Professors debate stem cell research

Physician and biomedical ethics expert William Hurlbut squared off against molecular biology and public affairs professor Lee Silver on the controversy surrounding embryonic stem cell research Monday in a panel moderated by former University president Harold Shapiro GS '64.

Hurlbut and Silver agreed that science struggles to set a non-arbitrary line during human development to separate a mere clump of cells from a human being entitled to human rights.

Hurlbut, a consulting professor at Stanford University, interpreted this arbitrariness as reason to define life as beginning with conception, which would enable the definition to encompass all the possibilities of an embryo's ontological standing. Silver, on the other hand, argued that the "fuzzy edges" of life defy any scientific evidence that life begins at any specific stage.

"There is an internal unity and unbroken continuity of development from fertilization to natural death," Hurlbut said. "The same evidence undercuts the claims that the early embryo is an inchoate clump of cells."

He added that recent evidence shows that the coordinated activity in embryonic stem cells suggests an "implicit whole that guides the parts" in the early stages of human development.

He said that this implicit whole "endows the embryo with its human character and its inviolable moral character."

Silver disagreed that life begins with conception. He showed a microscopic video of a pipette inserting a sperm cell into an egg. A moment later, the sperm is removed.

"Did you just kill a human being?" he asked. "You could do that a hundred times."

Support nonprofit student journalism. Donate to the ‘Prince.’ Donate now »

Silver further compared embryonic development to evolution, noting that in both cases, "You're going from something that's not a human being to something that is a human being."

Though human beings differ from the chimpanzees from which they evolved, marking the change at any one generation would require considering the parents as animals while labeling their child a human being, Silver said.

"If you accept Darwin's theory of evolution, there's no substantive change from one generation to the next," he added.

The fetus transition from nonliving to living is similarly gradual.

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

Biological categories are often indistinct, and the potential for individual human cells to develop into a human being lies along a continuum of possibility. Therefore, Silver argued that any metaphysical distinction between embryonic stem cells and either embryos or other cells is arbitrary.

"Human worth grows as humanity becomes more apparent," Silver said. "Humanity is something that we give to other things. It's not something that is intrinsic."

Hurlbut responded that denying the intrinsic humanity of embryonic stem cells also compromises the moral standing of the sick, the elderly or others as they lose their most apparent human functions.

"Vulnerability does not render a life less valuable," he said.

He asked, in reference to sentience and awareness of pain as a marker for human status, "If human worth is based on these functions, does more of that function yield a higher moral status?"

Last week, Shapiro was chosen to lead a new stem cell research ethics panel established by acting New Jersey Governor Richard Codey.