GE says "Who needs Lab rats? We have human stem cells!"

I wish I was joking:

General Electric has announced that it will use embryonic stem cells provided by Geron Corporation for the purpose of testing toxic effects of drug treatments.

GE issued a statement, attempting to preempt criticism over the decision, saying, "We acknowledge the considerable debate and take very seriously the ethical and societal issues associated with research using stem cells derived from embryonic or fetal tissue."

"We conduct our research in an ethically and scientifically responsible manner," the statement said. (LifeSiteNews)

How do they get to claim they are conducing "ethical" research? 

What if I were to steal a video someone made, upload it to my American Papist You Tube Channel and when the original copyright-holder complained, responded by saying "Don't worry, I did it ethically"?! Who would be satisfied by such a dismissive response?

This habit of using human instead of animal stem cells marks the continuation of a dangerous trend:

Konstantin Fielder, General Manager of Cell Technologies at GE Healthcare said that stem cells harvested from human embryos could even replace lab rats as the primary scientific testing method.

"Once you have human cells and you can get them in a standardized way, like you get right now your lab rats in a standardized way, you can actually do those experiments on those cells," he said.

Do something about this: Contact General Electric on the web or call them at (203) 373-2211.

Update: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

LifeNews gives us two:

• Obama Admin Releases Proposed Guidelines Opening Door to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding
• Pro-Life Group Calls Obama Embryonic Stem Cell Research Guidelines a Human Cloning Bait and Switch

I'll continue to track the story.

Video: Dr. Oz tells Oprah/Michael J. Fox that ESCR is not the way

An amazing thing happened, a popular doctor told millions of Oprah viewers (with embryonic stem cell research-supporter Michael J. Fox in studio) that embryonic stem cells are NOT the answer to curing diseases such as Parkinsons. LifeReport with a brief into to the clip:



Moments like these help quickly change cultural assumptions.

May people's hearts and minds be converted before companies begin destroying embryos for research.

Pelosi-Watch: enacts Obama's ESCR-decision, calls it "moral opportunity"

That's right, Pelosi, give the bishops the evidence they need to excommunicate you. In print is fine:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today after President Obama signed an executive order lifting the Bush Administration's restrictions on federally financed human embryonic stem cell research:

"By lifting the executive ban on federal funding for stem cell research, President Obama has given hope, and potentially health, to millions. Every family in America is just one diagnosis, one phone call, or one accident away from needing the benefits of embryonic stem cell research.
"Today President Obama has also restored science to its rightful place in our national debates. Scientists must be allowed to pursue the research that they believe has the most promise to cure. And when they do, America remains a world leader in innovation, discovery, and growth.
"If we have a scientific opportunity to treat and cure disease, we have a moral opportunity to support it. That is why Congress will move to pass legislation to make this executive order the law of the land."

In other words, Pelosi takes it as a "moral opportunity" that she can help facilitate Obama's federal funding for ESCR, which will result in the widespread creation and destruction of innocent human life.

OneNationUnderGod posts ways of contacting Pelosi's Archbishop in San Francisco, George Niederauer.

Charles Krauthammer, meanwhile, completely explodes this "restoring science to its rightful place" canard. I would strongly urge you to read his piece if you have an interest in this and related issues, especially since Krauthammer actually has been an advocate of ESCR, so he can hardly be called biased. On the other hand, if you are looking for something lighter, enjoy some classic - and withering - P.J. O'Rourke.

Meanwhile, Ryan Anderson quotes Fr. Neuaus: "Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethics, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on the way to becoming the justifiable until it is finally established as the unexceptionable."

Video: Bill Clinton thinks embryos aren't fertilized

Oh enlightened one, enlighten us!

(if the video gets taken down, you can also find it on CNN here.)

... nevermind.

It's simply objective science that frozen embryos are fertilized. No one disputes this. What an idiot.

And why doesn't Dr. Gupta correct him? Some interviewer. Obama offered him Surgeon General.

Ph/t: Unborn Word of the Day.

As promised - Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells

Common ground my asterisk (*):

Reversing Bush policy, President Barack Obama on Monday cleared the way for a significant increase in federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research and promised no scientific data will be "distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."

Obama signed the executive order on the divisive stem cell issue and a memo addressing what he called scientific integrity before an East Room audience packed with scientists. He laced his remarks with several jabs at the way science was handled by former President George W. Bush. (AP)

Ryan T. Anderson responds in the Weekly Standard: Obama's decision is bad ethics, bad science, and bad politics. Obama at least stopped short of approving cloning.

