Use and Abuse of Empirical Knowledge in Contemporary Bioethics: A Critical Analysis of Empirical Arguments Employed in the Controversy Surrounding Stem Cell Research

In two articles about the controversy surrounding stem cell research, Søren Holm claims that no argument has so far been advanced in the debate to justify the necessity of destructive research on human embryos for the therapeutic potential of stem cell research to be achieved, and that it is up to the scientists themselves to produce “convincing arguments” for their case. This seemingly defeatist statement on behalf of bioethics originates from the viewpoint that neither a reiteration of old arguments about the moral status of the human embryo nor the generation of new arguments of the same kind are likely to have any positive bearing on the controversy; on the other hand, the impact of science on the current debate is unquestionable, due to three “partially independent” developments: