This weekend, scientists unveiled what may be the first step toward resolving one of the great ethical debates of the early 21st century.
For years now, controversy has surrounded the development and use of embryonic stem cells. These cells, which have the potential to form in any type of human tissue, are believed to have incredible potential in the study and treatment of numerous degenerative diseases.
The only catch is that most methods for obtaining these cells involve the destruction of human embryos. This catch is no small matter for those who believe that personhood begins at conception. Those who hold that belief argue that the destruction of embryos is the destruction of human life; therefore, they oppose stem-cell research almost without exception.
Most of us agree that the deliberate destruction of human life is an unacceptable research method. If we all believed that embryos were human life, we would probably also agree that it is wrong to deliberately destroy them in the name of science.
So the core issue is not what to do with these embryos, because that question is itself wrapped up in the question of what embryos really are: Are they people or not? Sadly, even if there were an answer to this question, we would have no way of knowing it.
I’m not coming at this issue from a “what’s right for you may not be right for me” perspective, mind you. I absolutely believe in right or wrong answers, and I can’t stand it when intellectually lazy people don’t bother looking for those answers in an effort to appear tolerant or open-minded. In this instance, however, we cannot find a correct answer because it’s a question of intuitive, subjective differences disguised as a question of semantics disguised as a question of science. No matter how we answer the question, we’re still pasting clean, inaccurate labels onto a messy, organic process.
Life is a process. There are certain points in the process on which we almost always agree and certain parts of the process on which we find it impossible to reach consensus. When an adult is walking around, eating, and talking, we agree that this being possesses personhood. Upon looking at someone in a persistent vegetative state – alive only by way of a feeding tube – it’s harder to reach consensus on whether this someone has personhood, or what personhood even means, in this specific case.
Similarly, when considering human embryos, it’s difficult to agree whether these embryos have personhood. The embryonic stage is a part of the process of life; there are points during this process when we regard the subjects as people possessed of certain rights and entitled to certain protections. But after that, it gets a bit foggy.
A taxonomist’s approach on the subject is to establish a set of criteria for personhood, observe a specimen and decide the category in which it fits: Person or non-person. Various attempts to do this have resulted in the line between person and non-person being set at different points in the process of life. This couldn’t be any other way. These criteria are not based on any objective or even common understanding. The criteria are largely based on a gut check – intuition. Because the concept of personhood is an abstraction, our understanding of the concept is almost entirely subjective, making agreement on the topic quite difficult.
The question of personhood is equal parts science, language and intuition.
There are those who say, “when in doubt, err on the side of life.” I normally agree with this old adage; however, there’s something I’d like to know: Which life are we talking about? The potential life of the embryo or the life that could be saved through research on embryonic stem cells?
As a political issue, this controversy has crossed party lines with prominent members of both parties coming down on either side of the issue.
Recently, experiments on mice have led to the development of two new methods allowing researchers to develop stem cells without destroying the embryos. These discoveries, published Sunday in the journal Nature, may lead the way toward a solution to this impasse. If human embryonic stem cells can be extracted without destroying embryos, we won’t have to wring our hands about the issue.
This discovery also represents everything I love about human ingenuity. The human spirit has done a nice little run around an ethical dilemma, reaching a solution that we can all appreciate. The way of the future is a slick, elegant method of extracting stem cells that need not ravage embryos, unlike current methods that will no doubt become antiquated and obsolete.
The most important thing that may come from this discovery is the easing of political pressure that blocks increased freedom and funding for this crucial medical research.

[email protected]