More from LifeNews:

The following are several news stories related to President Barack Obama's decision to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stemcell research. The research requires the destruction of human life and has never helped a single patient. On the other hand, alternatives are already in use -- including adult stem cells andinduced pluripotent stem cells -- that are helping patients nowwithout killing days-old unborn children....

• President Barack Obama Makes Taxpayers Fund Embryonic Stem CellResearch
• Pro-Life Groups Blast Obama for Funding Research Destroying HumanLife
• Congress May Fight Battle Over Embryo Research After Obama StemCell Order
• Former Head of NIH: Embryonic Stem Cell Research ProspectsDiminished Now
• Obama Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research Seen as Ideological, Not Scientific

update: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has released a statement by Cardinal Justin Rigali on President Obama's executive order on embryonic stem cell research.

Obama to lift stem cell research ban in his first 100 days?

www.change.gov has been setup by the Obama transition team to allow Americans an "open government" where they can pose questions to his administration and then vote for which ones they want answered first.

Currently this is the fourth most popular question:

Of course, the question is improperly phrase: it is actually a ban on embryonic stem cell research using federal funds (i.e. taxpayer dollars).

Q: How again, exactly, will Obama keep James M. and Thomas P. both happy?

A: He won't.

It bears repeating: Bishops who speak, speak this way

At least in the overwhelming majority of cases. Bishops who are not adopting this strong rhetoric calling Catholics to vote an informed conscience on the issue, particularly, of abortion can be counted on one hand.

Another case in point to close-out the day: Bishop Robert Carlson of Saginaw whose statement (PDF) treats the presidential election as well as pro-ESCR Proposal 2 in Michigan (which I have discussed here).

Since I see no need to reduplicate work already done well, please see Fr. Z's analysis of the document.

Breaking: Has McCain "softened' his position on embryonic research?

Deal Hudson points out this Wired article published yesterday claiming that McCain has taken a "Sharp Right Turn on Stem Cells".

Hudson credits McCain's "shift" to the tireless work of Senator Sam Brownback. I directly asked Sen. Brownback about these ongoing efforts earlier this year, and wrote-up his answer here.

I think the jury is still out on this one, but judging by the reaction of pro-embryonic stem cell research scientists, I think there are more encouraging signs than before.

Therefore when someone from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute says that he reads McCain's statement as a "bad omen," I hear "good omen."

The substance of the Wired article is based on a single paragraph response that McCain recently made to the Sciencedebate 2008 forum on the question of stem cells (scroll down to question #8).

In a nutshell, McCain's position remains that he opposes the creation of new embryos for research purposes, but supports the use of already-existing embryos (for instance, "discards" from IVF-treatments).

What is new in McCain's position, or at least features prominently, is this language: "clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress." That's the qualification that has all the scientists skittish, along with McCain's reminder that he voted to outlaw a form of cloning currently allowed (SCNT).

Again, when the pro-ESCR scientists say stuff like this...

"McCain cannot be trusted to be a supporter of embryonic stem cell research," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan. "He is moving toward a straight pro-life stance and this sort of answer can only be read as such."

... I hope to heaven they're right.

Free stuff: pro-life ads for your parish, etc.

CNA gives us the tip:

The Pro-life Secretariat of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has announced that it is offering print advertisements on stem cell research and abortion for the free use of dioceses and other pro-life groups.

The ads, available at www.usccb.org/prolife/media, are available for Catholic dioceses and other pro-life groups nationwide to download and print unaltered free of charge. (More info from CNA.)

Good stuff.

Reprogramming, not embryos, is the fast track to cures

An extremely significant medical breakthrough, reported many places, including the New York Times:

Biologists at Harvard have converted cells from a mouse’s pancreas into the insulin-producing cells that are destroyed in diabetes, suggesting that the natural barriers between the body’s cell types may not be as immutable as supposed.

"Money" second paragraph quote:

This and other recent experiments raise the possibility that a patient’s healthy cells might be transformed into the type lost to a disease far more simply and cheaply than in the cumbersome proposals involving stem cells.

Pause. When was the last time you can remember a mainstream article admitting that stem cell proposals are "cumbersome"? I thought they were the be-all & end-all of medical technology? And embryonic stem cell treatments are often even more cumbersome than adult stem cell therapies.

I'm not trying to make an argument against embryonic stem cell research because they are "cumbersome", sometimes cumbersome solutions are the only ones available. No, I'm saying that, pragmatically, it makes more sense to pursue reprogramming techniques like the one described above.

