Getting It Right on Stem Cells
— Posted by John (August 25, 2006 at 4:41 pm)
***scroll for updates***
LifeSite posted yesterday the second installment of its two-part interview with Dr. Peter Hollands, the Chief Science Officer of the UK Cord Blood Bank. (Part one is here.)
As pro-lifers have been saying for years, the future of stem cell technology isn’t in embryonic stem cells, but adult stem cells — a major sub-category of which are umbilical cord stem cells. (These are obtained from a baby’s umbilical cord following delivery.)
Hollands states:
As a scientist, and even as a lay person, it is simple to see that cord blood as a source of stem cells for therapy and research is the easiest route to take. We have a never ending supply of cord blood and if we can start to collect and store this valuable resource instead of discarding it then we will start to make real progress in stem cell therapy and research…
To claim that there are enough “spare” embryos in IVF clinics is nonsense. These embryos could not support the demand for stem cell transplants.
Hollands goes on to plainly state a fact that cannot be said often enough:
It is important to note that embryonic stem cells have never been used to treat anyone and that there are no plans to do so. In the UK for example we have invested millions in a national stem cell bank which contains approximately 6 different embryonic stem cell lines none of which are suitable for transplant [emphasis added].
Also worth reading on the subject of stem cells is the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s Statement on Proposed Method for Extracting Embryonic Stem Cells by Embryo Biopsy. It concisely explains why the stem cell “breakthrough” earlier this week (hailed by a Times of London editor as one that is “set to overturn ethical objections to potentially live-saving research,”) doesn’t really overturn anything.
Several significant moral problems surround embryo biopsy, not the least of which is that this method of extracting cells depends on the creation of embryos through in-vitro fertilization:
It is a serious violation of human dignity to engender human life apart from the intimacy of the marital union. The only fitting home for a human embryo is in the warmth and shelter of its mother’s womb, not in the open lights of the laboratory being violated in Petri dishes.
The NCBC states in no uncertain terms:
This procedure is a clear violation of standard research protocols for the protection of human subjects and would be rejected by any properly constituted institutional review board. In addition to these clear moral difficulties the eventual outcomes of this manipulation on the embryo are not sufficiently known, hence the publication of this experimental protocol fails to provide an ethical avenue to pluripotent stem cell research in the future.
And finally, Dean Barnett has a must-read post at Hugh Hewitt titled “The Stem Cell Hustle.” (As far as I can tell, the term “stem cell hustle” was coined by Denny at Vital Signs Blog in May 2005; if anyone knows otherwise, I’m open to correction. Regardless, I hope the phrase becomes as commonplace as the unscientific terms “fertilized egg” and “pre-embryo” are today.)
Barnett writes:
Virtually everyone who enters the field of medical research does so with the intention and the belief that they will accomplish great things. These people work tirelessly chasing lofty goals; they’re in it to save lives. They’re great people. My sole point is that in medical research, there’s nothing even close to a sure thing.
IT HAS BEEN THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research community’s great good fortune to have been turned into a political football. Were it not for the confluence of interests between stem cell researchers and a major political party, stem cell research would receive about as much mainstream media attention as gene therapy. Which is to say, none.
Pushed along by political interests who relish the chance to devalue the fetus, stem cell therapy has come to represent a panacea for the hopeless and the ignorant who understandably choose false hope over no hope. But, you have to wonder, what level of awareness do Michael J. Fox and Ronald Reagan Jr. have about the cause they so relentlessly tout?
Let’s take Parkinson ’s disease, a terrible affliction. The Parkinson Foundation doled out three “mega-project” grants this year. None were for stem cell research or anything related to stem cell research. If stem cell research were the be-all and end-all that its public proponents claim it to be, why would that be the case? Regarding the value of stem cell research, the Parkinson Foundation has voted with its wallet.
Previous Coverage
***UPDATE: 8/28, 11:36 AM: In the comments section, Pansy Moss has just linked to an excellent article by Princeton professor Robert George titled “The Real Good News on Stem Cells” that was posted this morning on National Review Online.
As an aside: Pansy’s link brought to mind a description of George I once came across in Crisis magazine. In a book review of George’s The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis, Daniel Moloney writes:
A few of the essays show secularist professors hopping in the ring with George, only to find that the diminutive professor of political philosophy does a fair impression of Hulk Hogan—he doesn’t just win; he throws the opponent out of the ring and begins to chase after him with a chair, so relentless is he in argument.
This entry is filed under Health Issues, Life Before Birth. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Mary Kay says:
As the mother of young adult men and teenage boys, I find it very difficult to teach them the invaluable lesson “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should…” when the rest of the world lives by “If you can, then that’s a good enough reason to go ahead and do…”
We all seem to forget that we are going to die someday, and adding a few days to our life is not nearly as important as how we spend the time that we do have. Michael J. Fox may have a shortened lifespan, but is lengthening his life really worth the countless lives that will be lost in the process? Is the cost of a few more days on earth really worth a damned eternity? Our priorities seem very messed up…
And are we so consumed with the need to do whatever we want, answering to NO AUTHORITY, that we will actually take the harder path (embryonic stem cells) rather than the easier one (adult stem cells) just to prove that “NOBODY IS GOING TO TELL US WHAT TO DO?”
