In Vitro Hypocrisy: stem cell technology and the religious right

While two new techniques for generating embryonic stem cells are designed to address the moral concerns of some right-wing religious groups, they only call further attention to the absurdity of the original objections. In the first of two papers published online October 16 by the journal Nature, scientists describe the delicate removal a single cell from a newly fertilized embryo, allowing the creation of a line of stem cells without destroying the embryo. The second paper outlines an even more transparent exercise in bioethical tightrope-walking: wherein the source embryo is genetically modified to make it incapable of implanting in the womb. Neither technique solves any real scientific problem, and the opponents of research will undoubtedly continue to rely on pseudo-secular philosophical contortion to maintain a sectarian position.

The particular rhetorical attention paid to the destruction of embryos in stem cell research has been mostly divorced from its context. As a practical matter, researchers obtain human embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics, which have a large supply of excess embryos that will never be implanted in a woman. These embryos will either be destroyed, or alternatively used by researchers to develop cures for terrible diseases. The new, "non-destructive" technique for the derivation of stem cells would indeed "preserve" embryos - right up to the point when they are discarded after the procedure. After all, there is no vast reservoir of infertile women dreaming of the day they might be implanted with the genetic product of a random couple. Adoption is an easier, less expensive, and morally worthy option for would-be parents unconcerned with biological lineage.

In a similar vein, genetically modifying the leftover embryos to be incapable of implanting in a woman would change their moral status only if we choose to ignore their original destination: the dumpster in back of the IVF clinic. Fundamentalists concerned about the immortal soul of each and every fertilized embryo are strangely silent about the veritable massacres carried out in the daily operation of IVF clinics - presumably because the clientele is wealthier, whiter, and more sexually virtuous than the "licentious" young women whom they condemn from the picket lines outside abortion clinics. Banning IVF is, for the moment, politically impossible, and the state has not yet taken to conscripting handmaidens for the sanctified disposal of excess embryos. Criminalizing abortion procedures will remain the overriding priority for the religious right. For mainstream ethicists and legislators who respect the constitutional separation of church and state, the most reasonable stem cell policy is a simple one: banning the sale of embryos and their derivatives.

If IVF clinics receive no financial compensation for providing embryos to researchers, there will be no strong incentive to overstep ethical boundaries. If principled opposition to stem cell research is truly rooted in a dystopian vision of "fetus farms," then the essential role of government should be to regulate the economic incentives within the biotech industry. While the business lobby invariably becomes uneasy at any mention of government regulation, they would do well to persuade the other members of the Republican coalition to support a less draconian balance between the interests of scientific progress and ethical vigilance.