And no embryos have to die.

Another day, another cure from ADULT stem cell research

Monotonous, ain't it?

The abortion-rights arguments that cite embryonic stem cells as the potential solution for a vast array of human diseases has taken another significant hit with an announcement from a San Francisco research and development company that it has defined and isolated an adult cell that has been shown to develop into tissues matching those in the heart, lung, liver, pancreas, blood vessels, brain, muscle, bone and fat. (WND)

But don't worry, we still have to destroy human life if we want to get anything accomplished - or so some keep telling us .... (update: meanwhile, embryonic stem cell research continues to result in more complications).

And yet we're the ones labled "anti-science."

AmP Exclusive: Sen. Browback on John McCain's support of stem cell research + an overview of his true position

This week I attended a book launch hosted by InsideCatholic in Washington DC that included a Q&A with author Deal Hudson and Senator Sam Browback.

I posed a queston for both men which went like this (according to my memory, their responses are also according to my memory):

Recently, in a conference call with Catholic representatives, John McCain restated his support embryonic stem cell research, but also said that he was open to further dialogue on the topic. Do we know if this dialogue is in fact taking place, and is there any chance McCain will change his position before the general election?

A paraphrase of Hudson's response:

I believe McCain is hoping that scientific progress [on alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells] renders the question academic [in other words, irrelevant in terms of policy]. One of the things about McCain is that once he takes a position he's very persistent about keeping it.

A paraphrase of Senator Brownback's response:

I can personally assure you that dialogue is ongoing with McCain about this issue [i.e., he is one of the persons doing it], but it is true that right now McCain supports the research.

The video of my question and the two responses it received will be aired on C-SPAN in the next 2-3 weeks. When it is aired, I will provide a link to it and update this post with the exact quotes.

More research on John McCain and federal funding of embronic stem cell research:

It is important to note that, from my research, McCain supports the use of fetal stem cell lines that would otherwise be discarded but opposes the creation of new fetal stem cell lines.

Pew Forum on the issues:

McCain opposes embryonic stem cell research that uses cloned human embryos, but supports research using human embryos left over from fertility treatments. In 2006, McCain supported a trio of Senate bills designed to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research, ban the creation of embryos for research and offer federal support for research using embryos slated for destruction by fertility clinics.

McCain's all-important statement on the question at the May 3, 2007 GOP primary debate:

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

CNN provides video of his expanded response, in which he again states that he hopes new scientific breakthroughs make this question "academic." He also mentions his 24-year pro-life voting record.

John McCain's position from an article published on his official campaign website last year:

"John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of 'fetal farming,' making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law. As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos. Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines."

To recap:

• From what I've found, John McCain opposes federal funding for the creation of new embryonic stem cell lines, but supports the use of embryonic stem cell lines already in use.

Readers should not take this post to necessarily mean that I support McCain's position on this issue, nor that I support John McCain for president, but these remain the facts, as I've discovered them.

I've often heard the claim made by some that "McCain supports embryonic stem cell research." That claim, however, ignores the distinction between killing further unborn human life through the creation of new stem cell lines, and using stem cell lines derived from embryos already destroyed.

Both forms of research are objectionable, but the former kind is far more objectionable because it entails the willful killing of human embryos, which one can never do nor support.

The use of already-derived embryonic stem cell lines, on the other hand, is closer to the moral category of using vaccines derived from research done on embryos, which can (I would argue) be legitimately done in some circumstances, but in general should be avoided, if possible, as a witness to the dignity of human life.

In conference call with Catholics, McCain re-asserts ESCR support

The thorn:

While McCain is pro-life on the issue of abortion, he differs with the Catholic belief that embryonic stem cell research is immoral. The Catholic Church teaches that embryonic stem cell research is immoral because it involves the killing of embryos.
Austin Ruse from Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) raised the issue with the Arizona senator by asking him whether he had considered changing his position on embryonic stem cell research given the dramatic scientific advances of the last two months.

McCain responded to Ruse’s question by saying that while he is “very encouraged” by the advances, he has yet to see “sufficient scientific evidence” to change his support for the practice. He added that he will continue to examine the issue and receive briefs on any progress being made.

This news item contradicts the rumor I had heard earlier that Sen. Sam Brownback had managed to persuade McCain to change his position on embryonic stem cell research. This is a troubling development.

After all, now is the perfect time for McCain to revise his position on this important issue, before he gets more media attention in the general election, and before a change could be construed as last-minute "flip-flopping."

