|
Description
|
Ethics, Science, and Politics:
The Debate about Stem Cell Research in
Germany and the United States
Friday, February 22, 2008
Brussels, Belgium
On On February 22, 2008, the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) hosted a workshop on "Ethics, Science, and Politics: The Debate about Stem Cell Research in Germany and the United States." The workshop, made possible by the generous support of the Robert Bosch Stiftung, was held in Brussels, Belgium, and featured speakers from the German, American, and European political and academic communities.
The first panel, titled "Stem Cell Debate: An Ethical Dilemma?" looked at the religious and ethical concerns raised by stem cell research. What role do religious actors play in this debate? Does religion enhance the public debate on this issue? Where do ethical concerns in the U.S. and Germany converge and where do they differ? Do recent developments in stem cell technology mitigate religious and moral objections?
In Germany, religious actors (i.e., churches) have a vote in the various ethical bodies, including the National Ethics Council and the Central Ethics Committee of the German Medical Association. They serve to remind the councils of normative values, to offer arguments, to stimulate both public and intra-church debate, and to suggest a moral judgment based on Christian beliefs.
Tensions between the religious and scientific communities in Germany are unresolved. The early debate between the need for research versus the protection of life continues, even as new legislation allows the - albeit limited - use of stem cells for research. The 2002 Stem Cell Law created a "cut-off" date for imported embryos that could be used for research; embryos created prior to the "cut-off" date that are no longer intended for reproduction may be used in a careful and controlled scientific capacity. In 2007, an amendment of this law shifted the "cut-off" date to a later date, allowing more embryos to be used for research, despite scientific pressure to allow for case-by-case decision-making. German researchers are still forbidden from using stem cells originating in Germany for research; they must all be imported. Ultimately, the German ethical debate centers on the conflict between the state's duty to protect life, including embryonic life (Article 1 of the Basic Law), and the constitutional freedom of science and research (Article 5 of the Basic Law).
In the United States, the general population is mixed regarding stem cell research. Although a majority of evangelical Christians believe life begins at conception (1), many are "situation ethicists," willing to trade-off values in order to avoid disease, illness, mental problems, and genetic complications. Furthermore, religious conservatives tend to believe that suffering has a "purpose;" to prevent a child from being born with a genetic disease does not count as relieving suffering but finding a cure for diseases that occur later in life (such as Alzheimer's Disease) does.
However, recent developments in non-embryonic stem cell research might mitigate the moral concerns associated with this type of research. Whereas pre-birth genetic differences being selected through embryonic stem cells invoke thoughts of discrimination, non-embryonic stem cell selection has connotations of medicine and vaccination. Without a connection to birth, life, and discrimination, many objections are forgotten.
The religious and ethical concerns over stem cell research display both similarities and differences in the United States and Germany. The most notable differences are first, the absence of organized religious conservatives in Germany and second, the constitutional context of the debate. Unlike in Germany, the federal debate in the U.S. is one of funding, not of outright permission or denial. Yet there are also important similarities between the two countries: the United Church of Christ sees itself as the geographical extension of the German Evangelische Kirche; a mutual respect for universities as agents of research exists; and permitting some - but not most - lines of stem cell research to continue. Additionally, both countries are poised to undergo a somewhat liberalizing change on the issue.
In this debate, the issues of most interest to religious actors are the sources of the embryonic stem cells and the use of the cells. Religious actors have five key arguments against the use of pluripotent cells: (1) there are biological and genetic indications that life begins at conception; (2) a Biblical duty to care for the "least of the least," which includes the human embryo; (3) the idea of incarnation, that God is present in the human embryo; (4) embryos should be given "the benefit of the doubt;" and (5) the prospect of future healing does not negate the destruction of human life.
Likewise, the use of stem cells raises objections, most notably the fear of "playing God" and creating something that should not be created. Additionally, there is concern that developments in stem cell technology will be used for enhancement, as in genetic preferences, and not for healing. However, the notion that no one has ever been helped by embryonic stem cell research - and therefore it is unnecessary - is false.
The aim of the second panel, "The Scientific Side of the Stem Cell Debate," was to look at the relationship between science and the ethical and political dimensions of stem cell research. Do the ethical and religious concerns of this issue affect scientists? Are certain areas of research favored - or neglected - due to ethical objections? How much governmental oversight is necessary for stem cell research?
Like much of society, science supports the idea that there is no sharp line dividing human beings from non-humans. Indeed, the only biological differentiation between living and not is fertilization. From science's perspective, society decides what is and is not "life" in this debate. In the U.S., the stem cell debate will largely disappear when using embryonic stem cell lines is replaced by induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells.
