|
Nebraska C C:
James R. Cunningham
Executive Director
Immigration
Spanish
Candidate Surveys
Legislative Issues
NCC/Publications
-NCC
Statements &
Current Issues
Medical Treatment Decision-making
-Bishops'
Statements
Behavioral
HealthStatement (2/05)
Capitol Correspondent:
Columns-2009
Past
Columns
*********
Greg Schleppenbach
State Director
2009 Legislation
Current Issues
NE Catholics
for Life
-NCL
Newsletter
-A
People of Life Brochure
Life Insight:
Columns-2009
Past
Columns
Preg. Help Centers
Project Rachel
2008 PL Conferences
-Adult
Conference
-Youth
Conference
Printed
Resources--
Medical Charities Survey
Educational
Resources
*********
Jeremy Murphy
Associate Director of
Education Issues
The
NFCSP
Education/Legislation
Action Alerts!!
Parent
Advocate 2009
Throughout this website, the NCC provides
links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing
these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily
endorse the websites or organizations linked.
| |
stem cell research:
Embryonic Stem Cell
Research
10 Great Media Myths in the Debate of Stem
Cell Research
Myth
1.
Stem cells can only come from
embryos.
In fact, stem cells can be
taken from umbilical cords, the placenta, amniotic fluid, adult tissues and
organs such as bone marrow, fat from liposuction, regions of the nose, and even
from cadavers up to 20 hours after death.
Myth
2. Christians are against stem cell
research.
There are four categories
of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells, umbilical cord stem
cells, and adult stem cells. Given that germ cells can come from miscarriages
that involve no deliberate interruption of pregnancy, Christians in general
oppose the use of only one of these four categories, i.e., embryonic stem
cells. In other words, most Christians approve of three of the four possible
types of stem cell research.
Myth
3. Embryonic stem cell research has the
greatest promise.
Up to now, no human being
has ever been cured of a disease using embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells,
on the other hand, have already cured thousands. For example, bone marrow cells
from the hipbone have repaired scar tissue on the heart after heart attacks.
Research using adult cells is 20-30 years ahead of embryonic stem cells and
holds greater promise. This is in part because stem cells are part of the
natural repair mechanisms of an adult body, while embryonic stem cells do not
belong in an adult body (where they are likely to form tumors, and to be
rejected as foreign tissue by the recipient). Rather, embryonic stem cells
really belong only within the specialized microenvironment of a rapidly growing
embryo, which is a radically different setting from an adult body.
Myth
4. Embryonic stem cell research is
against the law.
In reality, there is no law
or regulation against destroying human embryos for research purposes. While
President Bush has banned the use of federal funding to support research on
embryonic stem cell lines created after August 2001, it is not illegal. Anyone
using private funds is free to pursue it.
Myth
5. President Bush created new
restrictions to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
The 1996 Dickey Amendment
prohibited the use of federal funds for research that would involve the
destruction of human embryos. Bush’s decision to permit research on embryonic
stem cell lines created before a certain date thus relaxes this restriction from
the Clinton era.
Myth
6. Therapeutic cloning and reproductive
cloning are fundamentally different from each other.
The creation of cloned
embryos either to make a baby or to harvest cells occurs by the same series of
technical steps. The only difference is what will be done with the cloned human
embryo that is produced. Will it be given the protection of a woman’s womb in
order to be born? Or will it be destroyed for its stem cells?
Myth
7. Somatic nuclear cell transfer is
different from cloning.
In fact, “somatic cell
nuclear transfer” is simply cloning by a different name. The end result is
still a cloned embryo.
Myth
8. By doing somatic cell nuclear
transfer, we can directly produce tissues or organs without having to clone an
embryo.
At the present stage of
research, scientists are unable to bypass the creation of an embryo in the
production of tissues or organs. In the future it may be possible to inject
elements from the cytoplasm of a woman’s ovum into a somatic cell to “reprogram”
it into a stem cell. This is called “de-differentiation.” If so, there would
be no fundamental moral objection to this approach to getting stem cells.
Myth
9. Every body cell, or somatic cell, is
somehow an embryo and thus a human life.
People sometimes argue:
“Every cell in the body has the potential to become an embryo. Does that mean
that every time we wash our hands and are shedding thousands of cells, we are
killing life?” The problem is that this overlooks the basic biological
difference between a regular body cell, and one whose nuclear material has been
fused with an unfertilized egg cell, resulting in an embryo. A normal skin cell
will only give rise to more skin cells when it divides, while an embryo will
give rise to the entire adult organism. Skin cells are not potential adults.
Skin cells are potentially only more skin cells. Only embryos are potential
adults.
Myth
10. Because Frozen embryos may one day
end up being discarded by somebody, that makes it allowable, even laudable, to
violate and destroy those embryos.
The moral analysis of what
we may permissibly do with an embryo doesn't depend on its otherwise "going to
waste," nor on the incidental fact that those embryos are "trapped" in liquid
nitrogen. Consider a radical case in which a group of children are
permanently trapped in a schoolhouse through no fault of their own; that would
not make it morally acceptable to send in a remote control robotic device which
would harvest organs form those children and cause their demise.
| Back to Top|
A Decade Later: Time for a Dose of Reality on Stem Cells
In 1998, Dr. James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin
first isolated human embryonic stem cells (ESCs). These
early, unspecialized cells were hailed as a way to create
all cell types of the human body at will, a Holy Grail for
curing diseases. Moral qualms about killing embryos for the
cells were swept away in this wave of enthusiasm. In a few
years, it was said, life-saving medical advances would show
that such objections should be ignored.
A decade later, it is time for a reality check. ESCs have
been involved in some interesting experiments, but are not
close to producing cures. This is not due to limited federal
funding—it is equally true in countries with no such limits,
and in states pouring their own public funds into the
research. ESCs in fact are unpredictable, difficult to
control, and prone to causing tumors in animals. Experts now
admit that human treatments using them may not emerge for
decades, if ever.
The bishops’ statement Forming Consciences for
Faithful Citizenship urges Catholics to become informed
on important moral issues in public life, including this
issue of destroying embryos for stem cell research.
One fact is that treatments are emerging from stem cell
research. But these use stem cells (once seen as less
versatile) found in adult tissues and in umbilical cord
blood from live births. In human trials, these cells have
repaired heart damage, restored vision, and helped reverse
autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis and juvenile
diabetes, as well as some cancers. A search on “stem cell”
on the federal site
www.clinicaltrials.gov shows over 2,000 clinical
trials using these cells, half of them still recruiting
patients.
"Americans want to be fair and
humane. They do not seek out the most unethical way to
pursue medical progress—rather, they want science and
ethics to move forward hand in hand. It is not too much
to ask the same of our researchers and policy makers."
Last November an additional breakthrough transformed the
stem cell debate. Scientists in Japan and in Wisconsin—the
latter team led by the same James Thomson who first isolated
human ESCs—learned how to “reprogram” ordinary adult cells
into cells with the properties of ESCs, without producing or
destroying a human embryo. These “induced pluripotent stem
cells” (iPS cells) have already been used to reverse disease
in animals. Dr. Thomson says this is “the beginning of the
end” of the ethical debate, as fewer and fewer laboratories
will see any need to kill embryos for stem cells.
Americans are pragmatic. We find it hard to focus on an
ethical principle when medical benefits are placed on the
other side of the scale. But the noise about the benefits of
ESCs may now die down enough to let us hear that message
about ethics again.
Though at a very early stage of development, the human
embryo is one of us – a living individual of the human
species, with the innate potential to grow into a mature
human being if given nourishment and protection. Here, as in
all human research, we must never harm or kill an innocent,
unconsenting human being solely for alleged benefit to
others. Crossing that moral line leaves more ethical abuses
in its wake.
This has proved true. The problem of tissue rejection has
led researchers to support cloning human embryos, to obtain
cells that genetically match individual patients. This means
mass producing human lives in the laboratory solely to
destroy them. Researchers have hired women to take fertility
drugs to produce many eggs at once for cloning attempts,
risking the women’s health. Some propose using animal eggs
instead, to produce bizarre human/animal hybrid embryos for
stem cell research. Some, to address ESCs’ tendency to form
tumors, have proposed gestating cloned embryos in the womb
to a stage where more usable cells may be obtained – the
grotesque practice of “fetus farming” that Congress has
prohibited.
Most Americans abhor the idea of cloning human embryos
for research, as well as these other abuses. Polls show they
are ambivalent on the ESC question generally. In a survey
published in the Spring 2008 issue of The New Atlantis, 69
percent of respondents said they support “stem cell
research.” But 51 percent agreed that it is unethical to
destroy human embryos for such research, notwithstanding the
hope of curing disease. When told about the new alternative
of iPS cells, 61 percent said public funding should go to
that avenue and not to research that destroys human embryos.
Americans want to be fair and humane. They do not seek
out the most unethical way to pursue medical progress --
rather, they want science and ethics to move forward hand in
hand. It is not too much to ask the same of our researchers
and policy makers.
- - -
Richard Doerflinger is
associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life
Activities, for the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops.
| Back to Top|
Adult
Stem Cells Help Woman Suffering From Immune System Cancer
Monmouth, IL (LifeNews.com) – An adult stem cell treatment has been
conducted on an Illinois woman suffering from a cancer of her immune
system.
Carolu Purtle was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma in March 2005,
and recently received a transfusion of her own stem cells to stimulate
production
of
new, healthy white and red blood cells to combat the disease. The new
technique is an alternative to Purtle receiving multiple blood
transfusions,
as
the chemotherapy that is used to eradicate the cancer also kills healthy
blood cells. By receiving her own stem cells after chemotherapy,
Purtle's
bone
marrow should be able to produce new, healthy blood cells on its own.
When
asked about embryonic stem cell research, Purtle said, “Research has
shown that adult stem cells are just as effective as embryonic stem
cells.
I
don't feel that we should have babies just to do research. If I
had to choose, I'd rather have adult stem cells."
| Back to Top|
Adult Stem Cell Research Can Improve Vision, Treat Cancer and
Heart Damage
By Steven Ertelt, Editor, LifeNews,
November 21, 2004
Houston, TX (LifeNews.com) -- Some amazing developments are
being reported in adult stem cell research, raising new questions
about the wisdom of engaging in destructive embryonic stem cell
research.
Researchers have now shown that
transplanted adult stem cells can improve vision in eyes that have
been damaged by retinal disease.
The scientific breakthrough is the cover
story in the November issue of the journal "Investigative
Ophthalmology and Visual Science."
 “These
findings hold great promise for potential treatments for people
suffering from macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and other
retinal diseases," Michael Young, the lead author of the study, told
the press.
Young and his team tested their adult stem
cell theory in mice. The research team speculated that the
transplanted cells secreted a substance that saved fragile cells.
"These are the first steps toward the use
of stem cells for saving existing vision and then -- down the road
-- restoring vision that has already been lost," Young said.
The researchers are now studying whether
adult stem cells can be used to improve the vision of pigs, whose
eyes more closely resemble human eyes.
In another study, Texas researchers believe
they've perfected a way to deliver cancer treatment directly to
tumors. While the initial experiments have been done on mice, human
trials could begin soon.
The researchers in the Texas study used
adult stem cells which move like guided missiles, targeting tumor
cells.
In yet another study, in Virginia, adult
stem cells taken from human fat have been used to improve the
functioning of damaged hearts.
“The concept of a person being able to
recycle excess or unwanted fat through a procedure that would help
them medically is exciting," Dr. Adam Katz of the University of
Virginia Medical Center told the Daily Progress newspaper.
Katz called the University of Virginia
results promising.
“It could have been that we put the cells
in and found nothing of worth," Katz told the newspaper. “That's not
what happened."
Researchers took human fat stem cells from
people who had had elective surgeries, such as liposuction, and
injected them into the heart muscle of five mice after they had had
heart attacks.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, doctors who injected
a stroke victim's brain with adult stem cells from bone marrow plan
to try the treatment in other patients after some initial hopeful
signs.
Dr. Hans Fernando Dohmann told Reuters news
service that doctors plan to go ahead with a research project
involving 15 patients who will be injected with adult stem cells.
“What excites us most is that there is
biological activity (in the area affected by the stroke) ... that
the injection of cells led to no electric disturbances in the brain,
and there was no inflammatory reaction," Dohmann told Reuters.
The initial test subject was a 54-year-old
woman who had suffered a stroke in August, leaving her without the
ability to talk or move the right side of her body. After doctors
injected the adult stem cells, she recovered her ability to move and
began to speak again.
Observers note that the tremendous progress
being made in adult stem cell research indicates that embryonic stem
cell research, which involves the killing of human embryos, is
unnecessary.
| Back to Top|
Adult
Stem Cell Research More Useful Than Embryonic Stem Cells
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, May 24, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- As the House of Representatives considers
competing stem cell research bills, scientists and observers of the stem
cell research debate point out that adult stem cells have proven more useful
and effective than their embryonic counterparts.
