The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering

One of the debates in stem cell research is whether it is more ethical to extract stem cells from cloned zygotes created for the purpose of research, or whether it is preferable to use non-cloned zygotes left over from fertility treatments. Some people say neither is acceptable, again on the basis that they believe embryos are people—from this perspective, cloning becomes a non-issue. Others prefer the use of leftover zygotes instead of cloned zygotes, as they are troubled by the idea of creating zygotes specifically to destroy them in stem cell research. Surplus zygotes created for IVF treatments are typically discarded anyway, but they could be donated to life-saving research. People who have some moral objections to stem cell research often take this position as a middle ground.

Sandel disagrees with this argument. If it is unethical to create zygotes for stem cell research, on the understanding that they will be destroyed, why is it not unethical to create spare zygotes for IVF treatments, on the understanding that they will be destroyed? There are around 400,000 spare zygotes in fertility clinics across the United States. It is actually possible to perform IVF treatments without creating surplus zygotes—this is the case in Germany—so it is hypocritical for opponents of zygote destruction to hold such strong objections to research without objecting to IVF surpluses.

Sandel returns to the question of whether stem cell research should be permitted at all. Some argue that such research is morally indistinguishable from infanticide. Others argue that it could lead to widespread dehumanizing practices down the line. Sandel dismisses the second argument as a problem to be remedied with appropriate regulatory safeguards. The first argument requires a closer examination of what an embryo is and how it should be understood in relation to human beings.

The zygotes used in stem cell research have only been developing for a few days, and they typically consist of no more than 200 cells. That is what makes them valuable to stem cell research: Their cells are not yet differentiated. People who believe that these embryos are morally equivalent to babies typically either believe that ensoulment occurs at conception or that it is always wrong to exploit and kill human beings regardless of the stage of life they are in. If there is no definitive moment when an embryo becomes a person worthy of autonomy and respect, it is necessary to grant that respect from the earliest possible moment: conception. Sandel acknowledges that this argument is persuasive from an anti-utilitarian standpoint, as a living being’s development and ability do not impact its value. It is also correct to say that an embryo is “human life,” but so is a skin cell, in the sense that it is “living rather than dead, and human rather than, say, bovine” (115). However, a skin cell is not inviolable and is not a person.

Sandel deconstructs the argument that an embryo and a baby are equivalent things. He notes that cloned zygotes used for stem cell research are fundamentally different from people because no living person is a clone. Even setting the issue of cloning aside, a blastocyst is not a person just as an acorn is not an oak tree. People who disagree with Sandel would ask exactly when an embryo becomes a person. Specifying a non-arbitrary moment, besides birth, is challenging, and many people would argue that a fetus that is one day away from being born is worthy of the same respect as a newborn baby. To answer this question, Sandel refers to the ancient Greek “sorites” argument. One grain of wheat is not a heap of wheat; two grains do not form a heap, and neither do three grains. “There is no nonarbitrary point when the addition of one more grain will bring a heap into being” (118), and yet heaps and non-heaps still exist. A blastocyst could eventually become a baby, but that does not mean that a blastocyst is a baby.

George W. Bush restricted funding to stem cell research, but he never attempted to ban it altogether. He used his middle-ground position as evidence of his own measured approach, but Sandel points out its moral inconsistency. If Bush genuinely believed that stem cell research was the same as harvesting organs from infants, surely he would have gone out of his way to ban it as an unconscionable evil. Sandel proposes a thought experiment: “Suppose a fire broke out in a fertility clinic, and you had time to save either a five-year-old girl or a tray of twenty frozen embryos” (122). Even those who claim to believe that embryos are equivalent to humans often struggle to assert that they would choose the embryos over the girl. 

For this position to be truly coherent, people who oppose stem cell research ought to consider the destruction of any zygote (through research or in IVF clinics) to be murder. People do not treat embryos this way. In natural pregnancies, very early embryo loss is extremely common, but even those who claim to believe that ensoulment occurs at conception do not request the same death rituals for embryos that they would request for a dead infant. There is no widespread movement to research ways to save these embryos in natural pregnancy, even though natural pregnancy leads to greater levels of early embryo loss than IVF does.

Although Sandel does not believe that embryos are people, he also refuses to consider them “mere things.” They are not people, but that does not make them unworthy of respect. Stem cell research is a worthy cause that has the potential to save many lives; IVF is a worthy cause that helps couples conceive children. These are appropriate uses for embryos, whereas, for instance, using them for cosmetic research would not be appropriate. It would be inappropriate to disrespect Van Gogh’s Starry Night by using it as a doormat, and it would be inappropriate to carve one’s initials into an ancient tree. Art and trees are not people, but personhood is not the only reason to confer respect. It is actually dangerous to assert that only people are worthy of respect; doing so opens the door to redefine who counts as a person. By treating embryos with respect and having clear regulations about what kinds of embryonic research are acceptable, it will be possible to use medical advancements like stem cell research to build a better future.