Faculty Bibliography

Pluripotent human stem cell research may offer new treatments for hundreds of diseases, but opponents of this research argue that such therapy comes attached to a Faustian bargain: cures at the cost of the destruction of many frozen embryos. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), government officials, and many scholars of bioethics, including, in these pages, John Robertson, have not offered an adequate response to ethical objections to stem cell research. Instead of examining the ethical issues involved in sacrificing human embryos for the goal of curing fatal and disabling diseases, they seek to either dismiss the moral concerns of those with objections or to find an "accomodation" with those opposed to stem cell research. An ethical argument can be made that it is justifiable to modify or destroy certain human embryos in the pursuit of cures for dread and lethal diseases. Until this argument is made, the case for stem cell research will rest on political foundations rather than on the ethical foundations that the funding of stem cell research requires.

Even though the explosion of information about the human genome is changing the face of the biotech, pharmaceutical, and chemical industries, consumers are not ready to embrace this brave new world. Those who want to unleash the power of the gene to cure diseases or to grow new forms of animals and plants must do so in secrecy. There are two reasons: the failure to fix a health care system that is not ready for a genetic revolution, and the failure to find ways to reach a consensus about the ethics of genetic engineering