Madam, - The Irish Council for Bioethics (ICB) recently issued an opinion - "Ethical, Scientific and Legal Issues Concerning Stem Cell Research" - which recommended that frozen IVF embryos could be destroyed for research to generate human embryonic stem cell lines.
The fact that the opinion was unanimous (13-0) - curious, given the diversity of opinion on the topic - might signal to legislators that the recommendations represent a general consensus in the academic and biomedical communities.
This is not the case, and we are writing to express our strongest possible dissent from the ICB with regard to destructive research on human embryos. This opinion has no sound ethical, medical or scientific basis. Incidentally, 69 per cent of respondents in the council's own public consultation believe the embryo attains "full moral status" at fertilisation.
Scientifically it is a fact that a new, unique, human individual comes into existence when the DNA from sperm and ovum come together at fertilisation. The ICB report recognises this and accepts that the embryo has a "significant moral value", but then asserts that the embryo does not "have the same moral status as those already born". No valid reasons are given for this extraordinary assertion.
The basis for a civilised society must be the recognition of the inherent value and basic rights of each human individual, and whenever arbitrary distinctions have been made throughout human history, on the basis of race, colour, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc, serious human rights abuses have followed, as the history of the 20th century clearly illustrates.
We reject the ICB's reasoning in recommending legalisation of destructive human embryo research because:
The embryos are human individuals. The disturbing suggestion (from sources referred to in the ICB's document) that the value of an embryo might be contingent on the attitude of parents is not consistent with any valid concept of individual human rights. Neither the fact that many embryos die, nor that twinning can occur, changes the fact that destroying IVF embryos is destroying the lives of human individuals.
The therapeutic potential of human embryonic stem cells has been greatly exaggerated by its proponents, out of all proportion to the scientific evidence, and patients and patient lobby groups have been unfairly misled.
There is no evidence to suggest that research using human embryonic stem cells is necessary to cure disease. It is likely that scientific knowledge and cures for disease can be achieved by ethically acceptable approaches, including adult stem cell research and the use of induced pluripotent cells (in which adult cells can be reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells).
The logic behind the ICB's argument could in the longer term pose a threat (no doubt unintended by ICB) to other groups in society, including those with serious physical and mental disability, and the terminally ill.
We also challenge the ICB's justification of destructive embryo research on the basis that "nothing is lost" (ie, if frozen embryos are going to be destroyed, why not put them to good use?). There is, in fact, no need to destroy IVF embryos. With the recent advances in egg freezing and the option of adoption of frozen embryos (if the parents do not wish to have them all implanted), IVF without left-over embryos is perfectly feasible; and the Government should legislate on this basis to protect the interests of parents and of the embryos generated by this technology.
The issue of the rights of embryos is often portrayed as a religious one, but our position is based on scientific principles and concern for fundamental human rights, not on religious dogma.
Those parts of the ICB's opinion document dealing with destructive embryo research should (along with the corresponding majority recommendations from the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction) have no role in the framing of legislation. - Yours, etc,
MARTIN CLYNES, Professor of Biotechnology, Dublin City University; WILLIAM REVILLE, Associate Professor of Biochemistry, University College Cork; KEVIN KAVANAGH, Senior Lecturer in Biology, NUI Maynooth; DONAL Ó MATHÚNA, Senior Lecturer in Ethics, Decision-Making and Evidence, Dublin City University; DESMOND O'NEILL, Associate Professor of Medical Gerontology, Adelaide and Meath Hospital/Trinity College, Dublin; KEN CARROLL, Senior Lecturer in Biology, ITT Dublin; GERRY WHYTE, Associate Professor of Law, Trinity College, Dublin; ROSALEEN DEVERY, Senior Lecturer in Biotechnology, Dublin City University; WILLIAM BINCHY, Regius Professor of Laws, Trinity College, Dublin; METTE LEBECH, Lecturer in Philosophy, NUI Maynooth; JOHN KEHOE, General Practioner, Naas; SEAN Ó DOMHNAILL, Consultant Psychiatrist, Louth/Meath Mental Health Service; RONALD GRAINGER, Consultant Urologist, Adelaide and Meath hospital/Trinity College Dublin; DES MacHALE, Associate Professor of Mathematics, University College Cork; PETER CHILDS, Senior Lecturer in Chemistry, University of Limerick; TERESA IGLESIAS Director, Newman Research Centre, School of Philosophy, University College, Dublin.