cb.blog

The Vatican recently issued a statement on bioethical issues, entitled Dignitas Personae (The Dignity of the Person), which serves as the authoritative ruling for the Catholic Church in condemning, among other things, embryo-destructive stem-cell research and human cloning.

The foundational tenet for the ruling is, as astute readers may surmise, the inherent dignity of the human being. The statement makes this point explicit in its opening sentence (pg. 1 of 23):

The dignity of a person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death.

The statement attempts to differentiate between human dignity, which has inherent moral value, and scientific research, which does not have inherent moral value apart from the moral implications of the applications of that research. The statement goes so far as to reiterate the church’s support for and participation in such research (pg. 2 of 23):

The church therefore views scientific research with hope and desires that many Christians will dedicate themselves to the progress of biomedicine and will bear witness to their faith in this field.

Having made clear this differentiation, the statement lays out the foundation of its ruling: 1) all human life has inherent dignity and moral worth, 2) life begins at conception, therefore 3) human life at the embryonic stage of development deserves all the dignity and respect due human life at all other stages of development (pg. 3 of 23):

The body of a human being, from its very first stages of development, can never be reduced merely to a group of cells. The embryonic human body develops progressively according to a well-defined program with its proper finality, as is apparent in the birth of every baby.

It is appropriate to recall the fundamental ethical criterion expressed in the Instruction Donum Vitae in order to evaluate all moral questions which relate to procedures involving the human embryo: ‘Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say, from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.’

From this foundational position, the statement makes the logical conclusion that embryo-destructive pursuits (including embryonic stem cell research) are immoral.

So, given this position, I would expect a headline such as “Vatican document condemns cloning, stem cell research“, just as a matter of course. But how do the ostensibly upstanding journalists at the Honolulu Advertiser portray the ruling? Why, “Vatican condemns modern science research“, of course.

Contrast that gem of journalistic integrity with the (Minneapolis/St. Paul) Star-Tribune’s take: “‘Dignity of a person’ reinforced in Vatican bioethics document.”

Well now, that sounds just a little bit more accurate.

On the campaign trail over the weekend, Barack Obama tried to assuage the socially conservative democrats of Western Pennsylvania regarding his pro-abortion stance. He starts with the typical, liberal, stance when confronted by an admonition to stop abortions:

“This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue,” he said. “I have two precious daughters — they are miracles.”

But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, he said.

“This is an example where good people can disagree,” the Illinois senator said. “The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option.”

This response is, of course, the typical liberal approach of ignoring the biological reality that an abortion impacts not just the woman carrying the unborn child, but also the separate, unique life that is that unborn child. Note also the canard about adoption (the viability of which is a non-issue, but ostensibly sounds good when making such deflection).

Unfortunately for Obama, he continued on with his comments in an attempt to persuade the audience regarding sex education – and in so doing revealed his true beliefs.

Somehow, I don’t think his comments will have their intended affect (emphasis added):

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

There you have it: babies are a “punishment” resulting from a mistake – the moral equivalent of contracting an STD.

Of course, what else would one expect, from such a radical proponent of abortion such as Barack Hussein Obama?

(H/T: RedState)

There are lies, damn lies and anything uttered by Donn Rubin.

–Mark Twain, paraphrased

Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures (sic) chairman Donn Rubin has already proven himself to be a spin master, but his latest screed is downright slanderous.

In this op/ed piece (h/t Secondhand Smoke), Rubin lauds recent advancements in stem cell research, in which differentiated (adult) stem cells have been induced to revert to a pluripotent (i.e. “embryonic”) state. He then goes on to claim that Missourians who oppose embryonic stem cell and cloning research (actually, he refers to such opponents as “stem cell research opponents” – as usual, intentionally obfuscating the difference between research with adult and embryonic stem cells) would have stood in the way of the research that led to these advances.

I think now is as good of a time as any for a good, old-fashioned, paragraph-by-paragraph fisking of Dehr Spinmeister.

Anti-stem cell groups would deter successes.

I defy Rubin to identify even one “anti-stem cell group.” To my knowledge, no such group exists. If it does, it is by no means mainstream, and is certainly no credible threat to ESC proponents in Missouri.

Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures lauds the stem cell advances occurring around the world as tremendous steps in medical science’s ongoing battle to cure disease, and we eagerly await further discoveries as scientists continue the ethical exploration of this new medical frontier.

An excellent example is last month’s widely covered advances in Wisconsin and Japan where scientists were able to reprogram an ordinary skin cell to assume much of the versatility of embryonic stem cells. And, even more recently, this month scientists in London used embryonic stem cells to develop a stem cell “patch” to repair scar tissue from heart attacks and American scientists used embryonic stem cells as a novel way to test the safety of drugs.

As the Secondhand Smoke post points out, the development of the “stem cell ‘patch’ to repair scar tissue from heart attacks” was in a Petri dish only.

All of these advances demonstrate how important Missouri’s constitutional protections are, ensuring that our patients and families have the same access as other Americans to whichever approaches prove most successful and lead to the best medical treatments and cures.

Amendment 2 provided no meaningful protection for either the research that led to these advances nor for any potential treatment derived from them. Neither the research nor derived treatments were or have been threatened. The debated has always concerned Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT, a.k.a. cloning) in order to create viable human embryos for the express purpose of being destroyed in order to harvest pluripotent, embryonic stem cells. The research Rubin cited did not involve anything in that debate.

Moving on – all that was just Rubin’s wind-up; now we get to his screwball:

If stem cell research opponents had their way, none of this outstanding science would have been possible. Ironically, they would have blocked the very groundwork that led to the technique they now seem to embrace — the reprogramming of ordinary skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells.

Again, there are no such “stem cell research opponents” but rather opponents of human cloning and embryo-destructive research. In fact, many of us in that camp have very adamantly expressed that we must center our debate not on the ethical nature or efficacy of research involving embryonic stem cells themselves, but rather on the ethical nature and necessity of human cloning and the destruction of viable human embryos for the purpose of that research.

Further, “reprogramming of ordinary skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells” in no way involves either human cloning or the destruction of viable human embryos; rather, it involves induction of a normal, differentiated skin cell into a pluripotent state.

But Rubin doesn’t stop there:

For years, anti-stem cell groups in Missouri have discounted the unique lifesaving potential of embryonic stem cells, dismissing evidence presented by the vast majority of leading medical and patient organizations. We’re glad to see that they are beginning to accept this lifesaving potential.

(Still waiting for Rubin to identify one of these “anti-stem cell groups in Missouri”…) To the contrary, we have not “discounted the unique lifesaving potential of embryonic stem cells” – with the exception of the uniqueness of that potential. Again, we do not oppose research involving pluripotent (even embryonic) stem cells; rather, we oppose the cloning and/or destruction of human life in order to obtain those stem cells.

As for the “unique lifesaving potential” of ESCs, if that potential had been demonstrated sufficiently, the research would have support from the normal means of funding: the private sector; however, the private sector has indicated – by virtue of the direction of its funding – that it believes in the potential of adult stem cell research. Ironically, it is Rubin and his ilk that continue to ignore and discount the future potential and already proven efficacy of adult stem cells.