Phil
Coelho is CEO and Chairman of the Board of Thermogenesis Corp., which
provides cord blood stem cell processing and cryopreservation systems used
by major cord blood stem cell banks.
He
says that adult stem cells have "been used clinically about 30,000 times."
Cord
blood cells, the subject of one of the bills Congress will consider, "have
some dramatic advantages," Coelho says.
"[T]hey
can become several—and perhaps all—the different tissue types; they involve
no donor risks; they have the capacity for many cell divisions; and they
cause less graft versus host disease," he explained.
According to Coelho, the first patient to be treated with adult stem cells,
in 1988, shows no evidence of the Fanconi Anemia that he suffered from as a
child.
So
far, more than 6,000 patients and 66 diseases have been successfully treated
with stem cells from cord blood.
Coelho
says the results from the adult stem cells from cord blood have been
tremendous.
"A
recent study found a survival rate of around 70 percent among high-risk
adults treated with cord blood," he said. "Results are even more promising
with children, with clinical trials showing an 80 percent survival rate for
children with immunodeficiency diseases."
Florida Congressman Dave Weldon, an OBGYN, agrees.
"Adult
stem cells and, in particular, cord blood stem cells are going to be the
sources for the regenerative, miraculous medicine in the future," he said.
"Embryonic stem cell research is just not getting good research results."
On the
other hand, embryonic stem cell research has yet to cure a single patient.
No
currently approved treatments are being used on patients as a result of
research on the cells and there are no human trials. After 20 years of
research on embryonic stem cells, the only results have shown they are
unsafe.
In
studies, they have produced tumors, cause transplant rejection, and they
have formed the wrong kind of needed replacement cells.
That's
why private investors have funneled most of their money behind adult stem
cell research.
William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences, is a leading advocate of
embryonic stem cell research. But, he says results are decades away and his
company is not spending money on the unproven cells.
“The
routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30
years hence," Haseltine admits.
"The
timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest,"
Haseltine added. "You may notice that our company has not made such
investments.”
Kelly
Hollowell, Ph.D., a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and a patent
attorney, says another problem with embryonic stem cell research is that it
requires harvesting so many cells and the process requires women's eggs to
create human embryos.
"To
treat, for example, the 17 million diabetes patients in the United States
will require a minimum of 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs," Hollowell
said. "Collecting 10 eggs per donor will require a minimum of 85 to 170
million women."
"The
total cost would be astronomical, at $100,000 to $200,000 for 50 to 100
human eggs per each patient," Dr. Hollowell explained.
She
explained at a Heritage Foundation conference that the process of obtaining
eggs puts women at risk.
"Superovulation regimens for fertility treatments would be used to obtain
women's eggs," Hollowell explained. "The risks associated with
superovulation regimens or high-dose hormone therapies are debated."
She
said women who engage in the process can be subjected to a "spectrum of
problems including memory loss, seizure, stroke, infertility, cancer, and
even death."
"The
scientific data on embryonic stem cell research simply does not support
continued investment in research. Even if the research were successful, it
is morally bankrupt and endangers women," Hollowell concludes.
| Back to Top|
Adult Stem Cells Can Become Other Kinds
of Cells
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, May 30, 2005
Sydney,
Australia (LifeNews.com) -- Scientists who favor embryonic stem cells say
they hold the promise of being able to change into any kind of stem cell,
which would allow them to cure virtually any disease. However, researchers
in Australia have found adult stem cells can do the same thing.
Scientists at Australia's Griffith University have ended a four year study
on olfactory stem cells and found that they can be turned into heart cells,
brain cells, nerve cells and almost any other kind of cell in the human
body.
In
addition, they can be developed without the kind of problems embryonic stem
cells have had when injected into humans -- including being rejected or
causing tumors to develop.
"Our
experiments have shown adult stem cells isolated from the olfactory mucosa
have the ability to develop into many different cell types if they are given
the right chemical or cellular environment," research team leader Alan
Mackay-Sim told The Australian newspaper.
Mackay-Sim said his team grew nerve cells, glial cells, liver cells, heart
cells, muscle cells from the cells harvested from the human nose.
He
said the medical community in his country is excited about the results.
Brisbane neurologist Peter Silburn, a member of Australia's National Health
and Medical Research Council, pointed to the taking of adult stem cells from
patients with Parkinson's and turning them into neurones.
"We
can now learn about the condition in ways we never could before," Silburn
told the Australian.
The
findings of the Griffith University team, which conducted their study with
only $200,000 in funds, add a major argument to those who oppose taxpayer
funding of embryonic stem cell research.
| Back to Top|
Adult
Stem Cells More Effective Than Those From Aborted Babies
Source: Cybercast News Service; April 9, 2001
London,
England -- New research in the UK has raised further hope that adult stem cells
can be used to repair the damage caused by strokes to brain cells, British
scientists heard Monday.
Experiments carried out on rats indicate that transplants of stem cells - the
"building blocks" of bodily tissue - can help stroke victims regain
movement, senses and understanding. They also show that the adult cells were
more effective than cells from aborted babies, which have been at the center of
a recent scare involving the treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease.
The researchers are presenting their findings Monday to the British Neuroscience
Association's annual conference in northern England, and published them in the
Stroke Journal.
The potential of stem cells to develop and translate into other types of cells
has excited scientists worldwide, raising hopes they may be able to help undo
the damage of strokes and help cure degenerative diseases like Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's.
But the issue has also raised controversy, primarily in that many researchers
want to harvest stem cells from human embryos, believing them to offer the
greatest benefits. Other specialists argue that "adult stem cells" -
taken for example from umbilical cords - offer an effective, and ethical
alternative.
The use of embryos for the purpose of harvesting stem cells alarms pro-lifers.
The early-stage human beings are destroyed after the stem cells have been
removed. Adding to the debate is the recent approval by the UK government of
cloning of human embryos for this limited purpose. An Italian scientist has
already announced his intention to clone a human being within a year.
When a person has a stroke, blood supply is cut off from areas of brain tissue,
leading to the loss of many mature cells, and often leaving the patient unable
to control his or her movements.
The new study, by researchers at the Institute of Psychiatry in London and a
biotechnology company, showed that transplanted adult stem cells made their way
to whichever area of the damaged brain needed repair. The adult stem cells also
appeared to boost the production of an important protein that usually increases
after a stroke as the brain attempts to heal itself, helping to connect damaged
and undamaged parts of the organ.
The experimental rats' movement and cognitive abilities improved after the
introduction of the stem cells, the researchers found.
The movement of stem cells to the damaged area of
the brain differs from the behavior of fetal stem cells, which they say remain
in one place when transplanted.
Scientists in the United States have been injecting cells from aborted babies
into the brains of Parkinson's patients, but it was reported in early March that
the experiment was being abandoned after side-effects described as
"absolutely devastating" were observed.
"We expect that stem cells will prove far safer and more flexible for
repair of brain damage than primary fetal cells," research leader Dr. Helen
Hodges was quoted as saying. "They are not likely to worsen symptoms, as
recently reported in elderly Parkinson patients."
The British study comes in the wake of an earlier one by the Albert Einstein
College of Medicine in New York, which came to similar conclusions, as did
another last year by the Institute for Stem Cell Research in Milan, Italy.
Researchers at the University of South Florida in
Tampa have also found that stem cells from the tiny amount of blood found in the
umbilical cords of newborn babies may be able to help repair damaged brain
tissue after a stroke.
The research has provided further weight to arguments that adult stem cells may
hold sufficient potential to make it unnecessary to use embryonic cells - or to
use therapeutic research as justification to allow embryonic cloning.
| Back to Top|
Adult Stem
Cells Offer "Practical Hope" to Patients
Source: National Review; March 15, 2003
By Wesley J. Smith
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Wesley J. Smith
is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. His next book will
be A Consumer's Guide to Brave New World, to be published by
Encounter Books]
The game may almost be up. No, not Saddam's
duplicitous charade, although his tyrannical regime seems to be
on the brink of a much-needed dismantling. Rather, the New York
Times has prominently reported a story about an apparently
successful treatment of a human patient with his own adult stem
cells. Perhaps now the stubborn assertion by Big Biotech and some
patient groups that the future of regenerative medicine lies
primarily with embryonic stem cells and therapeutic cloning is
finally beginning to unravel.
Here's the scoop: On February 1, a three-inch nail pierced
16-year-old Dimitri Bonnville's heart. The injury was severe.
Then, Bonnville suffered a serious heart attack, putting his life
at real risk. Since the accident, his heart had, according to
doctors, "shown progressive degeneration," and his
"ejection fraction, a common measure of the heart's
function, had fallen from a normal value of more than 65 percent
to a mere 25 percent." (Ejection-fraction measures the
amount of blood pumped out of the left ventricle with each beat.)
Luckily for Bonnville, his physicians were planning to begin a
clinical trial using adult stem cells to repair damaged hearts.
But Bonnville's need was immediate. And, being young and
otherwise healthy, he seemed the perfect subject. So, his doctors
developed a "one patient protocol," in which they
undertook to treat the teenager with his own tissues.
Stem cells were first extracted and isolated from Bonnville's
blood. Then, they were injected into the coronary artery that
supplies blood to the heart. A few days later, doctors noted an
astonishing improvement. Bonnville's ejection fraction had
risen to 35 percent, despite previous tests revealing that
Bonnville had "no viable heart muscle" in the affected
area.
Of course, one patient does not a new cure make. It will
still be months before tests confirm that Bonnville is rebuilding
heart muscle. Moreover, it will take much more research --
with animals and in human clinical trials -- before
adult-stem-cell therapies will be ready to be added to medicine's
arsenal as a treatment for heart disease. Still, similar
experiments in Germany and Hong Kong using bone-marrow stem cells
have demonstrated that adult-stem-cell therapy appears to induce
new heart
muscle to grow in place of dead tissue -- something that until
very recently doctors did not believe could happen.
The news of Bonnville's improvement was so good that the doctors
felt compelled to hold a press conference about the matter. In
what may prove to be a sea change, the New York Times reported
the story with appropriate prominence. This was unexpected, given
that the Gray Lady has too often
ignored or underplayed previous adult-stem-cell successes while
touting less impressive experiments using embryonic stem cells in
animals with great enthusiasm.
A good case in point was the Times's dismaying failure last April
to cover a major adult-stem-cell success story involving a
Parkinson's disease patient, a California man named Dennis
Turner. As reported by Dr. Michel F. Levesque to the American
Association of Neurological Surgeons, the
California neurosurgeon had treated Turner for his progressing
Parkinson's with Turner's own neural stem cells. First, a
pea-sized sample of tissue was removed from Turner's brain. Then,
stem cells in the tissue were isolated and cultured into the
millions. Finally, the cells were injected back into Turner's
brain. One year after the procedure, the patient's symptoms were
reduced by more than 80 percent -- even though Turner was treated
in only one brain lobe.
I interviewed both Turner and Dr. Levesque about this astonishing
experiment. Had the Parkinson's progressed as expected, they both
told me, Turner would be expected to require heavy medication to
treat his symptoms and would likely be using a wheelchair in
which he would have to be strapped. Instead, he takes only
minimal medication -- less than he was using when he received the
experimental treatment -- and his symptoms remain decidedly mild.
Indeed, Turner told me that he only experiences minor hand
trembling, and then only when he is under stress or very tired.
The proof of how his life has improved is that, when I
interviewed him last September, Turner was in the midst of
planning a trip to the South Seas to participate in a
great-white-shark photography expedition -- something he is
convinced he would be unable to do but for receiving the
stem-cell procedure.
Once again, it must be stressed that one patient does not a cure
make. It is possible that Turner's disease would not have
followed the usual progression; furthermore, there may be another
reason for his apparent remission. Still, there is no denying
that Turner's results offer great reason for optimism. Levesque
has been authorized by the FDA to conduct further human trials
once certain animal studies have been completed and his
laboratory has been upgraded.
Cases such as Bonnville's and Turner's, while still isolated, are
becoming increasingly common. Tremendous
strides are being made in animal studies and now in human
patients, harnessing adult stem cells and other tissues -- such
as nasal mucosa -- as medicine for degenerative conditions.
In
contrast, embryonic stem cells remain many years from the first
human trials -- if they can ever be conducted at all. It is too
dangerous to use embryonic stem cells in humans because they tend
to cause tumors. Moreover, they may be rejected by
the body's autoimmune system. As for so-called
"therapeutic cloning," which some look to in order to
overcome the rejection -- but not the tumor -- problem:
The New York Times itself on January 5 ran an article concluding
that any medical benefit to be obtained from cloned human
embryos, even if it can be done, is "all in the distant
future."
Some patients with degenerative conditions have taken notice of
the growing list of adult-stem-cell research successes. Among
these is James Kelly, who became paraplegic after a terrible auto
accident. No longer able to work as a railroad dispatcher, Kelly
is now a committed patient-advocate who spends 10-14 hours a day
researching regenerative medicine and potential treatments for
his nerve injury.
