledged human beings and, as such, are due all the protection we give to human beings. Richard Doerflinger, a major spokesperson for a view held by many within the Roman Catholic Church, maintains that "the human individual, called into existence by God and made in the divine image and likeness…must always be treated as an end in himself or herself." He urges scientists to use other sources of stem cells, such as bone marrow and placental cord blood, rather than embryos. The Eastern Orthodox, Southern Baptists, and certain other Christian religious groups join him in maintaining that the use of early stage embryos in stem cell research is morally wrong.
Of course, religious thinkers within a specific tradition do not necessarily take one view of the moral status of embryos. Margaret Farley, for instance, articulates the view of a number of Catholic theologians in stating that while the human embryo in its earliest stages deserves respect, it does not constitute an individualized entity with the moral status of a person. She urges "a return to the centuries-old Catholic position that a certain amount of development is necessary in order for a conceptus to warrant personal status." This developmental view is shared by others in the Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic religious traditions. Islamic scholar Abdulaziz Sachedina finds that the Koran describes the journey of the embryo developmentally and states that the "majority of Sunni and Shiite jurists will have little problem in endorsing ethically regulated research on stem cells." Rabbi Moshe Dovid Tendler explains that "the Judeo-Biblical tradition does not grant moral status to an embryo before forty days of gestation." On these views, excess embryos can be used in ethically justifiable research without moral onus.
Stem cell research also reopens debate about human cloning. One way to grow replacement tissues that will not be rejected by the immune systems of recipients is to employ somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). This is a cloning procedure in which a cell from a patient is injected into a human egg from which the nucleus has been removed; the two are then fused, creating a human embryo. Taking stem cells from this cloned embryo and implanting them into the patient, it is hoped, would avoid rejection difficulties. The creation of embryos by means of cloning, however, raises the concern that such embryos might be implanted in a woman's uterus, leading to the birth of a child. There is great division among religious groups about whether this form of reproduction is morally acceptable. For example, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination, adopted a resolution that accepts cloning human embryos through the fourteenth day of fetal development but opposes implanting them.
Stem cell research also opens the possibility of intervening into the human germline, because it could lead to the creation of "designer" babies whose genes have been modified in ways that will be inherited by their progeny. This would impose a humanly engineered genetic makeup on future generations without their knowledge or consent. Religious thinkers from various traditions have serious reservations about permanently altering a person's genes through such germline interventions. David H. Smith, a prominent Episcopal religious ethicist, remarked at a consultation with the presiding bishop of that church that we should be concerned about genetic interventions, "not because it is intrinsically sinful to alter our genetic makeup," but because of "the dangers of the abuse of power." Rabbi Elliott Dorff observes that "Jews have borne the brunt of campaigns of positive eugenics, both here, in the United States, and in Nazi Germany, and so we are especially sensitive to creating a model human being that is to be replicated through the genetic engineering that stem cell applications will involve."
Concerns about justice in the use of the fruits of stem cell research also have been raised by many religious thinkers. Ronald Cole-Turner, a United Church of Christ minister, believes that the benefits of stem cell research will be distributed unevenly within our current health care system, further privileging the position of the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and weak. He urges that we develop a way to share its benefits universally. The Reverend Demetrios Demopulos of the Eastern Orthodox tradition similarly states that "it is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that the [stem cell] lines be used only for therapeutic procedures that will benefit those in need and not be limited to the few who will be able to afford them."
The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), which advises the president on issues in bioethics, public policy, and federal research, has addressed questions related to the use of embryos and fetuses in stem cell research. After conducting hearings at which religious thinkers and others testified, it recommended federal funding for stem cell research in only two cases: when excess embryos remain after successful infertility treatment and when fetuses remain after abortions. Since these sources of stem cells already exist and would otherwise be discarded, the commission held that it was preferable to use them in research with donor consent.
The NBAC also rejected two other sources of embryos: those resulting from SCNT and those created by other means in the laboratory solely for research purposes. These embryos are brought into being for the specific purpose of being used in ways that would destroy them. The NBAC's recommendation reflects the agreement of almost all testifying religious thinkers that, at minimum, the human embryo deserves moral respect and consideration and should not be destroyed unnecessarily or arbitrarily. The NBAC apparently recognized that these commentators were expressing certain values that not only rest within the province of religious traditions but are also embraced by the larger community.
In the future, additional ethical considerations will also need to be addressed, for such matters profoundly engage the conscience of Americans. We will have to discern whether or not cloning and germline interventions, closely associated with stem cell research, are contrary to values that are important to our common life. We will have to respond to the prophetic concern for justice expressed by religious leaders, calling us to examine the place of stem cell research within the context of the equitable distribution of health care. Should this research succeed, we will have to address our obligation to offer its benefits to both rich and poor.
As new technologies move toward the mainstream of scientific endeavor, religious views are important for shaping moral positions on such novel technological developments as stem cell research. If those who make public policy are to be responsive to the concerns of citizens, they must understand what those citizens' religious traditions conclude about the morality of the use of new biomedical techniques. Moreover, to the assessment of such novel technologies, religious communities bring values that, while informed by their faith, are not exclusively religious. Thus, when religious spokespersons express concerns about treating humans as ends in themselves, about the potential for the abuse of power, or about the need to treat the poor and marginalized in a just manner, they are enunciating values that are not solely faith based. They are invoking values integral to the common life of the larger community, values shared by many persons of different or no religious commitment. Such religious spokespersons remind the community that even in the face of the diversity of religious traditions within it, at its foundation there lies a core of values that provides common ground for moral deliberation and evaluation among its members. They also broaden our moral vision by raising questions of meaning and purpose not typically addressed within contemporary secular ethics. Moral insights and the ways of reasoning of religious traditions can inform, invigorate, and enrich moral discourse within the community.
Cynthia B. Cohen, PhD, JD, is a senior research fellow at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University.