In Germany, scientists face legal obstacles - and legal consequences - in conducting stem cell research. Governmental oversight is such that German scientists face a legal risk if they are involved in international (including EU) projects, if they conduct research in foreign laboratories using stem cell lines that would be forbidden in Germany, and if they publish papers based on research conducted outside of Germany. Such limitations have contributed to the "brain drain" of German scientists. Meanwhile, restrictions on embryonic stem cell research have improved funding for research into the use of adult stem cells. Recent successes of and the potential for healing from embryonic stem cell research are gaining support among younger generations in Germany, suggesting that the tide may turn to legalize stem cell research without any restrictions.
At the European Union level, health research is one of the top priorities. However, as in the U.S. and Germany, ethical objections from some member states limit scientific research on stem cells. The EU has no legal competence to override these objections and so the EU's role instead is to set up a framework and conditions for EU-funded research. Furthermore, the EU's position as a common market means that it can regulate how products derived from stem cell research are marketed.
In the third panel, "The Political Decisions on Stem Cell Research," the workshop looked at questions such as the extent to which political decisions on this issue are shaped by religious and ethical beliefs, as well as by international opinion. Does federalism (in the U.S., in Germany, and within the EU) play a role? If both religion and the state are involved in the decision-making process, where do their roles intersect?
Since the 1980s, policy regimes have emerged around ethical issues in the United States, including the issue of stem cell research. The U.S. is polarized, not only between the religious and secular, but also between a coalition of Catholics and Evangelicals, on the one hand, and biotech, patient advocacy groups, and liberal Protestants, on the other. Furthermore, the linkage created in the 1980s between the abortion debate and stem cell research, that is, the issue of when human life begins, allowed the Catholic Church to be one of the strongest advocates against stem cell research. However, one cannot look only at the power of interest groups in this debate; it is part of a larger, value-driven clash within American political discourse.
Institutionally, the U.S. faces varying degrees of governmental involvement in stem cell research. At the federal level, restrictions on research come into play due in large part to the separation of power between the executive and the legislative branches. The threat of a presidential veto limits legislation. Likewise, the federal system itself is contradictory: stem cell research is much more restricted at the federal level than at the state level. As mentioned before, much of the debate does not center on whether embryonic stem cell research should be expressly forbidden, but whether the federal government should fund such research.
The societal decision in Germany that protection of life supersedes the right to research was made by the key actors in the stem cell debate: the government, parliament, interest groups, and the churches. German political culture in the Bundestag allows for decisions based on personal judgment, which was the dominant factor in stem cell research policy.
However, despite the tendency to determine policy - in this field - based on personal ethics, the institutional construction for the regulation of stem cell research is just as convoluted as in the United States. When Chancellor Gerhard Schröder established the National Ethics Council, he was criticized as undermining the consensus built on this issue in the 1980s; the Bundestag quickly formed its own ethics council and the two cancelled out each other's effectiveness. Among the churches, the stem cell import law was heavily criticized, yet it was still important to the churches if they wanted to maintain consensus within their bodies.
In Germany, science and research can only be limited if they are negatively impacting another constitutional right - in this case, life. Yet regulation of stem cell research reveals a problem with German regulation overall. German policy does not gel with its neighbors' policies and important German societal groups are unwilling to cooperate and communicate within Germany, let alone with other members of the European Union. Indeed, even in strongly Catholic Poland, a discussion has begun for the liberalization of stem cell laws.
From the European perspective, there exists the need to create a body for discussing ethical issues within the European Union. Scientists and pragmatists argue that the EU cannot afford to limit a solution, nor can it allow several member states to continue to block research. However, despite proposals from the Commission to allow stem cell research, proposals have been blocked by the European Parliament because, while moving forward quickly, scientists have avoided dealing quickly and effectively with the stem cell debate.
In the United States, Germany, and the European Union, the challenge is to strike a balance between respect for human life and respect for science, between the future benefits that can be derived from stem cell research and the moral objections to intervention. Until a balanced discussion can be achieved, both in society and by policymakers, the stem cell debate is likely to continue.
........................................................................................................
Footnotes:
1. Here, evangelical is determined as attending church every week.
........................................................................................................
Presentations from several speakers:
Dr. Burkhard Jandrig
Charles Kessler
Christa Wewetzer
........................................................................................................
AICGS is grateful to the Robert Bosch Stiftung for its generous support of this program.
|
