SRT Home Page What is the SRT Project? Site Map & Subject Index What's New? Highlights Current Talking Point The Big Issues The Big Issues "Engineering Genesis" Genetic Engineering GM Food GM Animals Human Genetics Cloning Xenotransplantation Patenting Risk Environment Climate Change Energy Nuclear Power Transport Eco-Congregation Church Energy Saving Technology Internet Issues Science & Faith SRT Publications SRT Newsletter SRT Information Sheets SRT Topical Papers Press Room Contact SRT Send a comment Guest Book SRT Trust & Associates Links European Christian     Environmental Network Eco-Congregation

Society, Religion and Technology Project Church of Scotland Looking at the ethics of technology for a New Millennium

Within the UK context, The Church of Scotland has examined stem cell issues in considerable depth since 1998. Our most recent study was an multi-disciplinary working group which brought together Scottish stem cell and medical researchers with experts in ethics and theology over 15 months, leading to a General Assembly debate on 23 May 2006. Although some in the church would oppose all embryo research, the majority of the Assembly did not oppose research using surplus embryos from IVF or PGD treatments. But the emphasis was to avoid using embryos where possible.

The working group explored the prospects for stem cell research into different diseases in a set of case studies. It was clear that research is a long way from leading to treatments. As things stand today, stem cells derived from adult tissue or placental cord blood do not so far offer the range and number of cells which one might expect cells from embryos to offer, but research in both areas is still in its relatively early stages. The Assembly approved the principle of UK research in all three types of stem cells, but considered that embryos should only be used where the research was of great medical importance in relief of suffering, and when no realistic alternative exists - a "No, unless ..." position.

At an EU level, the member states have long been divided over these issues. We find similar difference of view among the members of the bioethics working group of the Conference of European Churches (CEC) representing Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox traditions. Given this diversity of national views, should EU money be provided for embryo research in countries when a significant minority of EU countries forbid such research as a matter of national ethical values? Or should countries which do allow such research have the possibility for EU-funded European collaborative research?

In a recent vote, the European Parliament judged to allow EU funding subject to various conditions, and provided that only surplus embryos were used. This clearly offends a number of nations. Given that this represents the people of the EU as a whole, perhaps a fairer compromise might have been to accept an alternative parliamentary amendment. This argued that where a technology was very controversial, the EC should give priority to research in the less ethically contentious alternatives of adult and placental cord blood cells. Deciding between research proposals has, of course, to be based on scientific excellence and its overall value to the EU and its objectives. But budgets could be apportioned to give a greater share to the less contentious areas.

As to the US situation, Mr Bush's personal veto is surprising indeed, when a majority of both houses have voted to go ahead on a deeply moral issue, and (it is claimed) with the approval of the majority of the US people. But the veto defies belief, in that for all the President's rhetoric, it applies only to publicly funded research. When embryonic stem cell research is conducted for profit in the private sector, no restrictions exist, because here, in practice, the ethic of the dollar rules. Ethically, the situation is indefensible. It is surely greatly overdue that the US should act to bring itself into line with most other democracies? It should bring ethically contentious areas of private research such as stem cells under federal legislation, with regard to what may be premitted ethically and what may not, with a proper regulatory body to control it.