On the other hand, I wonder how much pressure there is from Christians on this issue. It would not surprise me if we have ourselves to blame in some part for McCain not recognizing the importance of the issue.

California scientists create clones, earn swift Vatican rebuke

Associated Press:

Scientists in California say they have produced embryos that are clones of two men, a potential step toward developing scientifically valuable stem cells.

...

"I found it difficult to determine what was substantially new," said Doug Melton of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He said the "next big advance will be to create a human embryonic stem cell line" from cloned embryos. "This has yet to be achieved."

Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute and Children's Hospital Boston called the new report interesting but agreed that "the real splash" will be when somebody creates stem cell lines from cloned human embryos.

"It's only a matter of time before some group succeeds," Daley said.

CWNews covers Bp. Sgreccia's response:

Reports of the first successful human cloning have drawn a quick protest from the Vatican.

Responding to a claim that the California-based Stemagen Corporation had produced a cloned human embryo, Bishop Elio Sgreccia said that such as step would be "the worst type of exploitation of a human being."

Speaking on Vatican Radio, Bishop Sgreccia, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that human cloning would "rank among the most morally illicit acts" possible.

...

Samuel Wood, the chief executive of Stemagen, said that his company's research was aimed exclusively at stimulating medical research. Wood-- whose skin cells were combined with an ovum in the cloning process-- said that he is opposed to any research that would allow the cloned embryos to be born. "It's unethical and it's illegal, and we hope no one else does it either," he said.

The reported success of the Stemagen cloning experiment has not yet been confirmed by other scientists.

I've said before and I'll say again, it would certainly be helpful in these situations if the Catholic response to these announcements was more than "this is unethical" and went onto explain the exact reasons - however briefly - why cloning is wrong. There is an answer and it deserves to be communicated.

Related links:

• Catholic Culture: Human Cloning
• Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference: Human Cloning
• Sr. Terese Auer: Cloning, A Catholic Moral Evaluation

Report: "Human/animal hybrid embryos will be created 'within months'"

UK Times:

Experiments to create Britain’s first embryos that merge human and animal material will begin within months after a Government watchdog today approved two research teams to carry out the controversial work.

Scientists at King’s College London and the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne will now inject human DNA into empty eggs from cows, to create embryos known as cytoplasmic hybrids that are 99.9 per cent human in genetic terms.

Related:

• Bioethics essay: "Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response"
• Sep 06: Pres. of Pont. Acad. for Life reacts to UK hybrids
• Sep 03: Human-animal chimeras given go-ahead in the UK
• June 27: Stem cells and Chimeras/Embryos; Legislation and Papal/Episcopal witness

Claim: "Embryo-friendly technique produces stem cells"

This bioethics story has been getting a fair amount of coverage today so let's take a look at what it claims.

"Embryo-friendly technique produces stem cells", the Reuters headline reads.

The procedure:

Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology has been working with a method sometimes used to test embryos for severe genetic diseases. Called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, it involves taking a single cell from an embryo when it contains only eight or so cells.

The method usually does not harm the embryo, which is frozen for possible future implantation into the mother's womb. The ACT team also froze the embryos and used the single cell that was removed as a source of human embryonic stem cells.

This process doesn't appear to be anything new, and the article admits that this method is already "sometimes used to test embryos for severe genetic diseases." The embryos that provide the stem cells in this process are brought about through in vitro fertilization, which is unethical in itself.

Also, the admission that the process "usually does not harm the embryo" implies that sometimes, in fact, it does. Experimentation cannot be done on an innocent embryo if it does not have that particular embryo's best interests at heart - you cannot sacrifice individual human lives for scientific progress.

So why are the proponents of this process claiming it is better than current techniques?

Dr. Robert Lanza, ACT's scientific director, said it provides a way to create mass quantities of embryonic stem cells without harming a human embryo. Current stem cell technologies require the embryo's destruction.

True enough, but the new process still involves bringing a human being into existence in a petri dish, possibly killing it by removing 1/8th of its cell mass, and dooming it to a frozen existence with - realistically - only a slim chance of ever being implanted at a future date into a womb.

The article also features a typically superfluous and needlessly inflammatory quotation:

"If the White House approves this new methodology, researchers could effectively double or triple the number of stem cell lines available within a few months. Too many needless deaths continue to occur while this research is being held up," Lanza said.

"I hope the president will act now and approve these stem cell lines quickly."