He used to support embryonic-stem-cell research -- even writing a
letter to President Bush in support of federal funding. But he
has since changed his mind. Based on extensive reading and
investigation, Kelly is thoroughly convinced that his best hope
to walk again is to be found in
using his own adult tissues as medicine. He also believes that
outlawing all human cloning, while certainly the moral course, is
also the pragmatic one that offers people like him the best
opportunity for treatment in the shortest period of time.
"We don't have to go down long paths that will probably not
lead to any cures simply for the sake of leaving no stone
unturned," he told me, with passion in his voice. "What
we have to do is use our limited resources efficiently. Money
spent on embryonic-stem-cell research and human cloning is money
that cannot be spent on [investigating] adult stem cells.
And that means that the cures that I believe are available will
be slower in reaching the patients that need them."
He has testified to this effect repeatedly in recent years before
state and federal legislative committees. Unfortunately, because
Kelly is not a movie star, his voice has often been ignored. But
his words are worth heeding. He has as much at stake as do
celebrity advocates like Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox,
who make headlines taking the contrary view. Moreover, having
personally researched these issues intensively for years, he
possesses greater depth and scope of knowledge about these issues
than any of his famous counterparts.
Unfortunately, the biotech-research establishment and the patient
groups it has influenced are not yet ready to take Kelly's sage
advice and abandon research into human cloning. But the
trend-line of the research results is becoming increasingly
difficult to ignore. As Kelly has repeatedly asserted, the
shortest and most likely route to the creation of a thriving
regenerative medical industry appears to lie not with embryonic
stem cells derived from human cloning, but with adult stem cells
and other
non-embryonic tissues.
This is tremendous news. A new era appears to be dawning in which
our own cells will be the sources of very potent medicine. Rather
than having to choose between morality and the wonders of
regenerative medicine, it increasingly looks like we can have
both.
| Back to Top|
Bioethics Council: Mixed Reviews of New
Embryonic Stem Cell Methods
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, May 16, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The President's Council on Bioethics on
Thursday released a new report on four proposed methods of embryonic stem
cell research that supporters hope can obtain embryonic stem cells without
destroying human life. The report called two of the ideas "ethically
problematic."
"Much
of the ethical controversy over stem cells derives from the fact that, until
now, the only way to obtain human pluripotent stem cell lines has been to
derive them from living human embryos by a process that necessarily destroys
the embryos," the report says.
It
adds, "If a way could be found to derive such stem cell lines without
creating and destroying human embryos, a good deal of that ethical
controversy would subside."
That
was the message of scientists in December who hoped to get the panel to
support possible alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.
The 18
member panel provided a brief overview of the possibilities.
"Stem
cells might be obtainable from dead embryos; from living embryos, by
nondestructive biopsy; from bioengineered embryo-like artifacts; and from
reprogrammed adult somatic cells," the report says.
However the panel called taking cells from living embryos through
nondestructive biopsy and from bioengineered embryo-like artifacts
"ethically problematic."
The
council did say it might be possible to salvage stem cells from dead embryos
-- who died while frozen at fertility clinics. Sometimes that happens
because the human embryo has damaged cells, which couldn't be used.
Scientists liken the process of taking stem cells from such "deceased"
frozen embryos to organ donation.
The
second methods to receive support from the council involved taking stem
cells from reprogrammed adult somatic cells, an idea that comes from the
technique to clone animals.
When
the nucleus from an adult cell is inserted into an unfertilized egg, the egg
can make the nucleus return to an "embryonic state," according to
scientists. The council suggested more research on how and why this happens.
Not
everyone agreed with the consensus.
Michael Gazzaniga, a professor of neurology at Dartmouth College, called the
techniques "high-risk gambles" that evaded the question of whether embryonic
stem cell research should be conducted.
Janet
Rowley, a cell biologist at the University of Chicago, said she saw nothing
wrong with destroying human embryos from fertility clinics for research.
Pro-life advocates reacted cautiously to the proposals, but Sean Tipton,
a spokesperson biotech groups that favor embryonic stem cell research, told
Reuters that research destroying human life still holds the most promise and
he said scientists were getting impatient and ready to do more such
research.
House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Thursday that a vote on a bill to overturn
President Bush's limits on taxpayer funding of the destructive research
would oocur before the August recess. He indicated the vote would come
"sooner rather than later," according to a Congressional Quarterly report.
| Back to Top|
Catholic Church Leader Backs Ethical Embryonic
Stem Cell Research
by Maria
Vitale Gallagher, LifeNews.com Staff Writer, June 27, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A leading Catholic archbishop is expressing
his support for an experimental technique that could produce embryo-like
stem cells without killing human embryos in the process.
Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark, New Jersey is among the 35 experts in
medicine and ethics who recently announced their support for the research.
He and
a number of Catholic bioethicists say the laboratory technique would avoid
the moral quagmire created by embryonic stem cell research. That's because
the genetic material injected into the egg would be modified in advance so
that instead of producing an embryo, a pluripotent stem cell would be
produced.
According to a joint statement issued by the 35 experts, the cell would be
“incapable of being or becoming an embryo.”
More
than half of the people who signed the statement were Catholics or were
associated with Catholic institutions.
The
U.S. bishops and the Vatican have opposed stem cell harvesting which
destroys human embryos.
An
official with the bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities told Catholic
News Service that the new lab technique could meet the Catholic criteria for
stem cell research.
"This
new proposal addresses the Catholic Church's fundamental moral objection to
embryonic stem cell research as now practiced, by offering to create cells
with the properties of embryonic stem cells without ever producing or
harming a human embryo," Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the
pro-life secretariat, told Catholic News Service.
"If
animal trials show the technique to work as planned, and the eggs needed for
the technique can be obtained in an ethical manner, it could provide a
morally acceptable way to pursue biomedical research with these cells,"
Doerflinger added.
Signers of the joint statement called for “initial research using only
nonhuman animal cells.”
If the
experiments demonstrated “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the technique “can
reliably be used to produce pluripotent stem cells without creating embryos,
we would support research on human cells,” the statement said.
The
technique is known as “oocyte assisted reprogramming.” Oocyte is the medical
term for “egg.”
One of
the signers, Father Tad Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics
Center, told Catholic News Service there is “good scientific reason to
believe” the procedure will lead to the direct production of a pluripotent
stem cell.
"The
critical element for moral analysis is that an embryo not be engendered,"
Pacholczyk told Catholic News Service.
Currently, federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research is limited
to stem cell lines that existed before August 9, 2001. President George W.
Bush has said he would veto any Congressional legislation that would relax
the restrictions. No restrictions exist for private funding of embryonic
stem cell research.
Signers of the joint statement included: Legionary of Christ Father Thomas
Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the
Human Person; Jesuit Father Kevin FitzGerald, professor of Catholic health
care ethics at Georgetown University; Jesuit Father Kevin Flannery, dean of
the philosophy faculty at the Gregorian University in Rome; John Haas,
president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center; and Edward Furton,
ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center.
| Back to Top|
Doctors Group Hails Adult Stem Cell
Research Breakthroughs
Source: American Academy of Orthopaedic
Surgeons; October 16, 2002
Rosemont, IL -- Speaking at the American
Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Orthopaedics Update 2002 Web conference,
Joseph Iannotti, MD chairman of the Cleveland Clinic Department of Orthopaedic
Surgery explained, "Adult stem cells have not only proven to be effective
in bone healing today, they hold great promise for the future of orthopaedics -
especially in the areas of reconstructing all types of tissues, as well as
improving the healing of diseased tissues."
A stem cell can be thought of as a blank slate with the ability to become any
type of cell to form skin, bones, organs or other body parts. What makes a
person alive is the continuous regeneration of these cells. Adult stem cells,
already present in the human body, differ from embryonic stem cells in that they
are derived from living bone, tissue, muscle and fat and not from an embryo.
Dr. Iannotti explained that mesenchymal stem cells are the type of cells that
depending on the maturation process can become bone, cartilage, muscle, marrow,
tendon/ligament and connective tissue. These cells are harvested from bone
marrow in the pelvis via a syringe. Approximately 100 milliliters of bone marrow
fluid when processed will yield 1 tablespoon containing 800 million cells of
which 40,000 are mesanchymal stem cells.
"Stem cell therapy can be especially effective when there is a non-union
situation," said Iannotti. "For example, a young man whose leg had
still not healed fully after a year of treatment showed vast improvement just 3
months after undergoing an adult stem cell therapy."
In addition to non-unions (bone fractures that do not heal), adult stem cells
are currently being used to treat a variety of clinical conditions including
large segmental defects, bone fractures or wounds that have severe scarring,
infections, or avascular tissue with a poor blood supply, and the effects of
irradiation and chemotherapy.
Recent data analysis shows that in more than 700 patients who underwent a stem
cell harvesting procedure from the pelvis, there was no complaint of pain and
only 2 bruises. This is of great benefit to the patient because it reduces
the risk of morbidity associated with complications that may arise in the
harvesting of autogenous cancellous
bone from other areas of the patient's body. Other benefits to the patient of
utilizing a stem cell procedure include minimal scarring and decreased blood
loss.
Research on human adult stem cells suggests great potential for use in the
development of tissue and cartilage regeneration especially in the area of
transplantation. Isolating adult stem cells from a patient, directing
their specialization and then transplanting them back into the patient would be
extremely advantageous because it is unlikely that the cells would be rejected.
Research is currently underway towards achieving this goal. Once accomplished it
will be a true scientific breakthrough that has the potential to revolutionize
the practice of medicine.
An orthopaedic surgeon is a physician with extensive training in the diagnosis
and nonsurgical as well as surgical treatment of the musculoskeletal system,
including bones, joints, ligaments, tendons, muscles and nerves.
| Back to Top|
Euphemisms Cloud the Embryonic Stem Cell Research Debate
By C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D.
[Editorial by C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D., senior fellow of the
Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity and editor of the journal Ethics &
Medicine: An International Perspective on Bioethics.]
Words are powerful tools. They can be used as a shield or a
weapon. They have incited revolutions, shaped nations, and thrilled readers.
They are the stuff of which most human communication is made. Nowhere is this
more evident than in the latest development in human cloning and embryonic
stem-cell research.
Scientists at Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technologies
(ACT) announced July 12 that they have begun experiments to clone human embryos
to harvest their stem cells. Not only does this signal that the clone age has
arrived on American soil, but ACT's use of euphemisms to describe their research
is simply remarkable.
According to linguists Keith Allan and Kate Burridge, in their
volume, "Euphemism & Dysphemism," "a euphemism is used as an
alternative to a dispreferred expression, in order to avoid possible loss of
face: either one's own face or, through giving offense, that of the audience, or
of some third party." In other words, a euphemism is a word game used to
take the sting out of a practice or behavior we would otherwise find offensive
or reprehensible.
Apparently, Advanced Cell Technologies are not only about
inventing new procedures, but about inventing new words euphemisms to be exact.
ACT is calling the subjects of their research "embryos or embryo-like
entities." What is an "embryo-like entity"? Does it differ
biologically from a human embryo? No. It's a euphemism. According to an article
by Rick Weiss in The Washington Post: "The group debated at length whether
there needs to be a new term developed for the embryo-like entity created by
cloning. Some believe that since it is not produced by fertilization and is not
going to be allowed to develop into a fetus, it would be useful to call the
cells something less inflammatory than an embryo."
Something less inflammatory than an embryo? The term
"embryo" is hardly inflammatory. What they are planning to do to the
embryo is what they are trying to hide by calling him or her an "embryolike
entity." Ronald Green, chair of the company's ethics advisory board, said,
"We're not trying to evade anything here. . . . But think about it. There
was a time when a 'mother' was the genetic mother, the gestational mother, and
the birth mother. But now technology like surrogate motherhood is separating out
those things that used to go together. The same is true for what we've been
calling the 'embryo.' "
Let's see. If we follow that logic, we should call surrogate
mothers, "mother-like entities" or "womblike gestational
sites." This is worse than sophistry: It is linguistic evil.
We've been down this road before, and it smells like the smoke
of burning human flesh. In fact, during World War II, the Nazi doctors became
extremely adept at inventing euphemisms to disguise, even sometimes from
themselves, the horrors they were perpetrating against humanity. To justify
Operation T-4, a euthanasia campaign that would make the Dutch blush, they used
words like "mercy killing," "liberation," and "life not
worthy of living" to describe the mass killing of mentally retarded persons
and the disabled. Some of the doctors even called Jews "human ballast"
in order to justify their destruction. Robert Lifton calls this
"detoxifying language," language meant to sanitize a practice which
was so repugnant that, to call it what it was would cause the world to vomit
collectively.
And so we did. When the Americans liberated Nazi Germany and
the abuses were made known, we all understood the corrosive power of euphemisms.
It matters what ACT calls its research subjects. It matters
because the world needs to know exactly what they ACT is up to in its labs. If
the people at ACT are doing destructive human embryo research, they should have
the courage to admit it and not hide behind language. If they are cloning human
beings, members of the species Homo sapiens, they should own up to it rather
than cloaking their experiments in language invented to lull society to sleep.
If they are combining human DNA with animal DNA to create chimeras (human-animal
hybrids), they should tell us in no uncertain terms.
Decisions about the morality of human embryo research and
human cloning are not for a few scientific elitists to make. This is about the
future of humanity as we know it. This is about our children being used as
research subjects. This is about our human progeny being used as guinea pigs in
someone's big summer science project.
The stakes are gargantuan, and together we have to decide how
we will regulate this kind of research. Just because ACT does not receive
government funds doesn't mean its research cannot be regulated effectively. It
can still be made illegal, just as it is illegal for you and me as public
citizens to carry a little plutonium in our briefcase. And even if recourse to
legislation is not the way to go, the American public has powerful ways of
repudiating practices it finds abhorrent.
But first, we have to make it clear that though they hide
behind whatever linguistic devices they choose, we know exactly what ACT and
their like are up to. A rose by any other name is still a rose. And a human
embryo is a person is a tiny baby, not an "embryo-like entity."
| Back to Top|
Japanese Scientists Cure Renal Failure With Adult Stem
Cells
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, June 21, 2005
Tokyo,
Japan (LifeNews.com) -- Scientists in Japan have been able to cure renal
failure in rats with adult stem cells taken from kidneys of healthy rats.
They say the same process should be able to work in humans.
The
University of Tokyo research team transplanted somatic stem cells from the
healthy rats. Such cells are able to develop into a variety of cells in that
specific organ.
The
team announced their findings in the June 20 issue of the U.S. science
magazine, "Journal of Cell Biology."
The
doctors involved in the research say that the possibility is strong that the
same process can help humans with renal failure because human kidneys have
similar somatic stem cells.
"It's
been confirmed that somatic stem cells in kidneys are capable of not only
creating new cells but also restoring damaged organs. We may be able to
develop drugs aimed at (activating) somatic stem cells," said University of
Tokyo Associate Prof. Keiichi Hishikawa.
The
research team identified the cells and confirmed that they exist in a part
of the rat kidney called the stroma. The cells are also able to develop into
blood vessels and renal tubules.
The
team transplanted 10,000 cells into the kidneys of rats with renal failure
and tests seven days later found that the kidney functions returned to
normal.
In the
article, the Japanese researchers say the cells repaired damaged kidney
cells and noted that the number of new stem cells decreased to about 30
percent after the repair work was done.
The
team found similar stem cells in the kidneys of human patients at the
University of Tokyo hospital.
If
successful in humans, the adult stem cell therapy could help millions of
patients worldwide who currently undergo artificial dialysis.
|
Back to Top|
Lancet Says Embryonic Stem Cell Research Filled With "Hype"
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, June 16, 2005
London,
England (LifeNews.com) -- The British medical journal Lancet, an
internationally respected publication, is making headlines of its own by
labeling as "sensationalist" and "hype" claims from scientists that
embryonic stem cell research will soon result in cures for a host of
diseases.
According to the pro-life web site, The Fact Is, The Lancet published an
editorial in its June 4 edition titled, "Stem cell research: hope and hype."
The
Lancet favors embryonic stem cell research but noted in the article that "no
safe and effective stem cell therapy will be widely available for at least a
decade, and possibly longer."
The
British medical journal also published an opinion article from Neil
Scolding, a British neurologist and researcher at the University of Bristol,
The Fact Is reports. Scolding highlights some of the logistical problems
associated with research that involves the destruction of human embryos.
"[A]n
increasing appreciation of the hazards of embryonic stem cells has rightly
prevented the emergence or immediate prospect of any clinical therapies
based on such cells," he wrote. "The natural propensity of embryonic stem
cells to form [tumors], their exhibition of chromosomal abnormalities, and
abnormalities in cloned mammals all present difficulties."
Scolding echoes the concerns of other scientists and said that the prospect
of having to clone hundreds of thousands of human embryos to produce enough
stem cells for research "is surely unrealistic."
Kelly
Hollowell, Ph.D., a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and a patent
attorney, agrees. She says another key problem with embryonic stem cell
research is that it requires harvesting so many cells and the process
requires women's eggs to create human embryos.
"To treat, for example, the 17 million diabetes patients in the United
States will require a minimum of 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs,"
Hollowell said. "Collecting 10 eggs per donor will require a minimum of 85
to 170 million women."
"The
total cost would be astronomical, at $100,000 to $200,000 for 50 to 100
human eggs per each patient," Dr. Hollowell explained.
The
British neurologist Scolding, in his Lancet article, pointed out the ethical
concerns associated with embryonic stem cell research and said the
scientific community should look to adult stem cells as an alternative.
"Fortunately, for the now highly expectant patient, reports of the death of
adult stem cells were greatly exaggerated," he said.
|
Back to Top|
New Embryonic Stem Cells Still Can't Help
Treat Diseases
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, May 19, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- South Korean and British scientists made a
major announcement Thursday about the successful cloning of a human embryo
and the creation of patient-specific embryonic stem cells. However, the
cells are still nowhere close to being able to help treat diseases.
South
Korean scientists say they have used human cloning to make made embryonic
stem cells able to match an individual patient. The discovery could possibly
help the cells overcome a longtime problem plaguing their feasibility as a
development for cures -- rejection issues.
While
adult stem cells have already produced dozens of treatments and cures, even
the new embryonic stem cells are far away from ever being useful.
The
new embryonic stem cells display some of the characteristics of the diseases
they are intended to cure. Dr. Gerald Schatten, a University of Pittsburgh
scientist who worked with the South Korean team, admitted that they may will
likely need to be manipulated further before they could be used.
Though
the new cells don't rely on mouse feeder cells to grow, since they are
obtained from cloned humans, they still had animal cell components injected
into them.
"Scientists must also find a way to remove the remaining animal components
from the laboratory procedures," they said in a report on their discovery
scheduled to be printed in the journal Science on Friday.
Even
leading South Korean research Hwang Woo-suk admitted "we have to open so
many doors before human trials.''
Pro-life groups condemned the new research because it involves cloning and
killing human beings.
Julia
Millington, of the ProLife Alliance said "Cloning for research purposes,
which involves the manufacture of human embryos destined for experimentation
and subsequent destruction, is profoundly unethical."
"The
manufacture and destruction of one cloned embryo is one too many, regardless
of the number of eggs that are required," she told the BBC. "Experimentation
upon human life at any stage of development has no place in a civilized
society."
| Back to Top|
Poll Shows 70% Oppose Stem Cell Research That Kills Unborn Children
Source: National Conference of Catholic Bishops; June 8, 2001
[Pro-Life Infonet Note: The findings of the poll described below will be
discussed at a press conference sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith
(R-NJ) and by Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics,
on Friday June 8 at 10 a.m., outside the U.S. Capitol at the House
Triangle. Congressman Smith will announce the introduction of the
Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001, legislation to authorize $30
million for ethically non-controversial adult stem cell research and
establish a stem cell bank at the National Institutes for Health. What
follows is a June 8 press release from the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops.]
Washington, DC -- As two very different bills are introduced in the House
of Representatives this week on stem cell research, a new poll commissioned by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops shows that
Americans strongly prefer one approach over the other.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) has introduced the "Stem Cell Research Act of
2001" (H.R. 2059) to change the law so federal funds can be used to
destroy human embryos for their stem cells. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) has
introduced the "Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001" to increase
funding for stem cell research that does not require destruction of human
life at any stage.
Questions about these two approaches to stem cell research were included
in a multi-issue survey conducted by International Communications Research
(ICR), a national polling firm headquartered in Media, Pennsylvania. A
weighted sample of over a thousand American adults was surveyed by
telephone between June 1 and June 5 to obtain the results.
The poll suggests that Americans oppose federal funding of stem cell
research that requires destroying human embryos, by a factor of almost
three to one (70% to 24%). Asked to choose between funding all stem cell
research (both adult and embryonic), and funding only adult stem cell
research and similar alternatives to see if there is no need to destroy
embryos for research, Americans prefer the latter approach by an even
wider margin (67% to 18%).
"Polls sponsored by groups promoting destructive embryo research claim to
show broad support for their agenda," says Richard Doerflinger, Associate
Director for Policy Development at the NCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life
Activities. "They create this illusion by using what political campaigns
call 'push polls' -- presenting false and misleading claims as though they
are fact, to push the respondent to a favorable answer. They even avoid
mentioning the destruction of human embryos, asking only if people support
the use of stem cells 'that come from excess fertilized eggs.' Perhaps
they use this scientifically absurd euphemism out of fear that many
Americans recognize a 'human embryo' as a human life."
"Even the Clinton Administration's guidelines for embryonic stem cell
research insist that parents donating embryos for this research must be
told that the embryos will not survive the harvesting process," said Mr.
Doerflinger. "Federal officials recognized that failing to mention this
important fact would violate parents' right to informed consent. Why do
some advocacy groups want to deny Americans that right of informed consent
when they conduct polls?"
The results of the new ICR survey are as follows:
1. Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person's tissues
and organs develop. Congress is considering whether to provide federal
funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live
embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain
these cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for
such experiments?
Support 23.9%
Oppose 69.9%
Don't know 4.8%
Refused 1.3%
2. Stem cells for research can be obtained by destroying human embryos.
They can also be obtained from adults, from placentas left over from live
births, and in other ways that do no harm to the donor. Scientists
disagree on which source may end up being most successful in treating
diseases. How would you prefer your tax dollars to be used this year for
stem cell research?
(Options rotated)
Supporting all methods, including those that require destroying human
embryos, to see which will be most successful - 17.6%
or
Supporting research using adult stem cells and other alternatives, to see
if there is no need to destroy human embryos for research. - 66.8%
Neither (volunteered) - 8.6%
Don't know - 6.3%
Refused - 0.7%
The survey of 1013 adult Americans has a margin of error of plus or minus
3%.
| Back to Top|
Poll: Republicans Oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research,
Public Split
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, May 26, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new Gallup poll shows the public is split
on the issue of embryonic stem cell research and, contrary to the claims of
supporters of a bill to fund it, Republicans oppose embryonic stem cell
research.
 According
to a May 20-22 Gallup poll, approximately 42 percent of Americans want to
"ease current restrictions" on stem cell research funding put in place by
President Bush. Another 43 percent either don't want to fund embryonic stem
cell research at all (19%) or favor President Bush's current policy (24
percent).
Some
11 percent of Americans favor no restrictions on stem cell research funding.
However, the Gallup poll did not explain what kinds of restrictions are
currently in place. Some media outlets and politicians, such as former
presidential candidate John Kerry, have claimed the president has put a ban
in place on stem cell research funding.
President Bush's policy prohibits federal funding of any new embryonic stem
cell research, but his administration has spent more than $190 million on
research using adult stem cells. Such cells have already produced dozens of
treatments for various diseases.
Meanwhile, the Gallup poll showed "a majority of Republicans hold views
consistent with Bush's" position.
Nearly
6 in 10 Republicans (59%) prefer to maintain the current restrictions on
stem cell research funding, or prohibit such funding altogether. Just over
one-third of Republicans (36%) believe taxpayer funds should be used for
embryonic stem cell research.
Backers of legislation in Congress to do that have claimed Republicans favor
overturning Bush's policy.
The
Gallup poll also found that Americans are paying as much attention to the
debate over embryonic stem cell research as they do other political issues.
Approximately 6 in 10 Americans (58%) say they are following the debate very
or somewhat closely. Another 27% are following it "not too closely," while
just 15% are not following it at all.
This
is higher than the 42% paying close attention to the recent filibuster
controversy, but lower than the 66% who closely followed the Terri Schiavo
case.
Across
150 news attention measures taken by Gallup since 1991, the average
percentage paying very or somewhat close attention has been 60%.
For
the latest poll, Gallup surveyed 1,006 adults, aged 18 and older from May
20-22, 2005.
| Back to Top|
Scientists at Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Meeting Admit Failures
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, June 23, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Hundreds of scientists who back embryonic
stem cell research are meeting in California to discuss the current state of
the controversial research are admitting they've not made much progress and
losing millions in trying to perfect it.
"Many
of the technologies we hyped to the general public haven't worked yet,''
Celgene President Alan Lewis said, according to an AP story.
James
Thomson, the Wisconsin biologist who was the first to isolate embryonic stem
cells also admits they have been oversold.
He
told MSBNC that he understands the technology still has a long way to go and
that embryonic stem cells are not being used in any human clinical trials
yet.
"I'm
very hopeful that there will be some transplantation applications for this
technology, but they're going to be very challenging," he told MSNBC. "And
it's been so hyped in the press that people expect it to come the day after
tomorrow."
Thomson conceded that embryonic stem cell cures may not be available until
"ten to twenty years from now."
Meanwhile, Lewis also pointed out that venture capitalists, the source of
much of the funding of stem cell research companies, "are very cautious''
about investing because of the limited success and lack of future prospects.
That's
true for William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences, a leading advocate
of embryonic stem cell research. He says results are decades away and his
company is not spending money on the unproven embryonic cells.
“The
routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30
years hence," Haseltine admits.
