Editorial

Catholic role in Embryo talks

Stem cells have the remarkable capacity to grow into any part of the body. That is why research using stem cells offers the prospect of treatment for a wide range of serious and painful diseases. But when it involves the use, and then destruction, of fertilised human eggs, the Catholic Church says that this is tampering with human life, and unacceptable. Nor is it alone in saying so. If faith-based objections to this research are to be taken seriously, however, the admirable motive of seeking a cure for suffering must be explicitly recognised.

Such considerations did not deter Cardinal Keith O'Brien from preaching a fierce Easter sermon that described the research as a "monstrous" violation of human rights, particularly the possibility of creating an embryo that had both human and animal DNA. Unfair or not, his dramatic words provoked a media storm, which was followed, a few days later, by the Prime Minister's announcement that Labour MPs who opposed the relevant clauses in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill before Parliament would now be allowed a free vote. Three Catholic members of his Cabinet were apparently threatening to resign unless this concession was made.

Although the cardinal can claim that he succeeded in his plea for a "conscience" vote on the relevant clauses of the bill, the same adage applies to church spokesmen as to scientists: good ends do not justify bad means. Scottish archbishops are traditionally outspoken while Catholic leaders south of the border usually adopt a more nuanced and tactful tone, as they have on this issue. It is in that spirit that they should respond positively to various suggestions of a dialogue between proponents and opponents of embryo research, such as that put forward in these pages by Professor Colin Blakemore, former head of the Medical Research Council.

But he would be wasting his time if he thought that a better explanation of the likely therapeutic benefits of embryonic stem-cell research would win Catholic opponents over. They do not need lessons in compassion. Similarly with the economic benefits of making Britain a world centre for such research: unless the means proposed are ethical, this would merely give Britain an advantage over other countries not because of the genius of its scientists but through the laxity of its laws.

At the very least, a Catholic contribution to such a dialogue could press the case for more research into alternative sources of stem cells than from human embryos. Public anxiety about experiments on animals has forced scientists to find alternative ways of testing drugs. Something similar could apply, once the scientists concerned understand that the Catholic objection to embryo research is rational and ethically motivated, well informed and not about to go away. In any event, drugs developed in Britain by means that are illegal in many other countries might be difficult to market there. So there is an economic case for phasing out embryo stem-cell research, too.

In so far as the objection that Catholics have to this research is an insight arising from their faith, it is the Church's own doctrine that those not of its faith are not bound by its teachings. They are entitled to a different view as to when life begins, and should not be demonised for it. Non-Catholics have consciences too, which are just as easily offended.

Back to the front page