This past April 25th marked the fiftieth anniversary of the most important scientific article of the twentieth century: James Watson and Francis Cricks description in Nature of the "double-helix" structure of DNA.
Some say Mark Pickup's multiple sclerosis could be wiped away through what scientists learn from testing embryonic stem cells. So why does he travel the country to speak against that research?
Recently, the Bush administration planted a flag on ethical high ground by updating the charter of the federal advisory committee that addresses the safety of human research subjects to consider the welfare of human embryos along with that of fetuses, children, and adults. That decision was not, as some critics have charged, the result of inappropriate religious intrusion into policy governing science.
My mother's doctor is refusing to give her antibiotics," the caller told me in an urgent voice. I asked why. "He says that she's ninety-two and an infection will kill her sooner or later, so it might as well be this infection. As disturbing as this call was, as outrageous the doctor's behavior, I wasn't particularly surprised. I have been receiving such desperate calls with increasing frequency for the last several years.
If we believe and rightly so that it is wrong to use human embryos for experimental research, then what is it that we believe should be done with these often-unwanted frozen children? What happens to them?
Regrettably, much of the debate on stem cell research has taken place on emotional grounds, pitting the hope of curing heartrending medical conditions against the deeply held moral convictions of many Americans. Such arguments frequently ignore or mischaracterize the scientific facts.
Leon Kass may be the most morally earnest man I've ever met. His students at the University of Chicago revere him as a teacher who, quite literally, changed their lives.
To explore the logic and make sense of a ban on stem cell research is my aim here. Since many parties to the debate claim, at least, to agree that the embryo should be treated with respect, it may be fruitful to explore other issues in particular, the nature of moral reasoning and the background beliefs that underlie such reasoning. I propose to take a very long way round. Our understanding of what is at stake can be sharpened if we begin not with stem cell research but with a quite different moral question.
The living will was originally invented in 1967 by two groups, the Euthanasia Society of America and Euthanasia Education Council, and was touted as a first step in gaining public acceptance of euthanasia. These groups had been struggling for years to get mercy-killing bills (which would allow doctors to give disabled or dying patients lethal overdoses) passed in various state legislatures.
"Super-" is our most hallowed prefix, for it announces the marriage of two qualities that the modern world venerates: new and improved. If we can produce superconductors, fly at supersonic speeds, travel along superhighways, and attend Super-bowl games, why should we not direct our resourcefulness to our offspring and turn them into super-babies?
