240 
Monitoring Stem Cell Research 
In similar fashion, the arguments reviewed by the HERP panel 
that supported embryo research generally in 1994, were mobilized 
again four years later when stem cell research was the specific point 
of contention; and again the focal point was embryo status. 
Consequently, just as the HERP report opted for a “pluralistic" view 
of the embryo that emphasized its developmental potential, so, too, 
did the NBAC endorse the idea that the early embryo deserves 
respect, but is not to be treated fully as a person.^ 
Moreover, the fact that the HERP defended its support of stem 
cell research by stressing the developmental capacity of the embryo 
also shaped the trajectory of much subsequent support for this work, 
because insisting on respect for the embryo but denying its 
personhood meant explaining how one could respect the embryo 
while nevertheless destroying it. Daniel Callahan, for example, 
posed this problem very strongly in response to the HERP report. If 
"profound respect” for the embryo is compatible with destroying it, 
he asked, "What in the world can that kind of respect mean?" It is, 
he says, "an odd form of esteem, at once high-minded and altogether 
lethal" (Callahan, 1995). Callahan was not alone in raising this issue 
and attempts to answer his question continue to appear in the 
literature (See Lebacqz, 2001; Meyer and Nelson, 2001; Ryan, 
"Creating Embryos," 2001; Steinbock, 2001, 2000). 
In retrospect, then, it seems that the HERP report served almost 
as choreography for the initial debates about stem cell research, and, 
as a result, the steps in the debate closely followed those that are 
familiar from the abortion controversy (On this point, see Hall 2003). 
The upshot, in my view, is that much of the debate has been too 
narrowly focused and has a kind of repetitive and rigid quality to it. 
As I noted above, for example, the Catholic church has repeatedly 
claimed that the central issue raised by stem cell research is that it 
involves the destruction of human embryos, embryos it believes 
should be treated as persons.^ For that reason, the rhetoric with 
which the Catholic church condemns embryonic stem cell research 
closely parallels that used to condemn abortion. Yet, because the 
American bishops do not want to be perceived as anti-science, they 
have also repeatedly and uncritically praised adult stem cell 
research, even though there are good reasons, given Catholic 
concerns about social justice, to be concerned about the pursuit of 
adult stem cell research. I v\hll return to this point below, but for now 
I wish simply to note that much of the opposition to embryonic stem 
cell work has resembled Catholic opposition in being circumscribed 
by questions of embryo status, narrowly construed. 
A similar constriction, however, is also apparent in the 
preoccupations of supporters of stem cell research. Just as 
PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION 
