The questions Mary Harney must answer before EU stem-cell vote

DEAR Minister Harney,

At a meeting of the EU Council of Ministers you must indicate the view of the Irish Government on the controversial issue of EU funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

A lot of people will watch you with interest because Ireland's vote could decide the issue.

The European Commission wants to fund scientific research which may in future provide cures for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

This research involves stem cells which can diversify into different kinds of human tissue. These cells can be obtained from different parts of the body, eg the umbilical cord, spleen and bone marrow.

But Brussels also wants to fund research on stem cells from human embryos perhaps embryos left over from fertility treatments like in vitro fertilisation (IVF). This is controversial because the embryos in question are first exploited, and then destroyed.

You say, Minister, that the EU must grant funding to embryo research in order to 'regulate' this area. But that isn't true.

Each individual country in Europe decides if embryo research is to be legal within its borders. If the EU provides funds for such research, it only makes it more likely to happen. If by 'regulate' you mean the EU should get its hands on the benefits of such research, then you are accepting the practice of exploiting embryos.

It is worth considering why pro-life groups, Catholic bishops, leading stem-cell scientists, DCU Professor Martin Clynes, numerous parliamentarians and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business all oppose the European Commission's proposal to fund research on embryos.

1. Embryonic stem-cell research involves the exploitation and destruction of tiny, but significant, human entities.

More than ever, science is helping us understand that from the moment of conception the human being is unique. The genes which determine our individual characteristics are all in place. The embryo is capable of growing and surviving outside the mother's womb.

Those who say this isn't human life must answer a simple question: What is? At what point would they confer respect on the individual human being? If they can't point to a particular moment, shouldn't they err on the side of caution?

2. The Irish Constitution guarantees not only to respect 'the unborn' but also 'to defend and vindicate' its life. The Government says that even if the EU agrees to provide funding, embryonic stem-cell research won't be permitted in Ireland.

That, at least, appears to acknowledge our constitutional obligations to the embryo. But how can we vindicate the embryo's life if, at the same time, we help fund its exploitation and destruction elsewhere?

3. Funding embryonic stem-cell research is not the only way forward. Embryo research supporters claim stem cells from embryos are more 'versatile'. Yet most of the progress so far has been made using ethically-acceptable adult stem cells.

Last year, the American neurosurgeon Michel Levesque reported that he had successfully treated a Californian, Dennis Turner, for Parkinson's Disease using the patient's own neural stem cells.

Another American, 16-year-old Dimitri Bonnville, received successful heart treatment when doctors developed essential tissues using his own adult stem cells.

4. Scientists are competing for funding. By deciding what research to fund, the EU is deciding which research will be done. If funding is given to embryo-based research, progress with adult stem cells will be slowed.

5. The potential for division between people is enormous and dangerous. Many scientists have ethical problems with research using human embryos. Do you want to turn them into second-class citizens, unable to take research positions because of what they'll be asked to do?

What of those countries which disallow embryo research will they be left behind? Worst of all, what of those people who cannot accept treatments developed from exploited embryos?

Do you really want to see lines of treatment developed (assuming the scientists' dreams come true) which only some people feel they can use?

Wouldn't it be better if we concentrated on the promise of adult stem cells so that the human community can move forward together?

6. According to the principle of subsidiarity, power should be exercised as close to the people as possible. But by trying to establish federal-style funding for procedures which are only legal in some federal states, the EU is trampling all over this principle.

And Ireland is colluding, judging by the comment of EU Research Commissioner, Philippe Busquin: "As the Irish Government appears willing to support the Commission proposal, it is difficult to see why other countries which offer less constitutional protection to the unborn should have any difficulty with it."

WHILE I'M at it, Minister, I might remind you that you have never received a mandate from the Dáil or from the Government parties to vote for this. Many Fianna Fáil TDs are opposed.

You may not mind ignoring them. But ironically, it is they and not you who will pay the greatest price if pro-lifers register their disgust at the next election.

You should not have tried to throw holy water on embryo research by citing an obscure document from the Catholic University of Louvain in your Seanad speech last week. This smacked of the Government's recent attempt to present the Dáil's mid-term break as an attempt to harmonise with the school year.

Nobody was fooled, but you came over badly. Look, everyone knows you get diverse opinions on all subjects within a university. But nobody is in any doubt that the Catholic Church, along with many other people of different faiths and none, opposes embryonic stem-cell research.

Unfortunately, your comments unleashed some particularly twisted moralising in last Monday's Irish Times. In John Waters' absence, opinion editor Patrick Smyth wrote a column approving your claim that parents of IVF children could donate their surplus embryos, in a spirit of "ethical solidarity", for stem-cell research.

Smyth then went on to quote David Norris's justification for exploiting embryos by reference to a supposedly 'Protestant' adage: 'waste not, want not.'

Was there ever a more amoral justification for exploiting human beings? How can there be 'ethical solidarity' in allowing and disposing of other human life, even for research purposes?

And could the Nazis have offered a better justification for recycling the clothes, the gold fillings even the hair of their unfortunate victims than waste not, want not?

We have to stand back from such barbarous logic if we are going to have ethical decision-making. We must not allow our intelligence and moral sense to be subverted by those who cry 'cures, cures' or 'waste not, want not'.

I admit that those who support embryo research can resort to emotive arguments. Celebrity actor Christopher Reeve wants embryo research to find a cure for his own paralysis. But there are other people coping with disability who recognise that the end does not justify the means.

People like James Kelly, who is paraplegic as a result of a car accident. He used to support embryonic stem-cell research, but not any more. He believes research on adult stem cells is the more practical, but also more ethical, course.

Minister, I urge you to think again. Do all in your power to promote bona fide medical research. But remember also that it is essential to protect human and moral values at EU level. It is the only way to protect human rights into the future.

Sincerely,

Rónán Mullen.