God help us and our selfish ways…
MK
Comment posted August 26th, 2006 at 5:33 am
Mary Kay says:
Hey Pansy, Hey Rosie, Hey Young Christian Woman,
Missed you. Pansy I heard you weren’t feeling well. I’ve been praying for you. Rosie, hope all is well with our little one….
MK
Comment posted August 26th, 2006 at 5:34 am
Lucy says:
Stem Cell Breakthrough Won’t Satisfy Religious Conservatives
Thursday, August 24, 2006
By: Yaron Brook
Irvine, CA–”The researchers at Advanced Cell Technology should be congratulated for their scientific breakthrough,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “But their new method of creating stem cell lines will not stop religious opposition to scientific progress.”
In developing a method of extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, the team was, in part, trying to address the concerns of those opposed to the destruction of embryos. As the team leader said: “There is no rational reason left to oppose this research.”
“But there has never been a rational reason to oppose embryonic stem cell research,” said Dr. Brook. “The opposition comes mainly from religious conservatives and is–by their own declaration–based on faith, not on reason. It is based on the irrational belief that a mere clump of cells is a full-fledged human being.”
“There is no rational reason to morally oppose this research, and its potential to produce treatments for such diseases as diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s is ample reason to morally support it.
“It is a mistake to try to appease religious conservatives on this issue. What they are opposed to, fundamentally, is science as such.”
Comment posted August 27th, 2006 at 3:24 am
Lucy says:
I thought Brook was being to much of a cynic. I guess I owe him an apology.
Comment posted August 27th, 2006 at 3:24 am
Michael-2 says:
I think it is becomming obvious that embryonic stem cell research is not primarily about curing anything. It is highly doubtful anyone living today will undergo any cures from developed treatments with this approach. This approach has two problems, rejection by
new host and teratoma or tumor formation. Embryonic stem cells do exactly what they are supposed to do; they grow in number in an organism and become every kind of cell; not ANYKIND, but EVERYKIND. Maybe fetal tissue would be more differentiated.
With the prohibition or restrictions on fetal farming by the federal goverment, this approach will be problematic; for the time being, at least. And cloning may be required to duplicate genetic material not rejected by a targeted host. This is another problem that is not going away soon.
So embryonic stem cell research is a political football, but it is also part of the Brave New World Transhumanism/Posthumanism.
Make no mistake about it folks, Drs Frankenstein and Moreau are both HERE, but they look respectable without the Gothic horror. They are here to stay, so pitchforks and torches are not the tools we should use to deal with them.
Personally I favor some controlled research on embryonic stem cells, perhaps along the lines that President Bush as authorized federal funding for, but I think this research is useful for more comparative purposes than an end in itself.
Comment posted August 27th, 2006 at 5:37 am
Michael-2 says:
The issue of “ethical” embryonic stem cells is under discussion, and some Catholic moral philosophers are willing to consider Dr. William Hurbert of Stanford and his ANT-OAR procedure, and some are against it because they see it as creating a damaged embryo. Personally I think it is ethically preferred to the current embryo destruction approach, but there are still some issues with it. A good write-up on this and the notion of Embryo Biopsy is in a letter by Ryan Anderson to “FirstTHings” on Aug 25:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=432
All in all, I suspect that for healing purposes, embryonic stem cell research of any kind, i.e current embryonic destruction, ANT-OAR, or biopsy for stem cells is going no where soon.
For therapeutic purposes Embryonic stem cell efforts are largely futile and unnecessary.
Comment posted August 27th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Michael-2 says:
The whole issue of IVF is another area that is overly hyped, believe it or not. Today there is almost no practical reason to create embryos by IVF for any reason, regardless of the ethical and moral issues involved in doing this. Almost nothing is publicized to the fact that it is actually almost obsolete and all but unnecessary in the vast majority of married couples insisting on a biological child of their own.
NaPro Technology developed by Dr. Thomas Hilgiers in Nebraska is proving far more effective than IVF in achieving conception and bringing a child to term.
http://www.naprotechnology.com/infertility.htm
http://www.naprotechnology.com/
http://www.popepaulvi.com/
The word is getting out on this area of OBGYN, and when it progresses big changes are coming, hopefully closing the IVF centers.
And besides, conceiving a child the old fashioned way is a lot more fun, actually.
Comment posted August 27th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Joe says:
Lucy,
In your post Dr. Brook said, “It is based on the irrational belief that a mere clump of cells is a full-fledged human being.”
Scientifically an embryo is simply a stage in the development of life. I think it is hilarious that this doctor, thinks it is more scientific to describe an embryo as a clump of cells. If that is all it was, than the term embryo would have never need been invented.
