The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionIt's easy to be misled on stem cell research
by Bill Tammeus on Jun. 30, 2010
The recent announcement that the Pontifical Council for Culture and an international biopharmaceutical company will work together on adult stem-cell research is good -- but not great -- news.
Though this research may lead to life-saving therapies, it's a modest step and does not confront an issue of language, definition and perception that lies at the heart of official Catholic opposition -- from both the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -- to research that uses certain early stem cells, which unfortunately, imprecisely and thus misleadingly are usually called embryonic stem cells.
I've been writing about stem cell research for much of the last decade, so I know that research using adult stem cells has been going on for more than 50 years. By contrast, the first report of early human stem cells produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) was not published until 2004. So it's not surprising that some effective therapies that use adult stem cells exist while many therapies using early SCNT stem cells still are in development.
I also know it's easy to be misled on stem cell research if you don't name and understand things properly.
The problem comes when people adopt the unwavering position that there's no essential difference between a tiny ball of early stem cells produced by SCNT and a fully developed human being. It's right to want to protect human life from its beginning, as the Catholic church does in its teachings.
But as a Protestant not obligated to follow Catholic teaching on this subject I insist that where early stem cells come from -- whether by SCNT or from natural fertilization -- makes a big difference in how I think about the moral choices.
As William B. Neaves, CEO of the Stowers Institute of Medical Research in Kansas City, has said, there is a "profound difference between conceiving a new life and culturing an ordinary body cell from an already-living person who was conceived years ago."
Here is an explanation of that "profound difference":
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
The day after a man's sperm fertilizes a woman's egg, the resulting single-cell zygote divides into two identical cells. A day later, it divides again and forms four cells. By the fifth day there are roughly 100 cells, and a cavity forms inside a ball of cells called an early blastocyst.
If you believe that human life exists when sperm fertilizes an egg, then call the blastocyst human life on its way to producing the eventual 50 trillion cells that make up each human body. And I mostly won't argue with you. But remember that fewer than 50 percent of such blastocysts ever successfully implant themselves in a woman's uterus. So there's also lots of human death in natural human reproduction.
By contrast, the SCNT technique works entirely with genes in a cell of an already living person. In the SCNT procedure, sperm and egg never meet. And the resultant cells are never meant to be implanted in a uterus to grow into a baby.
Rather, as Neaves has explained, scientists using SCNT substitute the nucleus of an ordinary body cell for the nucleus of a mature egg. The procedure causes the nucleus of that ordinary body cell to multiply into a small cluster of stem cells that can develop into any specialized cell or tissue in the body.
So far the Catholic church stands against this process, even though I think it would be misleading to call the results of SCNT a human being who must be protected. And this opposition leads the church to focus entirely on adult stem cell research, such as that just announced.
But real, post-birth human beings are suffering from Parkinson's, diabetes and many other kinds of ailments. And scientists think research using early SCNT stem cells could lead to therapies to relieve this suffering. I think a clearer understanding of early SCNT stem cells would allow the church to bless this work, too.
Bill Tammeus, a Presbyterian elder and former award-winning Faith columnist for The Kansas City Star, writes the daily “Faith Matters” blog for The Star’s Web site and a monthly column for The Presbyterian Outlook. His latest book, co-authored with Rabbi Jacques Cukierkorn, is They Were Just People: Stories of Rescue in Poland During the Holocaust. E-mail him at wtammeus@kc.rr.com.
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Tammeus' column, "A small c catholic," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Tammeus to your list.
I agree with you, Rev.
I agree with you, Rev. Tammeus. As a life-long Catholic, I've come to see that since the death of Pope John 23, that our Church, sad to say, has become the Church of "NO" whether it has to do with stem cell research or investigating its own dirty laundry. Good explanation of SCNT. Thank you. BJP
Bull Pucky.
Bull Pucky.
Isn't it rather beyond belief
Isn't it rather beyond belief that that tiny 110 acre plot of pomposity attempt to interject opinions that have nothing to do with their field of expertise what it 'should' or 'should not' do? One is tempted to shout out Galileo!
Although SCNT stem cells seem
Although SCNT stem cells seem to be different from the cells that eventually grow into a fully-formed human being, I would like to hear an educated and very informed Church opinion on this matter. There must be valid reasons why the Catholic church is against the procedure. But perhaps Tammeus is correct when he concludes: " I think a clearer understanding of early SCNT stem cells would allow the church to bless this work, too." Actually, I hope he is correct.
I sincerely hope that when
I sincerely hope that when you say, "...educated and very informed Catholic ...." you haven't come up with just another oxymoron.
William E. May is a great
William E. May is a great source for this. He is one of the leading Catholic voices in Bioethics. He discusses in his book Catholic Bioethics and the gift of Human Life.
Essentially SCNT is making a twin of a person by stripping the nucleus out of an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of an already developed person. If you were to implant this altered cell into a uterus it would grow into a person.
I think if you hold the opinion that this technique is ok, because the 'intent' was not implant the egg, then you could say the same thing about left over IVF embryos. You could say they are not human because the intent was only to implant one of them.
