Scholars explore stem cell research

Is stem cell research ethical? Should it even be pursued? Dozens packed the Fulton Debate room Wednesday to hear four different perspectives on the future of stem cell research, a topic heavily laden with issues of morality and feasibility.

The panelists included Lisa Cahill, Monan professor of theology, Hille Haker, associate professor of Christian ethics at Harvard Divinity School, Rev. Josef Schuster, S.J., professor of moral theology at Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt, and Thomas Shannon, professor of religion and ethics at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

"In principal, there is a case to be made to use stem cells in research, but not so fast," said Shannon. She then questioned if genetics will solve everything.

Shannon spoke of the recent revelation that some of the stem cell lines in use in the United States have been tainted as a result of being grown on mouse or bovine cultures, making them unusable for humans.

He emphasized that science should be focused on prevention of disease rather than what he called rescue medicine. Shannon also stated his belief that the focus on cures takes away the importance of creating healthy environments.

Haker questioned the priorities of global health care, the blurring of basic and applied research, and the gender, class, and race involved in bioethics.

"Biotechnology and biomedicine are not committed to overcoming the gap [between industrialized and non-industrialized countries]," Haker said.

She also mentioned that stem cell research is basic and shouldn't be subject to the expectations of profits or immediate application.

"Reproduction and research should be separated as much as possible," said Haker, warning against the commoditization of the bodies of the poor and of women. She emphasized her belief that this technology would exploit the poor.

Schuster focused on the ethics surrounding embryos. "What is the proper moral statute of the human embryo?" he said. "The human being is different from all other beings by his ability to be and to act morally."

Schuster also said that man can abuse his liberty and degenerate as no other animal ever could.

He added that life cannot be transient, but must be something that persists through all phases, including when one is an embryo.

Cahill addressed the value of the embryo, the value of research, and the value of justice in health care access. She described her search for common ground between those wishing to end stem cell research entirely and those wishing to advance it. She echoed the sentiment that "the benefits have been overpriced and overpromised."

Stem cell research is unfair to many Americans, she said, particularly those without health care, which number 45 million, or those who cannot pay for any gene therapy out of pocket.

Cahill concluded her section with three items for her agenda, which included common law binding to both public and private stem cell research, a law that would prohibit the creation of embryos for stem cell research, and to outlaw the patenting of anything dealing with embryonic research.