Related articles and links |  1 of 5

The problem with the stem cell debate has been the false dichotomy between either "stem-cell research or protect[ing] embryos." The problem is, "It's not about stem cells. It's about embryonic stem cells," CT wrote in an editorial. Adult stem cells work wonderfully in therapy and don't require the destruction of embryos, says C. Christopher Hook, director of ethics education for the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine.

But Science doesn't like to be told no, and in much of the reporting on the issue, the debate is framed as if its no stem cell research vs. unlimited stem cell research. And concern for nascent human life—in the form of the embryo—is increasingly disparaged.

So William B. Hurlbut has come up with a third way.

According to The Boston Globe Hurlbut, "a Stanford bioethicist and staunch opponent of research on human embryos," is trying to gain support for a plan to use embryos that could never become embryos, in order to harvest stem cells. It would actually be what journalists typically describe an embryo to be, a "cluster of cells."

It works like this, according to The Globe:

Before implanting the DNA from a skin cell into an egg, scientists would turn off a gene that helps direct the formation of the trophectoderm, an outer layer of cells that is crucial in the first stages of development and which eventually forms the placenta. With this gene silenced, the trophectoderm does not form properly.

And therefore, the cells can't become an embryo. So why wouldn't it be an embryo? Well, the cells never individualize.

Despite ethical and technical difficulties, the idea has the support of leading pro-life bio-ethicists. "Three critics of current methods for creating embryonic stem cells—Archbishop William J. Levada of San Francisco, Robert George, a member of the president's bioethics council, and Nigel M. de S. Cameron, a leading intellectual in the evangelical movement—have seen Hurlbut's proposal and said they believe it could offer a way around their moral objections. Hurlbut will present his idea to the bioethics council early next month."

But creating life, even life incapable of developing, only to destroy it could still be considered unethical. "At one extreme you have the case of the headless frog," Cameron said. "It is still a frog."

Still, Hurlbut's credentials as a pro-life scientist could overcome skepticism. "Hurlbut, 59, is a firm opponent of destroying embryos for human embryonic stem-cell research, but calls himself a passionate advocate for science and its possibilities. He graduated with a degree in biology from Stanford University and from the medical school there. A Christian who said he does not identify with any particular denomination, Hurlbut did three years of post-doctoral study in theology and medical ethics at Stanford. He said he has long been interested in "life's deeper questions,' writes The Globe."

"Though other biologists and ethicists have suggested that human embryonic stem cells could be created without destroying an embryo, Hurlbut's proposal is the most comprehensive and politically potent. It weaves together a specific scientific approach and a sophisticated ethical argument developed with conservative ethicists and Christian leaders. In a highly politicized environment, many said Hurlbut's public record as an opponent of embryo research could be key to bridging the gap between the two sides."

In fact, one scientist who supports Hurlbut's idea is applying for money made available from California's Prop. 71, in which amended the state constitution in order to provide $259 million every year for 10 years to conduct stem-cell research. But, though it works on mice, the idea has yet to be tried on humans.

next page... |  1 of 5

November (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48