However, there is a similar procedure ANT-OAR which is very similar to SCNT, except that the cell nucleus is altered in a way that it cannot form an embryo.
Here is an article from Communio
http://communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/brugger32-4.pdf
Everything I have heard about this sounds promising and would be morally allowable. But for the sake of fairness there are some who argue that ANT-OAR would produce a human embryo, albeit, one that is severely damaged. But I believe that objections have satisfactorily answered by the above author in an study printed in Catholic Bioethics Quarterly.
By the way, I am not asserting myself as a "very informed opinion" on this matter. I do find all this very interesting, and I do my best to keep up.
The same issue of Communio
The same issue of Communio contains several articles critical of ANT-OAR, including an argument by Adrian Walker that directly engages the essay by Christian Brugger to which Mr. Miller has linked. These articles, along with other writings concerning ANT-OAR, can be found here:
http://www.communio-icr.com/ant.htm
Thank you Leslie, I should
Thank you Leslie, I should have provided a link to some of the counter-arguments. First off let me say, I admire Adrian Walker, especially his work on Von Balthasar. But I think he makes or presupposes a "sacredness" to the enucleated egg. Thus making any kind of nuclear transfer intrinsically wrong. Brugger seems to view and argue the enucleated egg, as he called it "bag of cytoplasm" which allows it be used in the way it does in OAR, that is to provide an environment for a reprogrammed adult cell to produce pluripotent cells.
Both Brugger and May as well as the signers of the joint statement in favor of OAR are still arguing in theory at this point. They have all made it very clear that this simply cannot be done on a human level until more testing and development is done using animal cells. I still think it holds promise, though I admit there are still a lot of arguments to be made.
Which is why I am glad that this being openly debated by good solid moral theologians.
I agree Jeff there does seem
I agree Jeff there does seem to be a prior assumption that the enucleated egg is sacred. This line of reasoning seems very similar to Aquinas's concept of sacred sperm and we all know where that kind of reasoning leads.
Among other things, to a
Among other things, to a great Monty Python song.
Thomas' thought was put forth
Thomas' thought was put forth in the context of the marital act. Which in that sense every "sperm is sacred." So if you are arguing that Thomas' theology leads to a morality that says that pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexual sex, and masturbation is immoral...well, it does. It reaffirms what is found in Scripture and tradition.
My argument is different, in that the enucleated egg is not an essential component to the marital act...an egg doesn't even have to be present. If the process called for a manipulation of the sperm cells prior to fertilization, it would be wrong.
Thomas thought sperm was the
Thomas thought sperm was the active principal - he did not know about eggs as the more essential part. Also, his views on sex came from a misgynistic view of sexuality, which is present in the clericalism of today regarding such issues as masturbation, birth control and homosexuality. Such views have little respect for people as they are created to be, but instead rely on an idealized version of how male celibates think they are - most likley due to their own poor psycho-sexual development.
The same issue of Communio
The same issue of Communio contains numerous articles that argue that ANT-OAR is morally objectionable, including an essay by Adrian Walker that responds directly to the article by Christian Brugger that Mr. Miller links to in his post.
All of these articles, and other documents pertaining to ANT-OAR, can be found here:
http://www.communio-icr.com/ant.htm
It seems to me that the
It seems to me that the Vatican's preoccupation, not to say fixation, on embryonic stem cells distracts us (and perhaps Bill Timmeus as well) from the larger question of what stem cell research might do to us in the long run. Discussions of stem cell research very often focus, as Timmeus's column does, on individual people suffering from Parkinson's, diabetes and other ailments. But many supporters of stem cell research are aiming to have an impact far beyond the cure of individual ailments: they want to alter the human germ line. And since we have no idea what this will mean in the long run, doing it seems a bad idea. If people oppose genetically modified foods, why don't more of us oppose genetically modified human beings? If researchers find a way to alter the human germ line using non-embryonic stem cells, it will still be altering the human germ line. Why isn't the Vatican saying something about this? Is this another case of "human life extends from conception through birth"? For more on this aspect of the stem cell debate, I strongly recommend Bill McKibben's book "Enough."
Let's break out the torches
Let's break out the torches and pitchforks, huh?
Well said, Dennis. As
Well said, Dennis. As opposed to actually engaging in debate, that is.
As a Catholic - one who is
As a Catholic - one who is bound to a wheelchair from LMG muscular dystrophy, I challenge strident neo-orthodox Catholics and evangelicals on their premise that embryonic stem cell research is not consistent with Christian teaching. My Jesus is a Jew. All four Jewish denominations support embryonic stem cell research and point to Biblical imperatives to do so. They cite the importance of saving a life in being, as opposed to a less-than-fourteen day embryo; something not yet a human individual (an embryo that has not yet attached to the uterine wall still may merge with another embryo to form a single embryo or split into multiple embryos).
I believe that there is a higher presumption that Jesus, as a Jew, would be more likely to support embryonic research than oppose it. And as a Christian I am far from alone in reaching such a conclusion.
OK Frank, What if we could be
OK Frank,
What if we could be assured that it would only take the sacrifice of 100,000 embryos that would eventually become infant Jews to get you out of your wheelchair via embryonic stem cell research? Still think that the four denominations would feel the same way? Would you? I think that Jesus, the God/man, would weep over so selfish and arrogant position. Have you no shame?
