Canada to fund research involving human embryos
It will cost us money-will it also cost us our humanity?
By Barbara McAdorey

It has been compared to the human experiments performed by Nazi scientists during the Holocaust in which one class of human being was sacrificed so that scientists could learn how to improve the lives of others. While there are important differences between the Nazi experiments and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR), not the least of which was the suffering inflicted by Nazi scientists as they tortured their victims in the name of scientific progress, a similarity between the two types of research does exist. In both cases, human life is destroyed for the supposed betterment of the rest of humankind.

And soon, research which destroys human life at its earliest stage of development will be paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

Scientists believe research on stem cells (special cells which can develop into a variety of different kinds of cells such as skin cells, brain cells, etc.) will lead to treatments for a host of debilitating diseases including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and heart disease. A source rich in stem cells is the human embryo. But the process of obtaining the stem cells kills the embryo.

There are, however, less controversial sources of stem cells. Stem cells can be obtained from adult tissue (for example, skin, bone marrow, and muscle), umbilical cords, and placenta. Research using adult stem cells is less controversial than research using embryonic stem cells because it does not involve the destruction of human life.

Canada currently has no legislation governing stem cell research, although Health Minister Anne McLellan has promised to introduce legislation in May, 2002. In spite of this regulatory vacuum, on March 4, Dr. Alan Bernstein, president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the federal funding agency for health research in Canada, announced that the CIHR would provide public funding for stem cell research involving adult sources, aborted fetal tissue, and embryos.

This announcement sparked anger from both Liberal and opposition members. Liberal MP Reg Alcock, a member of the House of Commons health committee told Dr. Bernstein, "I believe that this is nothing more than an attempt to end-run the process that the government is currently engaged in; that's my personal belief, and I'm deeply disappointed that you did it."

It seems that in order to calm the politicians, Dr. Bernstein agreed at the end of April to put the funding on hold for another year.

But the fact remains, Canadians eventually will pay for this controversial research unless we can influence Parliament to ban it.

Restrictions on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The CIHR did impose some restrictions on what it would fund in the way of embryonic stem cell research. Two notable restrictions are: 1) the embryos used for research were created for reproductive and not research purposes (at an in vitro fertilization clinic) and are no longer needed for reproductive purposes; and 2) the embryo is no more than 14 days old.

There are several problems with these restrictions.

Embryos created for reproductive, not research purposes

In regards to the first part of the first restriction-that the embryos must be created for reproductive and not research purposes-it would seem impossible to implement. As the Canadian Physicians for Life stated in their March 5 press release, "It is naive to assume that 'surplus' embryos will not be created with experimentation purposes in mind." The CIHR attempts to address this issue by stating, "Researchers must not pressure members of the fertility treatment team to generate more embryos than necessary for the optimum chance of reproductive success." But the obvious question is, how can the CIHR control, let alone enforce this?

Even if it can be guaranteed that the fertility specialist will not create any more embryos than necessary for reproductive purposes, one can imagine a scenario in which an infertile couple supports and maybe even encourages ESCR in the hopes of finding a cure for some disease. They may be extremely motivated to engage the services of a fertility clinic to undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF), knowing that surplus embryos would be created which they could donate for research purposes. Indeed, what is to stop a couple from undergoing IVF with the primary intention of creating surplus embryos to donate to research "for the good of humankind?" Or might not a couple feel pressured into the procedure if some family member has a degenerative disease which could be cured if scientists had more embryos on which to experiment? These scenarios may sound far-fetched, but they are evidence that we can never have complete control over people's intentions regarding embryo creation. As such, there is no way to ensure that an embryo really was created for "reproductive purposes."

Embryos "no longer needed"

The second part of this restriction states that the embryo must be "no longer needed" for reproductive purposes. The process of IVF involves the creation of many embryos, but only a few are implanted in the woman. The remainder are stored in case the first attempt to achieve pregnancy fails and the couple wants to try again. But when couples no longer want these extra embryos, they can choose to donate them for scientific research. These are the embryos which the CIHR says are no longer needed.

Proponents of ESCR say that since these extra embryos will be destroyed anyway, then they might as well be used for research-research which may lead to treatments for diseases. In this way, some good can come from their destruction. More generally, they say, if someone is going to die anyway, is it not better to experiment on that person in the hopes of finding cures that might save countless lives, rather than to let that person die in vain?

This is a very important and ethically challenging question, one which philosophers have grappled with throughout the ages. But it is a misleading question when it comes to the justification for ESCR and distracts us from what we should be debating. The question is based on an error in logic-a false dichotomy. That is, it implies there are only two options: simply destroy the embryo; or experiment on and destroy the embryo. It is easy to get drawn into the ethics of debating these two choices, but in so doing, we ignore the third option, embryo adoption-the donation of the embryo to another infertile couple who wants a child. Now the question becomes, is it better to allow that embryo to continue living and to realize its potential of developing into a fetus, an infant, an adolescent, an adult, and to give an infertile couple the chance to have a baby, or is it better to experiment and destroy the embryo? Now, that is a very different question!

Rethinking in vitro fertilization

In fact, we would not be debating either of these questions if no extra embryos were created in the first place. Perhaps it is time to rethink the IVF process which creates these "extra" embryos. Is there any way scientists can improve the pregnancy success rate so that subsequent attempts, and thus more embryos, are not needed? And if not, should the fertility specialist create only as many embryos as the couple is willing to implant at one time, in spite of the low chance of achieving a pregnancy? I think these are questions our society will soon be forced to confront. By putting human reproduction into the hands of doctors and scientists and researchers, we have given these people much power. Society would do well, I believe, not to walk away from its responsibility towards the human lives which are created as a result.

