A New Conservative Response to Stem Cell Research?

At least one young conservative thinks he has the answer. And what is this answer? Monster babies. I'm serious.

How could we create functioning parts of an embryo without the whole? By turning off one of the genes that guide embryo formation. Hurlbut's first choice is the human equivalent of cdx2, the gene in mice that directs the formation of the placenta. Without cdx2, the embryonic mouse cells divide but fail to take the shape of a mouse. The plan would be to follow the recipe for cloning—put the nucleus of a body cell into a gutted egg cell—but turn off cdx2. Then, once the cell begins to divide, reactivate the gene, too late to organize the embryo but early enough to make stem cells.



It sounds perfect, until you look up at the projection screen. Hurlbut has modeled his recipe on "aberrant products of fertilization" and teratomas, which, he explains, are "germ cell tumors that generate all three primary embryonic germ layers as well as more advanced cells and tissues, including partial limb and organ primordia." Limb and organ primordia? Yep, that's what's on the screen: a ball of tissue, grown inside some poor creature, full of bits and pieces of what would have been a body. Another slide shows an X-ray image of somebody's back. To the left of the spine, you can see a cluster of white spots that look like teeth. And that's exactly what they are, all dressed up and no place to chomp. You wanted disorganized development? You got it.



The things Hurlbut wants to create wouldn't get that far. And the important thing, from the standpoint of solving the stem-cell debate, is that they wouldn't be embryos. Hurlbut calls them "biological entities" or "pseudo-embryos," but he prefers the term "biological artifacts," which marks them, in his view, as "a human creation for human ends." They would have "no claim on the moral status due to a developing human life," he writes. James Q. Wilson, a council member who likes the idea and loves to garden, puts it more succinctly. The product of Hurlbut's technique, he suggests, would be "a weed."

I'm all for new thinking in the sciences but this seems flawed in serious ways. It's too much of an attempt to appease both sides. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, except that there is already middle ground if people will give up the rhetoric.



We already know that so far, embryonic stem cells have not been proven to work any better (if even as well as) adult stem cells. Yet, the most radical leftists in this country continue to insist that anyone opposing embryonic stem cell research is a Bible-thumping type with no compassion. Never mind the down stream cancer and the lack of results. Yet, adult stem cells have shown none of the negative effects and has experienced success. We don't need to play with the parts of life, we just need to stop allowing the radicals on both sides to control the discussion.