Frank, I invite you to learn
Frank, I invite you to learn something about basic human reproductive biology. When a sperm fertilizes an ovum the result is a new human being. Scientific fact, Frank -- regardless of what one religion or another must believe.
I believe that the Catholic
I believe that the Catholic church calls this cloning. Am I correct?
Yep. SCNT was the process
Yep. SCNT was the process that I. Wilmut used to clone Dolly the sheep. Brilliant scientist, and one of the more important scientific events of the last century. Interestingly enough Wilmut now works with adult stem cells.
Thank You for your insightful
Thank You for your insightful explanation. Too bad Rome can;t be a bit more cooperative and informed.
My main problem with this
My main problem with this article is that he seems to assert that the Catholic Church doesn't have an informed opinion on the matter. The bishops may write the statements but they consult with doctors and researchers working in these fields. Many of them are the best and brightest in their fields.
Not all scientists and doctors support embryonic stem cell research. The Catholic Church fully understands SCNT, how it is done, and what it is used for, as well as the morality of the issue. I trust the bishops far more in these matters than the CEO of Stowers who stands to make a lot of money off this procedure.
SCNT, or Somatic Cell Nuclear
SCNT, or Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, is the exact same process that produced Dolly the cloned sheep. That is why the National Institutes of Health acknowledges that a blastocyst created through SCNT and one created through IVF are indeed - Blastocysts - which every human developmental biology text book recognizes as the beginning of a new human embryonic life.
Though I am Catholic, I am bound here by the natural law that innocent human beings, no matter how small, how underdeveloped, or how dependent, should not be directly killed, even for good ends.
It is not a question of faith, it is one of science and Mr. Tammeus is utterly wrong on the science. Because human beings can be produced through an unnatural means, outside the marital act, does not make them non-persons.
This is one reason why the Church morally forbids IVF - BECAUSE that process introduces a third-party into the procreative act where it doesn't belong. By nature, and through supernatural love, Husband and Wife participate with God's will in procreation. The Church teaches that each human being, by nature, deserves the dignity of coming into the world through the loving embrace of his or her parents and the will of God, not the manipulations of technology.
Mr. Tammeus - if SNCT produces a "ball of stem cells" and no more, why has every cloning ban introduced thus far prohibited the implantation of this so-called ball of cells into a uterus?
How something comes into existence doesn't change its ontological status.
Should we consider the cell
Should we consider the cell produced by SCNT to be a life? Do we believe it has moral value? Do we believe this moral value trumps the value of the understanding and treatments that might be gained from destroying this cell for the purposes of medical research?
Perhaps comparing the cell produced by SCNT to the cell produced by in vitro fertilization will help clarify matters:
The result of in vitro fertilization is a cell that, if implanted in the uterus, would one day become a human being.
The result of SCNT is also a cell that, if implanted in the uterus, would one day become a human being.
.... right?
Both produce cells with the clear potential to become human lives and this is likely at least part of the reason the Church opposes SCNT.
Are the cells produced by the two techniques different in substance? One contains a distinct genetic code that has yet to be given form, while the other contains a duplicate genetic code that has already produced an adult human being. This might be a reason to argue, from a non-Catholic perspective, that the product of the two methods differ in moral consideration. On the other hand, surely the person that would result from the implanation of SCNT cell would be distinct person? And, given the large role of environment in shaping of gene expression, this person would not be a duplicate being. How can we look at this cell produced from SCNT any differently from the way we look at a cell produced by in vitro fertilization?
There is a different intention behind the creation of a cell using in vitro fertilization and SCNT: one is produced to create new life and the other to conduct research or treat medical conditions. Does this difference in intention matter? Does it change the moral value of those cells?
I do not believe that opposition to SCNT arises from a lack of understanding of the science behind the technology, or from ignorance with regard to the potential that these cells have to provide new treatments for debilitating conditions. It is very possible to conclude that any cell that has the potential to become a human life must be treated with the highest levels of respect and no good could justify their destruction.
What does Timmins have to say
What does Timmins have to say about all of the progress done in the field of embryonic stem cell research? Not much, I bet, because there have been no results that have been allowed to be used on humans. None! Nada! Despite the tens of millions of dollars spent. If only those scientists could stifle their pride and turn their efforts towards something that really works?
There have been hundreds of applications of the use of adult stem cells on humans. The most recent, written up in the New England Journal of Medicine, relates to rebuilding the corneas of blind people.
If you think that an embryo
If you think that an embryo produced by IVF is a potential life worthy of consideration, it is hard for me to see how you would not see an embryo produced by SCNT as a potential life worthy of the same consideration. Further, I think that it is hard to justify the use of these cells for the sake of research.
And I don't think this issue falls along the usual political lines as many have implied (pro-choice vs pro-life). I believe it is also quite possible to argue in favor of legal abortion and against legal embryonic stem cell research, even when those stem cells are produced using SCNT.
