Religious responses to Stem Cell Research

While searching around on YouTube today, I found a rather interesting BBC radio broadcast which briefly discussed the religious controversies over embryonic stem cell research in response to President Obama lifting the ban on stem cell research. The two sides of the argument were represented by Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, and by Omar Sultan Haque, a Muslim philosopher.
Radio broadcast
The interview started out with Land stating that he was "extremely disappointed" in Obama's decision and claims that he does not support "experimentation that would lead to the death of unborn babies." He then goes on to explain that such research is unnecessary because of the recent discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. He describes iPSCs as a "gift" to the president that allows for the benefits of stem cell research without causing death. The interviewer then asks Haque to describe the Muslim view on embryonic stem cells. Haque claims there are no direct sources for this, but claims he would not characterize embryonic stem cells as unborn babies and pointedly states that Land used the phrase to draw an emotional response from the audience. He then goes on to state that historically, Christianity tended to support Haque's view over Land's. The interviewer ask Haque if he would support "other research" (presumably iPSC's) and Haque states that he would. However, Haque changes the subject slightly and begins to attack Land's arguments. He asks Land to specify how embryonic stems differ from any other type of cell, to which Land states the primary difference is time, and that "an embryo becomes a human being", unlike a skin cell. Haque then rhetorically responds "why don't we convict women for genocide just by having their normal cycles?" The interviewer steps in and asks Land what he believes Obama's message is concerning the conflict between science and religion. Land replies that he believes Obama is removing the morality from the scientific world, which could lead to horrific experiments like those performed by the Third Reich. The interviewer presents the same question to Haque, who bats it aside in favor of criticizing Land's word choice, but implying that he does not believe religious beliefs should influence sound scientific principles.

I found this broadcast quite interesting because although both sides used arguments I've heard before, they both brought up good points that I had not considered before. As pointed out by Haque, Land attempted to appeal emotionally to the listeners, which is a logical fallacy. However, the idea that embryonic stem cells could in fact be seen as human beings is the most common argument I've seen against stem cell research. Obviously I really can't back this up, but I would say this is not the case, it's simply a group of cells; they are not aware of their existence, can't feel pain, differentiated into a complex organism, or done anything else that truly defines them from any other cell as an independent human being beyond having a unique genome.

Although I agreed with Haque, I was annoyed by the fact that he spent very little time expressing his own views and instead preferred to attack Land's ideas. Also, his comment relating a woman's natural cycle to genocide was also a logical fallacy. But through his attacks, he exposed the flaws in the anti-stem cell position. He also briefly mentioned that he more or less subscribes to the idea that people become more human as they continue to exist. Although I would not say an infant is less human than an 80-year-old, I would argue that for reasons I mentioned before, a human embryo should be classified as a group of cells, not as a person.

Despite the fact that I disagreed with Land's view, he did bring up a good point. Although I highly doubt that embryonic stem cell research could lead to a second Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, he does bring up that there is no definite moral standard regarding what is and is not acceptable treatment of humans and animals in medical studies.