THE LOCKHART REVIEW
On the use of embryonic stem cells
Australia December 2005

A Commentary By
Dr. Joseph Santamaria

INTRODUCTION

The Lockhart Review Committee released its final report to the Federal Parliament on its website on December 19, 2005. It revealed that the Committee has received 1035 submissions to its Inquiry on Embryo Experimentation. The great majority of the submissions were against the use of embryonic stem cells as their harvesting involved the destruction of human embryos. It awakened old memories.

In 1972, in a journal called Interchange, Professor M.A. Jeeves, a neuroscientist, wrote an article on science and ethics and commented:
Since ethical principles are not logically derivable from scientific findings, any attempt to elevate science to the level of an ethical system, which must be believed or accepted, immediately opens itself to abuse in that it means that particular scientists claim to derive their ethical beliefs from their science and then set these forward as the ones that must be accepted by all people.
This can be done in several ways. I draw attention to the submission of the National Health & Medical Research Council. The Council encouraged ongoing community debate on the cloning of human embryos for research purposes and recommends that researchers continue to have access to excess ART embryos to continue research in these areas. There is no debate about the ethics of using such embryos for research purposes but there is a presumption that the community has accepted this state of affairs, that the ethical debate is no longer an issue.
Professor Alan Trounson opens his article in the Herald-Sun (23/12/2005) by calmly ignoring the moral status of the Human Zygote formed by somatic cell nuclear transfer. The Lockhart committee gives no moral status to the human embryo in the first 14 days after the human zygote has been formed and therefore its destruction in that period has no moral significance.

THE ETHICAL DILEMMA

In the fields of Reproductive Technology and Biotechnology generally, the underlying ethical position of the scientists around the world is based on Utilitarianism which now is presented in a subtle form. A very successful tactic of the scientific community is to appeal through the media, to present victims with severe physical disabilities who plead for such research to continue as their last chance of any hope of recovery from their crippling handicaps, even though there is no scientific evidence that embryonic stem cells can achieve such an outcome. Compassion becomes the key to ethical behaviour and opposition to embryo experimentation becomes a mark of insensitivity to human suffering.
James V. Schall (Crisis October 2005 p.63) has remarked that today's ethical appeal to compassion as the focus of decision making is a feature of the modern corruption of the word Justice. This new concept is an extension of the bewildering demands for social rights that have penetrated into virtually all fields of human society so that if embryonic stem cells may improve my state of health, I have a right to have my wishes fulfilled by the justice system acting out of compassion for my present state of suffering. But surely the virtue of justice would extend to the human embryo, to a more fundamental right for it to exist and to grow and not to be treated as a material commodity for the good of others. This modern clamour for a host of human rights, recognized in such documents as anti-discrimination legislation or a Bill of Rights, lends itself to a vague use of language with no hierarchy of values that serve both the good of the individual and the common good of the community. This in turn allows unelected judges to apply ideological interpretations that impose a new set of community values or standards that creates a new "morality".
In fact, in its final report, the Lockhart committee adopted this principle by effectively giving no moral status to the human embryo. All its extraordinary and far-reaching recommendations flow from the modern corruption of the concept of justice and the pressures applied by the scientific lobbies with deep vested interests.

VALUE JUDGMENTS IN SCIENCE

Science can add a great deal to our store of knowledge but it is not within the scope of its methodology to resolve ethical dilemmas, to determine or to assume how we should act ethically or morally. In commenting on scientific findings, scientists often introduce their own value judgements and reach conclusions or recommendations that can be validly contested by non-scientists, especially when they reflect on issues such as human rights, the moral status of members of the human species, the manipulation of public opinion and the distribution of public funds for the assertive promise of an advancement in clinical medicine.
Value judgements reflect the basic beliefs and creed of an individual and these are not derived solely from empirical studies. They are influenced by upbringing, philosophical reflection, behavioural preferences, career pathways, vested interests, and social mores. This applies to theists and atheists alike. They cannot be tested for validity by scientific experiments or methodology. The conclusions drawn from scientific studies are often based (legitimately) on philosophical principles that provide an independent avenue to the acquisition of knowledge. However this aspect of scientific publications is open to distortion and deceit as data can be used selectively or be generated by flawed methodology to support an underlying ideology or vested interest of the scientist.
Scientists often adopt the position that only empirical studies can establish the validity of our perception of reality. They baulk at the idea that philosophical principles can pose hypotheses or theories that move beyond the ambit of scientific inquiry. But even in the speculations of science, in the formulation of hypotheses and commentaries on empirical data, science employs the principles of philosophy, of logical analyses and rational thought.

EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS

It is highly doubtful if embryonic stem cells can ever be used in clinical medicine unless cloning is done using somatic cells of the patient (somatic cell nuclear transfer). All its claims for the treatment of any disease process are purely speculative. It is highly doubtful if such cloning can be done without a large bank of donor human ova . As the ova will contain the extranuclear DNA of the donors, the question of the immune rejection of the embryonic cells enters into the equation of informed consent. There is no doubt that the treatment of a patient will be at a prohibitive cost. It is known that cell lines established from such embryonic stem cells tend to undergo genetic drift or changes as successive populations are generated from the original cloned cell. It is known that such cells are prone to serious tumour formation. In the clinical situation, whether it be in clinical trials or treatment procedures, no such activities can be undertaken without the fully informed consent of the patient and institutional ethics committees would be reluctant to approve their use.

These are ethical issues and they are not resolved by the claim of scientists that all will be well under regulations written into legislation that allows them to experiment on human embryos, however they are obtained. It is also a distortion to suggest that those who oppose experimentation on human embryos are insensitive to the suffering of those with chronic disabilities who may show some response to stem cell therapy. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the use of adult stem cells in such cases but such information is obscured by the scientific lobbies for the use of ESCs.
The diversion of enormous amounts of public funds into research on human embryos is being justified on a clinical premise that is unfounded and a claim that the technology and its products will generate economic wealth for our nation. This is otherwise accurately known as the "commodification" of the human embryo and its cell lines and there is nothing to suggest that human cloning will not become the standard method of creating human embryos for commercial exploitation.
The review committee has summarily and scandalously dismissed the ethical questions that have been sharply highlighted in the majority of the submissions that they have received. Whether the submissions have arisen from an intuitive concept of human dignity or a clear understanding of the scientific evidence, the human embryo, however formed, is a member of the human species, the earliest stage of our human existence. It deserves the protection of the law and of international declarations. These opinions constitute a powerful reminder that ours is a human society that can be degraded by our failure to protect the weakest of our members.

A CONSCIENCE VOTE BY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

In the light of the weight of the responses received by the Lockhart Committee, it is a moot point as to what is meant by "their conscience vote." The Lockhart committee has effectively commodified the human embryo for the interests of science; it has singularly failed the nation and has thrown into disrepute the value of so-called expert committees appointed by governing bodies.

Dr. Joe Santamaria is a consultant physician and an emeritus chairman of St. Vincent's Bioethics Centre, Melbourne.