Here is a pro-choice argument against research using embryos generated by SCNT:
Abortion must be legal because it would be unjust and cruel to force women to be pregnant. Abortion must be legal out of concern for the health and life of the mother. Without legal abortions, women would seek dangerous illegal abortions that put their lives at risk.
Research using SCNT-produced cells is nothing like abortion from an ethical perspective. The destruction of the embryo does not save a life, does not prevent someone from getting hurt, does not permit an individual to make choices as to the direction of their life. You would have to destroy thousands... millions of these cells to make any real progress in arriving at cures for diseases. And would those cures themselves require these cells? How many embryos would we be willing to destroy or the sake of medical progress?
Legal abortion is one thing. Legal embryonic stem cell research, regardless of the mode by which these cells are produced (SCNT included) is very hard to justify.
Tammeus notes that, "50
Tammeus notes that, "50 percent of such blastocysts ever successfully implant themselves in a woman's uterus. So there's also lots of human death in natural human reproduction." Would someone please explain what the Church's position is on those potential human beings (blastoccysts) since, as current Church teaching, not doctrine, is conception (blastocyst) is the point at which one is human?
I don't think calling them
I don't think calling them "potential" human beings is the right way to go. The Church teaches that life begins at conception, a blastocyte is an embryo that hasn't been implanted the egg has already started growing and dividing (about 150 cells). I don't know where Tammeus got those numbers, I've never seen anything like that. I imagine it works different with every couple, a couple who has trouble conceiving may have only a 5% chance of having the blastocyte implant. Others may have closer to 100%, so his numbers need to be put into context. However, none of this really matters, the Church teaches that a blastocyte is a human life. So if it never implants and dies he or she goes on their eternal reward.
The Catholic Church teaches
The Catholic Church teaches that human life begins at conception. According to this teaching, every blastocyst is a distinct human person with an immortal soul, without regard to whether or not it ever implants into a mother's uterus and eventually is born. As a physician, I am familiar with such concepts regarding the number of fertilized eggs which undergo spontaneous (or natural) abortion for a variety of reason...and never have a chance to become babies because they never implant in the uterus. These numbers come from embryologists and other who study human reproduction. The percentages taught to me were closer to 20 to 30 percent....not 50 percent.
The old Baltimore Catechism from which I was taught on grade school states that the reason God made us was to "know, love, and serve God in this life, and to be happy with Him in heaven in the next life" (my paraphrase). So what is God's purpose in creating these untold numbers of souls who will never know, love, or serve any thing since they never came close to developing the brain capacity to do so? It seems like quite a waste.
But then who am I to question God's purposes?????
I think your numbers are
I think your numbers are about right on conception - with an equal number dying due to miscarriage because of other defects.
The Catholic Church did not
The Catholic Church did not listen to real embryologists, or else they would have said life begins at gastrulation.
Leave it to the NCR to
Leave it to the NCR to publish an article by a non-Catholic that isn't in line with Church teaching.
Then again, most of the writers here aren't all that Catholic to begin with...
Neither are they true
Neither are they true Scotsmen.
NCR is a Catholic
NCR is a Catholic publication? I thought this was Church of Christ.... Wait a minute!
The premise of the column is
The premise of the column is that the writer is a non-Catholic dealing with these topics with a view from other parts of western Christianity.
Frankly, many of these churches should go around Benedict and negotiate with Barthalomew directly, since it is arguable that the East is not the schismatic sect, Rome is, and the Lutherans are not more nor less so than Rome. If I spoke Greek, I would convert (not that I don't like Gyros, but I like Lasagna more). sounds trivial - so are most of the reasons why we are separated from Constantinople.
The Only Way to get it Right,
The Only Way to get it Right, is with a High Tech Science translation of all the 'Super'Natural in Religion and Myth. Supernatural Creation of Life on Earth is Colonization today. Reproducing the Female from the Male Rib is High Tech Cloning in the Lab today.
This is a start and then Humans need to Separate the Supernatural Peace God in Genesis 1,2, also the God with Jesus, who are High Tech Asexual Male and Female Clone Humans, from the High Tech Birth Humans, who were Killer Human of the Noah/Atlantis Society, and the Killer God with Noah in the Wilderness.
Does this Supernatural God sound like High Tech Science Humans today, that Know about Colonization of a Planet, and Fetus and Clone Reproduction in the High Tech Lab today?
We are up to stem cell High
We are up to stem cell High Tech. High Tech Science was 'in the beginning' in Genesis 1.2.
I have No Idea how LIFE began in the Universe, but I Whole Hartedly accept that our Earth Home was Colonized by High Tech Human Asexual 'Clone' Human Helpmeets, 'in our image, from Space. They are True Soul Mates.
Our High Tech Ancestors said "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Who follows this God who Jesus is with? Jesus said "Turn the Other Cheek". Who follows this? Is worshipping these Humans as God, more Important than Not Killing Each Other and our Home Planet, with High Tech Nuclear Bombs and Waste, that took 6000 years, Earth Time, 6 Days Space Time to Colonize?"
2Peter3:8. KJV. "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a Thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
We Know with our High Tech Science today, Travel Time in Space is different from Earth Time. When Humans in Spaceship get back to a Planet, the People on a Planet have aged more than the Astronauts.
