<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.18063" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.jci.org/articles/view/36572">http://www.jci.org/articles/view/36572</A></DIV>
<DIV>
<H2>Book Review </H2>
<H1 class=article-title>Embryo<I style="FONT-SIZE: 90%">: A defense of human
life</I></H1>
<P class=authors><NOBR>Harry Ostrer</NOBR> </P>
<P class=address_correspondence>Human Genetics Program, New York University
School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. E-mail: <A
href="">ostreh01@med.nyu.edu</A></P>
<P class=product_information>George Robert P., Tollefsen Christopher. Doubleday.
New York, New York, USA. 2008. $23.95. ISBN: 978-0-385-52282-3 (hardcover).</P>
<DIV><IMG class=inline_image src="" align=top></DIV>
<P></P>
<P xpathlocation="//article/body/p[0]">In 2001, I moderated a debate on the
ethics of human embryonic stem cell research that was argued on the affirmative
side by the writer William Kinsolving and his daughter, Eliza, and on the
negative side by the bioethicist and molecular biologist Father Kevin
Fitzgerald. At one point, assuming the role of a Sunday morning news show host,
I questioned Father Fitzgerald about whether human life began at the time of
sentience — ability to experience feelings. Accustomed to answering this
question, Father Fitzgerald replied that, in fact, we do not know when human
life begins and that, in the absence of that knowledge, we must infer that it
began at the time of conception, making embryonic stem cell research (and
therapy) unethical.</P>
<P xpathlocation="//article/body/p[1]">In their book <I>Embryo: a defense of
human life</I>, Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen have no doubts about
when human life begins. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton
University, and Tollefsen, an associate professor of philosophy at the
University of South Carolina, assert that human life begins at the time of
conception. They are not swayed by philosophical arguments of mind-body dualism
dating back to Plato and revisited during the Enlightenment by Descartes. They
assert that a person is not an immaterial entity that is different from the body
and capable of an independent existence. </P>
<P xpathlocation="//article/body/p[2]">Likewise, the authors are not swayed by
more recent scientific arguments about the pluripotency of early embryonic
blastomere cells. Early embryos can be disaggregated to yield embryonic stem
cells that can differentiate into specific cell types, such as insulin-producing
β cells for treatment of diabetes mellitus — the goal of the Kinsolvings’ quest.
Alternatively, each cell can be cultured to form a new multicellular embryo that
can be implanted separately to form twins, triplets, or multiples of limitless
numbers. Or, cells from two embryos can be aggregated to form a chimera that
develops into a normal individual (or a true hermaphrodite, if the embryos were
of opposite sex) (<SPAN class=xref><A href="">1</A></SPAN>). Yet most human
embryos are chromosomally abnormal and do not have the potential to develop into
human babies. Rather, failure to implant into the uterus or to divide past a
certain stage, or the formation of abnormal structures such as hydatidiform
moles, is perhaps more the norm than the exception during early human
development. Neither totipotency nor lethal defectiveness alters the authors’
views. Embryos are human beings from the moment of fertilization, period. </P>
<P xpathlocation="//article/body/p[3]">The debate about the ethics of human
embryo research is not new. In 1994, I acted as an advisor to Paul Marks, the
co-chair of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel. In my position paper, I argued
that not only would human embryonic stem cell research lead to a potentially
promising therapy, but that embryo research would provide insight into early
embryonic human development, human birth defects, and infertility — insights
that have carried over into my own research (<SPAN class=xref><A
href="">2</A></SPAN>). Model organisms, such as the mouse, are not an adequate
substitute for studying early human development because they differ from humans
in size, appearance, longevity, physiology, genetics, and performance. It is
well known that the panel recommended that the NIH should fund human embryo
research, a step that was not taken by the Clinton administration. It was only
during the administration of George W. Bush that funding was made available for
research on previously established embryonic stem cell lines. This position was
put forth as a compromise by the President’s Council on Bioethics, of which
Robert George is a member. Clearly, George was not in the voting majority. In
fact, in <I>Embryo</I>, George seems to be settling old scores with some of the
other members of the Council. </P>
<P xpathlocation="//article/body/p[4]">Recognizing the implications of their
views, George and Tollefsen propose that all research on cultured human
embryonic cells should be prohibited in the United States, that funding should
be increased for research into adult, amniotic, and placental stem cells and for
distinguishing dead from living cryopreserved embryos, and that the production
of human embryos in IVF procedures should be limited only to those that will be
implanted (a limitation that has been imposed by the Italian government). They
also recommend that adoption procedures should be established for the millions
of currently cryopreserved embryos.</P>
<P xpathlocation="//article/body/p[5]">This book is a thoughtful treatise that
is drawn from the premise that human life begins at the time of conception.
Quite remarkably, research on human abortus material, permissible under NIH and
institutional review board guidelines if the abortion was not performed for the
purpose of research, is not discussed in this book. Reasonable people can
consider the same evidence and draw opposite conclusions. Let the debate proceed
on a higher plane.</P><A name=BIBL></A>
<H1 class=level_two>References</H1>
<OL compact><A name=B1></A>
<LI class=reference value=1>Yu, N., et al. 2002. Disputed maternity leading to
identification of tetragametic chimerism. <I>N. Engl. J. Med.</I>
<B>346:</B>1545-1552.
<DIV class=reference_linkouts>View this article via: <A href=""
target=xrefwindow>CrossRef</A> <A href="" target=xrefwindow>PubMed</A>
</DIV></LI><A name=B2></A>
<LI class=reference value=2>Ostrer, H., Wilson, D.I., Hanley, N.A. 2006. Human
embryo and fetus research. <I>Clin. Genet.</I> <B>70:</B>98-107.
<DIV class=reference_linkouts>View this article via: <A href=""
target=xrefwindow>CrossRef</A> <A href="" target=xrefwindow>PubMed</A>
</DIV></LI></OL></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>