This article in today’s Wash Post makes an interesting argument: it may be possible to get stem cells without destroying embryos. Why is this important? It may make the whole ethical issue involved in creating embryos to latter destroy them unnecessary. It’s worth pointing out that the research is preliminary but it looks promising.
I get a key lesson out of this development: if we use the respect for human life as a guiding principle, some of our most intransigent moral questions may be resolved for us.
I’ve touch on the stem cell issue and the important role that LDS Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is playing in it before here. It seemed to me this article was a worthy update.
My understanding is that a cell taken from a blastomere is totipotent, meaning it could form a new organism. (Conversely, cells from different blastomeres can be combined to form a single chimeric individual.) When you remove that cell for testing (as mentioned in the article) or for making stem cells, have you killed the blastomere’s twin? What about if you grow the removed cell to the blastomere stage and then harvest ES cells as is currently done? What if you separated all of the blastomere cells and turned them all into stem cells?
It may be worth noting that the Church just recently clarified that it “has not taken a position on the issue of embryonic stem cell research” and has no official position on the moment human life begins.
Some discussion is being had about this over on that other blog.
Mike, I hadn’t seen that discussion on that other blog. These latest developments add an interesting perspective to that debate. Jared, I don’t have the scientific knowledge to answer your questions in #1. But Matt Evans, who has been following this issue closely, may. Matt?
I’m a biology PhD student, and trying to make up my mind on stem cells. What I can say is that doing stem cell research in mice or dogs would be just as scientifically informative and would contain zero moral debate.