Just some ideas: If a person
Just some ideas:
If a person or a religion is going to propose an extreme definition of life's starting or ending points, fine: it's a definition, and we are free to make definitions. However, it is prudent, I think, to make sure that there are, for balance, enough technical exceptions to make the definition workable. The more extreme the definition, the more need there is for the loopholes, shall we call them.
For example, if we want to say that a person has no right to choose to die no matter what the circumstances of his or her health or brain state, or that a relative has no right to choose that for the dying person, then this must be balanced by a technical detail: there is also no obligation to use extraordinary measures (e.g., machines) to keep a body breathing or beating when there is zero hope of recovery of consciousness. I remember being taught in Catholic school that this was, indeed, the Church's position.
Similarly, if we want to say that a human life is initiated at conception, then we must allow for such technical details as acknowledging that implantation and pregnancy is an essential part of that life coming into existence. Therefore, a fertilized egg with no natural possibility of implantation is not really a human life yet, since implantation is an essential part of the initial process of creating a person. I think the same argument could be extended for a mother who will die and certainly not provide the necessary environment for her embryo to be viable, as we saw recently in Arizona. In some ways, we see the Church taking this position with its exceptions: miscarried embryos and fetuses are not named, baptized, given funerals, or listed in the parish registry. Isn't this some acknowledgment that the creation of a new person is a process with several essential stages? However, it seems that the Church is not fully consistent in how it proposes these exceptions to complement its definition of life's beginning.
Sounds like a distinction
Sounds like a distinction without a difference.
so these cells were created without the "intent" of creating a new life? Well golly gee then I guess human life only has value when its intended, all those poor pregnant teenagers have nothing to worry about because they didn't intend it. This guy might not be held to Catholic ethics but he is still held to natural law. Natural law not being the flimsy argument, well a lot of embryos never implant and die and this is kind of like that, so why do people get all upset? Thats the difference between natural and WILLFUL desctruction. To think that we are sacrificing a generation of human life on the altar of our own comfort and satisfaction, makes us no different than the Aztecs that sacrificed their children for a good harvest.
Hmmm. Does anyone want to
Hmmm. Does anyone want to compare and contrast with this page by Father Tad - - a Catholic bio-ethicisit? why not include an article by him (or a rebuttal) in the National Anti-Catholic Reporter?
http://www.dovrespectlife.org/bulletinexcerpts.SCRFrTadMyths.pdf
particularly item 7?
Thanks for your views. This is a complicated subject!
Father Tad never seems to let
Father Tad never seems to let common sense or evidence get in the way of defending doctrine. There are plenty of examples of error in recent Vatican reasoning which he is quite incapable of calling them on. If his promise of obedience gets in the way of his objectivity, he is not really a source we can rely on, is he?
Tammeus has been bashing
Tammeus has been bashing Catholics for years over at his blog.
Why he is considering worth having a column here is puzzling, indeed. Of course, he tones down his disrespect fot the Pope on this site, but his comments are archived on his blog for all to read.
He provided a forum for the most vicious atheists to curse and even threaten believers for darn near two years.
Incredible.
If a soul is present from the
If a soul is present from the time of conception, when one preimplanted blastocyst (who has a soul) joins another (who has a soul) and then implants, what happened to it's soul? We have two immortal souls, but only one body!
Does it go to limbo, or to heaven, or where? After all it is immortal. Maybe the institution can chew on this for a while rather than addressing the real problems of your church.
The Church takes no stance on
The Church takes no stance on whether or not a soul is present at conception; the "ensoulment" argument is a red herring. The Church (and any scientifically literate person) states that LIFE begins at conception, and that human life has intrinsic dignity.
So let's stop trying to take potshots at the "institution," and remember that the institution is divinely instituted. When she speaks on faith and morals (and yes, abortion is a moral issue), she has the protection of the Holy Spirit.
The ensoulment argument is
The ensoulment argument is essential. The church is not qualified to wade into the discussion on purely scientific grounds without taking a position on it and on actually educating itself on whether a blastocyst can have a soul. Evangelicum Vitae falls on its face - or is at best ignored - if it's only guidance is that you must protect life unless you are sure it is not ensouled. Science can prove that ensoulment has not occurred while at the blastocyst phase (you can't even call a blastocyst an organism - it has no organs). Organisms have souls - indeed, the development of organs is a sign that ensoulment has occurred. The non-development of organs, twinning, and the automatic die off of defectives and the products of interbreeding are all signs - clear signs - that ensoulment has not occurred. The only justification for E.V. at that point is papal pride of authorship - not truth.
Scientist? Catholic Priest?
Scientist? Catholic Priest? Uhm ...
Yep. There're plenty of
Yep. There're plenty of them. Inform yourself, dude. Galileo was 500 years ago. The Church was doing a lot of Natural Philosophy and later science, before, during, and after the Galileo case, which was a mistake, not the paradigm of the Church's attitude toward science.
Not one single effective
Not one single effective therapy has come from embryonic stem cell derived research. Not one.
More than 80 effective therapies have come from adult stem cell derived research.
Now....what makes most sense to pursue?
