Campaign leads profs to debate ethics of stem cell research

Among the topics that Republican incumbent George W. Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry have debated during the presidential campaign, embryonic stem cell research stands out as one of the most contentious.

While the Bush administration stresses the immorality of destroying embryos for the purpose of biomedical research, the Kerry camp supports embryos' use in researching cures for debilitating diseases.

With passions running high on both sides of the debate, some University professors have chosen to weigh in on the stem cell research controversy.

Professor Roblin Meeks of the Princeton Writing Program, who teaches the writing seminar "The Culture Wars in Philosophical Context," said he supports embryonic stem cell research.

Meeks, whose father suffered from polio, said that opponents of stem cell research too often paint the issue as "a stark contrast between supporting life and opposing life." This attitude, he said, ignores the need to improve the quality of life for people like his father.

"We need to take into account quality of life as much as a definitive notion of 'this is life' or 'this isn't life,'" he said.

Meeks said his background in cognitive science leads to "optimism as to where science can take us," but he fears the Bush administration does not share this attitude.

"I think the Bush administration is very distrustful of science," he said.

Peter Singer, professor at the Center for Human Values, agreed. "I think we should be careful about the idea that science should be dictated by ideology," he said.

Singer said that he thought people like Bush "go wrong to think that just because [embryos] are a biological member of [the human] species, they have the same rights to protection as other more mature human beings."

However, politics professor Robert George disagreed. In an upcoming article for the Philadelphia Inquirer, George argues that, as "distinct, living member[s] of the species Homo Sapiens," embryos should enjoy the same rights as other people.

"We would never tolerate subjecting people to harmful or deadly experimentation based on race, sex or ethnicity," he said. "Nor should we do so based on age, size or stage of development."

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

George added the point at which life begins is not a mystery or gray area, but rather a biological fact.

"Every textbook of human embryology and developmental biology currently in use in American medical schools confirms the fact that the life of a new human individual begins at conception," he said.

Philosophy professor Gilbert Harman agreed that embryos are technically alive, but said the important question is whether embryos should count as people.

He said he disagrees with the "extreme all-or-nothing" view of embryos and fetuses' status.

"To most people, there's a big difference between [the level of tragedy of] a miscarriage after conception and a baby dying right before being born," he said.

He said this same line of reasoning can be applied after birth. "It's more tragic for a one-year-old to die than a newborn, more tragic for a six-year-old to die than a one-year-old, and so on," he said.

Harman said he thought that the "general perceived problem with the current administration's attitude toward science is that it is very influenced by political and religious attitudes."

He compared the debate over stem cell research to the debate over teaching evolution in public schools. Both are "example[s] of the political and religious onslaught on science, which I think has terrible results," he said.

However, religion professor Jeffrey Stout — who supports stem cell research — said he thinks opponents of the practice make an effort to avoid basing their arguments solely on religion.

"Most people with the conservative view [of embryonic stem cell research] reason from a natural law perspective," he said, "so it's not really a theologically based decision as they characterize it. It's based on a comprehensive philosophical view."

Stout added that he is disappointed by the divisiveness that issues like stem cell research engender.

"I find it unfortunate that we use issues like this to polarize the community into completely opposed sub-communities," he said. "It would be nice to find political leaders who helped us overcome these divisions, rather than using them to advance the interests of political parties."