"The
timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest,"
Haseltine added.
As a
result, leading embryonic stem cell research firms are losing money.
Geron,
the California-based biotech firm has put over $100 million into embryonic
stem cell research and, because it has little to show for the investment,
lost $80 million last year.
Advanced Cell Technology, a Massachusetts company that was one of the first
to claim to have cloned a human embryo, is running into significant
financial troubles and, according to AP, is having problems finding enough
eggs from women for research.
"There
have been companies that have gone into stem cells, but nobody's made any
money," researcher Thomson admitted.
| Back to Top|
Senate Committee Approves Umbilical Cord Stem Cell Research
Bill
by Steven
Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, June 29, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A Senate committee on Wednesday approved
legislation that would promote the use of adult stem cells obtained from
umbilical cord blood. The bill is the pro-life alternative to a measure
seeking to use taxpayer funds to pay for embryonic stem cell research.
The
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) committee
backed S. 1317 on a voice vote.
The
measure encourages the collection of umbilical cord blood and establishes a
national database to help doctors and scientists access the stem cells in it
for research.
The
committee combined the original Senate bill (S. 681) dealing with cord blood
research with a more expansive House bill that also promotes adult stem
cells from bone marrow. The House approved its measure, HR 2520, on a 434-1
vote in May.
At
the same time, the House signed off on legislation that would use taxpayer
funds to pay for unproven embryonic stem cell research. The Senate is
expected to take up that bill later this summer.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who also backs embryonic stem cell
research, said Senate leaders have worked out a final version of the adult
stem cell bill with House officials. He told Congressional Quarterly he
expected the House to approve it once the Senate votes on the bill.
President Bush opposes using taxpayer funds for any new embryonic stem cell
research and prefers the adult stem cell legislation.
"Cord-blood stem cells, collected from the placenta and umbilical cord after
birth without doing harm to mother or child, have been used in the treatment
of thousands of patients suffering from more than 60 different diseases,"
President Bush said in a statement supporting the measure.
Phil Coelho is CEO and Chairman of the Board of Thermogenesis Corp., which
provides cord blood stem cell processing and cryopreservation systems used
by major cord blood stem cell banks.
He
says that adult stem cells have "been used clinically about 30,000 times."
Cord blood cells "have some dramatic advantages," Coelho says.
"[T]hey
can become several -- and perhaps all -- the different tissue types; they
involve no donor risks; they have the capacity for many cell divisions; and
they cause less graft versus host disease," he explained.
| Back to Top|
STEM CELL REALITY-Debunking the Stem Cell Myths
(7/17/01)
STEM CELL REALITY CHECK # 1
Secretariat
for Pro-Life Activities
3211 Fourth Street,
N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3070 FAX: (202) 541-3054
Myth:
"Embryonic stem cells are the most effective for treating disease"
Reality:
Actually, they're not. Embryonic stem cells have not helped a single human
patient or demonstrated any
therapeutic benefit. By
contrast, adult stem cells and other ethically acceptable alternatives have
already helped
hundreds of thousands of patients, and new
clinical uses expand almost weekly. Consider:
Adult
Pancreatic Islet Cells
15 people with
serious Type I (juvenile) diabetes became "insulin free" after
adult pancreatic
islet cell
transplants; 9 still need no insulin injections.
-
American Diabetes Assoc. Report, June 24, 2001 |
Embryonic Stem
Cells
No person has benefited.
|
Adult
Immune-System Cells
A young woman
rendered paraplegic by a car accident can move her toes and legs after
injection
of her own
immune-system cells into her severed spinal cord.
-
Toronto Globe and Mail, June 15, 2001 |
Embryonic Stem Cells
No person has benefited.
|
Adult Bone
Marrow Stem Cells
2 children born
without immune systems ("bubble boy" syndrome) have left their
sterile environment
and lead normal
lives after bone marrow stem cell treatment.
-Science,
The Washington Post, April 28, 2000Embryonic Stem Cells |
Embryonic Stem Cells
No person has benefited.
|
Adult
Corneal Stem Cells
Several legally
blind people can now see more clearly after their corneas were
reconstructed
with corneal
stem cells.
-
New England Journal of Medicine, July 13, 2000 |
Embryonic Stem
Cells
No person has benefited.
|
STEM CELL REALITY CHECK # 2
"A clear majority of Americans supports stem
cell research"
Of course they do –
but what type of stem cell research do they support?
"Stem cell
research" refers to research using various types of stem cells. Stem cells
that come from adult tissue,
placentas, or umbilical
cord blood can be retrieved without harming the donor. The only way to obtain
embryonic stem cells,
however, is to kill the living human embryo.
Typically, poll
questions do not make this distinction.
When
Americans are asked if the government should fund stem
cell
research which requires destroying human embryos, 70% of
Americans
say "NO."
And when choosing between funding stem
cell research including embryonic stem cells vs. stem cell research
without embryonic stem
cells, Americans support the latter approach 67% to 18%.
-International Communications Research,
June 8, 2001. See www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2001/01-101.shtml
Throughout American
history, no Administration of either party has funded research which relies on
destroying live human embryos.
Embryonic stem cells
have not helped a single human patient or demonstrated any therapeutic benefit.
By contrast, adult stem
cells and other ethically acceptable alternatives have helped hundreds of
thousands
of patients, and new
clinical uses expand almost weekly.
STEM CELL REALITY CHECK # 3
Myth: "Excess embryos are
going to be discarded anyway"
Reality:
Not necessarily. Today, parents can preserve "excess" embryos for
future pregnancies as well
as donate them to other
couples. Under proposed NIH guidelines, parents will be asked to consider
having them destroyed for federally-funded
research instead.
In a recent study, 59%
of parents who initially planned to discard their embryos after three years
later
changed their minds,
choosing another pregnancy or donation to infertile couples. New England
Journal of Medicine,
July 5, 2001.
With the NIH guidelines, these embryos might have already been
destroyed.
What's more, we now know
that the scientists calling for federal funds have themselves moved on to
creating human embryos
solely to destroy them for stem cells. So much for the "discarded
anyway" argument.
But what scientists or parents might do with the embryos is not
the issue. The issue is:
Should
the government use taxpayers' money for research which
requires destroying human embryos?
No Administration of
either party has ever done so.
We believe such
unethical research shouldn't be done at all. But if anyone does so, it must be
at their expense and on their conscience – not that of
the American taxpayers.
Embryonic stem cells
have not helped a single human patient. By contrast, adult stem cells and other
ethically acceptable
alternatives have helped hundreds of thousands of patients, and new clinical
uses expand almost weekly.
STEM CELL REALITY CHECK # 4
Myth: "Human life begins in
the womb, not the Petri dish"
Reality: Actually, it usually
begins in the fallopian tube, but it can also begin in a Petri dish.
The testimony of modern
science is clear on this point: "At the moment the sperm cell of the human
male meets the ovum of the
female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has
begun."
Considine, Douglas
(ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943. See Moore, Keith L.
Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2; Dox, Ida G.
et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary.
New York:
Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146; Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th
edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3; Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's
Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3.
The issue is not whether human life is present, but how society
ought to treat it.
Even President Clinton's bioethics
advisors said: "We believe most would agree that human embryos deserve
respect as a form of human life..."
– National Bioethics Advisory Commission on stem cell
research, September 1999 (emphasis added)
"Stem cell research" refers to research using stem
cells that come from embryos or other sources, such as adult tissue, placentas,
or umbilical cord blood. The only way to obtain embryonic stem cells, however,
is to kill the living human embryo. The embryos killed for their stems cells are
about a week old and have grown to about 200 cells.
Embryonic stem cells have not helped a single human
patient, while adult stem cells and similar ethically acceptable
alternatives have helped hundreds of thousands.
Let's fund promising medical research that everybody can
live with.
Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops - www.usccb.org
| Back to Top|
Teen's
Heart Better After Adult Stem Cell Treatment
Source: Reuters Health; June 12, 2003
New York, NY -- A Michigan teenager who underwent a
first-of-its-kind stem cell treatment earlier this year appears
to be doing well and has seen some gains in heart function, one
of the doctors overseeing his care said this week.
In February Dimitri Bonnville underwent a stem cell transplant
aimed at helping him regain lost heart tissue after he was shot
in the heart by a nail gun and subsequently suffered a massive
heart attack.
The experimental procedure used stem cells harvested from the
boy's own blood, which were later infused into the damaged
portion of his heart via a catheter.
"He is doing very well. He is going to parties, he is
playing basketball an hour-and-a-half at a time -- pretty much
living a near-normal life for a teenager," said Dr. Cindy
Grines of Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan, who spoke
about the teen's condition.
"His heart has shown some improvement," she added.
Recently, Bonnville underwent a test that evaluates the heart's
ejection fraction -- a measure of how efficiently the heart pumps
blood.
With each heartbeat the heart relaxes and fills with blood, and
then it squeezes and pumps blood forward. A normal ejection
fraction by the particular test the doctors used would be 50
percent or greater, explained Grines, who is a
cardiologist.
"Dimitri's ejection fraction has gone up to 40
percent," after having been as low as 20 percent directly
after the heart attack, said Grines.
"So he has shown progressive improvement in his heart's pump
function," she added.
The doctors do not have any non-invasive method for determining
the fate of the stem cells that were infused into the boy's
heart. But Grines noted that a five percentage-point gain in
ejection fraction would be normal even in someone who has a good
chance of recovery.
"Now for Dimitri to have a 20 percent increase is pretty
remarkable, so we have to believe that at least some of that
(gain) is attributable to the stem cell infusion," she told
Reuters Health.
For the stem cell procedure, the boy was initially given a drug
that helps stimulate the production of stem cells in the
blood. The cells were then harvested and concentrated from
the boy's blood, and the solution was infused directly into the
damaged artery.
The aim of the procedure is to stimulate blood-vessel and
heart-muscle growth in areas of the heart without sufficient
blood supply.
Stem cells are so-called master cells that can develop into
various tissues in the body, and the idea of using them to repair
damaged hearts is a hot area of medical research.
People who survive a heart attack are often left with damaged
cardiac muscle, which reduces the heart's pumping capacity and
can result in progressive heart failure.
After the nail gun incident occurred on February 1, the
16-year-old Bonnville underwent emergency surgery to remove the
nail and close the wound. Subsequently, the boy suffered a heart
attack due to his initial injury and underwent additional surgery
in which a stent was used to open a major heart artery that had
become blocked.
Because the boy's heart was in such grave condition and chances
for improvement were deemed slim by his attending physicians, the
team decided to try the experimental stem cell procedure.
In addition to the stem cell transplant, Bonnville also received
an implanted defibrillator, a device that detects dangerous
heart-rhythm irregularities and delivers a shock to restore a
normal rhythm.
So far, the boy's case indicates that studying the stem cell
procedure is worthwhile, according to Grines. "We definitely
need to push on and more thoroughly test this stem cell
procedure," she said.
"This is the only (treatment) that we can really conceive of
that can repair heart muscle because ... once the heart muscle
dies it typically does not repair itself at all -- it just
creates a scar," Grines explained.
| Back to Top|
The Science of Stem Cells (Rep. Weldon)
Potential:
Proponents claim that EScells are the “most promising” to cure 100 million
patients.
Because embryonic stem cells (EScells) are “pluripotent,” proponents claim
they are the most promising to treat numerous degenerative diseases. Because
embryonic stem cells become every tissue type during normal embryonic
development, proponents believe that they might be able to extract the stem
cells and turn them into desired tissues in a Petri dish.
Proponents have argued that because EScells can grow “indefinitely,” they
will be useful for treating various diseases. Researchers can take a few EScells
and replicate them in the lab to create an embryonic stem cell line that can
reproduce repeatedly.
Although there have been very modest results in only a handful of animal
models, proponents claim that EScells have the greatest potential to treat
humans diseases.
Problems: Embryo stem cells have major hurdles.
Despite what Senator Kerry would have us believe, research on EScells shows
that they have inherent biological problems that make treatment for human
disease unlikely in the next decade or beyond. Indeed, James Thomson, who
discovered human EScells in 1998, claims that EScells are susceptible to forming
cancerous tumors. The transformation of EScells into adult tissue is difficult
to control. To quote Doug Melton of Harvard, who derived 17 new embryonic stem
cell lines with private funds, “Normally, if you take an embryonic stem cell, it
will make all kinds of things, sort of willy-nilly."
In other words, EScells are genetically unstable and can develop chromosomal
abnormalities. And, because EScells do, in fact, reproduce so rapidly and are
genetically unstable, they tend to form tumors in the recipients.
Furthermore, EScells have significant hindrances for treatments. EScells can
be subject to immune rejection. This is because embryos and the stem cells
derived from them will have a different genetic make-up from the genetic make-up
of a potential patient. At best, patients will have to use severe immuno-suppressive
drugs to prevent immune rejection. EScells are not close to being used in human
clinical trials.
