Superstition v. progress

The British House of Commons is currently dealing with a series of bills laying down guidelines for embryology in the UK. There are provisions dealing with abortion regulation and in virto fertilization, but the main provision at issue would allow government researchers to work with hybrid embryos, which are animal cells implanted with the nuclei of human cells and used to produce human tissue. Essentially, they are synthetic human stem cells used to make up for a shortage of human embryos available for research.

Predictably, the main opponents of the research are Catholic MPs, clergy and laypeople. They argue that the research is an affront to "human dignity," a frustratingly nebulous term used by opponents to make the case against a broad range of biomedical research. Similarly, the admixture of human and animal tissue is labeled "obscene." These are subjective distinctions which have no place in a scientific debate. Why should the sensibilities of a few Tory MPs be enshrined in law? Why would their view of dignity or obscenity be privileged over that of other Brits?

There is a parallel debate going on in this country, highlighted by Human Dignity and Bioethics, a collection of essays recently submitted to the president by his Council on Bioethics. The essays are fraught throughout with biblical references, which is not surprising given the proclivities of the current administration. The Council was assembled by the president's main adviser on bioethics, Dr. Leon Kass. Kass is the man behind the ban on federal funding for stem cell research. In his essay, he cites Genesis 9:6 as the basis for preventing murder. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

He uses his view of the inviolate human form to justify his opposition to any drastic changes by biomedicine- even those that would lengthen the human lifespan or alleviate suffering. For Kass, the problem with using embryos in research is not merely that the microscopic clusters of human tissue are destroyed in the process- though he is assuredly offended by that- the problem is with the results of successful research. For Kass, genetic disorders are an essential part of the human condition and efforts to cure them are an abomination. I don't know which of those I find more ridiculous. The perverse fetish on human suffering is more offensive, though.

Kass retains a very biblical understanding of human life. He wrote in 1994 that all involuntary bodily functions are shameful, bestial, and indecent. Yawning, coughing, sneezing, and especially blushing reveal a subhuman susceptibility to one's impulses. All should hidden from public view. (I shudder to think how Kass would react if someone farted in his presence.) Add to that antiquated but harmless list of taboos the assertion that women exist for one teleological purpose: to procreate. There is simply no justification for allowing this man's views to be imposed on a modern, secular society. The dietary and social proscriptions of the Hebrews in the Pentateuch are of no use to us 2,800 years later. We are not the same culture. The Hebrews in the later books of the Old Testament didn't even retain the same Mosaic outlook. Imposing Leviticus and Numbers on modern America is just irrational.

Impeding stem cell research is not merely irrational but criminal. It would seem onerous to find a greater affront to human dignity than the material status granted to women in the OT, but I think allowing others to die of Alzheimer's disease fits the bill. We have a profound moral responsibility to advance medical treatments for Alzheimer's and other genetic disorders. There is simply no comparison between the interest of inanimate nucleic compounds in not being manipulated by lab equipment and the interest of human beings in living lives free of unnecessary, painful and disruptive ailments like Parkinson's and cystic fibrosis. As long as the prospect of developing successful treatments justifies the cost of the research, there should be no question whether or not it goes forward. The argument against it is superstition.

Dr. Steven Pinker argues that the meaningful standard in bioethics ought to be autonomy. Human beings should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they undergo pain for some later benefit and whether they live or die. Embryos can't feel pain, so their informed consent is irrelevant. The very idea is nonsensical. "Dignity" is far too subjective a concept to define by legislation. In my view, for instance, there is no greater expression of human dignity, no more eloquent demonstration of our ascension beyond an animal level of existence, than the ability of our species to extract from nature the means to better our own condition. It is an assault on that dignity to block human progress with primitive and superstitious mores. A book of myths written nearly three millennia ago should not dictate who lives or dies today.