Madam, - Clearly the vast majority of those who support human embryonic stem cell research do so for the best of motives, to see new cures emerging for currently incurable diseases, which is something that we all want.
But the potential of this technology has been greatly oversold. Few serious scientists with a knowledge of the field really expect that human embryonic stem cell research will bring cures for human disease in the near future; perhaps it will, some day, but even for that, the evidence is fragmentary. Other avenues of research, including use of adult stem cells, appear more promising, although again miracle cures are, unfortunately, not just around the corner.
In this situation, it makes sense to concentrate on equally (or more) promising research directions which do not present ethical problems. John Howard Yoder, the Mennonite theologian, wrote: "I am less likely to look for a saving solution if I have told myself beforehand that there can be none, or have made advance provision for an easy brutal one" - a line of thought with clear applications to capital punishment, war and perhaps human embryo research.
It has been stated several times in the recent debate that if we have IVF (which certainly benefits some infertile couples and should clearly be available) we must have spare embryos which must either be destroyed or used for research. This is simply not the case.
Unused embryos can and should, with proper consent and screening of adoptive parents, be available for adoption. This has actually been achieved successfully elsewhere. The idea of parents donating embryos for research is as appalling as that of donating children for research; and we have surely progressed beyond the point of considering children as property of their parents.
In parallel, the technology for freezing ova is improving. The number required for implantation can be thawed and fertilised when needed; in this case there is no need to bring extra embryos into existence at all.
This is sometimes seen as a religious issue, and while people and groups fortunate enough to have strong religious belief have of course the right to bring their insights to the debate, I see it primarily as a human rights issue, informed by biological facts.
The only single definitive transition point, from a scientific perspective, in the formation of a new, human, individual person is when the DNA from mother and father come together within the fertilised egg. Subsequent events - implantation, formation of the primitive streak, initiation of neural function - are parts of a continuum of events which follow the predetermined programme for that individual's development already present in the fertilised egg. There is no other stage or event in development of which we could say with any confidence: "No person existed before this point".
Respect for each individual person is so basic to civilised society that we must, I suggest, define the beginning of individual life as this point of unique biological certainty. Anything else is a guess, and if our guess is wrong, the consequences in killing human individuals is terrible.
The government claims that this week's EU decision is just about regulating this research, but it is much more than that. It is about giving assent, support and legitimacy at a transnational level to a most uncivilised field of research. We cannot stop other countries from engaging in this research, but we can and must withhold our assent and support. Ireland deals regularly with countries which apply the death penalty and which abuse women's rights, but we would never give encouragement to such barbarous practises. Our attitude to human embryonic stem cell research should be the same. - Yours, etc.,
MARTIN CLYNES, Professor of Biotechnology, Dublin City University.
Madam - Quite extraordinary are the remarks of Patrick Smyth (Opinion, November 24), in regard to embryonic stem cell research. Who could object to "research"? But there is far more than research involved here.
Mr Smyth rejects a "black-and-white" understanding of the issue, and at the same time rejects the nuanced context of the principle of double effect, which he calls a "strange ethic", not realising it is part of our everyday life. At the same time he quotes and commends the "nuanced statement" from the Catholic University of Louvain.
Is there any moral situation whatever in relation to respect for human life on which he would ever adopt a "black-and-white" position? He seems to have a problem with what Kevin Doran wrote, that "the moral evil is associated not with the fact that embryos die, but with the fact that somebody decides to kill them". It seems to me to make perfect sense that there is no moral evil in the fact that Patrick Smyth and I will die, but that there is clear moral evil if somebody decides to kill either of us.
He reports, with approval, David Norris as quoting the "Protestant proverb" of "waste not, want not" in relation to the destructive exploitation of unwanted human embryos, without realising the essential moral standpoint that no human life should ever be regarded as unwanted or waste. And who has ever suggested that we should discharge embryos down the drain to keep our conscience clear? - Yours, etc.,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY, The Presbytery, Avoca, Co Wicklow.
Madam, -With reference to the recent statement of support from Mary Harney for the proposed EU embryo-based framework, could it be that market interests are paramount? Is this the ethical price we intend paying for future bio-technical investment in Ireland? - Yours, etc.,
BRENDAN KELLEHER, Grange Heights, Douglas, Co Cork.