Totipotent cells grow at cancer rates and very hard to aim; thus Z E R O effective therapies
It's been PROVEN that it's safer to instead "tease" adult stem cells back into a more pluripotent state, than it is to control totipotent/embryonic cells.
oops--sorry, you don't need
oops--sorry, you don't need to publish my post twice! I didn't realize there was a queue and so thought it didn't go through the first time! Thanks.
Talk about someone not
Talk about someone not "naming and understanding things properly." The American Medical Association says that the product of SCNT is a cloned EMBRYO and therefore any stem cells that result from ripping about such an EMBRYO are EMBRYONIC stem cells not EARLY stem cells. From the AMA's report on Stem Cell Research and Cloning:
"Alternatively, stem cells have also been obtained from embryos generated from unfertilized eggs using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Initially, SCNT technology was designed to produce embryos from which immunologically compatible stem cells could be derived for use in treating human diseases (therapeutic cloning). However, recent advances in the technology have prompted concerns about embryos formed by SCNT being misused for generating human clones (reproductive cloning)."
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13630.shtml
SCNT is the same technique that created Dolly. If it creates sheep embryos it creates human embryos as well.
I expect such slight of hand from a secular publication, but not from one that calls itself Catholic.
The American Medical
The American Medical Association disagrees with Mr. Tammeus and rightly calls the product of SCNT an embryo:
"Alternatively, stem cells have also been obtained from embryos generated from unfertilized eggs using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Initially, SCNT technology was designed to produce embryos from which immunologically compatible stem cells could be derived for use in treating human diseases (therapeutic cloning). However, recent advances in the technology have prompted concerns about embryos formed by SCNT being misused for generating human clones (reproductive cloning)"
See many are concerned that SCNT will lead to reproductive cloning because it does in fact create a human embryo. If SCNT, the same technique that created Dolly, makes cloned sheep embryos, then it also human embryos when used with human eggs and human somatic cells.
The National Academy of Sciences also refers to the product of SCNT as a blastocyst, which is an early embryo, that could grow into a fetus if placed in a uterus:
“The method used to initiate the reproductive cloning procedure is called nuclear transplantation, or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). It involves replacing the chromosomes of a human egg with the nucleus of a body (somatic) cell from a developed human. In reproductive cloning, the egg is then stimulated to undergo the first few divisions to become an aggregate of 64 to 200 cells called a blastocyst. The blastocyst is a preimplantation embryo that contains some cells with the potential to give rise to a fetus and other cells that help to make the placenta. If the blastocyst is placed in a uterus, it can implant and form a fetus. If the blastocyst is instead maintained in the laboratory, cells can be extracted from it and grown on their own.”
It seems to me a very
It seems to me a very important operative word as to whether a blastocyst can indeed become an human embryo is 'implantation'.
If the Church was consistent they would insist that sexually active women baptize every single menstrual discharge because it may contain a full human person who deserves baptism. That is they would if they were consistent.
Not sure if its ignorance of
Not sure if its ignorance of biology or theology on this one, but you do realize that the Church has never practiced nor advocated the baptism of a deceased human being?
Religious AMATEURS -be they
Religious AMATEURS -be they higher-archs or lower-archs- are NOT interfering in hard core SCIENTIFIC research in much of the world:
http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html
http://www.iias.nl/nl/29/IIAS_NL29_49.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2435574/
GLOBAL market forces are at work here with much greater POWERS of persuasion and impetus for development than any johnny-come-lately Pontifical Commission.
http://www.stemcellschina.com/
An SCNT cell is considered a
An SCNT cell is considered a clone. Whether it is a life depends on how far we let it mature. After gastrulation, I would consider it a life. Before gastrulation, I would not consider it so.
Let us try a similar thought experiment. Instead of using SCNT from an adult stem cell, use a cluster of adult stem cells and insert them into a blastocyst where the early stem cells have been removed. Assume that this would not cause rejection when the placenta is created and that this blastocyst is implanted into a host mother, proceeds to gastrulation, through pregnancy and is born.
The question is, whose soul does the child have? Your choices are:
A. The host blastocyst's
B. The stem cell donor's
C. It's own
Saying it does not have a soul is inconsistent with both Platonic/Aristotelian and Catholic reasoning and would invite abuse of such an indiviudal that is contrary to what Christianity says about human dignity.
The answer is actually pretty obvious and it ruins the CDF's standard line about life begining at fertilization.
Talking to real embryologists leads to what they know about gastrulation. They don't talk about souls, since souls aren't their thing - however by not venturing an opinion they have allowed Catholic ethicists to go into profoundly ridiculous territory concerning the supposed rights of blastocysts.
Life cannot begin until gastrulation for three reasons:
1. Prior to gastrulation, only the genes of one parent are operational - so ontologically the blastocyst is part of the mother. I was not me until my father's DNA had as much to do with my development as my mother's - and that was at gastrulation.
2. Prior to gastrulation, twinning can occur. Prior to Evangelicum Vitae, this provided enough doubt in Catholic ethicists to state that ensoulment had not occurred. The contention that God provides a second soul when twinning occurs can only be called an invention from whole cloth.