They may have joined the bandwagon in celebrating a single technique, but they fail to acknowledge that the advance with reprogrammed cells was merely an initial step that can only achieve its medical potential through additional embryonic stem cell research. The scientists who led these advances, James Thomson of Wisconsin and Shinya Yamanaka of Japan, have stated clearly and unequivocally that all stem cell research must continue. It would be a tragedy if their successes were misused to cut off other important avenues of medical research.

Rubin makes absolutely no sense here. Why would research that neither started nor ended with embryonic stem cells require “additional embryonic stem cell research”? And Rubin outright lies about Yamanaka’s beliefs on the subject of continued embryonic stem cell research. This International Herald-Tribune article (h/t ProLifeBlogs) quotes Yamanaka (emphasis added):

Yamanaka was an assistant professor of pharmacology doing research involving embryonic stem cells when he made the social call to the clinic about eight years ago. At the friend’s invitation, he looked down the microscope at one of the human embryos stored at the clinic.

The glimpse changed his scientific career.

“When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters,” said Yamanaka, 45, a father of two and now a professor at the Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences at Kyoto University. “I thought, we can’t keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way.“

And again (emphasis added):

He said he had never handled actual embryonic cells himself, and the American lab uses them only to verify that the reprogrammed adult cells are behaving as true stem cells. “There is no way now to get around some use of embryos,” he said.”But my goal is to avoid using them.“

Far from having stated “stated clearly and unequivocally that all stem cell research must continue,” Yamanaka clearly and unequivocally wants to eliminate the need for the use of embryos for stem cell research – in fact, by his very words, it is his goal. Rubin’s misuse of Yamanaka’s research advances and intent in order to bemoan the alleged misuse of those advances moves beyond irony into audacity. It is simply beyond the pale for Rubin – who repeatedly dismisses embryos as “cells in a Petri dish” – to mis-characterize the intent of Yamanaka – who has stated that he sees little difference between a research embryo and his own daughters.

Not only has Rubin no respect for the sanctity of all human life, but he also has no shame.

In the following statement, Rubin hoists his over-used canard, in this case, a tripartite reiteration:

If those seeking to repeal Missouri’s constitutional stem cell protections get their way now, they would block the important research required to bring the new technique to its full lifesaving potential.

Those whose aim it is to ban all embryonic stem cell research in Missouri cannot have it both ways. They cannot continue to oppose the very research that is required to achieve the lifesaving goals that they now claim to embrace.

Those who threaten to repeal Missourians’ access to stem cell research should step back and allow scientists to conduct the work necessary to achieve the goals that I hope we all share — to cure disease and improve the lives of patients and families.

There you have it: Rubin’s imagined opponents desire to “repeal Missouri’s constitutional stem cell protections,” to “ban all embryonic stem cell research in Missouri,” and to “repeal Missourians’ access to stem cell research.”

We’ve covered this one, but one more time, for the sake of thoroughness: we do not wish to repeal Missouri’s constitutional stem cell protections (per se – I have no problems with protecting stem cell research, though I don’t believe such an issue has any place in a state constitution; it is a constructionist matter, not a moral one). We do, however, wish to repeal Missouri’s constitutional protection of human cloning. Further, the repeal of that protection would in no way whatsoever impact research such as Dr. Yamanaka’s, since his research neither began with nor resulted in an embryonic cell of any kind – much less, one procured through the destruction of a cloned human embryo.

Neither do we wish to ban all embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. We do wish to ban all human cloning, and oppose the destruction of human embryos for such research. Further, we oppose public funding of such research – and therein lies the key issue, and the Stowers (and other ESC researchers) cannot get sufficient private-sector funding, and want the government to foot the bill.

Likewise, we in no way wish to repeal Missourians’ access to stem cell research. We fully support research involving adult stem cells, and any other research not involving the destruction of human embryos. We also support their right to seek private funding for whatever legal research they wish to pursue.

Rubin shows his usual lack of honesty and forthrightness; however, in this piece Rubin displays outright slander of his “opponents” and an intentional misrepresentation of Dr. Yamanaka’s intentions.

Donn Rubin is a liar. I only wish I could see what Mark Twain would actually have said about him.

About a week ago, I wrote about this Post-Dispatch article, written by Matt Franck. I discussed the perceived bias in the article with respect to Amendment 2 and the efforts of supporters of the HJR11 anti-cloning measure the article discussed.

As I try to do whenever I discuss someone’s writing, I emailed the author to let him know of my blog post, and to allow (and to solicit) a response. To my pleasant surprise, Mr. Franck responded to my email. In the interest of fairness, based upon his response, I would like to re-visit the question of bias in his reporting of the Amendment 2 issue.

Mr. Franck responds:

My ability to respond to your email in detail is limited by time. But let me reply in brief. The stated aim of lawmakers who support HJR11 and its Senate counterparts is to essentially negate Amendment 2. Yes, I understand that the proposal doesn’t mention the amendment. But the fact remains, it would make SCNT illegal — something specifically protected under Amendment 2, and a procedure at the heart of the push to pass the ballot measure.

Here, I agree with Mr. Franck that part of the underlying intent of HJR11 was to overturn parts of Amendment 2; however, the further intent of HJR11 was to expose the intentional deception and hypocrisy of Amendment 2 and that of its supporters and their $30 million propaganda campaign.

The Coalition for Lifesaving Cures states “Fact #3” on their “Fact Sheet” that “Amendment 2 clearly and strictly bans any attempt to clone a human being.”:

Amendment 2 bans human cloning and makes any attempt to clone a human being a felony crime. Opponents of stem cell research claim that making stem cells in a lab dish is the same thing as “human cloning.” Medical experts and most other people disagree with that view and understand that “human cloning” means creating a duplicate human being – not making stem cells in a lab dish.

The truth of the matter – as exposed by Amendment 2 supporters’ objections to HJR11 – is that, currently, (embryonic) stem cells cannot be made “in a lab dish”; they must be harvested from an embryo. To date, stem cells must be harvested from embryos resulting from natural or in vitro conception. The comment about “making stem cells in a lab dish” is in reference to embryos produced via Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) – or, in other words: cloning.

The issue centers around the correct identification of the entity produced by SCNT. Biologically and genetically, that entity is an embryo, genetically identical to the donor of the somatic cell from whom the clone was produced. In fact, for the purposes of harvesting stem cells from the entity resulting from SCNT, that entity must prove to be a viable embryo that undergoes self-directed development from the initial single-celled zygote into a 5-7 day-old embryo at the blastocyst stage.

The Coalition continues to divert this issue by intentionally mis-identifying this entity as a “clump of cells”, a “ball of cells”, or other similar terms. Doing so provides a means to avoid the reality that SCNT produces a cloned embryo. Thus, they are able to ignore the biological and genetic reality, and claim some arbitrary “birth of a cloned human” as the “cloning” that is “strictly” banned.

The media coverage – for whatever reason – has tended to favor the Coalition’s position with respect to terminology. It is the reason that many of us make a concerted effort to find and correct this misinformation wherever it is propagated in the news media. Thus, in response to Mr. Franck’s article, I wrote in my email to him:

Second, you state:

“Opponents of Amendment 2 had wanted lawmakers to send a ballot measure
to voters in November 2008. The proposed amendment would have asked the
public to ban all forms of human cloning, including when the research is
used solely to produce embryonic stem cells. Voters specifically
protected that form of research by passing Amendment 2 last year.”

