Personhood is a fragile concept which is threatened by the destruction of human embryos for medical research, says Michael Cook

Watching the embryo politics show over the last few weeks brought back memories of a great philosophical text, the television series Star Trek. "Emotions are alien to me. I'm a scientist," Dr Spock would say without a flicker of a smile. And Captain Kirk would shake his head at how easily his Vulcan mate was baffled by the simple experience of being human. Even in deep space, there were debates about personhood. Like an autistic child, Spock sometimes found it hard to distinguish persons from other things that he saw. This is exactly the diagnosis to be made of the Prime Minister and the State Premiers after they agreed to authorise the use of surplus IVF embryos for research. All Mr Howard needed was pointy Vulcan ears when he told a press conference that "I can't for the life of me see a moral difference between (thawing the embryos) and the use of embryos in research".

Raw deals. What the embryo debate proves is that personhood is still a very fragile concept. Over the last hundred years, Armenians, Jews, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, counter-revolutionaries, bourgeoisie, Tutsis and Albanians have all been deemed non-persons and unworthy of human rights. If these horrors have taught us anything, it is that tinkering with traditional notions of personhood is extremely dangerous. When personhood becomes a woolly notion with many shades of grey, someone somewhere is going to get a very raw deal.

For those like Dr Spock afflicted with ethical autism, human beings are complex and puzzling realities. Some are persons; some are potential persons; some used to be persons. Vulcans have to carry around clipboards with checklists of humanity-defining features. In the case of embryos, to meet minimum quality standards, they must have size, self-consciousness, independence, and recognisable human shape.

This is an radically new view of human nature, one which breaks with all of Australia's liberal democratic traditions. We have always stood squarely with the robust humanism of Star Trek's Captain Kirk. A human being is what he or she is because of an unchanging nature which underlies changing appearances. You can no more have potential or partial humanity than you can have a partial triangle or a partial dog. There is no such thing as a "pre-person" stage of human life. Personhood begins at conception and lasts until death.

An ethical revolution. This is why the decision to give the thumbs-up to research on "discarded" IVF embryos is so significant. For the first time in our history, we have endorsed a Vulcan view of human nature as a number of ticked boxes instead of an unchanging, constant, unified whole.

This revolution will change our society in ways to which politicians like John Howard seem to be quite blind.

The most obvious of these is that humanity and human rights will become negotiable concepts. The embryo does not have enough ticks on the clipboard, so it will not be regarded as a person. In Spock's famous words, "it's life, Captain, but not life as we know it."

What is the implication of this principle for other humans without enough ticks, such as deformed babies or comatose patients? Vulcan philosopher Peter Singer has a clear and simple idea of what can be done about these people. He thinks that they can be put down. In a recent book, Writings on an Ethical Life, he says, "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." Are Mr Howard and the premiers prepared to go along with Singer's ideas?

Second, who ticks the boxes? Who will set the criteria for personhood or for what constitutes a worthwhile and dignified life? The Vulcan approach privileges one person's opinion (or a committee's, to dilute the moral responsibility). It is only "unwanted" embryos which can be used for experiments, so the effective criterion for embryo personhood is whether someone wants it.

But it doesn't take a genius to see that "the only real person is a wanted person" is a very dangerous slogan. What about the throngs of unwanted people in our society: the retarded, the drunks, the schizophrenic, the homeless, the criminals? What will be their fate in Dr Spock's new society?

Third, for the first time in Australian history, human lives have a price tag. Although NSW Premier Bob Carr has compared IVF scientists to Galileo, there is an enormous difference. Galileo didn't have stock options. Many people see biotechnology as the growth industry of the 21st Century and they want to get in on the ground floor. As a consequence, the lives of embryos will soon depend on an accountant's cost-benefit analysis. IVF researchers talk glibly about cures for Parkinson's disease and diabetes and quadriplegia, but one of the first uses of these unwanted embryos will be to test drugs to see whether they are safe - for adults, not for the embryos.

Overseas examples. Where will these changes lead Australia? We don't have far to look: a good example of a fully Vulcanised society at the moment is China. Even our ethically autistic politicians might have misgivings about their decision if they examine what is happening there.

The New York Times says that executions are the main source of organ transplants in China. Last year an estimated 10,000 people were executed and most of them were put to good use - without their consent. Kidneys, livers, lungs, corneas and other organs were stripped from the prisoners and transplanted into wealthy patients. Like research on surplus embryos, it is a good business which makes use of material which would otherwise be discarded.

China is now the most deregulated country in the world for biotechnology, with research permitted even on four-week-old embryos. According to the Wall Street Journal, some Chinese scientists have already cloned human embryos. Others have used rabbit egg cells to create them. "Eventually the fusion could lead to the development of a hybrid animal," said one of the scientists.

With carefully drafted safeguards in place could Australian ethical standards slip as low as this ? Quite possibly. Earlier this year the vice-president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Trevor Mudge, defended stem cell research by asserting that "respect for human life is not an absolute". If Vulcan doctors are turning their backs on their Hippocratic Oath, who can tell where we will end up?

Australians will be much safer if they stick to the absolute value of human life at all stages of its life cycle. To quote Captain Kirk [stardate 5431.6]: "No one may kill a man. Not for any purpose. It cannot be condoned."

Michael Cook is the editor of Perspective