Stem cells a hot ballot issue

By David Wilson

Three days after former actor and stem cell research supporter Christopher Reeves died, Santa Clara hosted a debate on the controversial research he had advocated during its weekly Ethics at Noon discussion.

The debate was fueled by Proposition 71, which would allocate $3 billion in state funding for controversial stem cell research and would also set the state back $6 billion in debt.

Reeves' death and the upcoming November elections have brought increased media attention to the issue.

"People like Christopher Reeve supported this type of research," saidone speaker, Jerry Coleman.

Over 40 students, staff and outside members of the community attended the presentation in the Arts and Sciences building and contributed to a discussion held between three key speakers.

Few seats were left empty in the room when the presentation began and many audience members stood in the back. The moderator took a seat on the floor in front as no seating was available in the front rows.

Margaret McLean, director of the biotechnology program at the ethics center, explained the scientific aspects of stem cell research. Coleman, a traveling lecturer on Catholic ethics and also a professor at Saint Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park presented the ethical views of the Catholic Church.

Larry Nelson, philosophy department professor, discussed stem cell research from a different, philosophical point of view.

McLean took what she described as a non-partisan position and began by explaining that stem cells are blank cells. She says they exist in a state which enables them to transform into different cell types.

"We are interested in stem cells because there seems to be a great deal of medical promise in stem cells, if you could get a blank cell you could, through chemical manipulation, force it down one differentiation path or another," McLean said.

Coleman gave an emotional explanation on stewardship and the responsibility that Catholics and all humans have to protect human life. He then countered McLean's argument by saying that he does not want to see people creating false hopes with the expectation of a quick fix to diseases.

Coleman stated that the research is still in the relatively early stages, as scientists do not know the triggers to change the cells. Scientists are many years away from using stem cells to cure diseases, but she believes that potential cures may be there.

Nelson did not accept the argument that embryos possess moral status because they are human and did not see that as rationally defensible.

Through out the debate the audience listened silently except when the floor was opened for questions. Mostly faculty members participated in this part of the discussion. All three speakers concurred that spending billions of dollars on stem cell research would not be justifiable.

"I'm not sure if this is where a state with our scarce resources should be going." Nelson replied. According to Coleman, seven million Californians have no health insurance and this issue should be a top priority.

Some of the greatest differences in opinion surrounded whether or not human life and moral rights come in degrees.

"Larry is arguing moral status comes in degrees. If that's true, then the argument becomes one of debating the degree of status. Fr. Coleman, I take it, doesn't accept that and thinks human moral status is not the sort of thing to which there are degrees," philosophy professor Philip Kain said.

Coleman said imposing these levels would be too subjective and argues that any life needs to be protected.

Although field polls have indicated that Proposition 71 will pass with a strong majority, the ethics center panel agreed that it is still important to consider the ramifications of the measure's passage and the involved ethical dilemmas.

McLean believes that this measure would give some official endorsement for stem cell research.

She also warns that "Prop. 71 asks if we should provide state funding since no federal funding is available (at this time). It would amend the state constitution, and it is easier to vote it in, and will be hard to undue once the vote has gone through."

Coleman echoed McLean's fears and worried that if this proposition passes, debate of the ethical issue will cease as people accept the fact that the research will be in progress.

*Contact David Wilson at (408) 554-4546 or dfwilson@scu.edu.