There is something chilling about the fact that a crucial vote will be taken at the Industry Committee of the European Parliament next week on whether the EU should use taxpayers' money to fund research on human embryonic stem cells, writes Breda O'Brien
Perhaps, though, it highlights in a rather brutal fashion that for some researchers, human embryos appear to be little more than industrial raw material. If even a fraction of the claimed medical advances happen as a result of the exploitation of human embryonic stem cells, this will become an enormously lucrative industry.
Yet should a potential for profit allow us to sidestep the question of whether it is right to end the lives of some human beings in order to benefit other human beings?
Human embryonic stem cell research is always destructive. The embryo cannot survive the process of extraction of the cells. Such embryos are either deliberately created in order to harvest these cells, or so-called "surplus" embryos are used which have been created for use in IVF but which have not been implanted. Either way, it represents a loss of human life, and of human potential, which would be unthinkable if the embryos were a mere nine months or even six or seven months older.
The central moral question is whether it is ever right to treat human beings, no matter how early the stage of development, as a commodity? This question remains valid even if there are benefits to be gained from such research, or the researchers are working for motives far more laudable than the pursuit of profit.
The proposed measure to fund human embryonic stem cell research may have other unexpected consequences. While speaking this week to Prof Martin Clynes, one of the few Irish scientists to be involved in stem cell research, he pointed out that sanctioning the use of taxpayers' money for this kind of research gives a further impetus to concentrate research primarily on human embryonic stem cells.
This is in spite of the fact that there are other sources of stem cells, such as adult, neonatal, cord blood or placental human stem cells, and animal stem cells, which do not carry with them the same ethical dilemma, because they do not involve destruction of an individual.
The hype concentrates on human embryonic stem cells. He said: "Stem cells from non-embryonic sources may well prove to be just as useful therapeutically. However, human embryonic stem cells have caught the imagination of the scientific press. If funded by the EU, research on stem cells will, without doubt, be heavily dominated by human embryonic stem cells. Work with adult or neonatal human, or animal stem cells, which may prove to be equally or more valuable in reality, will occur only on the margins."
As he said dryly, peer pressure does not end with secondary school. "From European groups with which I am involved, I see clear signs that there will be a substantial level of peer pressure on researchers to gear their work to support the human embryonic stem cell research. In the medium-term, I believe that Irish research groups wishing to be involved in EU-funded stem cell research will find themselves excluded from large research consortia (which are now essential to obtain funding) if they refuse to work with human embryonic stem cells."
Prof Clynes is not the only researcher to have ethical difficulties about such work. There are many others in the EU who shrink from the exploitation of human embryonic stem cells, because they believe that the end does not justify the means. It will become much more difficult for such researchers to maintain a principled stance.
The field of stem cell research is very new. It would be ironic if by concentrating only on human embryonic stem cells, we closed off lines of research which may ultimately prove to be equally or more successful.
For example, last year promising results on Parkinson's disease were published. There were two different research teams, one using human embryonic stem cells and the other using adult stem cells.
Those using adult stem cells appear to have had more success. Even if the results were reversed, however, it is very dangerous to enshrine the principle that it is results that matter, regardless of the cost in terms of human life.
One does not have to go too far back in our collective human history to see the results when people are used as 'fodder' for experiments, simply because they were considered to be "life unworthy of life".
Of course, human embryonic cells are fascinating and capable of yielding immense knowledge, but then, so are experiments on live humans, such as the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments, where poor American black sharecroppers were infected with syphilis and left untreated.
A great deal of knowledge was accumulated about the progress of syphilis, but few would fail to be horrified at the means.
There have to be clearly drawn lines which protect human beings from exploitation, whether it be adults, children or embryos, no matter how great the level of medical expertise which will be gained from such exploitation.
The Government has a key role to play in all of this, as the final decision will be taken by the EU Council of Ministers. At present, the Irish Government has been fudging somewhat, declaring that such research is unacceptable in Ireland, but that it cannot dictate to other countries how they should conduct their affairs.
This is at best a weak argument. The Irish Government, usually at the time of contentious treaties, makes much of our need to be responsible European citizens. If something is not acceptable in relation to Irish embryos, why is it acceptable to treat embryos anywhere in Europe in this way, using Irish taxpayers' money?
We implement, albeit often with much procrastination, directives from the EU on an almost daily basis. Is there no room for a two-way process of communication, where we do not just passively implement what comes down from on high, but actively seek to shape policy? As EU members, we do not hesitate to act when it comes to serving the needs of agriculture, or industry, or any other powerful lobby group. We should do no less when the rights of the most vulnerable are in question.