This statement is inaccurate. The result of of human cloning is NEVER
“solely…embryonic stem cells”. This research – somatic cell nuclear
transfer – ALWAYS results in the production of a living embryo of the
same species as that of the gamete and somatic cell from which the
embryo was produced. Should SCNT of a human egg and somatic cell nucleus
ever succeed, the result will be a human embryo. Any stem cells
resulting from this process will and must come from the destruction of
that embryo. They cannot be produced apart from the embryo using SCNT.

On that point, Mr. Franck responds in his email:

On your second point — yes, I know and agree that SCNT produces an embryo [which] is then harvested for stem cells. I think you misread my use of the word solely. I did not mean to imply that all that is produced are stem cells.

I appreciate Mr. Franck clarifying this point in his response. He goes on to address the question of his personal bias in regard to the Amendment 2 issue:

There are limits to the territory that I can cover in a 350-word story. In lengthier stories — of which I have written several — I deal with these issues more thoroughly. Even so, I stand by my story.

…For three years, I have strived to cover this issue with detachment and fairness. And I believe that if you ask around, I have a good track record in this regard.

While I certainly infer a bias in the end result of the article in question, I want to be fair in asserting the source of that bias. To that end, I did my best to research Mr. Franck’s past articles. He was kind enough to send me the copy of a rather lengthy piece he wrote, and of which I found a copy at the Center for Genetics and Society website. I also found recent Post-Dispatch articles here and here, as well as a copy of an article reposted here.

After reading this broader sample of Mr. Franck’s writing on the Amendment 2 issue, I believe that he is correct in his assertion that he has made every effort to deal with the issue with detachment and fairness. While I disagree with repeated use of incorrect and/or potentially misleading terminology (such as referring to an embryo as a “ball of cells” or “clump of cells” or “cluster of cells”), an overall reading of his articles lends me to believe that he has attempted to present each side of the issue fairly.

I believe any overt bias inferred from these articles – and in particular, the article I originally critiqued – results from the limited scope of a shorter article and, more importantly, the editorial bias of the Post-Dispatch.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Franck for taking the time to respond to my email. Not many reporters would take the time to do so – especially to respond to someone being critical of that reporter’s work.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch today reported that MO House Bill HJR11 was killed in committee yesterday. Unfortunately, the P-D could not see past its own bias in order to report accurately on the measure. Ironically, in order to spin the truth, the article exposes the hypocrisy and deception of Amendment 2.

To begin with, take the opening paragraphs of the article:

A House committee killed legislation Monday designed to largely invalidate a new constitutional amendment protecting stem cell research.

The 3-4 vote by the House Rules Committee all but ends efforts this legislative session to overturn Amendment 2, which 51 percent of voters approved in November.

Based on this reporting, one would infer that the measure refers either to Amendment 2 in particular or stem cell research in general. To the contrary, the wording of HJR11 references neither stem cells nor Amendment 2. In fact, the words “stem cell” – or any derivation thereof – do not appear anywhere within the text of the measure:

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2008, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article III of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article III, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 38(e), to read as follows:

Section 38(e). 1. The general assembly may enact laws concerning health care research, including controlling taxation, appropriations, and use of public resources for health care research, and regulating research that could pose a risk to human life or health.

2. It is unlawful to engage in human cloning. For the purposes of this section and section 38(d) of this article, “human cloning” means the creation of a human zygote, human blastocyst, or human embryo by any means other than the fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.

3. The provisions of this section supersede any provision of section 38(d) of this article that is inconsistent with this section.

As you can see, the measure makes no mention of either Amendment 2 or stem cells. How on earth, then, could the author make such a claim? Examine the next paragraph for the answer:

Opponents of Amendment 2 had wanted lawmakers to send a ballot measure to voters in November 2008. The proposed amendment would have asked the public to ban all forms of human cloning, including when the research is used solely to produce embryonic stem cells. Voters specifically protected that form of research by passing Amendment 2 last year.

The deception seems to get ever more subtle. To wit [emphasis added]:

The proposed amendment would have asked the public to ban all forms of human cloning, including when the research is used solely to produce embryonic stem cells.

Did you catch it? The problem with this statement is that “the research” – that is, human cloning – is never used “solely to produce embryonic stem cells”, since the result of human cloning is – always and by definition – a human embryo, not just embryonic stem cells.

The problem with this rationalization is the same problem that the proponents of Amendment 2 had during their 30 million dollar campaign of deception: the claim that Amendment 2 would “strictly ban human cloning“. In fact, as both an educated reading of the wording of the amendment as well as the double-speak found in this P-D article reveal, Amendment 2 not only did no such thing, it actually made human cloning constitutionally protected in the state of Missouri.

This duplicity is further revealed by the actions of the house committee that killed the measure [emphasis added]:

“I’d say that a third (of House members) will be happy they don’t have to vote on this,” said Shannon Cooper, R-Clinton.

Cooper, who serves as chairman of the House Rules Committee, said he voted against the measure simply because he supports Amendment 2.

If Amendment 2 “strictly bans human cloning” – as its supporters claims it to do – why would an Amendment 2 supporter vote against a measure that would allow Missouri voters explicitly to ban all forms of human cloning? Any proponent of Amendment 2 could only oppose such a measure if in fact human cloning were a part of Amendment 2. That supporters of Amendment 2 oppose this measure demonstrates that their claim that Amendment 2 “strictly bans human cloning” was an outright lie.

Cooper – and those like him – should be ashamed of himself, and is a disgrace to the Missouri Republican party. Duplicity, hypocrisy, lying, and subverting the democratic process have no place in the Republican Party. For one, if his beloved Amendment 2 “strictly bans human cloning” then what does he have to oppose in HJR11? For another, even if he legitimately opposes HJR11, how dare he deny the voters of Missouri the opportunity to exercise our democratic right?

The truth, which should now be plainly evident to all, is that Amendment 2 constitutionally protected human cloning for the purpose of human-embryo-destructive research, and that the proponents of Amendment 2 knew this truth and intentionally mislead Missouri voters into believing that passing Amendment 2 would “strictly ban human cloning”.

First, they tried to re-define “embryonic” as “early”. Next, they tried to re-define “cloning” as “implantation”. Now, they’re trying to re-define “cure”.

Adult stem cells have thus far produced at least 72 human treatments. It appears that one of the latest tactics of the pro-Amendment 2 Coalition is to refute that fact (emphasis added):

Winship says there have been no proven cures found with embryonic stem cell research and said adult stem cells are a proven – and ethical – alternative.

“The reality is, it’s still zero” cures “for embryonic stem cells,” she said.

Farrow said embryonic stem cell opponents would do anything to derail the initiative, including overstating the potency of adult stem cells.

“You’ll hear our opponents say that there are between 65 to 100 adult stem cell cures. That’s simply not true,” Farrow said.

“The truth is there are only nine adult stem cell cures, and we believe that research needs to go forward,” she said. “But adult stem cells have been researched for over 50 years. The first earlier embryonic stem cell research didn’t start until 1998. We haven’t even had a full decade of research with embryonic stem cells.”

What on earth could possibly explain such disparity? Apparently, the Coalition, in an attempt to level the playing field in their favor, have begun applying a “FDA-approved” qualification (emphasis added):

Dr. William Neaves is with the Stowers Institute Medical Research. “This is a contest between society and disease, not between adult stem cells and early stem cells,” says Neaves.