You know what also causes needless deaths? Hunger. But that doesn't mean every person who isn't actively fighting to eliminate hunger somehow intends or is complacent with starvation.

Reading through the rest of the article and the people it quotes, its continuous language of urgency and dogmatism ("scientists must continue to study true embryonic stem cells.") belies to me another example of researchers slightly tweaking an already-ruled-out technique and then rushing it through the examination process in hopes that the legal and ethical scrutinizers will miss what is actually happening.

Say what you want, my money is still on induced pluripotent stem cells (derived from adults).

Related: my Bioethics essay "Direct Reprogramming & the End of Embryonic Research"

Bioethics essay: "Direct Reprogramming & the End of Embryonic Research"

Welcome to this week's installment of my ongoing essay series about contemporary bioethics issues. As always, constructive feedback is welcome. Here is a list of the previous topics I've treated so far:

• “Did the Congo nuns get permission and set precedent?" (Nov. 1)
• "The Pope Speaks to Pharmacists ... and Connecticut?" (Oct. 29)
• "Long-Term Complications for Premature Infants" (Oct. 22)
• “The Evil Effects of Legalizing Euthanasia” (Oct. 10)
• “The Moral Implications of Artificial Wombs” (Oct. 1)
• “Mandatory Organ Donation Initiatives” (Sep. 26)
• “Human-Animal Hybrids and the Catholic Response” (Sep. 20)

This week's topic:

“Direct Reprogramming & the End of Embryonic Stem Cell Research”

I submit that a recent discovery made public in the last week has radically changed the landscape of the ethic stem cell debate and further precludes embryonic stem cell research.

The “direct reprogramming” of adult cells (such as skin cells, for instance) to a non-differentiated state, previously accomplished successfully in mice, has now been done in humans. Richard Doerflinger, director of pro-life activities for the USCCB, said that this discovery is “completely acceptable ethically and also perhaps more promising scientifically and medically than embryonic stem cells have been in the past.”[1] Currently, the technique involves disrupting the DNA of the skin cell, which could raise the probability of cancer. However, this DNA disruption is a “byproduct” and “experts said they believe it can be avoided.”[2] The technique is straightforward, with one person being quoted as saying “People didn't know it would be this easy … thousands of labs in the United States can do this, basically tomorrow.”

Direct reprogramming has two distinct technical advantages over cloning: it does not require a huge supply of unfertilized human egg cells and it does not bring into being (and later kill) a human person. Furthermore, it is eligible for federal funding under current law.[3] As a result of these and other benefits, such notable scientists as Ian Wilmut (who became a household name as the director of the research team that first successfully cloned a sheep and named it Dolly) have publicly abandoned cloning in favor of direct reprogramming research.[4]

Focusing research on the far-more-promising technique of direct reprogramming has been made more urgent by recent news that scientists have successfully cloned primates (again, previously up to this point the technique had primarily been used with mice).[5] The cloning process, in comparison with reprogramming, is plagued by inefficiency, and demands many unfertilized egg cells. Fr. Thomas Berg, director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, noted that the breakthrough is a “double-edged sword.”[6] On the one hand such research can provide insights into human biology. On the other hand, research must never cross the line into developing human cloning techniques carried-over from primate testing, he said.

The recent discoveries made in direct reprogramming, of course, do not change the fundamentally unethical nature of embryonic stem cell research. Human life cannot be weighed proportionally with possible future scientific benefits. The Catholic Church has consistently taught this truth. Most recently at the U.S. Bishops’ fall meeting in Baltimore they unanimously issued a new statement re-condemning stem cell research which involves the destruction of innocent nascent human life.[7] These recent discoveries do, however, discredit the argument put forward by proportionalists that embryonic human beings can be sacrificed for scientific progress, because their argument rests upon the premise that embryonic stem cell research is the most promising path towards deriving usable pluripotent stem cells. The first successful human tests of direct reprogramming all but definitively put the lie to their line of reasoning. +++

Breaking: New ethical source for stem cells discovered

It's very important news, and is being widely reported.

Updated: As promised, my commentary: "Direct Reprogramming & the End of ESCR"

Dolly scientist abandons embryonic stem cell research

Of course, you won't see that related in the headlines, but that's what he's in-fact done. Another mark against ESCR, says I.

And as an aside: maybe I missed something, but the above-linked article - and every other one I've read on this topic - refer to the opposers of embryonic stem cell research as ... "Pro-life"!

I guess it's hard to call them "anti-choice" in the context of ESCR, but it's still nice to see.

