New Embryology: Same old bias called "Bioethics"

There's a brand new book, Bioethics and the New Embryology: Springboards for Debate (WH Freeman and Sinauer Associates, 2005) available to "dispel the myths" that you and I may have about the nature of the human embryo and clear up our confusion about bioethics.

I haven't read the $15 book yet, since it was only introduced this morning, although I've ordered it. I'm more concerned about the information that was deemed important in the Press release concerning the book. (The press release and the reviews on Amazon.com are the only information that I can find on Google or Google News.)

Dr. Gilbert is the author of a book on developmental biology, which is used in colleges. His co-authors are doctoral candidates molecular biology (the new pathway to studying embryology as a tool) and political science (the tried and true pathway to a public policy as a tool).

The book is a series of questions and discussions concerning cutting edge biological and medical science. This is not a biology book, giving facts and descriptions. It is a bioethics book, which asks questions about right and wrong and what we should do. Like most of us, Dr. Gilbert approaches the subject with obvious bias - as shown by this excerpt from the press release:

Gilbert hopes his new book will help dispel some myths about embryology. “One common misconception is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos with eyes, hearts, ears, and limbs,” he says. “But the actual cells come from a much earlier embryo which has not formed any of these structures yet. Nor is it true that the DNA of the nucleus contains all the information needed to form a functional human infant.”

Many people also assume there is a consensus among scientists that human life begins at fertilization. “The truth is that scientists have as many opinions on this as laypeople,” Gilbert says. The book reviews several embryonic stages at which different groups of scientists have postulated human life begins.

I doubt that many of us have misconceptions about the appearance of the embryo at the time that embryonic stem cells are harvested or when the embryo implants in the uterus in nature. After all, we are repeatedly told that it's just a "hollow ball of cells." In fact, he or she is what each of us was at that age: a hollow ball that has differentiated enough that at least 2 distinct layers are present, one layer which is coveted as stem cells. I definitely want to see whether Dr. Gilbert can explain how the embryo's life has not begun by day 5 to 10, when the stem cells are harvested or the embryo is implanted, and the conclusions he draws from the lack of "consensus" about that life.

It is important to repeat that science, the study and reporting of what "is," cannot answer the questions of "should" or "ought." What we should do - what is right and wrong - are ethical questions which cannot be redefined to allow some humans to be used as tools and spare parts for the benefit of others without abandoning the oldest and best of all medical and scientific ethics: "Heal when possible, but, first, do no harm."