To put this in as simplistic terms as possible, if you were a kid and watching Sesame Street and they brought about that game were you have to tell them which thing is not like the other. If there were four choices, one a grown up bird, the second a human embryo, the third a human baby and the fourth a grown man with the caption, “which on doesn’t belong?” and you asked Dr. Brook to tell us which one doesn’t belong he would say the embryo. Perhaps if you asked a child which one didn’t belong, the child may say the embryo. If you asked any serious scientist which one doesn’t belong, he would correctly say the bird doesn’t belong.
The scope of Dr. Brook’s rationality ends at the very non-scientific observation that a human embryo is nothing more than a “clump of cells”. People who are truly rational take into account all similarities, like the fact that a human embryo and a grown human person have the exact same DNA, and given only a few million ticks of a clock, they would look very much the same. This, ironically, is why they are so interested in embryonic experimentation in the first place.
In a nutshell a statement claiming scientific superiority which the term “clump of cells” is included is just as irrational as claiming moral superiority because one fancies a novelist’s ideals (Ayn Rand) over established moral norms like the Ten Commandments.
Joe
Comment posted August 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Pansy Moss says:
The Real Good News on Stem Cells
[more...]
Comment posted August 28th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Pansy Moss says:
Sorry.
This is an excerpt of a National Review Online article by Robert P. George. I linked to the article in it’s entirety above, but forgot to write the author and source.
Comment posted August 28th, 2006 at 11:13 am
John says:
Pansy said: “Sorry.
This is an excerpt of a National Review Online article by Robert P. George. I linked to the article in it’s entirety above, but forgot to write the author and source.”
Pansy,
No need to apologize. We’re an easygoing bunch — well, for the most part, at least.
Thanks much for the link. You’ll notice that I’ve updated the original post to include it.
Comment posted August 28th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Pansy Moss says:
Since you linked to it, I should note the HT to Kevin Miller at HMS blog.
Comment posted August 28th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Michael-2 says:
Pansy writes >> One possibility is “altered nuclear transfer.” This research, being pursued at MIT and elsewhere, seeks to fuse ordinary body cells, obtained harmlessly from donors, with oocyte cytoplasm in such a way as to produce donor-specific pluripotent stem cells without producing or destroying a human embryo. Another possibility is “dedifferentiation.”
Comment posted August 29th, 2006 at 5:13 am
Mike says:
I think we must be very careful in the Embryonic Stem Cell debate. We should not get caught up in the non-success rate debate for embryonic stem cell research. Rather we should be discussing the morality of using embryonic stem cells.
If embryonic stem cell research ever does cure a disease, then those arguing against embryonic stem cell research based solely on its non-success rate are going to look pretty stupid.
Therefore Pro-Lifers should be concentrating on the morality of embryonic stem cell research. We should be explaining to others it is morally wrong “to terminate human life (human embryo’s) in order to benefit existing life”.
We need to keep the discussion on this debate focused on the morality of the argument.
Mike
Comment posted August 31st, 2006 at 7:30 am
Mike says:
Lucy said..
Stem Cell Breakthrough Won’t Satisfy Religious Conservatives
Thursday, August 24, 2006
By: Yaron Brook
Irvine, CA–”The researchers at Advanced Cell Technology should be congratulated for their scientific breakthrough,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “But their new method of creating stem cell lines will not stop religious opposition to scientific progress.”
In developing a method of extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, the team was, in part, trying to address the concerns of those opposed to the destruction of embryos. As the team leader said: “There is no rational reason left to oppose this research.”
——-
Lucy,
I caught a small portion of the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio yesterday and they stated while further investigating this Stem Cell Breakthrough, the story simply was not true.
In fact the scientists were twisting their story just to get grants & other funds to further their projects. These same scientists have done this three or four times in the past. I only caught a short snipet of Drew’s show yesterday but I am sure someone else can elaborate more about the truth on this story.
Mike
Comment posted August 31st, 2006 at 8:03 am
Mike says:
Lucy,
I found out you can go back and listen to the audio archives of Drew Mariani’s program. I believe it was yesterdays program (August 30th) during hour #3. Here’s the link…
http://www.relevantradio.com/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=641&srcid=275
Mike
Comment posted August 31st, 2006 at 8:32 am
Mike says:
Lucy,
Sheila Liaugminas Web Blog does a good job explaining the stem cell study you had mentioned which was later recounted in the press.
Sheila has it posted on August 31, 2006 under the heading “Among the right questions and answers on bioethics…”. It is also posted under categories Media, Society, Culture, Bioethics on her website. I think you will find the article very interesting. Here’s the link …
http://www.inforumblog.com/
Mike
Comment posted August 31st, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Generations for Life » Blog Archive » March of Dimes Is Not Pro-Life says:
[...] MoD supports embryonic stem cell research. [...]
Comment posted April 26th, 2007 at 11:16 am