Researchers say embryonic stem cells hold infinitely more potential than adult stem cells for curing disease. They say the claim about dozens of treatments already developed from adult stem cells is not true. “At best, only nine of those diseases have, after 50 years of research with adult stems cells, FDA-approved therapies that are available to patients,” says Neaves.

The Coalition is obviously hedging on the belief that the general public have no real understanding of what FDA approval is, what it means, or how it happens. I will try to give a brief overview.

FDA is divided into various “centers”. I work for a pharmaceutical company that manufactures, packages, and sells drugs. We are under the direction of FDA’s CDER: the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Medical devices – pacemakers or defibrilators, for example – are under the direction of CDRH: the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Stem cell treatments are under yet another center – CBER: the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

In order for a drug, device, vaccine, or other treatment (hereafter, treatment) to get FDA approval, a rigorous and intensive process is required. The sponsor (company requesting approval) must complete a submission application including all the data supporting the approval request. For a new treatment, the submission would include data from three phases (Phase I, Phase II, Phase III) of clinical studies. These clinicals are the heart of the company’s justification for requesting approval. Phase I clinicals are very small (less than 100 participants) studies, generally using healthy humans, to determine physiological interaction of a treatment with humans. Phase II clinicals follow successful of Phase I, and are controlled, small-scale (a few hundred participants) studies using people who have the condition for which the treatment is indicated, used to determine preliminary data with respect to the effectiveness of the treatment, and any side effects associated with the treatment. Phase III clinicals follow successful completion of Phase II, and are controlled (or uncontrolled), large-scale (a few hundred to thousands of participants) studies used to determine the effectiveness of the treatment for the general population, and to ascertain the overall risk-benefit relationship of the treatment.

Based on these data, in addition to other aspects of the submission (stability data for a drug, for example), FDA will approve or reject the application. Once FDA has approved an application, the sponsor can legally market and sell the treatment in the US.

As with many other treatments, due to the nature of the conditions for which stem cell treatments are intended, such treatments are not always well-suited for typical clinical trials. FDA is aware of and working to reconcile the difficulty of translating stem-cell treatments into clinical trials.

Note, however, that other mechanisms exist, prior to or in lieu of FDA final approval, for treatments to be used (legally and effectively). Two such mechanisms are the Treatment Investigational New Drug (Treatment IND) approval, in which “FDA will permit an investigational drug to be used under a treatment IND if there is preliminary evidence of drug efficacy and the drug is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease, or if there is no comparable alternative drug or therapy available to treat that stage of the disease in the intended patient population”, and the parallel track policy, in which “patients with AIDS whose condition prevents them from participating in controlled clinical trials can receive investigational drugs shown in preliminary studies to be promising.”

Some treatments – such as prenatal drugs – may never proceed through all clinical phases and final approval, but may be given to patients as investigational treatments for non-approved indications as long as the patient gives informed consent (which is also required for participation in clinical studies). Such is the case for Treatment INDs discussed above.

The bottom line is this: all treatments administered in the US must have FDA approval, whether in the form of a final New Drug Approval (NDA), or as an Investiational New Drug approval (IND). So, of the more than 72 treatments currently in use, every single one in use in the US has FDA approval of one form or another.

That said, much stem cell research and advancement takes place outside the borders of the US and outside the control of FDA. Any treatments derived from such research would not be subject to FDA approval; therefore, any implication regarding such approval is

This argument is not unique to the Missouri Amendment battle. In this 07/06 letter to Science, Do No Harm refutes the argument for the straw man that it is, and also points out that some 1170 clinical trials involving stem cells currently exist, including some 565 trials currently active and seeking participants – while not one single clinical trial is underway for embryonic stem cell treatments. Moreover, the letter points out that there are currently no peer-reviewed references to embryonic stem cell-derived human treatments. The above-referenced list of 72 human treatments derived from adult stem cells, which Do No Harm maintains, includes only those treatments for which peer-reviewed scientific publication of their effectiveness exists.

Yet again, the Coalition can only offer mistruths and deception.

Last night, I attended the Christians Against Human Cloning Rally, held at Life Christian Church and sponsored by Vision America/Missourians for Truth. Speakers included Shao-Chun Chang (professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis), Charles Drury (Hotel Developer), Archbishop Raymond Burke, Rich Bott (executive vice president, Bott Radio Network), Rick Scarborough (President, Vision America), Phyllis Schlafly (Founder and President, Eagle Forum), and Alan Keyes.

Some notable quotes:

“It is wrong to create human life for the purpose of destroying that life.”

— Archbishop Raymond Burke

“The most fundamental premise of our nation is not that we have rights, but that our rights come from God.”

— Dr. Alan Keyes

(Pictures will be available soon.)

UPDATE: See the Flickr photoset for the rally.

Christians Against Human Cloning Rally, Life Christian Church, Saint Louis, 28 August 2006
Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

The Post-Dispatch covered the rally. Below are some excerpts from the article.

(St. Loius Archbiship Raymond) Burke, head of the St. Louis Roman Catholic archdiocese, joined other regional and national religious conservatives – from Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly to commentator Alan Keyes – who addressed hundreds who packed the sanctuary at the Life Christian Church, 13001 Gravois Road in south St. Louis County.

“Hundreds“? My estimation was more like 2,000. I was in the balcony, and couldn’t see the entire floor seating area. The Cape Girardeau rally had 300, and gauging by the photo, we had as many in the balcony seating, alone.

(I just called the church to inquire about estimated attendance. Though I didn’t get an actual number, I was informed that the rally was believed to be essentially a “full house”, and the church sanctuary/auditorium holds between 3,000 and 4,000 people. I know the balcony wasn’t entirely full, but the floor seating was.)

Back to the article:

In a telephone interview, (chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures Donn) Rubin contended that it was the opponents who were spreading untruths. Otherwise, he said, the Cures Coalition wouldn’t have support from more than 100 groups, including research centers, health care groups and patient groups.

We’ll see the most fundamental of your untruths, a couple paragraphs below. And it’s about time I parsed your “factsheet” as well, since every single point listed is a mistruth at best, or a bald-faced lie at worst.

Critics, said Rubin, are “inventing wild claims to distract the public from what we’re really voting on – the right of Missourians to obtain the same medical treatments available in other states.”

The “medical treatments” canard is nothing but a “wild [claim] to distract the public from what we’re really voting on.” Missouri’s access to medical treatments available in other states has never been in question, and likely will never be in question. In the far-off (and, in all reality, unlikely) event that a human treatment derived from embryonic stem cells ever becomes available, the location of the research into that treatment will not determine the location of the application of such a treatment. The availability of such a treatment will depend only upon the availability of access to the stem cell line from which such treatment was developed.

At the rally, opponents emphasized that much of the debate centers on a procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning.

Under that procedure, the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg is replaced with the nucleus of another human cell. Opponents say it is a form of human cloning and cite the use of the procedure to clone Dolly the sheep. The Lifesaving Cures Coalition says the procedure is not cloning and cites the proposed amendment’s specific ban against implanting such an egg in a womb.

And here it is: the number one, most fundamental, outright, bald-faced lie of the Coalition. By definition Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is cloning; cloning is SCNT. The two terms are interchangeable.

