nature biotechnology • VOLUME 20 • AUGUST 2002 • http://biotech.nature.com

CORRESPONDENCE

776

application of agricultural biotechnology.This is illogical and dangerous. Unwantedgene flow is a serious problem that must beaddressed, but food security for poor peo-ple and Farmers’ Rights must not be sacri-ficed to solve industry’s genetic pollutionproblem.

It is erroneous to suggest that agricultureis dependent on genetic seed sterilizationas a method for minimizing genetic pollu-tion from GM plants. In his article entitled“Molecular strategies for gene containmentin transgenic crops” (Nat. Biotechnol. 20,581–586, 2002) Henry Daniell reviewsalternative strategies for gene-containmentapproaches. Clearly, much more research isneeded. In the meantime, it is unacceptableto suggest that farmers and society shouldadopt an untested, immoral GM technolo-gy to fix the defects in biotech’s first- andsecond-generation products.

Hope ShandETC Group (formerly Rural Advancement

Foundation International; RAFI),Carrboro, NC 27510(hope@etcgroup.org)

ES research and immorality

To the editor:Biotechnology advocates are consistentlymystified that the general public is wary ofbiotechnology and science in general. Youreditorial “Turning back the clock” (Nat.Biotechnol. 20, 411, 2002) provides one rea-son why. Although there can be no argu-ment that the alleviation human suffering isa moral good, to many serious people thecreation of an embryo is also the creation ofa new human life. The subsequent destruc-tion of that embryonic life for the purposeof research is therefore problematic.Apparently, a discussion of why the embryois not a nascent human life (or, if its human-ity is acknowledged, why it has no valueother than as a means to an end for olderhuman beings) wasn’t worth mentioning,even though it is at the core of the stem celldebate. As a result, the editors of NatureBiotechnology come across as yet anothergroup of technologists who believe that aslong as science can do something, it shouldbe done. In the case of stem cells, it’s doneunder the false premise that ends (humandisease) justify any means (the destructionof human life). If society accepts the ideathat protecting human life is not an absolutegood, then a potentially frightening slipperyslope of other exceptions based on eugenicsand other factors is a distinct possibility.

Jonas AlsenasING Furman Selz Asset Management,

New York, NY 10017(jalsenas@ifsam.com)

To the editor:The poor reasoning in your editorial “Turningback the clock” (Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 411, 2002)fails to advance the cause for nuclear trans-plantation research. In your second paragraph,you correctly observe that to many Americans“nuclear transplantation research is bad per sebecause it requires the creation and destruc-tion of embryos.” Then you draw from thispremise the illogical conclusion that “scientistscannot be trusted to work with cloned humanembryos.” To those who hold that humanembryos are morally equivalent to adulthuman beings, the issue is not trust; the issue ismurder. No degree of potential medicalprogress can justify murder. Is it possible thatyou do not understand the pro-life stance? Idoubt it, but this bit of caricature puts yourentire argument in a bad light. When you havea good case, there is no need to misrepresentthe opposing view.

Kenneth D. PimplePoynter Center for the Study of Ethics and

American Institutions, Indiana University,618 East Third Street,

Bloomington, IN 47405-3602(pimple@indiana.edu)

Nature Biotechnology responds:Careful readers will realize that we have alreadyoutlined our views on why embryos consistingof about 100 cells with no nervous system arenot comparable to people with devastating dis-eases (Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 789, 2001). We donot share the view that a few microscopic cellsare equivalent to a sentient human being justbecause they might become one some day. Asthe above correspondence testifies, many dobelieve this and their viewpoint should berespected.

Our editorial sought to highlight the flaws inthe current legislation and the likely repercus-sions for biotechnology if it is passed in its pre-sent form. The moral stance currently taken bythe Bush administration against embryonicstem cell research is inconsistent, particularlyin the light that the US government currentlyprovides federal employees with financial sup-port for in vitro fertilization (IVF) programs.(Bush actually praised IVF in his August 9,2001 television address on stem cell research.)It is important to remember that stem cellresearch does not cause the creation ordestruction of a single additional embryo. Ituses embryos that are discarded as part of IVF.

To say that a ball of cells no bigger than apinprick should not be destroyed to allow agrown person to live is cruelly dogmatic. Butit is equally clear that we should not let scien-tists create as many as embryos as they wantfor no good purpose. The area requires clearand consistent regulatory oversight, some-thing that the present US administration hasthus far failed to deliver.

©20

02 N

atu

re P

ub

lish

ing

Gro

up

h

ttp

://b

iote

ch.n

atu

re.c

om