Groundbreaking stem cell research reveals fundamental fault lines
December 9, 2007 by Travis
Researchers have recently reported a number of significant (”potentially Nobel-level“) advances in stem cell research. The most groundbreaking is evidence that pluripotent stem cells—the “master” cells, prized for their capability to produce all the body’s different kinds of cells and thus to serve as a potential source for tissue regeneration and patient-specific therapy—may be obtained from reprogrammed adult skin cells instead of embryonic stem cells. Adult skin cells are readily available, but embryonic stem cells are difficult to obtain for reasons both practical (egg supply, cloning inefficiency and failures) and ethical (creating and/or destroying human embryos). Just last week researchers reported even simpler, safer way to reprogram cells.
The response to these reports from pundits, politicians, popular press, and particularly research pioneers (e.g., Ian Wilmut, James Thomson) has been remarkably revealing of the presuppositions upon which many base their arguments for or against human embryonic stem cell research—and for scientific research in general. An editorial on the subject in Nature is a perfect example:
Around the world, opponents of human embryonic stem-cell research…have leapt on these results to justify their support of tight controls on the work.
Many stem-cell scientists share this general unease, both because of the dilemma of working with embryos and because women must donate eggs for the process, in a highly invasive procedure. But they have nonetheless gone ahead with such work because they see it as scientifically necessary if clinical benefits are to be derived any time soon from our growing understanding of cellular differentiation.
These scientists are not oblivious to the ethical issues and they are not merely indulging personal fascination. They have not denied the importance of doing research on adult stem-cells and reprogramming in parallel. It would be a relief for them if all the scientific problems had been solved in the papers published last week — abandoning work on human embryonic stem cells would allow them to operate with a clear conscience and without having to defend their work all the time.
But where the scientific rubber meets the road of ethical challenge, the scientific imperative rolls and controls:
Just as soon as there is no scientific need to work on embryonic stem cells, researchers will design their experiments to use much easier material.
Charles Krauthammer, former member of the President’s Council of Bioethics, captures the essence of issue in his reflections on President Bush’s much-maligned 2001 policy strictly limiting (not banning) Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research: “the scientific imperative [must] be balanced by moral considerations.” This is not anti-science demagoguery. This is moral restraint. But as the breathtakingly arrogant example above shows, despite the dramatic and perhaps ethically-relieving advances, science fundamentalists will not be swayed on a moral basis.
Great post, Trav. I have been thinking about your term “scientific fundamentalists” and your reference to their presuppositions. It seems to me that the advance of science as ultimate moral authority is an increasing trend, and one to be genuinely concerned about as Christians. Might you provide some comments or future posts on this?
To bring it to a finer point (without venturing outside my knowledge), I reference something I recently read by Francisco Ayala, one of the most committed of these fundamentalists. Here was the money quote from his article “Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer” from the May Colloquium of the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Scientists:
“It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. The origin and adaptations of organisms in their profusion and wondrous variations were thus brought into the realm of science.”
He also mentions the “schizophrenia” of combining a naturalistic worldview with a theistic one–he is right! It is the “Total Truth” perspective in reverse. At the presupposition level, this is nothing less than an absolute faith position.
So, given that a sort of religious fundamentalism is settled in much of the scientific establishment, how might folks outside of the scientific community discern the advance of science as moral authority over more immediate aspects of our lives?
Not to be alarmist–for science is inherently limited in what it can describe–but today’s battleground of embryonic stem cells is only one of many. Life-and-death decisions about the handicapped, the elderly, and even major public policy are also at stake, no? What else do we need to be aware of?
Thanks again for helping me think more often and more clearly about this key area.
FYI, Ayala’s full article is here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/suppl_1/8567.
Another thought…Ayala’s quote about Darwin’s discovery of natural selection may largely conform to the scientific data, but can’t that data be used just as much to support the Biblical doctrine that God works through many means in His Providence over Creation? Why does Ayala get off the hook for an apparent “leap of faith” by saying this affirms that a Creator is not needed?
It all seems like so much suppressing the truth, per Romans 1, with the idol in view being “no need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.” If you make that your absolute, you will bend the facts to justify that “conclusion.” In other words, Darwin’s greatest discovery is a tool that his fellow naturalists can use to claim the moral high ground.
At the presuppositional level, it seems the great weakness here is this: Natural selection can only explain how creatures develop; it cannot answer the question of origins of life, for the universe was not made out of what is visible (Heb 11:3). Am I way off here? Like I said, this is outside my comfort zone.