The recent EEU judgement on stem cell research is a characteristically philosophical romp through endless definitions of ‘human embryo’ and ‘human dignity’. That’s a thrilling experience for lawyers and ethicists, but what about the rest of us?
I could just about keep up with the judgement, but the fact that the court was called upon to clarify an EU directive’s use of the term ‘human embryo’ reveals just how little most of us understand about those early stages of human development.
Even the judges don’t know
The court had to define ‘human embryo’ because the EU directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions just doesn’t say enough. In explaining which inventions are unpatentable, it cites the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes. But it doesn’t describe what a human embryo is.
And yet as far back as 1981, Gail R Martin and her team had isolated mice embryonic stem cells – indeed, coining the very term – and demonstrating their pluripotency. That is, their ability to become any type of cell, although they would not function in isolation. James Thomson’s group followed through with the human versions in 1998, the same year that the EU biotech directive was enacted. By this point, lawmakers ought to have known how the field was progressing. They ought to have defined ‘human embryo’.
The public opinion
Today, I suspect that the public is just as unenlightened as eurocrats were in 1998: ask ten people on the street and you’ll get ten different answers. Indeed, a 2007 public opinion poll of over 2,000 UK citizens, conducted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, found that “the general public know only a little about using human embryos for research [and] stem cell research”.
Religious people have had all sorts of definitions for millennia. They range from the time of conception, through what Aristotle called ‘ensoulment’ (the entirely made-up figures of 40 days for boys, 90 days for girls), and all the way through to the baby’s first breath. Fortunately, none of these will do for the EU court. Its judges looked at the science. They found that totipotent stem cells (which can divide and develop into an entire organism) can be classed as human embryos. Individual pluripotent stem cells are not. However, the court said that clusters of pluripotent stem cells known as blastocysts, which grow into a full foetus, are ‘human embryos’.
Judges versus society
The judges have clearly considered the science while interpreting the directive. They grasped the aim of the law, which is to protect what it calls human dignity. The judges could therefore rule on what was actually human about an embryo. But theirs is a nuanced understanding because it was obtained through hearing scientists explain how these tiny bundles of life work.
Most people don’t have that opportunity. Even if they do, it’s at school. And a classroom of 30 youngsters and one beleaguered teacher ploughing through a curriculum hardly provides the space needed in which to wrestle with the ethics of embryology. Moreover, outside of the syllabus, many children are supplied with unscientific ideologies. These can be more in line with Aristotle’s unfounded ‘ensoulment’ hypothesis than evidence-based understanding.
And so it is easy for many people to react to the idea of research on stem cells (of which there are many types) as wrong or, in the least, controversial. Look at the use in news articles of the word ‘controversial’. It often can be substituted perfectly with ‘poorly understood’. Here’s a recent Irish Times article where the substitution not only works, but also highlights that the word ‘embryo’ is not explained. Ignorance serves up controversy on a daily basis. When it comes to embryology, we still don’t generally grasp the fine details. We are an ignorant public, in other words.
The same failed experiment?
And yet one should not place too much emphasis on the so-called “deficit model” of science communication, which assumes that information banishes ignorance. Some thinkers believe that pushing information is a waste of time. “We can preach the scientific facts as long as we want,” noted Dietram Scheufele from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in New Scientist recently. “This is replicating the same failed experiment over and over again.”
Nevertheless, it’s a sad day when a court has to decide what a ‘human embryo’ is for the purpose of interpreting legislation. I would have hoped that the citizens who helped to develop that democratically written law knew what they were writing about when they put pen to paper.
Our slow process of writing and interpreting laws is far better than a medieval tyranny based on religious ignorance. But it’s a great shame that we are still evidently evading science.
biotech, deficit model, ECJ, embryos, ethics, EU, Scary, stem cells, Comment.
We are as ignorant of embryos and stem cells as ever
By Adam SmithThe recent EEU judgement on stem cell research is a characteristically philosophical romp through endless definitions of ‘human embryo’ and ‘human dignity’. That’s a thrilling experience for lawyers and ethicists, but what about the rest of us?
I could just about keep up with the judgement, but the fact that the court was called upon to clarify an EU directive’s use of the term ‘human embryo’ reveals just how little most of us understand about those early stages of human development.
Even the judges don’t know
The court had to define ‘human embryo’ because the EU directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions just doesn’t say enough. In explaining which inventions are unpatentable, it cites the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes. But it doesn’t describe what a human embryo is.
And yet as far back as 1981, Gail R Martin and her team had isolated mice embryonic stem cells – indeed, coining the very term – and demonstrating their pluripotency. That is, their ability to become any type of cell, although they would not function in isolation. James Thomson’s group followed through with the human versions in 1998, the same year that the EU biotech directive was enacted. By this point, lawmakers ought to have known how the field was progressing. They ought to have defined ‘human embryo’.
The public opinion
Today, I suspect that the public is just as unenlightened as eurocrats were in 1998: ask ten people on the street and you’ll get ten different answers. Indeed, a 2007 public opinion poll of over 2,000 UK citizens, conducted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, found that “the general public know only a little about using human embryos for research [and] stem cell research”.
Religious people have had all sorts of definitions for millennia. They range from the time of conception, through what Aristotle called ‘ensoulment’ (the entirely made-up figures of 40 days for boys, 90 days for girls), and all the way through to the baby’s first breath. Fortunately, none of these will do for the EU court. Its judges looked at the science. They found that totipotent stem cells (which can divide and develop into an entire organism) can be classed as human embryos. Individual pluripotent stem cells are not. However, the court said that clusters of pluripotent stem cells known as blastocysts, which grow into a full foetus, are ‘human embryos’.
Judges versus society
The judges have clearly considered the science while interpreting the directive. They grasped the aim of the law, which is to protect what it calls human dignity. The judges could therefore rule on what was actually human about an embryo. But theirs is a nuanced understanding because it was obtained through hearing scientists explain how these tiny bundles of life work.
Most people don’t have that opportunity. Even if they do, it’s at school. And a classroom of 30 youngsters and one beleaguered teacher ploughing through a curriculum hardly provides the space needed in which to wrestle with the ethics of embryology. Moreover, outside of the syllabus, many children are supplied with unscientific ideologies. These can be more in line with Aristotle’s unfounded ‘ensoulment’ hypothesis than evidence-based understanding.
And so it is easy for many people to react to the idea of research on stem cells (of which there are many types) as wrong or, in the least, controversial. Look at the use in news articles of the word ‘controversial’. It often can be substituted perfectly with ‘poorly understood’. Here’s a recent Irish Times article where the substitution not only works, but also highlights that the word ‘embryo’ is not explained. Ignorance serves up controversy on a daily basis. When it comes to embryology, we still don’t generally grasp the fine details. We are an ignorant public, in other words.
The same failed experiment?
And yet one should not place too much emphasis on the so-called “deficit model” of science communication, which assumes that information banishes ignorance. Some thinkers believe that pushing information is a waste of time. “We can preach the scientific facts as long as we want,” noted Dietram Scheufele from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in New Scientist recently. “This is replicating the same failed experiment over and over again.”
Nevertheless, it’s a sad day when a court has to decide what a ‘human embryo’ is for the purpose of interpreting legislation. I would have hoped that the citizens who helped to develop that democratically written law knew what they were writing about when they put pen to paper.
Our slow process of writing and interpreting laws is far better than a medieval tyranny based on religious ignorance. But it’s a great shame that we are still evidently evading science.
biotech, deficit model, ECJ, embryos, ethics, EU, Scary, stem cells, Comment.