Embryo no older than 14 days

The second restriction, that the embryo can be no older than 14 days, is arbitrary. In their press release, Physicians for Life state, "There is no logical reason or historic precedent why this restraint should be expected to hold...No distinct biological marker supports the creation of a 14-day limit for permitting the destruction of a unique human being. The 14-day rule is capricious and unscientific." Given its arbitrariness, it is easy to imagine that scientists will want this restriction relaxed when they discover they could learn so much more if only the age-limit were increased. With no basis in logic or science, any age will be as arbitrary as any other. Scientists have yet to perfect an artificial womb, but when they do, an embryo will be able to develop into a fetus outside a woman's body. At what gestational age will society begin to protect that human life from scientific experimentation? Why 14 days and not 28 days, why not 3 months, why not 9 months?

There is only one point in human development at which the cut-off is not arbitrary. That is at the point of fertilization. At fertilization, an individual human life comes into existence. This is a scientific fact. In spite of this, the CIHR supports a "graduated approach" to determining human worth "in which permitted interventions correlate with the developmental stage of the embryo." ( Human Stem Cell Research: Opportunities for Health and Ethical Perspectives, p.6) In this graduated approach, "... the human embryo has neither the full moral status of a person nor an absolute right to life. Though it has a right to protection, this right is not absolute and can be overridden; for example, by the possibility of a major benefit to other humans and to society in general...This is the basis for the recommendation that research be permitted up to 14 days."(p.6).

But the CIHR offers no rational argument in defense of either the graduated approach or the 14-day limit. As such, I believe their decision to allow research on embryos younger than 14 days is simply a matter of convenience. It would be convenient for scientific progress if life before 14 days were unworthy of protection because that would mean scientists could experiment on it. I suspect it is this convenience which leads the CIHR to claim that human worth is dependent on developmental stage. This claim is then used to justify ESCR.

So their argument would go something like this: "Embryonic life before 14 days does not have full moral status as a human being, nor an absolute right to life or protection; therefore, ESCR on embryos younger than 14 days is justified." But since the claim is as controversial as the conclusion and would be accepted only by those who already support the conclusion, it is a circular argument and is, therefore, invalid. I believe this circular reasoning is being used by the CIHR to justify this controversial research. I say this because, as stated before, the CIHR offers no rational argument in defense of either the graduated approach or the 14-day cut-off.

Adult Stem Cell Research is viable alternative

Given the ethical issues surrounding ESCR, it is distressing that the CIHR would decide that such research should be paid for by Canadian taxpayers, many of whom are opposed to the destruction of embryonic human life. It is especially distressing given that adult stem cell research is a viable alternative.

Scientists claim that embryonic stem cells have the potential to produce all types of specialized cells, whereas adult stem cells are more limited. However, scientists have recently found that adult stem cells offer more hope than had been thought initially. The CIHR admits it is promising. It states in its recommendations, "...stem cells from bone marrow may give rise not only to blood cells but also to muscle, liver and nerve-like cells. Stem cells from the nervous system can give rise to blood and other cell types. These recent

recent findings are exciting and provide new insight into the plasticity of adult stem cells." The CIHR even admits, "It is not possible to predict whether pluripotent stem cells derived from embryos or fetuses will be directly useful for therapy." The destruction of human embryos is continuing only in the hopes of finding treatments.

Canadians must act now

The CIHR has promised it will change its funding guidelines to mirror whatever legislation is finally enacted by Parliament-legislation regarding what research will be allowed in Canada and what will be banned. Now is the time for Canadians to speak up, to let their government know what they will accept and what they will not. We, as ordinary Canadians, are responsible for what Canada becomes. Science can be used for the human good, or it can be used to destroy what is good. How far will we let science go in the name of "progress?"

When a law is made based on expediency and arbitrariness, with nothing like logic or scientific evidence to ground it, it will be forever subject to the whims of the times. "This law is too restrictive," we will say, "because it hampers our scientific progress. Let us change the law in this fashion to better serve our needs." And the law will be changed according to some new arbitrary criterion. If we allow the destruction of human life based on some arbitrary cut-off point like 14 days, we will likely allow it in future at some other cut-off point if the 14-day limit becomes too cumbersome.

If we allow destruction of embryos in the name of scientific progress, what else will we allow in future? Will we allow cloning? Will we allow preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to preselect what characteristics we want our babies to have? (In PGD, embryos can be screened for various abnormalities, sex, and other characteristics determined by their genes. Embryos which don't have the "desired" genetic characteristics are not implanted.) Will we allow the creation of human-animal hybrids? We may be repulsed now by some of these ideas, but as long as the law is arbitrary, as long as we continue to allow some human lives to be sacrificed, our ability to feel repulsed may well begin to erode. And if it does, how will we be equipped to prevent further disrespect for human life when scientists become dissatisfied with today's guidelines and tomorrow's legislation, when they want to extend the boundaries within which human experimentation can proceed?

It is naive to think that scientists will not want to push these limits, and it would seem the CIHR already has this in mind. As the CIHR stated in its March 5 press release, "Finally, CIHR will review the field of human stem cell research on an ongoing basis to respond to changing circumstances, narrowing or broadening the scope of eligible research as justified." We can hope that the scope will be narrowed. But hope is not enough. We need to let our politicians know what is ethically acceptable, and what is not. Unless we enact laws now which protect human life, regardless of age, from scientific research, I fear the words of the CIHR signal an ominous future.

You can view the CIHR guidelines at

www.cihr.ca
You can contact Health Minister Anne McLellan at:
Minister's Office - Health Canada
Brooke Claxton Bldg., Tunney's Pasture
P.L. 0906C
Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9
Fax: 613-952-1154
Email: minister_ministre@hc-sc.gc.ca