Biology

Supporters of stem-cell research argue that the potential health benefits to existing humans outweighs concerns over destruction of embryos and that manipulating cells in a laboratory is different from cloning humans. Opponents argue that the work disrespects potential human life, and that even procedures that may not destroy embryos pose serious ethical issues.

Religious opinions

A 2005 poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that by a nearly 2-1 ratio (57 percent to 30 percent) Americans said it was more important to conduct stem-cell research to find new cures than to not destroy the potential life of embryos involved in the research. Polls show more Americans support embryonic stem cell research now than a year ago. Roughly half (52 percent) of opponents say their religious beliefs are the biggest influence on their thinking.

The Catholic Church has led opposition to human embryonic stem-cell research because of what it calls the “sanctity of life.” Catholic doctrine holds that life begins at conception, so an embryo, even in its earliest stage of development, is regarded as a human life. Destroying an embryo, even for curing disease, is regarded as immoral. The National Catholic Bioethics Center advocates finding ways to harvest stem cells without the use of embryos. The Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission opposes embryonic stem cell research, as does the evangelical Christian Focus on the Family.

A task force reporting to the Episcopal Church’s 2003 General Convention concluded that “it is in keeping with our call to heal the afflicted” to make use of embryos already held in fertility clinics, but took a “conservative and balanced approach” in stressing that it does not recommend embryos be created for stem-cell research.

Mainstream Jewish doctrine holds that life begins at a later stage of development (than embryonic). It does not grant legal status to an embryo. Traditionally, the Jewish faith holds that life begins at quickening, or the first time a mother feels the movement of a fetus. The Jewish Orthodox Union supports therapeutic cloning from a Jewish theological perspective, arguing that an embryo outside the womb is not a viable life form. Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, is lobbying state legislatures for medical research on embryonic stem cells. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism supports embryonic stem cell research within ethical guidelines, citing the Jewish values of “preserving life and promoting health.”

Muslim leaders support embryonic stem cell research within certain limits, especially if the research has potential to cure diseases. Muslim experts say that an embryo not in its natural environment, the womb, is not human. If not placed in the womb it would not survive and become a human being. However, it is important to establish strict rules against the misuse of embryos.

Some opinions on stem-cell research are based on a notion of human dignity — ascribed scripturally through humans being “fearfully and wonderfully made” by God (Psalm 139:13-14) and created by God “in his own image” (Gen. 1:27) – that being human sets people apart from animals and makes their lives sacred because they were created by God. Others argue that, because disease not only affects the body but can rob a person of dignity, stem-cell research has potential to respect human life by restoring dignity to the suffering.

Legislation

On July 19, 2006, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have relaxed restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research. Most states are pursuing their own embryonic stem cell agendas. Some are pushing research, others are restricting research. An amendment to the Missouri state constitution passed in November 2006 allows stem cell research, therapies and cures allowed under federal law to continue to be allowed in Missouri. It also establishes ethical boundaries and oversight guidelines for stem cell research conducted in the state, including a ban on any attempt to clone a human being. Advancement of techniques in this research could resolve conflicts, alter the discussion or open the way to federal funding of research on new embryonic stem cell lines, currently banned by federal law

Both biology and religion seek to understand and define the origin and definition of human life, which informs opinions on issues such as stem-cell research and abortion. Many religious and social conservatives believe human personhood is attained at conception, or shortly thereafter when cellular division occurs. Many religious liberals, social liberals and secularists believe personhood happens later, during the embryonic or fetal stage of pregnancy, or even at birth when the fetus becomes independent of its mother. Scientifically, human life could begin when the human egg and sperm nuclei fuse at fertilization. Or when the embryo becomes an individual, 14 days after fertilization, when each embryo can produce only one individual and after cells have developed into specific types. But there is no consensus about when human life becomes a person with fundamental human rights, including the right to life itself.

Other topics that question the origin and value of life include the study of evolution, first presented by Charles Darwin in his 1859 Origin of the Species, describing a scientific explanation for the origin of the array of species on the planet. The theories of evolution and natural selection, deemed blasphemous as the time, contradicted the story of the world’s origin and order described in the biblical account, Genesis. Evolution is the theory is that all living things share a common ancestor, and that the complex life forms we know today evolved from single-celled organisms over millions of years. Today, some religious believers promote the idea of intelligent design, that some aspects of life forms are so complex that they must reflect the design of a conscious, rational intelligence. There is also “theistic evolution,” the belief that God guided evolution, causing both the first life forms to appear as well as the eventual development of higher forms of life. Creationists believe in the literal truth of the Bible’s account of creation in Gen. 1:1-2:4a, where God creates the Earth and all its life forms in six consecutive 24-hour days less than 10,000 years ago. Some believers also take biblical descriptions of humans being “fearfully and wonderfully made” and created by God “in his own image” to dispute theories that humans and animals could share a common ancestor. Scientists, religious believers, educators and others continue to debate the value of teaching scientific and religious beliefs about the origin of life, and how it will be taught to future generations.

The appropriateness of using animals for scientific and medical research is also rooted in belief systems often determined by religion. Using animals in medical research is required by law for pharmaceuticals and many say it is crucial to finding treatments and cures. Researchers also say they have a moral and ethical obligation to consumers to provide safe products, and that sometimes the only way to do that is to test them on animals. A key facet of many religions is living in harmony with other natural life and showing care and respect for animal life.

Those who practice in the field of life sciences face moral and ethical issues in scientific research and medical treatment, as many discoveries in this field require political, public, social and personal responsibility. Practical applications that involve religion include: teaching of biology, evolution, intelligent design in public/private schools; developing curriculum and textbooks; the personal beliefs of scientists and religious believers, and how their interest or belief in a faith informs or inspires their work; whether religious beliefs do or should inform government regulations, and whether such laws are necessary. Knowledge of religion can help researchers understand the beliefs of those who support and oppose research from a religious perspective, possibly inform their own ethical beliefs, aid in creation and challenging of laws and identify sources of funding for public or private research.