3. Prior to gastrulation, interspecies hybrids continue to grow and develop. Unless you are willing to say that Heaven or Limbo (which is no longer thought to exist) is populated with the souls of such creations (or the souls of humans whose gametes were so genetically incompatible or otherwise flawed that they died - or were conceived at the wrong time in the menstral cycle), you cannot claim that life begins at fertilization.
Stem cell research to date also shows that life cannot begin before gastrulation. Indeed, stem cell harvesting does not cause the "death" of any cells which would become human - since the only cells that are discarded are those which become the afterbirth. All the cells that are harvested are ontologically no different than adult stem cells - although they are less likely to be successful because they have not been through the weeding out process that occurs at gastrulation.
The Vatican and the USCCB (and especially their staffs) are loathe to change the party line on this issue, however, as it casts doubt - fatal doubt - on many aspects of their teaching on birth control. Indeed, it defeats them. The parts of this teaching which involve the idealization of the sexual union - especially within marriage - by celibates are also suspect. Indeed, considering that celibacy has its roots in Continence, which has its roots in the belief that one cannot worthily celebrate the Eurcharist after intercourse that morning or the night before, any clerical teaching on unative sexuality is doomed. Unative sexuality - with or without any other purpose - is as much a part of the Sacrament and its generative aspects (if not more so). It is the bulwark against aloneness which predates the command to be fruitful and multiply (to borrow from the creation mythology - which is story rather than fact even though it contains truth).
The only reasonable anchor for teaching on birth control is economic justice - in that birth control should not be used to avoid justice for populations that are deserving of it - like Third World peasants or families in need of assistance - or teenage couples whose natural urge is to procreate - or simply practice unative sexuality. Fighting birth control as a bad alternative to giving every family a living wage and adequate economic opportunity is what the Church should be doing - not lecturing married people on their sex lives.
As for recent comments by the Church on the unaffordibility of reproductive assistance, the answer is not to deny such services to people who can afford them - but to provide funds so that they can be used by all.
Let me add a few points that
Let me add a few points that I left out yesterday.
The entire value of SCNT research is to develop techniques for therapeutic cloning to replace lost tissues. Since SCNT is banned,due to its potential to make twins, early stem cell research takes place - primarily to determine how to turn a stem cell into a specific type of cell without gastrulation. The ability to use "adult stem cells" in the same way removes the need for such research. The problem is, adult stem cells are not universally usable for all such purposes.
What cannot be done - and in this I agree with the Church - is to allow an embryo with SCNT technology to develop past gastrulation and then abort it for spare parts - even if there is a procedure to prevent it from becoming sentient - such a procedure would amount to murder since at Gastrulation the embryo acquires a soul. Locating ensoulment earlier muddies the waters, since blastocysts obviously are only potential human life - so if a fetus is considered the same class as a blastocyst, all sorts of mischief can be justified.
As I have written elsewhere, this debate is not only important to the question of birth control, but to the nature of the soul itself. Neuoscience is showing that the "Ghost in the Machine" theory is not true - that the brain acts first and thoughts follow rather then thinking always preceding action. Indeed, our spiritual thought life is entirely integrated into what happens with our neurons. We are not spirits guiding bodies, we are bodies with integrated spirits or life forces. If that life force is simply that which stops biological entropy - which is actually a fairly good definition - then that force can be traced to gastrulation - where our cells begin to act in an organized manner - rather than before, when they act under the influence of only maternal DNA.
Denying the soul, however, makes possible all sorts of pernicious practices, such as the creating of twins using SCNT who are aborted (or even allowed to be born but not mentally developed) to be used for spare parts. An extreme example of this can be found in the Lazarus Long series by Robert A. Heinlein, where the main character and his descendents are rejuvinated by organ transfers from such clones.
Of course, this could never happen. Dolly the Sheep was born "old" meaning that at maturity, she was as old as her mother in terms of cell age. Cloning is not the answer to aging, as some have likely hoped. The closest we can get to such applications is to extract stem cells during childhood and freeze them - extracting enough so that every 50 years you can grow replacement organs from them - or from cadaver organs that have been reduced to cartiledge. If you keep a supply of stem cells that were extracted in childhood long enough, one could conceivably never die of old age - assuming that you can replace your brain in pieces and still retain memory (and again, ruling out using SCNT to grow clones for spare parts). If you wait until you are old, however, you will simply make old or middle aged organs.
What wants to be forever middle aged or be young in body but not mind? This is also the problem with using stem cells for a Parkinson's cure. The cells will be as bad off as the host and a total brain transplant is not practical - since our brains are integral to our souls - at least in this life.
I take it that all the
I take it that all the right-wingers conceed my points, since I see no argument.
After reading this article by
After reading this article by Bill Tammeus and checking his work, I must conclude that he has succeeded in confusing the issue and replacing it with bad science.
If we are going to bash the Catholic Church, bash with good science, and not lies.
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3125.html
If you want the good science,
If you want the good science, read my essay above and see a reputable embryology text in regards to gastrulation. The Church is not basing its teachings on good science.
One does not become a priest or a theologian because one excelled in biology class.
