Biotechnology, and specifically stem cell research, is opening extraordinary possibilities for tackling some of the most crippling diseases afflicting man. But with them, new ethical dilemmas are posed for society and each of us. What may not be acceptable personally, may perhaps be something the State should allow others to do.
The Irish Council for Bioethics, the independent body charged with considering the issues raised by developments in science and medicine, has started a welcome public consultation process on stem cells, the immature cells that grow into the 216 different cell types in the body and can function as a biological repair kit. Members of the public can respond to a questionnaire on their website (www.bioethics.ie) which, with commendable clarity, takes one through a series of ethical dilemmas.
The crucial ethical challenge arises with the very basic five-day-old stem cells taken from human embryos, usually from those surplus to need in the IVF process that are otherwise discarded. They have the ability to turn into any of the 216 cell types, while more developed "adult cells", uncontroversial because harvesting does not involve embryo destruction, are already pre-programmed to produce only particular cell types, and are thus seen by many scientists as inadequate for certain types of research.
Currently embryonic stem cell research is in legal limbo here, awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on a November High Court decision that found that three frozen IVF embryos could not be covered by the constitutional definition of "unborn". If the Supreme Court finds for the appellants there will be profound consequences for both IVF and embryonic stem cell research, probably making moot the consultation process.
The moral issues are straightforward if the view is taken that life is sacrosanct and that the embryo acquires its absolute rights from conception. But as soon as it is allowed that the rights may be acquired later, say on womb implantation, drawing moral lines becomes much more complex. If IVF, for example, is morally acceptable, is it not preferable that surplus frozen embryos serve the cause of medicine rather than be discarded? Is it possible to make a moral analogy with transplant surgery and the harvesting of organs after, say, a car crash?
And if the harvesting of embryonic stem cells is to be banned - either by legislation or through a constitutional ruling - should the importation of such cell lines by researchers also be banned? Or use of the potentially life-saving products of research using them? Is it acceptable to produce cloned embryos as a source for stem cells?
Such questions deserve a thorough and wide debate.