Fr. Thomas Berg in NRO on Monkey Cloning

The world of stem-cell science was rocked Wednesday by news that researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, led by Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, had cloned embryos from rhesus monkeys and derived embryonic stem cells from the clones. Their work was published online in the journal Nature. For those opposed to embryo-destructive research, some might be thinking of yesterday as a kind of “black Wednesday.” I am inclined to disagree. In fact, history may well show us that November 14, 2007, marked a turning point in the battle against embryo-destructive research. [Click here for full text.]

Fr. Berg is the executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, which has issued a press release in response to the news. Media coverage from CNA and the AP.

Reuters provides accurate coverage of Pope's comments re: embryonic stem cell research

This is the first time (and hopefully not the last!) that I can remember reading an accurate, honest treatment of the Church's opposition to ESCR in the mainstream media which also mentions the many forms of stem cell research that the Church does support.

My comments in brackets:

[Reuters:] Pope Benedict appealed to scientists on Thursday to stop using human embryos in stem cell research, saying it violated "the dignity of human life".

The Vatican is a proponent of stem cell research as long as it does not harm human embryos, which the Catholic Church holds are humans from the moment of conception. [Finally, an early admission that the Church has no opposition to stem cell research when it comes from ethical sources.]

"The destruction of human embryos, whether to acquire stem cells or for any other purpose, contradicts the purported intent of researchers, legislators and public health officials to promote human welfare," the Pontiff said. [good quote!]

The Church supports research on adult cells and even promising alternatives to embryonic research, like the use of amniotic fluid protecting fetuses in the uterus.

The Pope said such research methods "harmonize with the aforementioned intent (to promote human welfare) by respecting the life of the human being at every stage of his or her existence". [Notice how the article gives the Pope's argument sufficient quotation and development as to be coherent.]

Granted, the headline of the article is negative: "Don't use embryos in stem cell research, Pope says." One almost gets the sense that the reporter was told to write a story with a pre-chosen title. Or maybe that the reporter discovered the internal-consistency of the Church's position while researching the question.

In any case, I still think praise is in order for whomever is responsible for the report.

Maybe they'll get the idea.

How can you assist promoting ethical stem cell research?

I was recently at a Theology on Tap event treating the topic of embryonic vs. adult stem cell research. After the presentation, a person asked what they could do to help promote ethical means of harvesting stem cells for therapy and research. While some practical ideas were mentioned, here's a very concrete and immediate way to help this important cause:

David of C-S-L explains:

Bill Schneeberger is the owner of BOGO wines, a winery that contributes from its proceeds to great Catholic, pro-life organizations. He has developed a plan modeled after that of Susan Komen of the “pink ribbon” campaign. The focus of his plan is to generate awareness, interest, and funding for ethical stem cell research (adult, cord, autologous, etc).

More information - including a youtube video, links, etc. @ C-S-L.

Clinton promises to legalize embryonic stem cell research

Of course, while the headlines reads "Clinton Would Fund Stem Cell Research".

The first paragraph actually says:

"If elected president, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says she would sign an executive order rescinding President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research."

I guess space restrictions prevented the reporter from including "embryonic" in the headline.

This sobering news from the democratic candidate polling 33 points ahead of the nearest competition.

Human-animal chimeras given go-ahead in the UK

Update: As expected, this procedure has been given the go-ahead:

Animal-human hybrid embryos could be created in British laboratories within months after the fertility regulator gave the controversial research its blessing.

Two teams of scientists are poised to start making cow-human hybrids for research into incurable diseases - with at least one project starting by the end of the year.

Reuters has found the story.

The UK Daily Mail reports:

The creation of part-human, part-animal embryos looks set to be approved by the fertility regulator tomorrow.

These "hybrid" embryos would be used for research into incurable diseases such as Alzheimer's.

The news follows a surprise Government decision not to ban the controversial research.

A shortage of human eggs has led two groups of scientists to appeal to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for permission to make hybrid embryos from human skin cells and animal eggs.

Cows' eggs are most likely to be used, because they are in plentiful supply.

[here, a graphic reproduced from the article:]

My summary: scientists say they do not have access to enough human eggs to support their research, so two teams from the UK are asking permission to use eggs from cows that have been killed for meat. They will remove the genetic material from these eggs and insert a complete human genetic code. This is a very similar to the technique used in cloning. Most countries, with the exception of China, have banned these types of techniques.