In genetics, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a technique for cloning.

…

This technique is currently the basis for cloning animals, such as the famous Dolly the sheep, and could theoretically be used to clone humans. Scientists at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute are currently researching a technique to use somatic cell nuclear transfer to produce embryonic stem cells.

For human cells, no other method exists as a viable means of cloning.

Even your own supporters recognize and admit this truth. From your own website:

Let us freely admit that the procedure used to produce human stem cells for research is cloning, but not in any way part of a process for creating human babies. The distinction should be clear.

The distinction is clear, but it is also irrelevant. Your Coalition is promoting Amendment 2, specifically stating that the amendment “bans human cloning” – yet, you never reveal that the amendment uses a conjured definition of “cloning” not recognized anywhere else, nor do you point out that the amendment actually prohibits the banning of human cloning – that is, cloning according to the proper usage of the term.

So, which side is it, again, using distractions and spreading untruths?

Back to the article:

Scarborough said the number of Missouri rallies would depend on how much money can be raised to pay for them. So far, each rally has cost close to $20,000. That includes Keyes’ speaking fee of $2,500.

The Lifesaving Cures’ leaders point to the payments as evidence that Keyes and Scarborough may have financial motives. Scarborough said he was offended by such talk, and added that Keyes’ payment was a fraction of his usual speaking fee.

Let’s compare rallies, shall we?

How much do you want to wager that the Coalition Rally held at the Capitol Plaza Hotel in Jefferson City, with its Hollywood glitz, busloads of “hundreds” (er, make that, about 150) attendees from across the state, red-carpet treatment of speakers, and applause cues cost more than the Christians Against Human Cloning rallies? To wit (emphasis added):

From their state-of-the-art audio/visual equipment to the busloads of backers brought to town from across the state, it was clear supporters of an effort to amend Missouri’s constitution to protect embryonic stem cell research spared no expense at a Monday morning campaign kickoff rally.

With an audience of nearly 150 proponents at the Capitol Plaza Hotel prompted to applaud on cue and a podium of speakers from the political to the poignant, the rally in favor of the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative had the look and feel of a television talk show.

Are you going to imply, with a straight face, that all of the Coalition’s speakers are speaking without compensation? Further, what of the over ten million dollars in Coalition support from the Stowers Institute? Would you actually lead to believe that this investment is made without an expectation of a return? Follow the money, indeed!

See also: LifeNews coverage.

Just how safe is it for women to donate eggs for SCNT research?

Apparently, the Primacy of Awesome (who can’t seem to follow blog-linking protocol well enough to trackback to my original post), considers me to have made a humorous attempt at reasoning.

To set the stage, from this post at Mary Meets Dolly, I had quoted this article (link appears not to be working at the moment), as follows:

In fact, to attribute rights to embryos is to call for the violation of actual rights. Since the purpose of rights is to enable individuals to secure their well-being, a crucial right, inherent in the right to liberty and property, is the right to do scientific research in pursuit of new medical treatments. To deprive scientists of the freedom to use clusters of cells to do such research is to violate their rights–as well as the rights of all who would contribute to, invest in, or benefit from this research.

I then made the following comparison:

The last person to try such reasoning did so in order to implement said scientific research on another group of humans deemed unworthy of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The end result: the death of millions of Jews in the Holocaust.

Somehow, the apparently reading-comprehension impaired Primacy of Awesome then came to the following conclusion:

That’s right! Pro-stem cell research equals genocide. And for some reason Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave because… Objectivists are now pro-holocaust? You really gotta see this one to believe it.

First, let me point out that Primacy of Awesome fails to distinguish between embryonic and adult stem cell research; therefore, the first statement of his conclusion is specious. On the matter of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, that conclusion isn’t nearly as hyperbolic as the author would lead you to believe. Considering that the authors of the original article failed in their attempt to redefine the definition of a “human being”, the fact that ESC research will require the destruction of countless human embryos may lead some to consider the line of research analogous to genocide.

Second, Primacy of Awesome apparently missed the point of the comparison completely. The original authors tried to use a rationalization that to oppose ESC research in order to defend the sanctity of all human life no matter what age or stage of development equates to denial of the right of other humans to perform scientific research on human embryos for the securement of well-being of other humans. Let me quote again my response to this reasoning:

The last person to try such reasoning did so in order to implement said scientific research on another group of humans deemed unworthy of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The end result: the death of millions of Jews in the Holocaust.

In that comparison, I did not in any way address the purpose of using such a reasoning, but rather the reasoning itself. Primacy of Awesome missed this point entirely. The similarity lies in the use of the same form of reasoning in order to obtain a desired end.

The Nazis rationalized that Jews were inferior as humans, and thus reasoned that their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were subservient to the Nazis’ right to perform scientific experiments on them. The authors rationalized that human embryos are not human beings, and thus reasoned that their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were in violation to the rights of scientists to use them for research for the securement of the well-being of other humans.

The comparison is especially germane, since in both cases, the preliminary rationalization is clearly and demonstrably false. The Jewish victims of the Holocaust were every bit intrinsically valuable has human beings as were the Germans who carried out the Holocaust; likewise, human embryos are every bit intrinsically valuable as human beings as are those who wish to use them for scientific research.

To be quite clear (since, apparently, Primacy of Awesome requires the carification): to compare the use of faulty reasoning in two circumstances makes no inherent value judgement concerning the relative evil of one end versus the other.

I reserve that judgement for abortion.

Update: Primacy of Awesome added a trackback to the original post. Thanks, Mike!

Mary Meets Dolly parses a despicable attempt at rationalization of the inhumanity of human embryos by David Holcberg and Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute.

The authors use several tactics. Here is the first:

But embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are manifestly not human beings–not in any rational sense of the term. These embryos are smaller than a grain of sand, and consist of at most a few hundred undifferentiated cells. They have no body or body parts. They do not see, hear, feel, or think. While they have the potential to become human beings–if implanted in a woman’s uterus and brought to term–they are nowhere near actual human beings.

Unfortunately for them, human embryos are, by unbiased definition, human beings. Genetically, they are fully human. They are not “potential” humans. The self-direct their growth and development, meaning the human embryo manifestly exhibits initiative toward that end. Just because some activist SCOTUS judges arbitrarily conferred “personhood” on human beings only upon the point of birth does not change the scientific evidence, knowledge, and general belief that life exists intrinsically at the moment of conception.

The second tactic is as follows:

The “pro-lifers” accept on faith the belief that rights are a divine creation: a gift from an unknowable supernatural being bestowed on embryos at conception (which many extend to embryos “conceived” in a beaker). The most prominent example of this view is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, which declares to its followers that an embryo “is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized.”

But rights are not some supernatural construct, mystically granted by the will of “God.” They are this-worldly principles of proper political interaction rooted in man’s rational nature. Rights recognize the fact that men can only live successfully and happily among one another if they are free from the initiation of force against them. Rights exist to protect and further human life. Rights enable individual men to think, act, produce and trade, live and love in freedom. The principle of rights is utterly inapplicable to tiny, pre-human clusters of cells that are incapable of such actions.

