Uprooting the Stem Cell Controversy - Why Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Wrong

Response to: Embryo Ethics: The Moral Logic of Stem-Cell Research, by M.J. Sandel, NEJM, July 15 2004, Vol 351(3)

On July 15, 2004, the New England Journal of Medicine published "Embryo Ethics - The Moral Logic of Stem-Cell Research," a perspective to rebut opposition to the use of human blastocysts for stem cell research. I appreciate the logical and thoughtful manner in which the author presents his case. Thankfully, Michael J. Sandel, D.Phil. has correctly pinpointed the focal point of the debate about the stem-cell issue.

First, there ought to be some rules of engagement for this debate. If Dr. Sandel is persuasive that embryonic life is not worth preserving over research, one ought to have no ethical qualm about the matter. I agree with Dr. Sandel that the fulcrum of these see-sawing arguments is the issue of the humanity of embryonic life. If it is convincing that this human life is inherently valuable in its embryonic stage, then stem cell research on embryos ought to be rejected.

Mr. Sandel's social constructionist analysis equivocates the idea of Oak with what it means to be an Oak tree. The implication is that because the towering Oak trees we see are the pinnacle of the trees' development, they must be more important and valuable than their less mature siblings. I argue that the genetics and phenotypes of the Oak plant are expressed throughout a continuum of the Oak's life. Given the circumstances, Oaks express the phenotypes most advantageous to them, whether this means budding, synthesizing hormones, or sprouting roots. The fact that an Oak expresses itself as an acorn or a "tree" is trivial to its basic Oak existence. Who is to say that an Oak tree is more of an Oak than a sapling? Who is to say weathered residents are more human than young pre-med students?

"It does not follow...that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm." The operative word in Mr. Sandel's quote is "I". Humans might enjoy the shade and aesthetics of trees, but if we were squirrels, we might as well argue that acorns are all the more valuable than Oaks. We would justify our assessment: Oaks are just a developmental period in the plant's life until life is truly valuable in the form of the edible acorn. Extrapolating from this utilitarian point of view, the value of life is a matter of perspective. Ergo, those who deem some life worthless are justified in discarding it.

Genetically (read: inherently), the acorn and the oak tree both contain the nucleic blueprints that are responsible for the development of each. That is to say the acorn and the tree are different forms of what is in general an "Oak". It is ironic that the analogy of the oak tree was mentioned. Aristotle, the patriarch of the scientific method, first used this analogy and established the essentialist tradition by concluding that Oak trees and Oak acorns are different versions of what is inherently the plant classified under the genus Quercus.

In high school biology, we learn that every procession of life is a different form of the unending causal chain we call the life cycle. Frogs exist as eggs, tadpoles, froglets, and as mature breeders that create the cycle all over again. The cell theory, the fundamental assessment of what cells are and how they work, also describes this unending chain of life.

Dr. Sandel implicitly agrees that embryonic life is in fact human life. On face value, this means Dr. Sandel agrees that dismantling these zygotes is the equivalent of dismantling living humans; however this "problem" is evaded when he states, "Human life develops by degrees."

Certainly life "develops" and changes in different degrees, however this side steps the issue of whether the degree a life changes is relevant to its inherent worth, the issue at hand. Assuming that it is, its logical conclusion means that infants are of less value than adolescents, which are of less value than the senile. If we don't believe life, in any of its stages or "developmental periods," is inherently valuable, then any alternative theory that defines the value of life can and, if accepted, will mean absurd and tragic results. One such example, as Mr. Sandel himself mentions, was the ghoulish experimentation by Nazi doctors.

by Randeep Singh Hothi, a student at De Anza College

With editorial assistance from Professor Cynthia Kaufman, Albert Cipriani, and Andrew Garvin.