In bioethics as in the sciences, enormous discussions often concern the very small. Central to public debate over emerging reproductive and regenerative biotechnologies is the question of the moral status of the human embryo. Because news media have played a prominent role in framing the vocabulary of the debate, this study surveyed the use of language reporting on human embryo research in news articles spanning a two-year period. Terminology that devalued moral status—for example, the descriptors things, property, tissue, or experimental material —was found to outnumber fivefold those that affirmed any degree of moral status above that of inanimate cellular matter; for example, living, human life, or human being. A quarter of the articles failed to note that the embryos under discussion were human. These findings confirm that even among scientific and philosophical experts a diversity of opinion exists on society's moral obligations to nascent human life. The skewed linguistic distribution also indicates...

Human embryo research and the language of moral uncertainty.

The Pontifical Academy for Life published a response about the moral legitimacy of immunizing children with vaccines manufactured using cell strains derived from aborted human fetuses. In order to fully appreciate the level of cooperation involved among different agents, it is important to review the history of the development of these cell strains: “The need to articulate a moral reflection on the matter in question arises mainly from the connection which exists between the vaccines mentioned above and the procured abortions from which biological material necessary for their preparation was obtained.” 1

A brief history of human diploid cell strains.

Under the premise that an embryo is a full person, the argument against using spare IVF embryos for stem cell research is the prisoner analogy. Namely, the analogy contends that just as we may not ravage a prisoner on death row for his body parts, likewise we may not harvest the embryo for its stem cells simply because it is destined for destruction. Here, I show that this comparison does not hold, for an immoral action is committed against the prisoner as a result of certain characteristics present in the prisoner but absent from the embryo. In particular, three wrongs - infliction of suffering, imposition of double punishment, and violation of human dignity - are perpetrated against the prisoner, but do not apply in the case of the embryo. Therefore, I conclude that the repudiation of the analogy implies that it is morally permissible to use spare IVF embryos for the purposes of stem cell research.

The Prisoner Dis-Analogy as a Defense of Stem Cell Research on Spare Embryos

We the undersigned urge you to support Federal funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells. We join with other research institutions and patient groups in our belief that the current National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, which enable scientists to conduct stem cell research within the rigorous constraints of federal oversight and standards, should be permitted to remain in effect. The discovery of human pluripotent stem cells is a significant milestone in medical research. Federal support for the enormous creativity of the US biomedical community is essential to translate this discovery into novel therapies for a range of serious and currently intractable diseases.

Taylor R

Papers

Nobel laureates' letter to President Bush.