10-12-2001
		Stem cell research good if done with caution New technologies hold promise but also many questions.

By Priscila Ribeiro

Guest Writer

``Simplicity is the soul of efficiency.''

-Austin Freeman

Because of their undifferentiated simplicity, stem cells can be seen as one potential antidote for the physical consequences of the fall. Can you imagine a world where Alzheimer and Parkinson's disease are no longer so devastating? Where multiple sclerosis, diabetes and other autoimmune diseases are not life threatening? Where the damaged organs of newborns now considered helpless could be replaced? A world where the paraplegic could walk again? While, admittedly, the use of stem cells for such noble causes is still distant, the vision is there and I believe that some day it will be realized.

The big questions, however, are how are we going to get to this reality and where can we find these elusive totipotent cells? Stem cells can be derived from various sources, including the embryonic blastocyst, embryonic germ cells, the placenta and adult tissue. There are, however, significant ethical issues that need to and have been raised concerning the embryonic sources.

If we could answer one question there would be an overwhelming consensus on how scientists and the general public should respond to the use of embryos for harvesting stem cells. That question, simply, is when does life begin? Some say at the moment of conception. Others point out that there is no immediate differentiation and that the embryo is not even viable right away.

I certainly don't know when life begins, but my mind battles with the respected traditional perspective of life-at-conception and the reality that no cell can function independently. I also don't have that fatalistic, reductionist notion that I am my DNA. So, sometimes, I sincerely do wonder if that little three-day old embryo should be given full human rights and privileges. Nevertheless, I think we should err to the conservative side in recognition of our fallibility.

With any new technology we must be careful to consider our limits. We mustn't let this technology explode in our hands as another Nagasaki and destroy the lives of the innocent.

Unfortunately, sometimes scientists dedicated to their research and engrossed in their revolutionary discoveries become blind to the potential negative consequences of their work. They become, as C.S. Lewis said in ``The Abolition of Man,'' ``men who have sacrificed their own share of traditional humanity in order to devote themselves to the task of deciding what `Humanity' shall henceforth mean.'' The idea of ethics or their conscience as the (divine) guidelines for the professional environment, for scienctists is too twisted with superstition.

Consider this perspective: ``Continued objection to the use of human embryonic stem cells on ethical grounds may inhibit progress or defer this opportunity indefinitely. It is essential that the ethical discussion proceed on a sound scientific basis.'' First the author appears to assume ethics as a stumbling block, but then jumps to create a condition where ethics would be an option: when its foundation is scientific.

While I certainly think we should acknowledge the physical, biological and chemical reality of creation, we all need to recognize that ``Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary'' (Albert Einstein).

By using the scientific method we can catch a few glimpses here and there of the fundamental and elegant laws that govern our universe, but there is human error even in these observations.

The laws of ethics need to transcend our own fallibility, cultural context and even time. When considering the ethics governing biological research, we especially need to consider the future generations. We have a human prerogative to use all our talents and tools, scientific or otherwise, in order to continue redeeming our fallen world, but we must not drop our humanity as we pick up the pipette and work. In controlling and manipulating our genetics by using these simple cells, we are simultaneously using this power to make of ourselves what God would have us (or what we please) and giving this power to some other authorities to make of humanity what they please.