Written for the AQA syllabus by Upeksacitta (Robert Ellis), member of the Western Buddhist Order and a former Head of RS.
Buddhism and Embryo Research
Objections to embryo research
More conservative and traditional (especially Theravada) Buddhists are very likely to object to embryo research.
1. Embryos are persons
The Buddhist attitude to embryo research depends very much on Buddhist attitudes to the status of the embryo. Following the traditional Buddhist belief that human personhood begins at conception, when the garbha from the previous life joins the fertilised egg, there is no difference between the moral status of the embryo during the first two weeks after fertilisation and its status later on after further development. The destruction of “spare” embryos in IVF would thus be killing of persons, which clearly goes against the first precept.
2. Indirect killing is no defence
Nor would it be accepted as a defence in Buddhism to say that embryo research aims mainly to preserve life, but involves the destruction of embryos as a side effect, so that the violence is indirect. Indirect violence is still treated as blameworthy in Buddhism, for example in the advice given about Right Livelihood: selling arms or poisons are seen as wrong livelihoods because these things are used to take life, and blame will attaches to the seller even though his/her role in the violence was indirect. Similarly, whilst embryo research only indirectly destroys human life, the scientist is still to blame for this.
3. The goals of embryo research may reflect greed
The idea that the killing of embryos is justified in order to save or improve other lives in the long run may also be questioned from a traditional Buddhist point of view, on the grounds that the goals of embryo research are themselves questionable. Stem cell research, for example, aims to be able to grow cloned organs in a tank as spare parts ready for transplantation. But if the price of this is the destruction of human life, it may be argued that the desire for such organs reflects greed and a lack of acceptance of the impermanence of the human body.
How strong do you think these arguments are against embryo research?
(think what assumptions they make and how acceptable these assumptions are)
Defences of embryo research
Only a few radical, and most likely Western, Buddhists are likely to support embryo research on Buddhist grounds, by emphasising other aspects of Buddhist ethics
1. Personhood cannot be precisely identified
Some Western Buddhists may doubt traditional accounts of the rebirth process, either because they are doubtful, or at least agnostic, about rebirth itself, or because they accept rebirth but would not accept the traditional account of when and how it occurs. It might be argued that it is more in accordance with the findings of modern science to suggest that rebirth occurs gradually, and that karmic residues from a previous life are merged gradually with a developing foetus in the womb. They might also appeal to the Buddhist doctrine of insubstantiality (anatta) as pointing out that there is really no such category as “personhood” in Buddhism. According to this teaching, a 'person' is really just a set of processes to which we attach a label 'person'. When we should attach that label for moral purposes, then, is not very clear cut.
2. Killing varies in blameworthiness
Whether or not the embryo has the status of a 'person', to kill it would still be blameworthy under the first precept. However, there is a also a traditional recognition in Buddhism that the killing of a larger animal is a more serious matter than that of a smaller animal, as it requires more effort and deliberate action. For this reason, late abortion is still considered more blameworthy than early abortion, and research on embryos would thus be killing, but not such blameworthy killing as that involved in abortion or other types of killing of humans.
3. The Middle Way
Finally, the Middle Way may be invoked to support a more moderate approach to embryo research. More traditional and conservative forms of Buddhist ethics simply exclude any serious consideration of the advantages of embryo research, or of the desires that lead to it, but the more basic Buddhist teaching of the Middle Way would suggest that these advantages, and the desire to help others which lies behind embryo research, should be recognised and taken into account. Simply holding onto the fixed idea that we should not kill involves eternalism, whilst abandoning our responsibility towards embryos involves nihilism. Perhaps a moderate position avoiding both extremes would involve trying to recognise ways in which embryos are not in fact persons whilst acknowledging our responsibility towards them as potential persons. This might lead to trying to minimise any unnecessary experimentation on embryos, but supporting experimentation which stands a good chance of relieving suffering, such as much stem cell research.
- What reasons might more conservative Buddhists have for rejecting these arguments? (try to respond to ideas in the arguments themselves rather than just giving a contrary position)
- What conclusion do you think Buddhists should draw about embryo research, and why?
- How well do you think a Buddhist approach to embryo research compares to a Kantian approach?
- How well do you think a Buddhist approach to embryo research compares to a Utilitarian approach?
Further Reading
Peter Harvey An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics p.318-9