I guess, by this logic, every one of our Founding Fathers was a “pro-lifer”. May I remind of the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

The endowment of rights is not a function of nor dependent upon the capacity of the person to take advantage of those rights; rather, the intrinsic worth of the person is recognized by the unconditional endowment of those rights. The authors’ same logic applies to justification for euthanasia of the elderly, the incapacitated, the mentally retarded, or anyone else not deemed inherently “worthy” of such rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the height of arrogance that these authors would deign to set themselves up as arbiters of the inherent worth of any person, no matter at what stage in that person’s development.

The logical progression of this line of rationalization leads to the following harrowing statement:

In fact, to attribute rights to embryos is to call for the violation of actual rights. Since the purpose of rights is to enable individuals to secure their well-being, a crucial right, inherent in the right to liberty and property, is the right to do scientific research in pursuit of new medical treatments. To deprive scientists of the freedom to use clusters of cells to do such research is to violate their rights–as well as the rights of all who would contribute to, invest in, or benefit from this research.

The last person to try such reasoning did so in order to implement said scientific research on another group of humans deemed unworthy of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The end result: the death of millions of Jews in the Holocaust.

Having fully lost all grasp of reality, the authors resort to what is now the commonplace argument for ESC research:

And to the extent that rights are violated in this way, we can expect deadly results. The political pressure against embryonic stem cell research is already discouraging many scientists and businessmen from investing their time and resources in its pursuit. If this research can lead, as scientists believe, to the ability to create new tissues and organs to replace damaged ones, any obstacles placed in its path will unnecessarily delay the discovery of new cures and treatments for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and osteoporosis. Every day that this potentially life-saving research is delayed is another day that will go by before new treatments become available to ease the suffering and save the lives of countless individuals. And if the “pro-lifers” ever achieve the ban they seek on embryonic stem cell research, millions upon millions of human beings, living or yet to be born, might be deprived of healthier, happier, and longer lives.

Yet these hypocrites ignore new treatments for such conditions being developed and used every day, when such treatments are derived from adult stem cell research. They gloss over the glaring failure thus far of ESC research to yield even a single viable treatment. They facilitate the propogation of false hope for those suffering from diseases that likely no stem-cell (adult or embryonic) derived treatments will ever help, such as Alzheimer’s.

The authors leave us with this conclusion:

The enemies of embryonic stem cell research know this, but are unmoved. They are brazenly willing to force countless human beings to suffer and die for lack of treatments, so that clusters of cells remain untouched.

To call such a stance “pro-life” is beyond absurd. Their allegiance is not to human life or to human rights, but to their anti-life dogma.

If these enemies of human life wish to deprive themselves of the benefits of stem cell research, they should be free to do so and die faithful to the last. But any attempt to impose their religious dogma on the rest of the population is both evil and unconstitutional. In the name of the actual sanctity of human life and the inviolability of rights, embryonic stem cell research must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. Our lives may depend on it.

To claim that an embryo is not a human being is beyond absurd. The proponents of embryonic stem cell research know this, but are unmoved. They are brazenly willing to force their dogmatic, culture-of-death views on the rest of the American people, who continue to demonstrate their disdain for human cloning for any reason, and their disapproval of the destruction of human embryos for research purposes. So, let’s recap:

Pro-Life

• Recognizes intrinsic value of life at every age and stage of deveopment
• Supports the entirely ethically uncontroversial, already proven, and immensely promising adult stem cell research
• Opposes embryonic stem cell research because the process destroys human embryos, recognized as intrinsically valuable human life

Culture of Death

• Denies the inherent worth of life based on developmental stage, mental capacity, age, ability to contribute to society, or any other socially or politically expedient reason
• Ignores the many advances in adult stem cell research, and the tens of thousands of people whose lives have been improved or even saved by such research
• Rationalizes an untenable position by attempting to redefine terms and change boundaries, and intentionally give false hope by knowingly making unrealistic claims

Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave.

So much mis-information, so little time…

Two teams of Boston scientists announced Tuesday that they will attempt to creating the world’s first cloned human embryonic stem cells.

Technically speaking, stem cells, by definition, clone themselves. Stem cells are self-replicating.

Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Boston Children’s Hospital researchers said they will try to develop a powerful new tool to explore the biology of and create disease-specific stem cell lines that could lead to the treatment of a wide range of now-incurable conditions afflicting tens of millions of people worldwide.

Note to reporter: stem-cell research – especially embryonic stem cell research – is not required to explore the biology of a “wide range of now-incurable conditions.” (Though, given the poor grammatical structure of the lead-in sentence, I’m unsure whether she meant “biology of…a wide range of now-incurable conditions” or “biology of…stem cell lines.”)

Researchers plan to initially focus on diabetes and then expand to include neurodegenerative diseases, such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, better known as Lou Gehrig?s Disease, and blood disorders.

Note, again, to reporter: adult stem cell treatments are already proving effective in these areas.

The method, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves removing the nucleus, which contains DNA, from an affected cell and replacing it with the nucleus from a donor cell, researchers explained. The cell is then forced to divide into multiple cells that are genetically identical to the healthy donor cell. The method has already proven successful in animal research. Patients with diabetes, blood disease and neurodegeneration will donate the cells. Embryos that were created through in vitro fertilization that have been deemed incapable of producing a pregnancy will be the source of the embryonic cells.

This has to be the most inaccurate explanation of SCNT I’ve yet seen. Just to clarify:

In somatic cell nuclear transfer the nucleus of a somatic cell (a cell other than a sperm or egg cell) is removed and the rest of the cell is discarded. In parallel, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed. The nucleus of of the somatic cell is then inserted into the denucleated egg cell. The egg, now containing the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated in such a way that it begins to divide.

So, to correct:

• Enucleated somatic cells are not necessarily “affected” cells; they are simply non-gametic cells from the person to be cloned.
• The enucleated somatic cell is not placed into an enucleated somatic cell; it is placed into an enucleated egg.
• The result is not simply another cell; it is a zygote genetically identical to the donor of the somatic cell.
• The resultant zygote is not merely genetically identical to the donor somatic cell; it is genetically identical to the donor of that somatic cell.
• The resultant zygote is not forced to divide into multiple cells; it is electrically induced to begin self-directed mitosis, from which the single-cell zygote proceeds into the various stages of embryonic development, and beyond.
• IVF embryos have absolutely nothing to do with SCNT. Using IVF embryos is an alternate, and currently, only successful, means of harvesting embryonic stem cells.

Moving on:

Human embryonic stem cell research has long been at the center of controversy because in extracting healthy cells, days-old human embryos are destroyed. Embryonic cells are used because they are capable of developing into any cell or tissue type in the body. Opponents of the work claim that no potential medical benefit can justify the destruction of what they view as a human life.

“What they view” as human life? Embryologists universally agree that first, the blastocyst from which stem cells are harvested (and which is destroyed in the process) is an embryo, and second, that embryos, being self-directing in their growth and development, are living. Thus, human embryos are human life.

Harvard President Lawrence Summers is hopeful the research will lead to millions of people being able to live healthier lives.

“While we understand and respect the sincerely held beliefs of those who oppose this research, we are equally sincere in our belief that the life-and-death medical needs of countless suffering children and adults justifies moving forward with this research,” Summers said in a release about the work.

Then again:

“Given that embryos are human beings, they have a right to self and a right to life. Exploiting their parts (ie, cells) or killing them for research is moral trespass that society should not allow. Even if the research might, and let’s be clear, might benefit others, this trespass is not justified.”

