Human Embryo Experimentation | Introduction
Scientific experiments on human embryos were first initiated for research to develop in vitro fertilization (IVF)—literally “fertilization in glass”—to enable infertile couples to have children. In this procedure, eggs and sperm are taken from a couple and fertilized by scientific means, outside of sexual reproduction. The resulting early staged embryos, or blastocysts, are implanted into the mother’s womb with the intent to achieve pregnancy.
Although efforts at in vitro fertilization with animals can be traced back to the late 1800s, it was not until 1965 that IVF technologies were applied to human reproduction. In 1971, researchers Patrick Steptoe, Robert Edwards, and Jean Purdy publicly announced that they had produced the first in vitro human blastocyst. Seven years later, Steptoe and Edwards announced the birth of Louise Brown, the first child to be been born as a result of in vitro fertilization. By the 1980s, IVF became a widely used method of treating both female and male infertility, allowing thousands of infertile couples to raise children biologically related to them.
From the beginning, in vitro fertilization has generated public controversy, especially among those with Christian views of procreation, the sanctity of life, and abortion. For instance, because the egg is fertilized without sexual reproduction, some Christians feel that IVF undermines the sacred act of procreative sexual intercourse between two married individuals. In addition, since several IVF-related practices require the destruction of blastocysts, it contradicts the Christian view that because life begins at the moment of conception, the destruction or abortion of the human embryo is murder. However, while some Christians today adamantly oppose in vitro fertilization, its ability to fulfill the wishes of many couples to have children has broadened the public’s acceptance of the procedure.
Couples who elect IVF to negate infertility face both physical and emotional challenges. Success with IVF takes a great deal of patience, persistence, and hope. Because the success rate of IVF is low, many blastocysts are produced at one time. In fact, the vast majority of them are never implanted into a womb. At the discretion of their genetic parents, extra blastocysts are frozen and stored for future use by the couple, discarded, or donated to scientific experimentation.
Human embryo experimentation has been used—and is continuously pursued—to expand our knowledge of the human embryo, improve contraception and fertility treatments, and develop prenatal screening for genetic conditions and abnormalities. But in 1994, Congress prohibited the federal funding of human embryo experimentation that takes place outside the womb. This policy is based on the belief that blastocysts living outside the womb are live human beings and therefore have the right not to be subjected to experimentation without their consent.
In recent years, the debate over human embryo experimentation has intensified due to the advancement of embryonic stem (ES) cell research. Numerous scientists and experts contend that stem cells derived from human blastocysts may be coaxed to form any kind of human cell or tissue for replacement and can possibly cure diseases that are the result of tissue degeneration, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. Supporters argue that federal funding for ES cell research is urgently needed in order to realize the full potential of ES cells. They insist that because blastocysts lack sentience, they cannot be categorized as live human beings. Therefore, federal funding of such research does not violate the existing law. In addition, supporters state that current ES experiments only involve the use of ES cell lines, cells grown in a culture, and not the actual blastocysts.
On the other hand, detractors of ES cell research maintain that in order to create ES cell lines, blastocysts must be destroyed, an act they consider unethical. Furthermore, they argue that supporting human embryo experimentation affirms the utilitarian belief that human beings, without their consent, can justifiably be used to achieve the greater good of society. On January 15, 1999, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) made the controversial decision that federal funds may be used to support human ES cell research since the ES cells collected from embryos are not in themselves embryos. However, in August 2001, President George W. Bush changed the policy established by the DHHS, restricting the access of federal funds to ES research that will only use ES cell lines already in existence. Research that will harvest stem cells from blastocysts to create new cell lines is ineligible. In explaining his decision, Bush concluded that “the decision on life and death has already been made” for those blastocysts that have been destroyed to create the existing ES cell lines.
Bush’s judgment regarding ES cell research has not dampened the controversy. The development of cloning technology in recent years has added to the debate. Numerous scientists want to clone embryos from which to harvest ES cells in order to explore the full capabilities of stem cell technology. For example, it is believed that cloning an embryo from a patient’s cells will allow doctors to create tissue with which to treat that patient. This process could eliminate the problem of tissue rejection—a long-standing challenge in organ transplantation. Driven by the possibilities that human cloning may offer to ES cell technology, private biotechnological companies such as Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) are conducting human embryo cloning experiments without support from the federal government. According to their latest announcements, ACT successfully cloned human embryos in November 2001.
As of February 2002, Congress had yet to decide whether or not human cloning for any reason should be banned in the United States. In anticipation of new guidelines for human embryo experimentation, the authors in At Issue: Human Embryo Experimentation analyze and compare the possible benefits and costs of such research and debate its potential societal and ethical implications.
