Science vs. theology in stem-cell debate

JAMES L. SHERLEY, identified by the Globe as a stem cell biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Harvard graduate, has written a critique of Harvard's initiative to clone embryonic stem cells for medical purposes ("Crossing line on cloning," op-ed, June 12). For several paragraphs, he insists that the proposed research is a dead end, and will yield results "when pigs will grow wings." Only later does it become apparent that his objection is based on his belief that an embryo -- even one never implanted or intended to be implanted -- is entitled to all of the moral and legal rights of a full-fledged human being.

Sherley's viewpoint is certainly tenable as a matter of theology. Those who believe that protected personhood begins at fertilization (or, in this case, cloning) have a consistent position that logically allows of no compromise with the majority of Americans who disagree. But positions on both sides of that debate are by definition philosophical or religious, and not susceptible to scientific resolution. For Sherley to pretend that his opposition to Harvard's initiative is based on scientific differences is misleading, and for the Globe to indulge him in his subterfuge is a disservice to its readers.

JOEL Z. EIGERMAN
Cambridge

JAMES SHERLEY may get an A for the fervor of his opposition to embryonic stem cell research, but he gets an F in biology, and given that he is a stem cell biologist at MIT, this is unjustifiable.

His three examples of ``simple truth" are falsehoods: 1) The smallest human embryos are not warm to the touch, but, like a table or chair, take the temperature of their surrounding space ; 2) they do not move as they grow until they are many thousand times larger than these smallest embryos, and 3) they do not ``breathe just as surely as we do" until they are millions of times larger.

His other claim, that embryonic stem cells can never be used to treat disease, may turn out to be true, as it may turn out that humans never return to the moon. But to state it as fact is ridiculous.

In the end, it appears that Sherley makes only one legitimate statement in his entire piece, that he subscribes to the belief that a single fertilized egg cell should be considered a full and complete human being and that he personally finds embryonic stem cell research immoral. Let him say that, and skip the mumbo jumbo. He'll find only a small percentage of people who agree with him.

ROBERT STICKGOLD
Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School
Boston