In fact, Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) in animal studies has been much
overstated, despite showing mixed results in treating any disease. For
instance, several studies that have been heralded by advocates have also either
formed tumors in the recipient mice, or failed to offer a substantial functional
recovery. EScell advocates and allies in the media raised the hopes of diabetes
sufferers by touting a 2001 study in which the EScells supposedly were turned
into beta cells that produced insulin, which is necessary to prevent diabetes.
Despite the fact that the cells only produced 1/50th the normal amount of
insulin, this study was used as evidence for the "promise" of EScells. However,
a 2003 follow-up study concluded that the pancreatic cells did not produce
insulin but instead likely absorbed insulin from surrounding tissue. A recent
2004 study turned EScells into insulin-producing cells. However, it did not cure
diabetes but formed tumors in several of the mice. In contrast, adult stem cells
have been shown in numerous studies to completely reverse diabetes in mice.
There are NO treatments of humans with EScells.
Adult Stem Cells (ASC):
While celebrities and politicians have been attacking the President's ESCR
policy, scientists have been quietly making rapid progress in the treatment of a
variety of diseases with adult stem cells (AScells), research which, under the
President's current policy, has received over $360 million in federal funds over
the past two years. Yet despite the significant medical advances made in the
treatment of Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and spinal cord injury using adult
stem cells, human clinical trials for these promising therapies face serious
obstacles, in part due to the politicization of this scientific debate.
AScells are found throughout body, and provide a diverse source of stem cells
that will have the same genetic make-up as the patient.
It was previously thought that AScells were limited as to what tissues they
could differentiate into. However, over the past several years, studies
increasingly demonstrate the capacity of AScells to differentiate into various
tissue types. In fact, a special type of bone marrow stem cells has been shown
to be plastic, that is, having the capacity to turn into virtually every tissue
in the body.
AScells have been used in animals models to treat a variety of diseases, such
as diabetes, spinal cord injury, blood diseases, and Parkinson's
Though treatments with AScells still require much more research,
AScells have already been used successfully in over 45 clinical
trials to treat humans. For example, AScells have already been used
to treat cartilage defects in children, restore vision to patients who were
legally blind, relieve systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid
arthritis and cure severe combined immunodeficiency disease, and to treat
various types of cancer such as leukemias, solid tumors, neuroblastoma,
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, renal cell carcinoma and childhood neurological
disorders. Just last year, it was reported that researchers in California have
reversed the symptoms of Parkinson's disease in a man with his own
neural stem cells; clinical trials using this approach are being extended to
additional patients. Furthermore, AScells are being used in human clinical
trials to restore heart function after severe heart attacks.
|
Adult Stem Cell
Therapies |
Embryonic Stem Cell
Therapies |
|
Human
Therapies |
Human Therapies |
|
Parkinson's
Cartilage defects
Blindness
Systemic lupus
Multiple sclerosis
Rheumatoid arthritis
Severe combined
immunodeficiency disease
Cancers such as
leukemias, solid tumors, neuroblastoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and
renal cell carcinoma
Sickle cell anemia
Spinal cord injury,
modest improvement
Liver disease |
0 |
|
Animal Therapies |
Animal Therapies |
|
Brain damage
Diabetes
Parkinson's
Cancer
Cerebral Palsey
Retinal damage
Heart damage
Liver disease
Multiple Sclerosis
Sickle cell anemia
Spinal cord injury
Lou Gehrig's disease |
Parkinson's in rats: 50%
of rats had modest improvement, but 20% died of brain tumors.
Spinal Cord Injury: some
functional recovery |
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Policy of research on embryos and embryo stem
cell research
Brief History:
In 1975, the federal government recognized that human embryos in the womb are
to be protected as "human subjects" in federally funded research. It is
important to note that in the current debate, the human embryos that researchers
want to destroy for their stem cells are at the same stage of development as
those embryos in the womb that are protected by federal regulations.
Since 1996, the Dickey-Wicker appropriations rider has prevented federal
funding for any research "in which" embryos are destroyed (P.L. 104-99). The law
states that federal funds may not be used for "(1) the creation of a human
embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo
or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or
death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero" (in the womb)
according to federal regulations. Since 1996, federal law has
prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for research that would result in the
killing of human embryos, placing them at risk, including research in which
federal dollars do not directly pay for the direct destruction of the human
embryo.
In 2000, NIH guidelines approved by the Clinton Administration allowed
federal funding for research on stem cells derived from human embryos, so long
as the specific act of destroying the embryos was not performed with federal
funds. These new rules promulgated by then NIH Director, Harold Varmus, was
based on a 1999 HHS General Counsel memo (Raab memo) expressing the opinion that
the use of federal tax dollars for research using such stem cells would not
violate the Dickey-Wicker ban as long as federal funds do not pay for the act of
killing the embryo. Though these rules were issued in 2000, President Bush
prevented them from being implemented.
President Bush's August 9, 2001 policy: On August 9, 2001, President Bush
announced, in an address to the nation, that he was going to begin federal
funding of research on stem cell lines derived from human embryos that had been
killed prior to his announcement. Those who want to fund research on additional
embryonic stem cell (EScell) lines claim that Bush's policy "bans stem cell
research," or "is too restrictive." The fact is that Bush's policy for the first
time allowed funding of EScell research. Some conservatives strongly disapproved
of this policy, whereas others thought the policy was ethically defensible and
that it was a political compromise that prevented implementing the NIH
guidelines from 2000. Both the Bush and Clinton Administrations seem to have
accepted the premise from the Raab memo, that Dickey-Wicker would not be
violated so long as funds aren't used on research that kills the human embryo.
Bush's policy differs substantially from the Clinton rules in that, though the
Clinton rules would have prevented using funds to directly destroy human
embryos, they would have created a continuing financial incentive to create and
destroy human embryos for research purposes. In contrast, Bush's policy not only
ensures that no funds will be used to directly destroy embryos, since it
restricts funds to stem cells that were derived from embryos in which the
life-and-death decision had been previously made, it also avoids any financial
incentive to create more embryos for destructive research.
Current Status: Since August 9, 2001, the NIH set up an human embryo stem
cell registry that lists lines that are eligible to receive federal funding and
is funding infrastructure grants to make the embryonic stem cells available.
NIH had determined that there are 78 EScell lines that are eligible for research
funding in accordance with the President's policy. Since that time, NIH has
worked to attract researchers to apply for grants to perform research on the
eligible lines. Of the 78 eligible lines, 20 are currently being used for
federally funded research. The NIH states that these EScell lines reproduce
indefinitely, and the NIH says that they have been able to fulfill requests for
basic research. Even though there have not been any breakthroughs in the
federally funded basic research on human embryos, and there continues to be
breakthroughs with ethical adult stem cell research, some groups and Members of
Congress are mounting an effort to allow unlimited numbers of human embryos to
be killed in federally funded research.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ethics of Embryo Stem Cell Research
Proponents of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) argue
that embryonic stem cells (EScells) are the most promising to treat upwards of
100 million patients. Although they claim that it is unethical to create human
embryos for the sole purpose of destructive research, they argue it is ethical
to fund research on "leftover" human embryos that "would otherwise be
discarded." They are referring here to embryos created by in vitro fertilization
(IVF) that have not been implanted to produce children.
Examples:
"I would like to comment on the
work of the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk, Virginia,
which is creating embryos in order to conduct stem cell research. I find the
work of this clinic extremely disturbing." Senator Hatch, Government Reform
Committee, 2001.
"Let me say that I agree with our
colleagues who say that we should not be involved in the creation of embryos for
research. I completely agree with my colleagues on that score." Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA), Congressional Record at H7343, July 11, 1996
"We can all be assured that the
research at the National Institutes of Health will be conducted with the highest
level of integrity. No embryos will be created for research purposes..."
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), Congressional Record at H7343, July 11, 1996
"Lifting this ban would not allow the
creation of human embryos solely for research purposes." Rep. Nancy Johnson
(R-CT), Congressional Record at H7339, July 11, 1996 ]
First, many proponents who adopted the ethical line that they oppose the
special creation of human embryos for research, have in fact supported
"therapeutic cloning" also called "somatic cell nuclear transfer." Therapeutic
cloning involves the creation of cloned human embryos for the sole purpose of
destroying them for research, as opposed to creating cloned embryos for
reproductive purposes. Proponents have already contradicted their ethical
principle by endorsing cloning embryos to destroy them for their stem cells.
Second, despite the claims of some proponents that we should only use
leftover embryos, expanding Bush's policy to spend funds on more EScell lines
will create an unethical incentive to create human embryos that will be
destroyed for their stem cells. The problem is that proponents of additional
funding will not stop at calling for research on excess embryos. In fact, many
of them are already advocating for creating embryos for research through
cloning.
As a point of fact, the number of frozen embryos was previously estimated to
number between 100,000 to 200,000. In 2003, a Rand report claimed that there are
an estimated 400,000 frozen embryos in storage in the United States. According
to the Rand report, 87% of the 400,000 frozen embryos are destined for later
implantation by the parents. Only 3% of the embryos are designated for research,
which amounts to about 11,000 frozen embryos potentially available for ESCR.
But this won't be enough. Even if ALL of these embryo were made available for
research, the best scientific estimate on the number of stem cell lines would be
much more limited. First, a fair estimate is that only 65% may survive the
thawing process. Of these, 25% may survive to the blastocyst stage, that is
about 5-7 days when EScells are extracted. Of these, 15% may yield a viable
EScell line. The approximate number of EScell lines that could be derived from
the destruction of existing embryos is 275 at most.
Once the federal government opens the door to fund research on frozen
embryos, there will not be enough to prevent the call to begin creating
embryos for research. In other words, federal funding of additional ESCR will
provide an incentive to create more embryos solely for research. Even if
researchers cannot use federal funds to directly destroy the embryos, federal
funding of this research will create a market where some scientists create and
kill the embryos for their stem cells and turn around and sell them to other
researchers who receive the federal funds.
Third, some pro-life members of Congress support funding of embryo stem cell
research on the basis that this research could save the lives of people with
debilitating diseases. The claim is that it is ethically permissible to destroy
some lives in the hope that one day other lives may be saved. This obfuscation
of the term "pro-life" is based on a utilitarian ethic. It is unethical to
destroy some human lives for the betterment of the lives of others. Just as it
is unethical to use human fetuses for their organs, it is unethical to kill
human embryos for their stem cells. Such reasoning seriously undermines human
dignity of all humans regardless of age.
The fact that some embryos may eventually die does not make it ethically
right to kill them. Just because a person who has a severe stroke may die does
not mean it is ethically right to kill that patient for potentially beneficial
medical research or organ harvesting.
Fourth, ESCR should not be funded when there are ethical alternatives such as
adult stem cells. In 1999, even President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory
Commission (NBAC) acknowledged broad agreement in our society that early human
embryos "deserve respect as a form of human life" (NBAC, Ethical Issues in Human
Stem Cell Research, 1999, p. ii). The Commission actually concluded that
research requiring the destruction of these human lives should be seen as a last
resort, saying: "In our judgment, the derivation of stem cells from embryos
remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no less
morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research."
(Id., p. 53). The Commission recommended funding ESCR research because it
thought at that time that no alternatives existed; but it said this factual
judgment "must be revisited continually as science advances" (Id.). Since that
time, over 45 diseases have been successfully treated with adult stem cells,
demonstrating that ethical alternatives to embryonic stem cells do exist.
At the heart of this debate is not whether "ideology" stands in the way of
medical research, but whether medical research should be informed by any ethical
norms at all. The debate is over whether science will continue to serve
humanity or whether humanity will be become guinea pigs for science. As a
society we demand that human life is preserved as much by the process of medical
research as by the treatments that research seeks to produce. Using one class of
citizens for the medical benefit of another is nothing more than slavery. Such
attempts made in the name of science, such as the Tuskegee syphilis trial
conducted on African-Americans in Alabama as recently as 1972, have been
strongly condemned by politicians from both parties.
Far from being divisive, the President's policy accommodates the pluralism of
views held by our country. While permitting embryonic stem cell research on
pre-existing embryonic stem cell lines, and permitting the creation of new
embryonic stem cell lines in private sector, the President has prevented
taxpayers from being forced to pay for research which many consider unethical.
Yet while these so-called "restrictions" have been in place, ethical adult stem
cell research has produced a plethora of medical advances and treatments.
AScells therepies are moving into clinical trials, which have the realistic
potential to bring the hope to patients suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's,
heart failure, and spinal cord injury in the near future.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Stem Cell Research Definitions
Blastocyst : The human embryo between 5-7 days of
development, when the stem cells develop into a cluster of cells inside an outer
shell. This is the point at which researchers destroy the embryo by extracting
its stem cells.
Cloning : Human cloning is a type of "asexual" reproduction,
which means creating an embryo without the union of egg and sperm. This is
accomplished by a technique called "somatic cell nuclear transfer," the same
process used to create the cloned sheep Dolly. The nucleus from a body (somatic)
cell is transferred into a female egg which has had its nuclear material
removed. Then with an electric current or chemical stimulus the cloned embryo
begins to divide as if it were a fertilized embryo.
