THESE have been a wild few days for biomedicine. At the National Academy of
Sciences in Washington DC, Italian fertility specialist Severino Antinori and
his colleagues defended their plans to clone a human, facing a hostile audience.
And over at the White House, President George W. Bush relaxed his opposition to
the use of federal funds for research on human stem cells
(see 鈥淐lone encounters鈥�
and 鈥淭wo cheers鈥�).
Both events signal changes in thinking about the most controversial issues in
biomedicine. Arguments that present absolute moral rights are giving way to
considerations of the common good. The influence of religious leaders is being
rapidly replaced by that of bioethicists.
The President鈥檚 arguments are unexpectedly pragmatic for a man who makes much
of his religious beliefs. Stem cells, he explains, offer 鈥渋nfinitely adaptable
human cells to replace damaged or defective tissue鈥�. The dilemma is that the
stem cells most likely to confer benefits are derived from 鈥渟pare鈥� human embryos
created during IVF procedures. Bush reconciles his opposition to the taking of a
potential human life and his support for medical research by only agreeing to
fund work on existing stem cell lines. As he put it: 鈥淲hile it is unethical to
end life in medical research, it is ethical to benefit from research where life
and death decisions have already been made.鈥�
The logic of his ruling appears elegant but crumbles under scrutiny. If
useful new stem cell lines are now created鈥攁s they will be by researchers
who use private funds or work in other countries鈥攖hen they too become the
products of a 鈥渓ife and death鈥� decision already made. According to the ruling no
cell lines created after 9 August are to be used by US government scientists.
But it is surely only a matter of time before this ruling has to be updated.
Advertisement
Opposition to Antinori鈥檚 plans was similarly based on a pragmatic view. His
most vocal critics argue that the cloning of a human should not be permitted
because it is far too likely to go wrong. But that is only an argument for
delaying until the process is better understood.
The problem in deciding biomedical issues through utilitarian argument is
that policy soon becomes nothing other than a reflection of the prevailing
public view on costs and benefits. That is all very democratic but requires that
issues are well debated. And the public does have a habit of springing
surprises. There are plans to create 鈥渃loned鈥� battery chickens that are
resistant to disease and grow faster
(see 鈥淐lone farm鈥�).
Will the public actually be keen to eat them?