Answering fundamental questions about human life is seldom easy. For example, to realize the promise of my own field -- heart and lung transplantation -- and at the same time to address the moral concerns introduced by the new science, we had to answer a fundamental question: What is death?
With time and a lot of discussion, a lot of careful thought and a lot of courage, a lot of boldness from many people who believe in the promise of transplant medicine but also understood the absolute necessity for a proper ethical framework, we answered that question and allowed science to advance and have since saved tens of thousands of lives.
So when I, as a heart transplant surgeon, remove that human heart from someone who is brain-dead and I place it in the chest of someone whose heart has failed them in order to give them new life, I do so within an ethical construct that honors dignity and respect for the individual, both the donor and the recipient.
Like transplantation, if we can answer the moral and ethical questions about stem cell research, I believe we will have the opportunity to save many lives and make countless others' lives more fulfilling.
As we know, adult stem cell research is not controversial on ethical grounds, although embryonic stem cell research is.
Right now, to derive these embryonic stem cells, an embryo or a blastocyst, which many, including myself, consider nascent human life, must be destroyed.
But I also strongly believe, as do countless other scientists and clinicians and doctors, that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide.
My comprehensive set of 10 principles, as outlined, again, over four years ago, are as follows.
No. 1, ban embryo creation for research; 2, continue funding ban on derivation; 3, ban human cloning; 4, increase adult stem cell research funding; 5, provide funding for embryonic stem cell research only from blastocysts that would otherwise be discarded; 6, require a rigorous informed consent process; 7, limit the number of stem cell lines; 8, establish a strong public research oversight system; 9, require ongoing independent scientific and ethical review; 10, strengthen and harmonize fetal tissue research restrictions.
That is what I said four years ago, and that's what I believe in today. After all, principles are meant to withstand the test of time, even when applied to a field so rapidly changing like that of stem cell research.
