Culture > Books
Tollefsen (left) and George

Little but alive

Books | Embryos may not grip public attention, but authors Robert George and Chris Tollefsen say they deserve respect and protection

Issue: "Signs and wonders," Jan. 26, 2008

Robert George and Chris Tollefsen, professors at Princeton and the University of South Carolina, have just come out with a tightly written book that immaculately sums up a big debate about tiny humans. Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (Doubleday, 2008) argues elegantly that Americans should neither condone nor governmentally fund embryonic stem-cell research-and now that scientists have opened up an alternative, theirs just could be a winning argument.

WORLD: Late last year a New York Times headline announced, "Scientists bypass need for embryo to get stem cells." Why was that a breakthrough?

GEORGE/TOLLEFSEN: The announcement that pluripotent stem cells-undifferentiated cells that can be used to produce most and perhaps even all the tissue cells of the human body-can be obtained from reprogrammed skin cells is tremendously exciting.

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

Prior to this breakthrough, scientists had thought that human cloning of embryos was the best way to obtain new stem cells that would be genetically identical to possible patients. The new approach shows that cloning is unnecessary and that it works without using or destroying embryos.

WORLD: The Times, which had previously led the rush to pluck stem cells from tiny humans, killing them in the process, noted that because of new discoveries the "debate over whether it is morally acceptable to create and destroy human embryos to obtain stem cells should be moot." Is that debate over?

GEORGE/TOLLEFSEN: Unfortunately, the debate does not look like it is over. Almost immediately after the announcement, some scientists, journalists, and lobbyists started to declare the need to "keep all options open"-including the option of killing human embryos. This has become a mantra for those who seem committed to research on embryonic humans regardless of the moral or scientific merit of such inquiry. It's probably important, as well, to keep in mind the history of the debate over embryo destructive research: It preceded the debate over stem cells by about two decades. So we need to keep making the arguments, changing people's minds and hearts, and pressing the important points at the political level.

WORLD: The pro-life movement has some optimism these days, but you provide a dire warning: "Whereas, in the past, the humanity of the fetus, or its moral worth, were ignored or denied in favor of an alleged 'right to privacy,' or considerations of the personal tragedies of women who experienced unwanted pregnancies, what is now proposed is something quite different." What are the new proposals?

GEORGE/TOLLEFSEN: Here is the worst case scenario: the creation of millions of human embryos-human beings in the early stages of development-in order to perform scientific experiments on them, and in order to harvest their body parts for medical therapies for others. We have, sadly, seen the destruction of millions of human beings before, in a litany of tragedies of the 20th century. But we have never seen the creation of human beings precisely for the purpose of destruction and use.

WORLD: And we'd all be inextricably linked to that.

GEORGE/TOLLEFSEN: The research would be funded with our tax dollars. It would be performed in our public universities. The therapies would be used by doctors for all of us in any number of circumstances. All of modern medicine would be touched by the influence of research that was deeply immoral and corrupting, and it would be nearly impossible for us to avoid being benefited by, or contributing to, this research in some way. So the creation of a massive industry for producing human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed really does seem to us an entirely new kind of social evil, on a scale of almost unimaginable magnitude.

WORLD: You write that your argument for the embryo's value does not rely on belief in God or the authority of the Bible.

GEORGE/TOLLEFSEN: We certainly think that an understanding of the value of all human life, from conception to natural death, is fostered and deepened by reflection of the Scriptures. "You are of more worth than many sparrows," and "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew ye" are natural starting points for a pro-life ethic. But we also think that the pro-life ethic is "written on the heart" (to borrow a phrase from Paul's Letter to the Romans) of all human beings, and that reflection on basic science, basic philosophy, and basic ethics establishes a convincing case that all human beings, including those in the embryonic stage of development, deserve full moral respect.


GEORGE/TOLLEFSEN: We are human animals, but we are profoundly special sorts of animals. We have reason and free choice, the capacity to initiate something new in the world, and not to be narrowly bound by the physical laws of nature. These literally awesome capacities are aspects of our nature as human beings, and exist in us at least in root form from the time we come into existence. . . . They are powers that give rich meaning to the biblical teaching that, unlike the brute animals, we are "made in God's image."


You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading


    Troubling ties

    Under the Clinton State Department, influence from big money…