Differentiated : acquired features of a specialized, mature
cell type, i.e., skin cell, liver cell, etc.
Embryo : A human embryo is the earliest stage of a human
organism, from the single cell up to 8 weeks of development. Embryos can be
created in the lab by in vitro fertilization, with the use of sperm and egg.
Embryos can also be created by cloning, which does not use sperm (see above).
In Vitro Fertilization : an assisted reproductive technique
in which fertilzation of egg with sperm is performed in a laboratory dish.
"Non-somatic" cells: Germ cells ("sex cells") such as sperm
and egg cells. These are haploid (contain only 23 chromosomes).
Plasticity: the ability of stem cells to "differentiate"
from one tissue to develop into other tissues.
Pluripotent : the ability of stem cells to turn into
multiple cell types. Adult stem cells were thought to have limited capability to
differentiate. However, research has increasingly shown that some adult stem
cells are pluripotent.
Reproductive cloning : Reproductive cloning involves cloning
a human embryo by "somatic cell nuclear transfer," and then implanting the
embryo into a woman's uterus to produce a cloned baby. The cloning process is
the same as "therapeutic cloning"; the only difference is the purpose of
creating the cloned human embryo is for baby-making rather than destructive
research
Stem Cell Research Distinctions :
Embyro stem cell research (ESCR) : ESCR is perfectly legal
and unrestricted. Private funds can be used to create and destroy as many
embryos as researchers choose. The debate surrounds whether the federal
government should fund research that destroys embryos for their stem cells. This
debate involves "normal" human embryos, as opposed to cloned embryos. Federal
funding of embryo stem cell research will create an incentive where taxpayer
funds are directed to create and destroy human embryos. This is an unethical use
of taxpayer money.
Human Cloning : The creation of a human cloned embryo by a
process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer." (SCNT) This is the same process
that was used to create the cloned sheep, Dolly. This cloning process involves
taking the nucleus of a body cell (soma), such as a skin cell, and inserting it
into a female egg that had its nucleus removed. The resulting embryo will have
the full set of 46 chromosomes from the donor of body cell, whereas normal
embryos consist of 23 chromosomes from sperm and 23 chromosomes from egg. This
process can be used to create cloned embryos for research (therapeutic cloning),
or for creating a cloned baby by implanting it in a womb (reproductive cloning).
The Weldon/Stupak anti-cloning bill, that passed in the 107th and 108th
Congress, would ban human the cloning process (SCNT) whether the purpose is for
research or reproduction. An identical bill in the Senate, the
Brownback/Landrieu bill, has not passed in the Senate. Human cloning for any
purpose is an unethical genetic manipulation of human life.
Adult stem cell research (ASCR) : This uses stem cells from
the adult body and does not involve any destruction of human life. It is legal
and ethical to use adult stem cells for regenerative medicine. The NIH
generously funds this non-controversial research.
"Somatic" cells : body cells. These are non-reproductive
cells extracted from an individual (alive or dead) or a fetus (alive or dead).
These are diploid cells (contain two sets of chromosomes totaling the 46
chromosomes which constitute the DNA of that species).
Stem cell : These are non-specialized cells that can
self-renew and "differentiate," or change, into more mature cells. In normal
embryonic development, it is the stem cells that develop into all the tissue
types of an adult human. "Embryo stem cells" (EScells) are derived from embryos;
they are not the same as embryos. "Adult stem cells" (AScells) are found in
adult tissues, such as bone marrow, liver, spleen, pancreas, brain, blood, fat,
nose and dental pulp. Umbilical cord blood stem cells, which share
characteristics of adult and embryonic stem cells, are found in the placenta.
The debate is not about "stem cell research" but whether we should federally
fund research on embryonic stem cells.
"Therapeutic cloning" : This involves creating a human
cloned embryo by somatic cell nuclear transfer and destroying the embryo to
extract stem cells. The cloning process is the same as reproductive cloning; the
only difference is the purpose of creating the cloned human embryo for
destructive research rather than baby-making.
Undifferentiated: usually an embryonic or fetal cell, which
has not been programmed to a specific cell type. These can turn into almost any
type of cells, and therefore are pluripotent.
| Back to Top|
Stem Cell Research, Cloning & Human Embryos -
2004
Written by:
Rev. Dr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk
www.ncbcenter.org and
www.donumvitaecenter.org
Produced by:
Family Research Council
u
801 G Street NW u Washington, DC
20001 www.frc.org
STEM CELLS
What is a stem
cell?
A stem cell is
essentially a “blank” cell, capable of becoming another more differentiated cell
type in the body, such as a skin cell, a muscle cell, or a nerve cell.
What are the two broad classes of stem
cells?
The two basic types of
stem cells are embryonic type and adult type.
 ·
 Embryonic
Stem Cells
·
Embryonic Germ Cells
·
Umbilical Cord Stem Cells
·
Placental Stem Cells
·
Adult Stem Cells
Where do embryonic
type stem cells come from?
·
Embryos—Embryonic stem cells are
obtained by harvesting living embryos which are generally 5-7 days old. The
removal of embryonic stem cells invariably results in the destruction of the
embryo.
·
Fetuses—another kind of stem cell
called an embryonic germ cell can be obtained from either miscarriages or
aborted fetuses.
Where do adult type stem cells come from?
·
Umbilical Cords, Placentas and
Amniotic Fluid—Adult type stem cells can be derived from various
pregnancy-related tissues.
·
Adult Tissues—In adults, stem
cells are present within various tissues and organ systems. These include the
bone marrow, liver, epidermis, retina, skeletal muscle, intestine, brain, dental
pulp, and elsewhere. Even fat obtained from liposuction has been shown to
contain significant numbers of adult type stem cells.
·
Cadavers—Neural stem cells have
been removed from specific areas in post-mortem human brains as late as 20 hours
following death.
How do embryonic and adult stem cells
compare?
-
Embryonic Stem Cell Advantages
1.
Flexible—appear to have the potential to make any cell
2.
Immortal—one ES cell line can potentially provide an endless supply of
cells with defined characteristics
3.
Availability—embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics
-
Embryonic Stem Cell Disadvantages
1.
Difficult to differentiate uniformly and homogeneously into a target
tissue
2.
Immunogenic—ES cells from a random embryo donor are likely to be rejected
after transplantation
3.
Tumorigenic—Capable of forming tumors or promoting tumor formation
4.
Destruction of developing human life
-
Adult Stem Cell
Advantages
1.
Special adult-type stem cells from bone marrow and from umbilical cords
have been isolated recently which appear to be as flexible as the embryonic type
2.
Already somewhat specialized—inducement may be simpler
3.
Not immunogenic—recipients who receive the products of their own stem
cells will not experience immune rejection
4.
Relative ease of procurement—some adult stem cells are easy to harvest
(skin, muscle, marrow, fat), while others may be more difficult to obtain (brain
stem cells). Umbilical and placental stem cells are likely to be readily
available
5.
Non-tumorigenic—tend not to form tumors
6.
No harm done to the donor
-
Adult Stem Cell
Disadvantages
1.
Limited quantity—can sometimes be difficult to obtain large numbers
2.
Finite—may not live as long as ES cells in culture
3.
Less flexible (with the exception of #1 above)—may be more difficult to
reprogram to form other tissue types
Why are adult stem cells preferable to
embryonic stem cells?
Adult stem cells are a
“natural” solution. They naturally exist in our bodies, and they provide a
natural repair mechanism for many tissues of our bodies. They belong in the
microenvironment of an adult body, while embryonic stem cells belong in the
microenvironmental of the early embryo, not in an adult body, where they tend to
cause tumors and immune system reactions. Most importantly, adult stem cells
have already been successfully used in human therapies for many years. As
of the date of this publication, NO therapies in humans have ever been
successfully carried out using embryonic stem cells. New therapies using
adult type stem cells, on the other hand, are being developed all the time.
There are many examples of success stories using adult stem cells.
Treatments from adult stem cells
Laura Dominguez is shown
here in Washington D.C. at a 2004 hearing on adult stem cell research. As a
result of a car accident in 2001, Laura broke her neck and was paralyzed from
the chest down. She was treated with a mix of adult stem cells and other cells
obtained from olfactory tissue inside her nose. The cells were transplanted
across the injury site in her damaged spinal cord, and several months after the
surgery, she was able to move her foot. She can now walk with braces. Her
remarkable progress is continuing, and several other spinal cord injury patients
like her are also showing benefits from transplant surgery. Dr. Carlos Lima
performed the surgery in Portugal, but neurologists in the U.S. are seeking FDA
approval to being offering Dr. Lima’s therapy in the United States.
Patrizia Durante was diagnosed with acute leukemia six months into her
pregnancy. Her daughter, Victoria Angel, was born healthy, but Durante was
given only six months to live. The stem cells from the blood of her daughter’s
umbilical cord were used for a transplant. Several years later, Durante is in
full remission. “She saved her mommy,” Durante told reporters. “She’s a little
miracle. That’s why we named her Victoria Angel. She’s my little angel.”
Gina Rugari was born with Krabbe’s
leukodystrophy. This is a rare, degenerative enzyme disorder of the nervous
system, in which the baby shows initial signs of irritability and developmental
delay or regression. Seizures and fevers often follow, then blindness and
deafness until the baby dies, usually before age 2. Gina was tested for
Krabbe’s leukodystrophy shortly after she was born, because she had a brother
who had died from the disease. Doctors treated Gina with chemotherapy to
destroy her immune system, and introduced new umbilical cord blood stem cells
from a closely matched donor. The transplanted cells produced the missing
enzyme. Her body accepted the cells, and she is thriving several years after
the transplant.
Dennis Turner was diagnosed
with Parkinson’ Disease and by early 1991 he suffered extreme shaking of the
right side of his body and became unable to use his right arm. Neurosurgeon Dr.
Michele Levesque removed a small tissue sample from Mr. Turner’s brain, and
isolated adult neural stem cells. He multiplied and matured these cells into
nerve cells, and injected them back into the left side of Mr. Turner’s brain,
which controls the right side of the body. Soon afterwards the Parkinson’
symptoms began to improve in his right side. His trembling decreased, until to
all appearances it disappeared. Neurological evaluation indicated a marked
improvement in his symptoms, which lasted for about 5 years. Because
Parkinson’s is a progressive ailment, his condition is continuing to
deteriorate, but as Mr. Turner recently testified at a U.S. Senate Committee
hearing, “…I have no doubt that because of this treatment I’ve enjoyed five
years of quality life that I feared had passed me by.” He enthusiastically
expressed a willingness to undergo a repeat surgery of this sort to further slow
the progression of his symptoms.
Is stem cell research ethical?
Most types of stem cell
research are morally acceptable and laudable. Only research using embryonic
stem cells raises innumerable moral objections. An ethical overview:
·
Embryonic Stem Cells—always
morally objectionable, because the human embryo must be destroyed in order to
harvest its stem cells
·
Embryonic Germ Cells—morally
objectionable when utilizing fetal tissue derived from elective abortions, but
morally acceptable when utilizing material from spontaneous abortions
(miscarriages) if the parents give informed consent
·
Umbilical Cord Stem Cells—morally
acceptable, since the umbilical cord is no longer required once the delivery has
been completed
·
Placentally-Derived Stem Cells—morally
acceptable, since the afterbirth is no longer required after the delivery has
been complete
·
Adult Stem Cells—morally
acceptable, assuming informed consent from the adult donor
CLONING
What are the two types of cloning?
The first most well known
type of cloning is cloning to produce children, or “reproductive cloning.” The
second type of cloning is cloning for biomedical research, or “therapeutic
cloning.”
repr. cloning
ï
ðtherapeutic
cloning
What is reproductive cloning (cloning to
produce children)?
Humans may one day be able
to be cloned using a procedure similar to the one used to generate Dolly the
sheep. This kind of cloning involves taking the nucleus of a body (somatic)
cell and introducing it into an egg cell (ovum) which has had its nucleus
removed. The resultant cloned embryo is then implanted into a uterus to bring
it to birth. The cloned embryo is an identical twin of the person who donated
the starting somatic cell. Cloning is simply another approach to mimicking the
biology that generates identical twins.
What is therapeutic cloning (cloning for
research)?
Therapeutic cloning
involves making a cloned embryo by the same series of steps as reproductive
cloning, but instead of implanting it into a uterus to be born, the embryo is
destroyed to harvest its stem cells. Hence, therapeutic cloning is identical to
reproductive cloning except for the final step. Therapeutic cloning is
sometimes referred to as the “clone and kill” technique. The aim is to obtain
rejection-proof stem cells for transplantation into the person from whom the
clone was made. Because stem cells from the clone are actually from the
identical twin of the person cloned, they should theoretically be a good match
and not be rejected.
Why is human reproductive cloning wrong?
Cloning participates in the
basic evil of moving human procreation out of the setting of committed marital
intimacy and into the laboratory. Human procreation should not take place in
the laboratory because it is inherently dehumanizing to bring a new human being
into the world through means which replace the marital act. Each of us has a
right to be brought into the world as the fruit and expression of marital love,
rather than as the product of technical domination and manufacturing protocols.