–James Sherley, Ph.D. associate professor of biological engineering at MIT

The Missouri Roundtable blog reports that German scientists have acquired pluripotent stem cells from an adult mouse testis, the discovery of the presence of multi-lineage stem cells in amniotic fluid, and the development of a technique to acquire in large numbers blastomere-like stem cells (BLSCs), which have been demonstrated to be able to differentiate into most tissue types of the body, from peripheral blood.

If ESC researchers don’t hurry up, their work will be rendered useless.

From Medical News Today comes this interesting report that could perhaps avert some of the ethical controversy surrounding the use of IVF embryos:

A research team from Columbia has, for the first time, identified criteria through which embryo death can be confirmed. The implications for stem cell research are huge – by confirmation of embryo death, embryos could be harvested, just as organs are for transplantation, in order to generate stem cells for research and, ultimately, therapeutic purposes.

The details:

They found that many nonviable embryos (n = 142 out of 444) were hypocellular and lacked compaction on embryonic day 5 (ED5). All of the hypocellular embryos failed to progress to compacted morula or normal blastocyst when observed further. The research team conclude that arrested development at the multicellular stage on ED5 indicates an irreversible loss of integrated organic function, and hence, the condition of death.

The practical implication:

Approximately a fifth of all embryos generated for in vitro fertilization – conventionally classified as ‘nonviable’ – are in fact dead on ED5 by Landry’s criteria… The researchers propose that the ethical framework currently used for obtaining essential organs from deceased persons for transplantation could be applied to the harvesting of live cells from dead human embryos for the creation of stem cells.

If these embryonic death criteria can be further investigated and confirmed, and if such nonviable embryos can, in fact, yield usable tissue for research, then these researchers may have just found a way to harvest embryonic stem cells without the ethical/moral stigma of having destroyed viable human life in order to do so.

I would guess that these observations are in their infancy with respect to practical use and widespread acceptance, but for the time being, I’ll take a “cautiously optimistic” stance.

Anne Leonard of the Stem Cell Research Blog compares stem cell poll questions, and their divergent results.

The first poll question, from the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), which polled 72% strongly/somewhat in favor:

Embryonic stem cells are special cells which can develop into every type of cell in the human body. The stem cells are extracted from embryonic cells produced in fertility clinics and then frozen days after fertilization. If a couple decides the fertilized eggs are no longer needed, they can choose to donate the embryos for research or the clinic will throw the embryos away. Scientists have had success in initial research with embryonic stem cells and believe that they can be developed into cures for diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, heart disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. Having heard this description, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose medical research that uses stem cells from human embryos?

The second poll question, from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which polled 48% opposed:

Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person’s tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of 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?

She then, after comparing the two poll questions, comes to the following conclusion:

I find the CAMR question better designed (despite its use of “success”) and more objective than the Bishops’ question, which has a lot of ambiguity in it. Maybe I am reading with my own biases and knowledge—but I think providing information about an issue yields a better question than vague and unspecific language.

Huh? The Bishops’ question is more “vague” and has more “ambiguity” than the CAMR question? Let’s compare, shally we?

Ambiguous:

The stem cells are extracted from embryonic cells produced in fertility clinics and then frozen days after fertilization.

Stem cells are not extracted from “embryonic cells”, they are extracted from embryos (destroying them in the process).

Not Ambiguous:

The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells.

Ambiguous:

Scientists have had success in initial research with embryonic stem cells and believe that they can be developed into cures for diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, heart disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research has yielded no success whatsoever in treating any human injury, illness, or condition.

Not Ambiguous:

Congress is considering the question of federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos.

So, exactly, which poll question is more vague and ambiguous?

More interestingly, and which the post doesn’t even address, is this follow-up question in the Bishops’ poll, which polled 81% against:

Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?

This question is actually better in comparison to the CAMR question, since the two are more comparable. The entire IVF embryo question is really a red herring, since ESR research proponents prefer “fresh” embryos, and consider frozen embryos to be inferior. Thus, ESR research will come primarily from SCNT-cloned embryos, against which this poll question shows strong opposition.

Apparently, Lene Johansen doesn’t think that those who support banning human cloning should keep challenging the Stem Cell Initiative.

No, we will never give up. It has something to do with the Initiative, through an intentionally deceptive attempt to re-define “cloning”, claiming that the Initiative bans human cloning, while in reality it constitutionally prohibits the legislature from banning human cloning.

So, no; we won’t give up, until every Missourian knows the truth. Missourians have the right to make informed decisions about this issue.

Among other things in this article on the one-year anniversary of Massachussetts’ pro-embryonic stem cell (ESC) research legislation, I found this little gem [emphasis added]:

After years of honing his skills in Massachusetts, the 34-year-old stem cell researcher received an offer from a privately endowed research center in Kansas City.

There was only one hitch. In Missouri, Cowan said, he feared his type of research could land him behind bars. In contrast, he felt Massachusetts had put out a welcome mat.

Talk about sensationalism! “Land him in jail”? Really? Considering that none of the research being conducted in Massachussetts is illegal in Missouri, that fear is rather spurious.

Oh, and a side note: I would harbor a guess that the “privately endowed research center in Kansas City” mentioned in the article is none other than the Stowers Institute, founded by the same Jim and Virginia Stowers who are bank-rolling the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative.

The article has more of the usual mis-information. After generally getting the facts straight for most of the article, we come to the following critical failure:

At the heart of the stem cell debate is a procedure known both as somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning.

The basic science involves taking an egg from a woman, removing the 23 chromosomes that would normally match up with 23 chromosomes from a sperm, and replacing them with a full 46 chromosome nucleus from any cell of an adult, essentially creating a single cell clone.

The egg is then induced to begin reproducing until there is a ball of a few hundred stem cells that have the ability to transform themselves into any type of cell in the body. The goal is to use those cells to create cures or treatments for disease.

Good information, up to “single cell clone” – but then the article gets it wrong. That “single cell clone” is no longer an egg, but a zygoe: a single-cell embryo. The embryo proceeds through mitosis (cell division) and into the various stages of embryonic development. At the stage in question – the blastocyst stage – the embryo is comprised of inner and outer cell masses. The outer cell mass will later become the placenta, and the inner mass (which contains the stem cells) progresses into the fetal stages of human development.

In order to use those stem cells, the embryo must be destroyed. A “ball of cells” is not removed from the developing embryo; a developing human being is killed.

The article’s conclusion falls under the category of “unintentional irony” [emphasis added]:

Despite his enthusiasm, Zon tries to temper public expectations about the research.

He said the short term goal — over the next five years or so — is to gain a greater understanding of human development and use tissue created through human embryonic stem cell research to experiment with potential treatments for diseases.

The longer term goal — over the next 10 years — is to create new cells to actually replace defective parts.

“We are just at the beginning,” he said.

The only thing realistic here is the last sentence. Every indication is that any real progress with ESC research is, at a minimum, decades away. How giving the impression that meaningful results are 5-10 years away constitutes “tempering public opinion”, I can’t fathom.

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is attempting to use Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research as a wedge issue in his re-election campaign. In so doing, it isn’t surprising that he falls squarely in line with ESC proponents, by pandering to false-hope sensationalism and attempting to claim a moral/emotional high ground.

