 "Photo:")
Saturday's 30th annual Bioethics Conference, hosted by the Mendel Society of Boston College, explored the intersection of bioethics and health law. Sarah Catalano, conference chair and A&S '09, welcomed all those attending. "The purpose of the conference is to create an atmosphere that promotes reflection, conversation, and academic exchange between the speakers and audience," said Catalano in an interview for The Heights.
Einer R. Elhauge, J.D., director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, was the keynote speaker for the day. Elhauge spoke on regulating the engineering of the human body, through either genetic, or non-genetic means such as plastic surgery and hormonal treatment.
Elhauge began his discussion by establishing the problem with status quo baselines. These, he said, are not only historically contingent, but are hard to define in a world that includes a multitude of ethnic backgrounds. Consequently, while poor dental hygiene may have been expected during the Middle Ages, it is hardly considered the norm in contemporary society. Similarly, the vast range of genetic variability and the diversity of genetic backgrounds make it hard to establish a norm for any given population.
Elhauge questioned the distinction between disease and gene. "Why can't a subpar gene be considered a disease?" he said.
Elhauge also explained his consequentialist approach to the question of genetic manipulation, that is, he approached the problem based on the benefits and costs incurred by individuals and by society. Elhauge divided the benefits into two categories: distributional and productive.
The purely distributional effects of genetic manipulation, Elhauge determined, were in fact detrimental to society as they do not produce a net societal benefit, but do incur a personal cost. As an example, Elhauge used the case of a student using Ritalin to perform better on a standardized test. While the student may consider the benefits of a higher SAT score greater than the side effects of the drug, if society were to engage in this same action, average SAT scores would simply increase, no net benefit would be incurred, yet the side effects would remain a cost to society.
Elhauge maintained that the difficulty of determining when to regulate human engineering comes in discerning which benefits are distributional and which are productive, and, in the case that benefits are productive, how they weigh against personal and externalized costs.
After Elhauge's presentation, several concurrent sessions ensued. Stephen Pope, professor of theology at BC, presented a paper on stem cells and social justice. Pope held a twofold thesis: He said that stem cells have been distorted in their role in medical research, and he prioritized basic healthcare over high-end medical research.
Pope explained the need for morality in scientific research. While science is widely believed to provide an objective understanding of the world, Pope explained that scientific research may be put to less altruistic use, citing examples of Hiroshima, weapons of mass destruction, Tuskegee, and Auschwitz. "Science as such cannot provide a normative basis for decision making," he said. "[Science] does not tell us how it should be used."
Finally, Pope made an appeal regarding a characteristic of Christianity preferential for the poor. Noting that the current benefits of stem cell research are available mainly to those wealthy enough to pay for these treatments, Pope described the need to increase federal funds to make current biological technologies more widely available. "Appropriate schemes of justice have to begin with basic needs," said Pope. He concluded that the government must make a serious commitment to improving basic health care, not out of compassion and altruism, but out of a sense of justice.
Mary Ann Chirba-Martin, J.D., professor at BC Law School, presented the current situation of the debate of federal and state regulation of stem cell research. Chirba-Martin began with an overview of stem cells, cells that can differentiate into a variety of body (somatic cells). Chirba-Martin distinguished between adult stem cells, which are limited in their differentiation, and embryonic stem cells, which can differentiate into a wide array of somatic cells.
Currently, Chirba-Martin observed, the debate over stem cell technology focuses on how stem cells are acquired. While adult stem cells can be obtained from placental tissue, embryonic stem cells come only from the blastocyst, a cluster of undifferentiated cells that develops approximately five days after the fertilization of gametes.
Although blastocysts are not yet implanted in the uterine wall, once implanted, they have the potential to develop into an embryo and eventually into a child. The question is whether or not a blastocyst is considered a human being with equal rights under the law.
Chirba-Martin then explained the present situation of regulations on stem cell research. Currently, there are three sources of regulation: government legislation, government agencies, and professional self-regulation. The U.S. government does not provide funding that may lead to the development of new lines of human stem cells, that is, it does not fund research leading to the creation of blastocysts which will be destroyed in the course of research. Although federal funding is allowed to be spent on research on existing lines of stem cells, these lines are compromised as they have been contaminated, and they provide very limited prospects for scientists.
Neither the U.S. government nor U.S. agencies, however, limit the research on blastocysts funded by private donors and state governments. Chirba-Martin concluded that current legislation on stem cell research creates a situation of brain drain both within the individual states, as well as in the exportation of scientists to nations that are more supportive of this line of research.
Catalano said she was pleased with the questions raised by the conference and the dialogue that occurred. "I believe that our conference was successful in stimulating critical thinking and increasing the awareness of bioethical issues. We were impressed by this year's turnout. We had participation from schools around the Boston area such as Boston University, Harvard, BC Law, Providence, MIT, and Harvard Law," she said.
Be the first to comment on this article!