Scott Fischbach: Stem-cell proposal crossed an ethical line

Harvesting embryos for their parts is unnecessary, given advances in science.

By SCOTT FISCHBACH

Last update: June 9, 2008 - 5:56 PM

State Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, lambasted Gov. Tim Pawlenty for vetoing her stem-cell research bill (commentary, June 2). Kahn's misleading rhetoric disguises a radical and inhumane commitment to taking young human life regardless of advances in ethical research.

Her bill would allow taxpayer dollars to fund University of Minnesota research that requires killing human embryos. Further, the bill legalizes human cloning in order to supply more embryos for such research.

Kahn says her legislation "outlawed human cloning," but the bill explicitly authorizes "somatic cell nuclear transplantation" (SCNT), which is the technique by which cloning occurs. The National Institutes of Health calls SCNT "the scientific term for cloning."

In truth, what Kahn's legislation outlaws is allowing a cloned human to develop through the "embryo, fetal, and newborn stages" (so-called "reproductive cloning"). The bill sanctions the practice of creating a new human and then killing him or her, before birth, for research purposes ("therapeutic cloning").

This bill crosses a fundamental ethical line. Cloning and embryo-destructive research relegate a particular class of human beings to the status of a natural resource that we may harvest for our own ends. Instead of protecting the youngest and most vulnerable members of the human family, Kahn wants to treat them like chattel -- and force taxpayers to foot the bill. (Fittingly, she refers to parents as "owners" who may "donate" their embryonic offspring to be carved up for experimentation.)

Kahn offers the standard rationale that only "stored embryos destined for destruction" will be harvested, but this argument fails for at least three reasons. First, Kahn herself advocates creating brand-new humans for the sole purpose of farming them for useful parts. Second, no one suggests that we kill and harvest terminally ill patients, inmates on death row or dying soldiers on the battlefield, even though they are "going to die anyway." Kahn assumes that the embryo is not a valuable human person and hence begs the question. Finally, she ignores the thriving practice of embryo adoption, whereby embryos "left over" from in vitro fertilization are adopted into families and allowed to grow up.

Kahn's support for creating and destroying innocent human life is even more alarming given the existence of promising, ethical alternatives to embryo-destructive research. Already, adult stem cells have treated over 70 different human diseases, and hundreds more human trials have been approved by the FDA.

Meanwhile, a technique called direct reprogramming has generated induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, which are as versatile as embryonic stem cells without the drawback of immune rejection. And iPS cell research, unlike cloning, doesn't require the dangerous harvesting of eggs from young women.

Direct reprogramming is promising enough that Ian Wilmut, the scientist who famously cloned Dolly the sheep, has now abandoned research into human cloning and says embryo-destructive research is unnecessary. "I have no doubt that in the long term, [iPS cells] will be more productive," he says.

Kahn's legislation will be back. Minnesotans must stand up for fundamental human equality and for the rights of the most vulnerable among us.

Scott Fischbach, Minneapolis, is executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.

Recent Commentary stories

Dave Churchill: Airport noise (and I don't mean planes) - June 9, 2008

Dave Churchill: Airport noise (and I don't mean planes) - To walk through almost any terminal is to be bombarded by amplification. More

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS