On February 24, the "Hinxton Group" released a "consensus statement" of "an international consortium" concerning "stem cells, ethics and law." As described in the Washington Post on March 3, the Hinxton Group consisted of "60 scientists, doctors, philosophers, lawyers, scientific journal editors, federal regulators and others from 14 countries who met in Hinxton, England, to consider 'ethically acceptable norms' of stem cell research."

The first seven numbered paragraphs consist of (in the statement's words) "principles [that] should govern the ethical and legal regulation and oversight of stem cell and related research and its clinical applications." What are these? The chief principles are as follows: "Stem cell research should seek to minimize harm, and any risk of harm should be commensurate with expected overall benefit;" "Law makers should be circumspect when regulating science;" "while scientists and clinicians have a responsibility to obey the law," neither universities nor law-makers should restrict the freedom of researchers in countries that restrict embryonic stem cell research from traveling to other countries where it is not restricted to do research.

The consensus statement then goes on to give eight more numbered paragraphs about "forward-looking strategies to foster the scientific and ethical integrity of research in a global context." One is, "for purposes of oversight, regulations and applications to ethics review boards and funding agencies, etc, human material donors in the context of human ESC research ought to be treated as human research subjects."

The consensus statement concludes with four numbered paragraphs concerning the additional "work to be done." It opines that, "insofar as donors of human materials are treated as human subjects, many of the ethical issues raised by human embryonic stem cell research can be adequately addressed through existing international codes of ethics and policy documents." And then seemingly contradicts itself in the next paragraph: "Steps should be taken to develop consensus in ethical standards and practices in human embryonic stem cell research for international collaboration to proceed with confidence."

What is one to make of this consensus statement? First, it is not a consensus statement of anyone except the 60 people gathered in a particular town in England on a particular date. Gather 60 other "scientists, doctors, lawyers, editors, philosophers," etc, and the resulting "consensus statement" would be substantially different.

Still there are some good principles in the document. Certainly, everyone concerned with bioethics, so far as I am aware, would agree that lawmakers should not rush to regulate science, and that scientists should obey the law.

However, many of us would emphatically reject the idea that it is wise policy to permit scientists in one country where embryonic stem cell research is restricted to go to another country to conduct that which their home country has determined to be ethically irresponsible research. And only those who adhere to a utilitarian ethic would agree that "risk of harm [in stem cell research] should be commensurate with expected overall benefit." For if embryonic stem cell research is immoral (a word not used in the consensus statement), no "benefit" can justify it.

And this is precisely where the Hinxton proclamation falls fatally short of the mark. It sets out to determine how "humankind" can best "realiz[e] the benefits of stem cell research in an ethically acceptable manner," but fails to make the fundamental factual distinction upon which ethics and law must be based. There are two kinds of "stem cell" research – that which utilizes stem cells taken from embryos and that which does not. The second kind of research is called "adult" stem cell research, and it obtains stem cells from human beings who have been born, umbilical cord blood, and placentas. It poses no ethical problems because it is not risky to the subject.

The other kind of stem cell research takes stem cells from embryos or their equivalents. Using current technology, the only way to "extract" embryonic stem cells is to "disaggregate" — to pull apart — the embryo, which kills it. Since it is a scientific fact that the human embryo is a human being (a full member of the species Homo sapiens – just consult an embryology textbook if you doubt me), the long-established standards of the Nuremberg Code apply. Principle 5 states that no research is to be undertaken on a human subject if death will result. No other person's consent is sufficient to permit this. If the "consensus statement" means this, then it is correct – existing "international standards" are sufficient to make it clear that destroying embryonic human beings is wrong and cannot be justified by any benefit derived or hoped for.

Who are the "donors of human material" that the statement mentions, who are to be treated as human research subjects? Again, if it means the embryo itself, then treating it as a "human research subject" means it must not be killed. Is that possible?

The President's Council on Bioethics thinks it might be. In its recent report, it mentioned, without endorsing, four possible ways: 1) take embryonic stem cells from already-dead embryos (which would be similar to organ donation for born-human beings), 2) undertake a biopsy, removing a stem cell from an embryo, without killing or damaging it, 3) re-engineer cells to become embryonic stem cells (thus, no embryo was killed to produce them), and 4) create an entity that is not an embryo but which, nonetheless, produces "embryonic" stem cells (e.g., tumors from defective fertilizations of sperm and egg create tumors that produce human tissue but which are never, themselves, embryos).

Perhaps this is all the consensus statement means. Perhaps all it means is that we should not kill embryonic human beings in order to extract stem cells, but if we can produce embryonic stem cells without doing so, we should. But if that were so, why does the statement, as mentioned, speak of "commensurate benefits" and "new international standards"?

In fact, if one looks a bit closer at the statement, one sees that "donors of human materials must provide informed consent." However, as noted, no embryo can consent, and no one may consent for it, that it be killed. So it looks like the statement is built upon the denial that the human embryo is a human being. If so, the statement is fatally and fundamentally flawed.

In the end, the consensus statement seems to plead with us to accept the unacceptable — to develop international ethical standards to do what no system of ethics can make acceptable — the immoral use and destruction of human beings. As such, it is mere propaganda, merely one more salvo in the war against the human being. Until a consensus is reached that every human being — no matter how young or small, no matter where located — is of equal dignity to, and deserves to be treated with the same respect as, other human beings, our resistance to unethical scientific standards must continue.

Bill Saunders is the Senior Fellow and Director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Life & Bioethics. The views expressed are his and are not meant to represent official institutional views of FRC.