Flawed
Thinking on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
by
Christopher Dodson
Executive Director
North Dakota Catholic Conference
July 2006
A recent poll conducted by
International Communications Research found that most
Americans oppose federal funding of stem cell research that
requires destroying human embryos. Although we don’t
have reliable regional data, North Dakotans probably oppose
funding of such research at a rate higher than the national
average. North Dakota law, in fact, not only prohibits
state funding for such research, but also prohibits the
research itself.
In general, North Dakotans support human life and oppose
taxpayer funding for activities that threaten or destroy
human life. North Dakota law prohibits human cloning, which
is, incidentally, a necessary part of embryonic stem cell
research. State law restricts abortion and prohibits state
funding for abortion. State law clearly bans
physician-assisted suicide.
When electing its federal representatives, North Dakotans
have been willing to send representatives with mixed
records on life issues. All three support, in principle, a
constitutional right to abortion. However, they have
opposed government funding for abortion and assisted
suicide. In fact, Senator Byron Dorgan sponsored the
Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, arguing
that, no matter where people stand on the rightness of
assisted suicide, “federal taxpayers should not be
required to pay for this controversial
practice.” North Dakotans might expect,
therefore, that their Congressional representatives would
oppose federal funding for research that requires
destroying human embryos. They do not. For some reason,
they consider funding for that controversial practice to be
different.
In support of that change in position, they might claim, as
many have, that the public overwhelmingly supports such
funding. The truth of that claim depends on how the poll
question is worded. When the question correctly asks
whether the respondent supports federal funding of research
that requires the destruction of
human embryos, the answer is usually
negative. If the question fails to point out that human
embryos must be destroyed, the answer is affirmative. In
this respect, polls on human embryo research do not differ
much from polls on abortion. Despite the similar divide in
public opinion, taxpayer funding for human embryo research
is, according to them, acceptable, but public funding of
abortion is not.
The willingness to support funding for one controversial
practice, but not others was just one of several
inexplicable, bizarre, and nonsensical positions and
statements made by proponents of funding during the recent
Senate debate on the issue.
Consider, for example, the decrying that, without
government funding, embryonic stem cell research in the
United States is falling behind such research in other
nations. What is most disturbing about this bald face
appeal to global economic competition is that it is
presented as if it alone is reason to support government
funding. How we compare to other nations is irrelevant if
it is something that we should not do, or do not want to
do. If other countries out-performed U.S. agriculture by
eliminating family farms, would North Dakota’s
representatives support abandoning the family farm system
in favor of large-scale factory production? If the removal
of environmental protections and just working conditions in
other countries boosted their gross domestic product,
should we do the same? Let other nations race to the
ethical bottom.
Several senators noted that the embryos, since they are
“extras” created through fertility treatments,
will be “discarded,” “destroyed,”
and “become waste.” Some stopped at this point
to make the utilitarian argument that using them for
research is a better use for the embryos. While this type
of argument is morally flawed, it is, at least, coherent
compared to those who went on to argue that discarding
embryos is not the same as “murdering embryos.”
I know that under criminal law “murder” has
certain elements and that not all killing is
“murder.” I don’t think, however, that
the senator was talking about the nuances of criminal law.
By “murder,” he meant killing. This reasoning
returns us to pagan Rome and Greece where killing a child
was murder, but infanticide by abandonment was okay.
At the heart of the fight for government funding is a
philosophy that scientists and technicians of science
should be free to pursue whatever avenues they desire, and
get government funding for it. This is evident from such
statements like, “scientists, not Congress, should
determine what is good science,” “researchers,
not the Senate, should decide what type of research to
pursue.” We should hope that these statements and
others like them are examples of excited rhetoric over
substance instead of a course for our future. In a
democratic republic, who, if not our elected
representatives, is going to place limits on the
application of science?
