---

Canadian Biotechnology Expert Denounces the Creation of 'Quasi-Embryos' as "Morally Repugnant"

VICTORIA, December 16, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week, LifeSiteNews.com reported that a member of the US President's Council on Bioethics proposed the creation of genetically engineered 'biological artifacts' that he claimed, though capable of producing embryonic stem cells, would not technically be embryos. This proposal was heralded as a means of skirting the ethical barrier to obtaining embryonic cells, which requires the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage of life.

Dr. William Hurlbut, a professor at Stanford University, proposed the creation of life forms made from human ova and injected DNA. Dr. Hurlbut explained that these things, "even if they're human - without that principle of life, are not moral entities," and can be killed or destroyed and their component cells harvested without moral qualms.

Possibly due to the extremely rarified nature of the technical language, few reservations were raised at the meeting, even by the pro-life Catholics present. Mary Anne Glendon, head of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, thanked Dr. Hurlbut and said that the proposal may solve the "technical and moral problems" over the demand for embryonic stem cells for experimentation with which the Council had been struggling. She said the creation of these as-yet unnamed things "may be the beginning of a very, very significant turn in our history."

Other members of the scientific research community, however, have voiced their grave reservations about the ethics of this proposal. Speaking with LifeSiteNews.com, Dr. Clem Persaud, a retired Professor of Microbiology and Biotechnology, called the proposal "deeply flawed." He said that the process would not create an unknown 'new entity,' but a severely disabled, cloned human being. "The process amounts to a kind of germ-line genetic engineering combined with a type of cloning to produce an aberrant human embryo. Deliberately producing a deformed human being, then destroying it to harness stem cells is morally repugnant, and is a clear case of ends justifying means."

Traditional moral theology requires that if experimentation is done on a human being, no matter what stage of development, there must be some benefit to the subject. Dr. Persaud said that in Dr. Hurlbut's proposal, "There is harm, but no benefit, to the created embryo." He also warned that the cloned embryos would produce stem cells that were subject to the same problems of immune system rejection as other embryonic stem cells.

Dr. Persaud has lectured widely on recent developments on experimentation with human embryos. Last year he gave expert testimony to the Standing Committee on Health of the House of Commons when it was considering Canada's stem cell legislation.

"Dr. Hurlbut has failed to make a strong case for altered nuclear transfer. His procedure is an example of one step forward and two steps backward, and merits no serious consideration," he said.

Read previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/dec/04120803.html

hw

 Back to Top

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.