Letters to the Editor, Nov. 19

Question of stem cell research sits outside realm of Regents, deserves ‘no' vote

Dear Board Members;

Certainly, the question of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and the other issues that come with it comprise one of the most compelling questions of our time. It is yet another example of when science seems to clash with ethics and when we must decide if it is necessary to protect ourselves from our own curiosity and hope. Acknowledging that we must all join in the conversation, I must protest not only the way the Board of Regents is addressing this issue, but the fact that Nebraska has let it come to you at all.

In March of 2008, LB606 was touted as an amazing compromise by both sides of the stem cell debate, but it should have been as apparent then as it is now that this was a short-sighted view. You now have the chance to convince the state that it must deal with this issue for what it is. Send this issue back to the Legislature because surely you must see that the Board cannot possibly deal with this issue properly.

While many over the past few weeks have focused on the more easily recognized issues of a right to life and economic considerations for the university, these approaches abstract us from the issue and give us the false idea that we can address it outside the Unicameral. I'd like to broaden the discussion and explain why I believe we must ask the Unicameral to forget the promises made in LB606 and actually address this issue.

Do human embryos have the right to life? If not, does the potential for life that they certainly represent necessitate some level of protection? Neither of these essential questions can be dealt with in a satisfactory manner by the Board. While I wish I could help illuminate the complexity of designating an embryo as deserving protection, space and time dictate that I need only mention that an embryo is something that develops.

If conception is the point at which we recognize protection, then we need to determine what stage conception actually is. Conception could be one of many steps between when the sperm first contacts the egg to when the cell actually begins to divide.

Furthermore, we must recognize that even after what could be considered conception, an embryo can become two individuals or can even combine with another embryo to become one. How do we assign the right to life to something that is not yet an individual? We must address these issues.

While this may be complicated enough, we must further deal with the reality that hESC research is not where these embryos find their destruction in our society. They find their destruction at in vitro fertilization clinics, where the current process necessitates that some embryos be wasted. The right to life is the most basic of rights we have, and it must trump other rights – even if it is applied to embryos.

While the reality of in vitro fertilization has been a miracle for those women who could not otherwise have their own children, any state law based on the right to life must also regulate or ban in vitro fertilization. There are answers to these problems, but they will never find themselves in a decision by the University of Nebraska Board of Regents.