Back in late June, I posted on this same topic and would recommend reading that post if you want to understand the witness and teaching of the local bishops on this topic, which I summarized to be "Don't create human/animal hybrids, but if you do, treat them as humans if they have a preponderance of human genes." (I also posted several related links.) As I mentioned in my prior post, this pattern is similar to the Church's teaching on IVF, i.e., don't do it, but if you do, the embryos created are truly human and deserve to be treated as such.

Some context: Embryos with 99.9% human genetic code are still presumed to be human, and in keeping with human dignity do not deserve to be killed at fourteen days to have their cells harvested. Also, this kind of research still has no cures to its credit, and is undertaken despite the far better and demonstrable results obtained through adult stem cell research. Third and finally, there are several promising techniques being developed to "dedifferentiate" adult cells to a state of functioning like stem cells, which is what these scientists are attempting to produce through the unethical "forward process" of allowing normal embryonic growth, which begins with the creation of a human being that will eventually be killed for its stem cells.

So why the intense lobbying here and now?

Because scientists know that if you want to cook a frog, you put him in warm water first ....

[For those interested, here are the important details I came across in the current media coverage:]

• Like all embryonic research, this procedure will result in the creation of living embryos that will be destroyed.
• In May, Labour ministers "dramatically changed their minds" and refused to outlaw this research after initially-proposing a pan (which sparked a revolt among the scientific community).
• The final decision still rests with the license committee, due to meet in November.
• Dr David King, who works for research watchdog Human Genetics Alert, said: "We are not a pro-life group but creating embryos purely for the purpose of research turns the embryo into nothing more than a research tool and a source of raw biological material for experiments."
• "The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [HEFA] is an independent regulator which oversees fertility treatment and embryo research. Its members include ethicists, churchmen and lay people, as well as fertility doctors and scientists." [the article concludes with brief bios of some of the people - I don't see any Catholic "churchmen" listed.]
• From the UK Telegraph: the embryos created will "contain about 99.9 per cent human material and 0.1 per cent animal". I have no idea how they compute that.
• "Meanwhile the Government has published a draft Human Tissues and Embryos Bill which would allow the creation of hybrids, but not so-called "true hybrids" - created by fertilising a human egg with animal sperm or vice versa. But a joint House of Commons and Lords committee scrutinising the draft Bill last month said all forms of hybrids should be allowed for research if regulators thought it beneficial."
• The majority of the article is concerned with analyzing the results of a 2,000 person poll, which evidently influenced the decision-making process.
• From the UK Daily Mail: "Dr Steven Minger, of King's College London, who heads one of the two teams, accepts that there is a "yuck factor" to the proposed work - but says the embryos would be human. The only remaining fragments of "cowness" would exist in machinery called mitochondria that provide the energy for the body's cells."
• Another explanation of the proposal: First, his team would take a single skin cell from the volunteer and inject it into an egg whose own nuclear DNA had been removed. After being kickstarted with an electric current, the egg would develop into a human embryo genetically identical to the human donor. Around six days after its creation, when it is still a cluster of around 150 cells - the embryo would be destroyed and harvested for embryonic stem cells."

Stem cells and Chimeras/Embryos; Legislation and Papal/Episcopal witness

Several stories today on the bioethics front.

First, Pope Benedict re-endorsed adult stem-cell research in no uncertain terms at today's Wednesday audience:

During the weekly Wednesday audience held earlier today, Pope Benedict expressed his approval for adult stem cell research, distinguishing adult stem-cell research from destructive embryonic stem-cell research, which the Catholic Church strongly condemns.According to ABC News, the Pontiff made the remarks while greeting members of a conference organized by La Spaienza University about the use of adult stem cells to treat cardiac problems." On this matter the position of the Church, supported by reason and by science, is clear," said the Pope." Scientific research must be encouraged and promoted, so long as it does not harm other human beings, whose dignity is inviolable from the very first stages of existence." [LifeSiteNews]

Pope Benedict has spoken in favor of valid forms of research before:

"In the face of the frequent and unjust accusations of insensitivity directed against the Church," said Pope Benedict in September of last year at a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy for Life, "I would like to underline the constant support she has given over the course of her two thousand-year history to research aimed at the cure of illnesses and at the good of humanity." [LifeSiteNews] [(CWNews.)]

CNS reports on the recently-introduced legislation that would allow the creation of human/animal chimeras (which I blogged about yesterday):

"Josephine Quintavalle of the public lobby group Comment on Reproductive Ethics told Catholic News Service June 27 that the bill is very likely to pass through the houses of Parliament in the fall. She said that it was also structured in such a way that the government could approve new advances without recourse to Parliament."

