In the growing debate over embryonic stem cell research, we are discussing whether it is acceptable to destroy a human embryo at its earliest stages of life so as to investigate the possibility of cures if not panaceas for those with terribly debilitating diseases. "What’s the problem?" is the reaction of many people who are simply focusing on one side of the question involved here.

Western tradition has had a consistent ethical guideline: the end does not justify the means. Applied to today’s ethical dilemma involving human embryos, it translates as follows: a possible cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, etc., does not justify the taking of another, seemingly insignificant human life.

This is not just a Catholic, Christian, or conservative viewpoint among many viewpoints. It is a foundation of our civilization, as we know it. When we as a nation applied it to the scientific research performed by Nazi physicians who used Jewish prisoners as objects of research, our government and scientists worldwide agreed not to use the findings, regardless of what cures or good might have come from such evil. The merits of this agreement, known as the Nuremberg Code, apply equally today. The objects of embryonic stem cell research are less recognizable to us, but they are human, borne out by science’s own testimony that the DNA of these embryonic cells is human, even if these cells have not yet developed individuality. The fact that many of these embryos have been adopted and are now active healthy sons and daughters of families who love them, is additional proof that these "blastocysts," or early-stage embryos, will develop into nothing other that unique persons, each different from every other person.

Some criticize the Church for speaking out concerning scientific matters. Others criticize the Church for not speaking out loudly enough about crimes against humanity such as those carded out by Nazis. As the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester, I have a duty to speak with a moral voice from a foundation of Judaeo—Christian teaching about questionable ethical activities being hailed as advancement of the common good.

Keep in mind that many scientists have demonstrated the merits of adult stem cell research to accomplish the same noble ends of curing these heart-wrenching diseases. This more promising line of scientific study is one we can wholeheartedly support since it offers compassionate hope to people with various afflictions while recognizing the dignity of all life, not just certain human lives. On the contrary, a continued support of embryonic research despite its promises is morally flawed. We must ask ourselves in this regard, have we reached the epitome of the irony involved in this debate: that to protect human life we must take human life?

Until just a few weeks ago, many people had never heard of embryonic stem cell research. The practice of in vitro fertilization has become more common and there has been sufficient speculation about cloning both in fact and in science fiction to make many people aware of that concept. Thus I think it is fair to say that people in general understand that science is now tinkering with human life at its very origins.

What the majority of people do not know, however, is that for every embryo chosen to be implanted in a woman’s womb, a dozen or more embryos may be discarded, destroyed, or frozen for storage purposes.

An urgent question immediately presents itself What is an embryo? Is it truly human life? The answers to these questions can be given without equivocation. As our colunmist Charles deCelles, Ph.D., noted last week, the American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine (1889 edition) defines an embryo in the following terms:

"From the time of conception until the eighth week, the developing baby is known as an embryo."

This is no surprise. It is a biological fact. We all begin our lives as embryos. It is the earliest phase of human biological development after conception itself When the entire genetic material of father and mother are brought together in the union of a sperm and an egg, we have conception and the beginning of a human life. As that first cell begins in turn to divide into other cells we have an early embryo. Over the next several months that embryo will continue to grow as its cells divide gradually taking on the aspects of a human child until it is ready to be born, usually some nine months later. Let no one be fooled. This is human life at its origin. No question about it.

In the early embryo there are undifferentiated cells, primitive cells, called stem cells, which can become the cells of various tissues and organs of the body as the embryo develops. Thus, such stem cells can become muscle tissue, nerve cells or blood cells and so forth. This is how the body gradually develops. It is because stem cells have the ability to change into the various cells of the body that they hold promise for scientific researchers who want to experiment with them, hoping to find cures for such disease as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc.

The embryo, however, is not the only source of stem cells. They can also be found in the umbilical cord, the placenta, and even in adult tissues.

In his recent address to the nation, President George W. Bush gave his long and eagerly awaited response to the question of whether he would support or ban the use of federal funding for stem cell research in general and embryonic stem cell research in particular. From the moral perspective, that is, from the perspective of right and wrong, good and evil, the proper respect for human life or its degradation, he was solidly right on nearly every point. Only in one area could criticism be registered, but, on the whole, it was a forthright and courageous defense of human life in its origins, and he deserves our respect and our support in this critical area of national policy.

Everyone should be aware by now that one cannot obtain embryonic stem cells without killing human embryos. The destruction of a human embryo is therefore the destruction of a human life. Even a good purpose, such as finding a cure for disease, cannot justify the taking of innocent human life, a life which has the potential to develop into a fully mature human being. The president drew a line in the sand and said he would not approve funding for research which would involve the destruction of human embryos.

There was some criticism of the president for supporting funding for research on existing cell lines, more than 60 of them, which were derived from embryos already destroyed. Some pro-life leaders saw no problem with this since the cell lines already exist, and there was no complicity on the part of the government in the destruction of those embryos.

Catholic Church leaders, however, expressed regret for various reasons. I think Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston said it best when he indicated that it will be difficult for President Bush to maintain his position in the face of all the pressure that he will be under from various groups, especially senators and members of congress who support research on embryonic stem cells. As the Cardinal noted: "It is because maintaining his position xvill be so difficult in today’s cultural climate that I regret the president’s decision to allow federal funding for experimentation on existing embryonic stem cell lines."

In spite of these reservations, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference called the president’s decision "an act of courage." The National Right to Life Committee commended the president for his stand. The National Catholic Bioethics Center in a release stated that it "applauds the fundamental positions taken by the president on embryonic stem cell research."

As Cardinal Law and others have noted, by his national address the president placed the issue of embryonic stem cell research in the consciousness of most Americans, in the light of day, where it can be discussed and debated. He has elevated the debate by a forthright defense of the value of each human life.

In addition, the president has given full federal spending support to stem cell research based on cells taken from umbilical cords, placentas, and adult tissues. Finally, the president promised to set up an ethics panel which will oversee the ethical dimensions of this research. We join Cardinal Law in hoping that this panel "will be rigorous in applying high standards of ethical conduct and protect the inviolable dignity of all human life, including embryonic human life."