Some time after Mr. Seely's column appeared, I composed this letter in response and sent it via electronic mail to Mr. Seely at the Wisconsin State Journal with a copy to the Chancellor of U.W. -- Madison.  Neither Mr. Seely nor the Chancellor's office acknowledged receiving the note.  This version is somewhat edited from the version originally sent.

To: seely@madison.com

From: "Richard L. R. Bonomo" <bonomo@ieee.org>

Subject: Column of February 8, 2001

Dear Mr. Seely,

I noted your chagrin as expressed in the last part of your column, which begins with "Ironically, at the same time the science of genetics is being twisted in such a perverse way, other legitimate scientists are struggling for the right to do their work." You then go on to explain how anti-abortion activists are lobbying to cut off federal funding of research on human embryonic stem cells.

I continue to be in awe of the curious blindness of journalists -- and many others -- to the moral implications of just about anything that involves "in utero" (or "in vitro") human beings. I seem to recall opening the State Journal some months ago, and reading a rather lengthy article about the controversy surrounding the use or potential use of physicians in executions (whether to carry out the executions or to provide confirmation of death). Not once was it pointed out that the medical profession's embrace of abortion and partial-birth infanticide has made, or at least perhaps has made, the moral question of physicians' being involved in executions (where the executed at least had a chance at due process) moot.

Not many years ago, there was a substantial controversy all over the newspapers about the use of data collected by Nazi scientists and physicians from experiments performed on victim-subjects in concentration camps. These were data immorally collected in the past under the auspices of a regime which had been defeated in war 40 years or more previously. There was no chance that using those data could be construed as endorsing the experiments or of encouraging or rendering profitable more of the same. Yet, the question was asked loudly and often: Should we use these data, collected under such circumstances, at all? The question even made it into the plot lines of popular television programs, such as Star Trek Voyager.

Yet, with questions such as embryonic stem cell research, abortion, etc., I find that the mainline news media, including you, yourself -- if that particular column is any indication -- seem to be unwilling to take or perhaps have a major mental block against taking the moral concerns of human rights activists (which is what abortion opponents are) seriously. The mainstream news media seem to be quite happy to dismiss the issues raised by these groups as the rantings of a lunatic fringe, unworthy of serious attention. (Of course, incorrect information published by the likes of Dr. Carl Sagan in the popular press does not help this perception by non-scientists in the press.) The news media certainly do not take the time nor the space to properly delineate the issues in question and the positions taken by the various sides. Also, treatment is very far from even handed. (You hear of "abortion rights" frequently; how often do you hear of the "right to life" of a child in the womb in television or in the press?)

The usual approach by the mainstream press, and also by the non-mainstream press as well, is simply to assume the pro-abortion/anti-fetal view as a starting point, and then argue from there. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of Scientific American, as a long-time subscriber, asking that that journal end its editorial support of abortion, arguing in different ways that the idea that abortion was a "right" was incorrect. I got back a somewhat "snotty" and quite terse letter from the editor saying that I should "remember" that "..abortion is in law and in fact a woman's right." He could not seem to go further than simply asserting his dogma on the matter as as though this is something I must already, implicitly, accept, despite my letter arguing this very point. He made no arguments, just an assertion.

Syndicated columnist Ann Landers does the same thing: she asserts, in the face of objections, that abortion is a personal decision, and should not be subject to legislation, apparently deaf to the arguments that it is NOT a personal decision, and in fact is not a decision at all. She does not argue the point, she just assumes it.

In your column, you refer to the "right" of "legitimate scientists" to "do their work" in reference to Dr. Thomson's human embryonic stem cell research. By regarding this as a "right" you simply assume that the arguments made by human rights activists have no merit.

After this long, plaintive, introduction, I wish to point out that you should be more careful about dismissing this group. It is precisely Dr. Thomson's (or anyone else's) "right" to carry out this research AT ALL which is being challenged.

The fact is that each cell used in this sort of research has its ultimate source in an embryonic human being who has deliberately been killed. I imagine that this is usually a case where the child (and a human embryo is SOMEONE's child by definition) was called into being and then killed for the express purpose of harvesting these cells. In some cases the conception and following homicide may have been done for other reasons, perhaps. (I do not pretend to know all the ways in which these cells are collected.) Dr. Thomson may not be carrying out these homicides himself, but he is in direct or indirect collusion with someone who is doing it, even if he, himself, is not.

I do not doubt that much good can come from this line of research. However, a good end does not render an evil act good, and one may not perform an evil act to do good. If I rob a bank to pay off Mom's mortgage, I still go to jail, even though I had the best of intentions, ultimately. If I rip the heart out of a rapist and child molester, and place it in the body of a child who needs a new heart, and that child then grows up to be a scientist, inventor, statesman, public benefactor, and saint, I would still be guilty of murder, morally and legally. Though I might do great good by robbing banks for the poor, and taking organs from those who misuse their powers to give to those who would put them to good use, I would still be wrong to do so, because I HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT. I AM NOT GOD.

All problems, or nearly all, I suspect, have solutions which are admissible and those which are inadmissible. I could list many apparently good things which could be accomplished (or, at least look like they could be) far more quickly and easily if the agent is free of moral constraints; I will leave that to your imagination. However, we do generally refrain from acting without those moral constraints, and when we DO ignore them, we usually regret it not long after that.

No, I don't think that Dr. Thomson, or anyone else, should be engaged in research of this sort, nor be permitted to do so, however the work is proposed to funded, wherever it is proposed to be carried out. The fact is that he is dependent on what is objectively the homicide of the innocent to get his materials. To exploit human beings in this way -- to reduce their value to their utility to the rest of us -- is wrong per se, and is also a clear and present danger to the rest of us.

Should the UW medical school accept Kurdish bodies donated by Saddam Hussein? Should we allow the communist Chinese government sell us human body parts harvested from political prisoners it executes? If you needed a liver for yourself, would you accept one from organized crime ring which "acquires" them via foul means, even if your life depended on it?

You see, Mr. Seely, there is a host of moral issues surrounding this. You and the rest of the press may be blind to this, and perhaps somewhat slack jawed in amazement that people should care about a human blastocyst, but consider that perhaps we might be seeing something which you are not, and that perhaps we are not just a bunch of zealous ya-hoos after all.

Thank you for your attention.

Richard Bonomo

e-mail: bonomo@ieee.org