This support for ESCR and chimera creation, even as their medical utility is dubious at best:

Part of the problem, she added, was that science had become a new "fundamentalism" in Britain."

Politicians are increasingly reluctant to engage in genuine scrutiny of the claims made by scientists, particularly in the field of embryonic stem cells," said Quintavalle. "The evidence base presented in this field has been particularly inadequate. A colossal amount of time has been wasted justifying the creation of interspecies embryos without robust scientific counterarguments.

"The debate has been presented erroneously as simply a battle between pro-life or religious absolutists and a united secular scientific community of the highest integrity," she added.

...

McGuckin said there was "no evidence whatsoever" that interspecies research would lead to a single cure.

...

He asked: "What is there to show for the millions of pounds that have gone into embryonic stem-cell research in recent years compared to the small amount of funds for adult stem-cell research, which has been delivering the results?"

CNA has more on this story, and also reports that Australia went ahead and approved of embryonic stem-cell research for the first time (despite Cardinal Pell's outspoken opposition):

"Despite opposition from the Catholic Church and a prayer campaign by Christian MPs, the NSW Upper House passed a law that lifts the ban on embryonic stem-cell research in the Australian state. The Bill passed by a vote of 28 to 13.Cardinal George Pell of Sydney had warned Catholic MPs who supported the bill that "their voting has consequences for their place in the life of the Church".Despite the warning, a number of high-profile Catholic MPs, including Premier Morris Iemma and his deputy, John Watkins, voted in favor of the Bill."

Putting all these pieces together, I think we're seeing the debate between pro-life, Catholic, pro-adult-stem-cell-research defenders and scientific establishment, secular, pro-embryonic-stem-cell research advocates becoming much more heated, even coming to a head.

I wonder about the chances of seeing excommunications handed out to Catholics who vote for embryonic stem-cell legislation (and here Cardinal Pell is the prime candidate for doing so), or again about the possibility of more pointed words on this subject being put forward by Pope Benedict or one of the Congregation heads (in document form or spoken).

One of the factors that makes the position of these pro-ESCR folks so untenable is the objective incommensurability of ESCR hopes with the cures already provided by adult stem-cell research. In this kind of environment, it's easy to see how ESCR advocates aren't arguing science or reason, but rather forcing their own agenda and bias. Face it: ESCR just isn't good science, and chimera creation is even less prudential. ESCR advocates deserve to be reprimanded not only for taking human lives, but also for wasting medical resources in a backdoor attempt to further erode societal respect and political legislation for human dignity.

"Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Act"

Zenit:

WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 20, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Before vetoing a bill that would promote embryonic stem cell research, U.S. President George Bush issued an order to promote research on pluripotent stem cells "derived by ethically responsible techniques."

Bush used his veto power today to kill the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, a bill he said "would compel American taxpayers -- for the first time in our history -- to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos."

The president said at a press conference that "our conscience calls us to pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values."

In his executive order, titled "Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways," the president ordered research on alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell breakthrough?

You may have seen the headline, "Embryonic stem cells can repair eyes, company says..."

AMDG notes some things in the article, and catalogues all the "might's, maybe's and probabaly's" that the scientists must include, even as they promise spectacular results.

[A few of my comments in brackets]:

Stem cells made from human embryos can home in on damaged eyes, hearts and arteries of mice and rats, and appear to start repairs, a U.S. company said on Monday.

[notice the verb "make", human embryos are material for production. Like one would "make" cookies out of dough.]

... companies working with private funding, such as the over-the-counter listed ACT, may do as they please [regarding embryonic stem cell lines].

Working with embryonic stem cells is not easy. For medical uses, researchers would like to partly differentiate them -- start them down the road toward becoming a specific cell or tissue type.

[This is a euphamism for "letting the embryo develop as it would normally." Starting down the road toward becoming a specific cell or tissue type is what embryos naturally do as they mature. In other words, they let the embryo live long enough to start creating "pluripotent" (or more specified) stem cells and then take those cells, in most cases killing the embryo in the process.]

... The researchers killed the mice to check the cells' progress, so they do not know the long-term effects.

[Not to iterject, but I'm sure they intend to let some mice live before they begin human testing. embryonic stem cells, when operated upon, often become cancerous because cancer means the cell's normal activities have been compromised.]

They want to begin human testing by the end of next year.

Update: And in the same vein, eugenics takes another timid step forward in Britain.

The first casualty? Squinting!