Opinion: The tougher conversation about stem cells

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

When it comes to definitions of life before birth, our society tends to draw lines in the sand. Are you pro-choice or anti-abortion? Do you consider an embryo a human life or a collection of cells?

But the editorial board’s discussion earlier this week on embryonic stem-cell research revealed a more unsettled group of reactions, even among a board that has been a booster of such research for years, that endorsed Proposition 71 and that welcomed President Obama’s decision to qualify hundreds of new stem-cell lines for federal grants.

At the heart of the matter was this: Is it acceptable to create human embryos with the sole intent of destroying them to create new stem-cell lines? Current law prohibits federal funding from being used for that; for that matter, it also prohibits the use of such money to derive stem-cell lines from any of the 400,000 or so embryos now frozen in fertility labs, even though about 8,000 of those are slated for destruction in any case.

Board members had no qualms about using embryos that would be destroyed, but several shuddered at the thought of creating embryos for the purpose of research, which means for the purpose of destroying them. A couple were unaware that Proposition 71 allows the state bond money to be used for both types of research work.

The question is how we reconcile these two reactions. If we have no problem with the idea of destroying embryos that would have been destroyed anyway, we imply a belief that trash is trash, embryos no different from any other, and we might as well make good use of it. Sort of like turning a milk carton into a bird feeder instead of shipping it off to the landfill, as long as we didn’t create the milk carton to be a bird feeder. To the extent that we as a society have a gut reaction against creating embryos for destruction, though, we are saying we don’t look at these microscopic collections of cells as simply scientific supplies that might be used to bring new life into the world, or to embark on potentially life-saving research, or to simply discard if we have no better use for it.

Perhaps we -- and by this I mean supporters of embryonic stem-cell research -- are of feeling and thought more mixed than we might have assumed.