It is not surprising that the
It is not surprising that the NCR would give space to alternative views within the Catholic world, but this guy is clueless as to both Catholic teaching, ethics, and biology. When I started reading the piece I expected something well-researched and thought-out enough to challenge accepted thinking of the church, but this fails and fails badly.
The three glaring errors have already been noted. First, what does intention have to do with it? Intention may be relevant to the morality of an act, but it cannot change the nature of a thing. Second, the fact that half of all blastocysts do not implant is irrelevant. Even most high school students should recognize this flaw. Does the fact that any of us die remove the scientific truth or the dignity of the rest us? Third, every credible scientist acknowledges that what is produced by SCNT is a human life. Even the Commission on Bioethics that first proposed federally funding such research acknowledged that fact.
Really sad that NCR would post an argument that would not get a anything above a "D" in most colleges and universities.
I like Bill Tammeus. At least
I like Bill Tammeus. At least he claims to be a Protestant unlike most of the rest of NCR writers. But Bill is not a scientist. For another view of this same issue
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3125.html
Yes, it is easy to mislead on
Yes, it is easy to mislead on stem cell research. First step, change the language. "Early stem cells" was a euphemistic phrase coined by a billionaire's 2006 campaign to rewrite the Missouri Constitution and tailor it to his private enterprise. And it was dutifully picked up by the Kansas City Star, and nowhere else on the planet.
Second, rewrite history. Continue to claim that research involving embryonic stem cells is brand new (in fact, it is decades old), and thus unable to produce the stunning results, which will always be "right around the corner."
Bill, this is a grab for research dollars. After decades of dead-end research, private funding for embryonic stem cell research is drying up, and they are now reaching for the public treasury.
The most exciting development in recent years have been advances made in "turning the clock back" on so-called adult stem cells, which are harvested with no loss of human life -- embryonic or otherwise, until they reached same pluripotent stage as cells harvested from embryos. This has, or should have, pretty much ended the debate, but it seems to still persist. I guess old habits die hard.
Finally, Bill, do the math. Where are the human eggs necessary to produce a SCNT-produced blastocyst going to come from?
Early stem cells is actually
Early stem cells is actually a better term of art, no matter how it was coined, since blastocysts are not embryos. No one is an embryo - or a human being with all the rights thereof or a soul - until gastrulation. Ontologically, blastocysts do not develop in such a way that it is obvious that a soul is operative. After gastrulation, it is obvious a soul is present.
Wrong Rev. No matter how
Wrong Rev. No matter how those little balls of fertilized egg and sperm come into being, they are still human and embryonic stem cells. The Catholic Church will never find a justification for using them for research.
Science: A human being. A
Science:
A human being.
A complete organism with human DNA. Thats what cutiepie Palin says.
I mean what else, science wise?
Religion:
Right Wingers: All men created equal. Endowed by their creator with Inalienable right to life. Government formed to secure this right. So abortion, ban it. The Pope, Lincoln, Jefferson, the cutiepie, they say self-evident.
Liberals: No way Jose. Some men inferior. No right to life. So abortion, its okay. President Obama, Notre Dame, Democrats, They got a reason?
Actually, your
Actually, your characterization is a little flawed.
Science
The most important event is gastrulation, not conception.
Right-wingers:
Use this issue as a wedge for voter turnout and fundraising, but under no circumstances do anything about it. Hold out the goal of going back to the gold old days before Roe, where abortionists were given the same penalty you get for shooting your neighbor's dog (a fine), which drives women to back alley procedures (unless they have an understanding OB)
Left-wing:
Hey, its a great fundraising issue for us too. Abortion is a right of bodily integrity for women - men should be silent.
Lefty-Catholics and Obama:
Use economic means, such as Health Care reform, to encourage women to not abort. In a pluralistic society, we can't impose our moral views - except on tax policy (and its a good thing too, since Right-wing Catholics are getting all Calvinist with their views on taxes - even after the Pope condemns such views).
"But remember that fewer than
"But remember that fewer than 50 percent of such blastocysts ever successfully implant themselves in a woman's uterus. So there's also lots of human death in natural human reproduction."
Yeah. And there's also lots of human death in the few moments after birth -- in nations with high rates for infant mortality. If we adopt your view, Bill, we'll start arguing that high rates for infant mortality means we should be allowed to kill infants on purpose -- since so many already die naturally.
The entity that WOULD be created via SCNT (contrary to your odd claim, Bill, no therapies from SCNT are being developed) would be precisely the same as any other embryonic human being. The next time you write about something scientifc, Bill, do us all a favor and learn something about the science, K?
"And the resultant cells are
"And the resultant cells are never meant to be implanted in a uterus..."
Isn't this a red herring?
I read a book in a medical school library that investigated the FACT that up until that time there were at least twelve or thirteen babies born who were NOT implanted in the uterus. They accidentally missed and got implanted in the gut. A modified C-section got them out alive. This book was published at least twenty years ago, BTW, when I read it.
What his sentence DOES tell me is that if the resultant cells were implanted in a uterus, they would form a human. Why else would he specify, "never meant to be implanted in a uterus"?
blessings,
David Smith
Post new comment