Procreation is not meant to be replaced by production. There is a dignity both
to the process of procreation as established by God through sexual self-giving,
and the dignity of the life itself which is engendered by that process. Cloning
threatens human dignity on both those levels.
Cloning also represents a
sort of genetic engineering. Instead of choosing just a few of the features
you’d like your offspring to have, like greater height or greater intelligence,
cloning could allow you to choose all of the features, so it represents an
extremely serious form of domination and manipulation by parents over their own
children. It represents a type of parental power that parents are not intended
to have. Ultimately, cloning is a type of human breeding, a despotic attempt by
some individuals to dominate and pre-determine the make-up of others. With
cloning you also distort the relationships between individuals and generations.
If a woman were to clone herself, using her own egg, her own somatic cell, and
her own womb, she wouldn’t need to have a man involved at all.
Oddly, she would end up
giving birth to her own identical twin—a twin sister who would also be her
daughter.
Why is human therapeutic cloning wrong?
If human reproductive
cloning—bringing to birth of a new child who is an identical twin to somebody
else—is wrong, then therapeutic cloning is worse. Therapeutic cloning is the
creation of that same identical twin for the premeditated purpose of ending her
life in order to harvest her tissues. In sum, there is a grave evil involved in
therapeutic cloning because life is created for the explicit purpose of
destroying it. With a cloned birth, at least we would end up with a baby that
is alive. Human therapeutic cloning, the artificial creation of a human life
for the sole purpose of her exploitation and destruction will always be gravely
unethical, even if the desired end is a very good one, namely the curing of
diseases. Therapeutic cloning sanctions the direct and explicit exploitation of
one human being by another, in this case, the exploitation of the weak by the
powerful.
The danger of therapeutic
cloning lies in the intentional creation of a subclass of human beings, made up
of those still in their embryonic or fetal stages, who can be freely exploited
and discriminated against by those fortunate enough to have already passed
beyond those early embryonic stages.
Therapeutic cloning raises
further serious slippery-slope concerns. The temptation to make embryos that
can exploited for their stem cells offers the further temptation to grow those
cloned embryos within a uterus to the point of a fetus. Such a fetus can then
be aborted and conveniently harvested for needed organs, avoiding the trouble of
having to start from scratch with undifferentiated stem cells.
HUMAN EMBRYOS
Where do human embryos come from?
Ø
From the combining of sperm and
egg (fertilization)
Ø
From the embryo splitting
(fission)
Ø
From somatic cell nuclear transfer
(cloning)
Are embryos human? Are they really one of
us?
Embryos are no different
in their essential humanity from a fetus in the womb, a 10 year-old boy, or a
100 year-old woman. At every stage of development, human beings (whether
zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, adolescent, or adult) retain their
identity as an enduring being that grows towards it subsequent state(s); embryos
are integral beings structured for maturation along their proper time line.
Despite their unfamiliar appearance, embryos are what very young humans are
supposed to look like.
Isn’t it a matter of religious belief as to
when human beings begin?
It is not a matter of
religious belief, but a matter of biology. A human embryo is a human being, a
being that is clearly and unmistakably human. It is not a zebra-type of being,
a plant-type of being or some other kind of being. Each of us was once an
embryo, and this affirmation does not depend on religion, belief systems, or
imposing anything on anyone. It depends only on a grasp of basic biology. It
is a matter of empirical observation. Once you are constituted a human being
(which always occurs at fertilization or at an event that mimics fertilization
like cloning), you are a new member of the human race who must be protected
unconditionally. The human embryo is a being that is human, and such beings are
inviolable entities, because that’s what we all directly spring from at the root
level.
Why is the destruction of human embryos
wrong?
The well-known moral
principle that good ends do not justify immoral means applies directly here.
Once you’re a being who is human, you are the bearer of human
rights and you should never be violated for any reason. We know that the human
embryo is a human being because it possesses an internal code for
self-actualization and is an organism with an independent and inherent teleology
(goal-directedness) to develop into an adult, and is physiologically alive and
genetically human. Our existence as human beings is a continuum that extends
all the way back to our origins in that humble ball of cells we call an embryo.
Each of us has our origins in such an embryo, and therefore human embryos should
never be depersonalized or instrumentalized for research purposes by
strip-mining them for their cells or tissues.
| Back to Top|
Pro-Life
Groups: We Support Ethical Stem Cell Research
by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com
Editor, May 12, 2004
 Washington,
DC (LifeNews.com) -- As the national debate over stem cell
research plays out, pro-life advocates are concerned that the
media is portraying them as opponents of all stem cell research
by virtue of their opposition to embryonic stem cell research
that involves the destruction of human beings in their earliest
stages of life.
"We have no reason to
oppose the majority of stem cell research. Some scientists are
actively involved in these ethical and very effective
approaches," says Brian Johnston of the National Right to
Life Committee.
"The media is desperately
trying to define the debate on stem-cells," Johnston tells
LifeNews.com. Painting pro-life groups as opposed to all stem
cell research "is a very common assertion, especially among
electronic media, who tend to regurgitate simplistic
analyses."
Johnston points to news reports
on Nancy Reagan's lobbying of President Bush to reverse his
policy prohibiting virtually all federal funding of embryonic
stem cell research.
An editorial this week in the
New York Times calls Bush's policy "damaging to
medicine."
"What has driven even
anguished conservatives to back stem cell research is the plight
of patients who suffer from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes,
cancer, heart disease, spinal cord injuries and other health
problems that stem cell research may someday alleviate," the
Times writes. "Although many right-to-lifers consider it
immoral to destroy a microscopic embryo in a petri dish to
extract stem cells, those arguments begin to look abstract when
posed against the terrible suffering of real-life patients."
The Times editorial makes it
appear that only embryonic stem cell research offers hope for
people suffering from such diseases, pro-life advocates say.
While the media's focus has
been on embryonic stem cells, the use of adult stem cells has
proven more effective in research and clinical trials.
In fact, the use of embryonic
stem cells has failed to cure a single patient.
"Cord blood stem ells,
muscle stem cells, bone marrow, pancreatic, corneal, neural --
there is widespread success in such transplants," Johnson
explained. "This is particularly true amongst auto-donation
regiments, where cells from one's own body have had a marked
impact in transforming damaged tissue."
Recent studies have confirmed
the amazing success of the use of adult stem cells in restoring
dead heart muscle and even the spinal cord damage of
quadriplegia.
"We applaud" adult
stem cell research, Johnston said.
"We would hope that the
media limelight might focus for a moment on these successes, not
only for the sake of those who may be cured y them, but because
the ethical use of medicine is something that should be
recognized and honored."
Some advocates of embryonic
stem cell research say there are no ethical concerns because the
human embryos destroys for stem cells are often those leftover
from in-vitro fertilization and will be destroyed anyway.
However, Gene Rudd, M.D., of
the Christian Medical Association, noted that programs such as
the National Embryo Donation Center, offer an ethical and
lifesaving alternative to destroying so-called unwanted human
embryos.
"Instead of shelving or
destroying human embryos, why not allow adoptive couples to
receive their embryo(s) and to provide a loving home for any
child that may result," Rudd said. "These embryos have
inestimable value and can have a great future. They deserve the
chance to be born and grow up in a loving, caring family."
Related web sites:
National Right to Life - www.nrlc.org
National Embryo Donation Center - www.embryodonation.org
What Every Catholic Should Know
About Stem Cell Research
What Are Stem Cells and Why Are They Important?
Human
stem cells are the "master" cells of the human body, giving rise to
all the body’s more specialized cells and tissues. Stem cells are found from
the beginning of embryonic development throughout adult life. Human stem cells
are important, first, because they are responsible for bodily development in the
unborn and for maintaining health and life in born human beings and, second,
because of their potential therapeutic uses. Human stem cells could be made into
therapies--cell and tissue transplants--that could cure the donor or other
people with degenerative diseases such as arthritis, diabetes, cancer, Parkinson’s
and Alzheimer’s, diseases that result from abnormal cell division or cell
death.
Is the Church Opposed to All Stem Cell Research?
NO! The Church supports research using what are
generally called "adult" stem cells derived from newborns or adults
because obtaining these cells does not harm or destroy the human donor. Adult
stem cells have been successfully obtained from sources such as umbilical cord
blood (following birth) and skin, bone marrow and even fat cells from adults.
Adult stem cells and other ethically acceptable alternatives have already helped
hundreds of thousands of patients, including those with juvenile diabetes,
spinal cord injury, immune deficiency, and visual impairment, and new clinical
uses expand almost weekly.
The Church is opposed to the use of stem cells obtained from
human embryos because the process of deriving the stem cells destroys the
embryo. To date, embryonic stem cells have neither helped a single human patient
nor demonstrated any therapeutic benefit.
What IS a Human Embryo and Where Do Scientists Get
These Embryos for Research?
According to the embryology textbook used at the University of
Nebraska Medical Center (and most embryology textbooks), "Human development
is a continuous process that begins when an [egg] from a female is fertilized by
a sperm…from a male" The resulting cell, a zygote or embryo, according to
the textbook "is the beginning of a new human being" and "marked
the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (Moore and Persaud
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. 6th
edition, 1998 pg 2 and 18). Thus, as a member of our human family, the human
embryo, like the human fetus, infant, adolescent and adult is a human being
whose right to life is inviolable and not to be denied even if the destruction
of that human embryo could bring benefit to other human beings.
The human embryos killed for their stem cells are about 5-days
old and have grown to about 200 cells. Most of the embryos obtained for stem
cell research in the United States come from in vitro fertilization
(IVF)
clinics. In these clinics, human embryos are produced in petri dishes, then
implanted in the wombs of women who are experiencing difficulty getting
pregnant. Typically, more embryos are produced than are initially transferred
into the woman’s uterus. These "excess" human embryos are frozen and
stored for future pregnancy attempts. Or, if no more children are desired, the
couple may have the embryos destroyed or donate them to science where they will
be destroyed as part of research.
The Catholic Church teaches that in vitro fertilization and
other reproductive technologies that replace the marital act are contrary
to God’s design for procreation and are therefore immoral. For more
information on this teaching and on natural procreative technologies that
respect God’s design, contact the Pope Paul VI Institute, 6901 Mercy Road,
Omaha, NE 68106-2604; 402-390-6600, www.popepaulvi.com.
If These "Excess" Embryos Will Be Destroyed
Anyway, Why Not Use Them for Research?
Human embryos are human beings and therefore possess the same
sacred dignity as any other human being. We, therefore, must not do to embryos
what we would not do to more developed human beings (e.g. infants, adolescents,
adults). There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who are currently
terminally ill and will die soon. The likelihood that these human beings will
die soon anyway would not legitimize killing them for medical research, even if
it could help cure other people. Similarly, the likelihood that embryonic human
beings may die soon does not make it acceptable to kill them for the benefit of
others.
What Does President Bush’s Stem Cell Decision Mean?
On August 9, 2001 President Bush announced that he will allow
limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. No funding will be
allowed for research that involves the future destruct-ion of human embryos.
That’s good. The President deserves credit for prohibiting, at least for now,
the use of taxpayer dollars for re-search that directly destroys human embryos.
But the President will allow funding of research on more than 60 existing stem
cell lines [a cell line is basically a culture of cells that continues to grow
on its own] that were created from human embryos destroyed specifically for the
purpose of creating these stem cell lines. That’s bad. The President’s
rationale is that since these embryos have already been destroyed and the cell
lines do not require any further killing, it is morally defensible to fund
research on these cell lines.
But there are serious moral concerns about funding these
existing stem cell lines even though their use does not require further
destruction of human embryos.
- First, it is quite likely that even limited government
funding of this research might encourage more killing of embryos for more
such research by privately funded companies by:
(a) removing some
of its ethical stigma and
(b) providing the
"seed money" for the early, non-profitable stages of the research.
- Second, scientists will undoubtedly continue to destroy
additional embryos (and create new cell lines) with private funds and if
these 60 existing lines prove inadequate these scientists will recommend
that these new cell lines be used for federally funded research. Under the
President’s current rationale, it will be difficult for him to reject
these new cell lines since the embryos used to create the cell line
"have already been destroyed." Finally, it is possible that the
research on these existing stem cell lines could result in therapies or
cures that rely upon the destruction of more embryos.
- Thus, taxpayer funding of existing stem cell lines is
scandalous (and immoral) because it will likely lead to the killing of more
human embryos. Further, there are even moral concerns about spending
taxpayer dollars on existing stem cell lines that were created by destroying
human embryos solely for the purpose of research. This will spread an
already pervasive view that it is permissible to destroy some human beings
for the benefit of other human beings.
This is a simplified explanation of a complicated scientific
and ethical issue. For more in-depth information check out these websites:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/index.htm
or www.stemcellresearch.org
or contact Greg Schleppenbach, Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities,
215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 410, Lincoln, NE 69508, 402-477-7517, gregschlepp@alltel.net
Back to Top
|
Nebraska Catholic
Conference