THE MORAL STATUS OF THE EMBRYO

Of all the moral dimensions of stem cell research, the human embryo looms largest¹. Recall that viable² embryos may be created two ways: naturally, through the process of conception, or artificially, through either nuclear transfer or in vitro fertilization (IVF). In the latter case, removing the inner cell mass (ICM) in order to produce stem cells destroys the embryo. The cells may survive indefinitely, but the embryo is gone. Fertilized eggs kept in a freezer or blastocysts grown in a lab will never develop into a fetus or human because the outer layer of cells, the trophoblast, is missing. Normal development and a live birth require a viable embryo's successful implantation into the uterus³, where it will grow to term⁴.

What should we do with leftover embryos from IVF procedures? Are we justified in using them for the purposes of research? Should we create embryos using nuclear transfer so that we may use them for therapies? Do we treat embryos the same as a newborn or a child or even as an adult? The moral status of an embryo - whether we consider it a mere object, a human being, or somewhere in between - is the subject of thousands of pages of opinion, essays, and research. A rough sorting divides the issue into two camps. One group believes that embryos deserve protection and should not be used for research. The other group believes that embryos can be used and embryonic stem cell research should proceed.

The divining rod5 prompting6 each stance is the moral weight given to the embryo. The blastocyst depicted is shown 330 times larger than life size. lf we place a culture dish under a microscope and peer at the embryo at this stage, should we protect it from harm? lf not, should it be used to save others from disability, disease, and death? The debate pivots around these two questions. 321 words