Dr. William B. Hurlbut addressed UW-Madison students and residents at Union South Tuesday night, focusing on ethical reasons for promoting Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT) in stem cell research. The new method proposes that no embryo would be created or destroyed during the process of cloning for biomedical research.
Hurlbut, of Stanford University's Neuroscience Institute and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, was joined by a panel consisting of Anatomy and Neurology Professor Clive Svendsen, Associate Professor of Bioethics and Philosophy Robert Streiffer and Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison's Catholic Diocese.
As debate ensued, the topic of conversation turned to the ongoing ethical implications that surround both the new method of research and traditional methods of stem cell exploration, and brought about new approaches to discussing the topic.
Expectedly, the conversation included a definition of human life from multiple perspectives. Referencing the belief that embryos possess more than biological traits at the start of embryonic growth, the debate inevitably progressed to the weighted issues of abortion, cloning and in vitro fertilization.
Hurlbut introduced ANT as a way to change the heated debate over embryo use. Bishop Morlino broadened the options to improve ethical decision making in science by expanding the argument to include the moral appropriateness of adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cell research.
""Every human being has a right to a human origin,"" said Morlino. ""To take that right away is diminishing to our humanity.""
Another reason ethics are so inherently connected to stem cell research is the fact that there are no laws defining the boundaries within which research can be conducted. The British have developed policies requiring researchers to obtain licenses from national regulating authority before proceeding to work within controversial areas, while still permitting the flexibility to explore these emerging areas of research.
In the United States, comparatively, all aspects of scientific research must be stringently examined for ethical consideration because without lawful constraints, research is impossible to regulate.
Increasingly, such inability to decide between right and wrong has created a growing political divide between blue and red states, blue wishing to embrace research in its most ethical forms and red believing stem cell research is unethical on any basis.
As the nation's citizens refuse to examine stem cell research for the benefits it is likely to offer, valuable time is wasted, hindering the research necessary to produce such advantages.
Conservatives have even gone as far as concluding that stem cell research is not only unethical but will be proven unnecessary as other research continues, arguing the importance of medical discoveries are lost when politics overtake science.
Due to such political and ethical constraints, science must remain a balancing act between what we know is ethical and the unknown that accompanies all new scientific research. The questions raised by Tuesday's debate prove taking risks safely is better than never taking risks at all, as it is likely today's courageous endeavors may prove to save lives in the future.
As Hurlbut emphasized, ""These are not questions for science alone, but for the full breadth of human wisdom and experience.""
