A Massachusetts-based company recently announced the results of its unprecedented experiment in cloning. For the first time ever, an embryo has been cloned, creating a cluster of cells to be used as a source of stem cells. These cells can form other cells or tissues in the human body. This technology could be used to treat diseases such as diabetes, cancer, AIDS and neurodegenerative disorders. President Bush is standing firmly behind his anti-cloning position.
The company that has completed the experiment has specifically stated that they have no interest in cloning humans, but only using this technology to assist in the research and treatment of diseases. Many ask, what’s wrong with that?
Opponents of the research, including many religious and anti-abortion groups, firmly believe an embryo is a human being with rights. These rights, then, should be extended to it just as they would to anyone else. The destruction of an embryo is the destruction of a human life.
But for those who don’t believe life begins at conception, week-old clusters of cells, blastocysts, can be an incredibly exciting opportunity for medical research. When conceived naturally, blastocysts are not implanted in the uterus by this time.
Most scientists argue that an embryo is not a person until it is at least two weeks old. Some believe that only non-religious people support this research, yet many Protestant, Islamic and Jewish sects support embryonic stem cell research.
It seems rather difficult, quite a stretch of one’s imagination, in fact, to accept that a week-old cluster of cells without any identifying features constitutes a person with the same rights as those involved in these decisions. If the research can establish a scientific basis to grow a new liver or heart for a person in need of a transplant, or to cure the degenerative disorder in a person with Parkinson’s disease, should we advocate that the fully-developed lives of those who would benefit are not more important than some assumed rights for a cluster of cells?
If I were presented with a situation of choosing between a cluster of cells, or allowing a beloved family member or good friend to benefit from this amazing new technology, I would much prefer my family member or friend to receive the latest medical care.
Should this argument be more narrowly viewed it would be difficult for many to choose to continue to suffer rather than take advantage of the wonderful new technology. We are presented with an amazing opportunity to assist those who suffer from terrible diseases, and we must offer those who are unquestionably human beings the best chance to experience life.
Sara Marie Eichenberger, the voice of realism, is a senior in international relations theory and military/diplomatic history. She can be reached for comment at .
