Alta Charo on Using Pre-Implantation Diagnosis to Derive Stem Cells without "Harming" Embryos

Roll Call today describes yet another wrinkle in the "alternative methods to derive stem cells" discussion, a method that is certainly creative. It employs the Leon Kass "make the problem 'go away'" logic, that is, if no embryo can easily be said to have been killed, the method is fine. In this case those arguing for the moral logic of the method is confused, though, because the embryos that are made for this purpose would have to be made in the lab - which is against Catholic doctrine by definition - and would be exposed to the special hazards of PGD. But I get ahead of myself. This is the plan:

The basis of the still-to-be drafted Senate bill would allow for federal funds to be used for embryonic stem-cell research, but would require that the embryo not be harmed during the process. Several Republicans said Congress should be promoting a technique currently used during genetic testing and in vitro fertilization that allows for a stem cell to be taken from the embryo without destroying it. “We are trying to see if we can find some ground that allows for research to continue,” said Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.). “Even though I question the potential of that research, nevertheless it is an area that the scientific community wants to do research and we want to make sure it is done in an ethical way.”

Santorum said the discussions include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) as well as rank-and-file Members. Enzi’s panel approved a different stem-cell measure last week that promotes the use of stem cells extracted from cord blood and bone marrow. A similar bill has already passed the House, but many people do not believe these cells hold as much healing potential as embryonic stem cells. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who is involved in the talks about the safe extraction of stem cells from embryos, said he thinks that this compromise bill would appease people on both sides of the debate. “My position is, if there is a way to develop a stem cell without destroying an embryo, then that is where [the National Institutes of Health] should be making their investment, because the ethical and moral questions to me go away,” Isakson said.

Of this method, Professor Alta Charo of Wisconsin (easily the smartest stem cell bioethics scholar to emerge so far in the debate) writes:

first, note that the piece erroneously talks about removing an hES cell without harming the embryo; it should be talking about removing a single cell, leaving the primary embryo for its fate (presumably reproduction) and using the dissected cell to begin new growth to the blastocyst stage for subsequent removal of the inner cell mass and derivation of hES cells. In other words, it's about making an identical twin embryo and killing the twin! Anyone want to start taking bets on the following options?

(a) this splits the anti-research crowd, with some arguing that it is fine because the primary embryo goes on unaffected and others arguing that the twin is now an independent life with all the moral (and, in a post-sandra-day-o'connor-world, perhaps legal) rights attendant thereto

(b) the tolerance of some for this option points up the degree to which opposition to embryo research and even to abortion is not necessarily based on an argument like the one made by robert george, i.e. that all diploid human cells with an intrinsic potential for development to term are human beings deserving of equal moral and legal protection. instead, those who tolerate this option reveal that it is the way research and abortion divert embryos and fetuses from their pre-ordained fate, i.e. a fate to become children. understanding this difference in reasoning allows one to re-examine the abortion debate.

(c) PGD, which has been somewhat under the radar screen for the right-to-lifers (who have not really focused on the fact that the cells removed for biopsy are now independent human beings) may come in for some unwanted attention

(d) if this option really builds up steam in congress, the bush bioethics council will begin backpedaling from its concerns, expressed in its white paper, that the technique poses too much risk to the primary embryo

(e) if this option really builds up steam in the senate, hES funding is dead in this congress because the house won't want to back down from funding the more efficient and sensible and less convoluted approach of using doomed, surplus embryos.

(f) all of the above?