I’ve covered this ground before, and will continue to do so:

The Democrat senator told a panel of experts and advocates at Hackensack University Medical Center that the Republican majority leadership in the U.S. Senate has blocked a vote on his bill to allow funding for work on stem cell lines from new embryos.

The panel, which included Rep. Steve Rothman, D-Fair Lawn, was the first of three campaign stops in North Jersey for Menendez, who replaced Jon Corzine in the Senate and is running for a full term. Other panelists included advocates for research in Parkinson’s disease, juvenile diabetes and blood cancers.

I wonder if any of these “advocates” support the Adult Stem Cell (ASC) research that is actually producing meaningful, useful, and promising results in these areas?

But it is the following pander by Menendez that irks me incredibly:

Menendez said the stem cell debate is personal for him because his 85-year-old mother suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, one of many illnesses that future research might cure, he said.

“It’s difficult to sit across from your mom and have her not know who you are,” he said.

Note to Menendez: you don’t own the moral high ground on this issue. And I don’t want to hear it.

I am sick of Alzheimer’s being used as the battle-standard of ESC proponents, and I am equally sick of ESC proponents claiming moral and compassionate superiority over their opponents because of Alzheimer’s. The ESC proponents are not the only ones ever to lose a loved one because of Alzheimer’s. I never truly knew my grandfather, because by the time I was old enough to have a relationship with him, he was already too mentally deteriorated from the amazing, sharp-witted, character-discerning, loving man my family knew him to be, due to the Alzheimer’s that eventually claimed his life when I was a freshman in high school.

Further, it is very likely that I am genetically pre-disposed to Alzheimer’s – so I have even more of a vested interest in medical advances and research that will hopefully one day understand and cure this horrendous disease. But I will be damned (and I mean that quite literally) if I put the value of my own life before anyone else’s – and that includes cloned or frozen embryos.

I would rather die than destroy another human life – especially when that life would be destroyed for the purpose of research that has produced no meaningful results whatsoever, while other research, having no ethical concerns whatsoever, continues to progress and bring real results and real hope and promise.

Consistent with the Clone the Truth campaign, I am committed to ensuring that the truth about adult and embryonic stem cell and related research is made known.

The spin:

St. Thomas Aquinas, the premier teacher in the Roman Catholic tradition, did not think the early fetus was a person – “ensouled,” in his language. St. Thomas believed the early life in the womb received a spiritual soul – and became a baby – only after three to four months. Thus, embryonic cells in a lab dish or frozen away are certainly not “ensouled.”

The reality

It is true that Aquinas did believe that the soul was not infused at the beginning of a pregnancy. This is because Aquinas followed Aristotle’s embryology (circa 300 B.C.) and believed that an embryo was not formed enough to receive a soul until well into its development. However, 21st century embryology provides clear evidence that everything the soul needs is present from the first moment of every human being’s existence – as numerous Catholic scholars have explained. Aquinas would undoubtedly accept this evidence and agree with the Church’s current teaching.

Further, St. Thomas also believed the intentional ending of a pregnancy at any stage was a sin – regardless of when the soul was present. Thus, he remains firmly within the tradition of the Church in respecting human life at all stages.

More parsing of the original op-ed, later.

Via John Combest.

This interview of Bioethics Senior Scholar Dr. John Kilmer in Christian today is absolutely required reading.

Dr. Kilmer addresses two primary ethical considerations.

First, he addresses the ethical concern of destroying embryoes in order to obtain embryonic stem cells (ESCs) [emphasis added]:

However, one real concern is where we are getting these stem cells from.

We want to highlight the difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells because in terms of adult stem cells they can be obtained without harming the source from which they are being obtained. Whereas embryonic stem cells require destroying embryonic human beings from which they are taken.

But granting for the sake of time that human beings do begin at the embryonic stage – these would be the earliest stage of human being – then one ethical concern is that we do not destroy or harm human beings to obtain these cells. That is one core ethical dilemma.

Second, he addresses the ethical concern of truthful communication regarding stem cell research [emphasis added]:

One other great concern is about how this is being discussed in the media, public policy, and various arenas. The fact is that so often just the term ‘stem cell’ is used, and this promotes the idea that either you are for or against stem cell research. So the discussion may be narrower about some form of stem cell research, but by using the non-specific general term of stem cell, it implies that if you are not for it then you are hard-hearted, uncompassionate, and you don’t care about these people dying.

This is a serious ethical concern – an ethic of truthful communication. Far more has been accomplished with adult stem cell research than embryonic stem cell research. Apart from the ethical issues evolved in destroying embryonic human beings, adult stem cell research has produced results so it is simply not truthful to say that major embryonic breakthroughs are right on the verge and we should channel all our resources to embryonic stem cell research.

After devoting some time to comparing the ethical concerns of cloning, ESC research, and abortion, and then discussing some of the issues with federal and state-level politics, Dr. Kilmer addresses the issue of bioethics education and the church. Before I get to that discussion, though, I want to highlight some of Dr. Kilmer’s comments regarding cloning: comments directly related to the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative, and to the tactics of the so-called Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures [emphasis added]:

So people recognise that for embryonic stem cell research to be really widely useful medically we would have to produce cells that are genetically matched to your body and the only way to do that is to produce an embryo that is a clone of you and destroy that embryo to get the embryonic stem cells that could be used in the treatment in you.

…

I’ll just add that ‘P.S.’ here – this is another example of where the really intentional miscommunication comes into play – because what happens now is proponents of embryonic stem cell research in some locations have begun to argue that ‘What we’ve done here isn’t really cloning. It is only cloning if you are having born babies.’

‘But what we are doing in this research process (sometimes they just use the technical name for cloning which is called SCNT or Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer), we are just doing that and we are not engaged in cloning.’

Sound familiar? It should. But, as Dr. Kilmer points out [emphasis added]:

This is terribly misleading and really dishonest because the cloning process is completed once you have a new beginning embryo. The cloning is the description of the process by which you actually produce another human being, virtually a genetic replica of an existing human being and the rest is just that being growing and developing. The cloning is done at the point you have the early embryo.

So why would ESC proponents use such a tactic? Again, as Dr. Kilmer points out, the intent is to mislead [emphasis added]:

So to say that we are just going to define that ‘It is not a clone until it develops all the way through to birth and is born’ is just outrageous because it confuses people and makes them think that ‘Oh, that is reassuring, that what you are talking about in embryonic stem cell research doesn’t involve cloning then it may be ok.’

Finally, the interview wraps with Dr. Kilmer’s comments on the current state of the church with respect to the issue of bioethics, and the need for more church pastoral and lay leaders to become educated in bioethics:

I think that what is happening in the Church today is people are becoming more and more aware of bioethics issues, but I think they hear more about them through the culture and through the public than through the Church. I also think that the Church has been lagging behind the public in terms of informing people and in terms of helping people develop a Christian understanding and outlook on these issues so when they hear about them they have some ideas of how this connect to Christian faith.

Please, do read the entire article/interview.

Via Missourians Against Human Cloning.

Several news outlets are reporting on the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative (the Initiative); unfortnately, most are getting the facts entirely incorrect. First up is this wildly innacurate statment found in a report from KMBC-TV 9 in Kansas City, MO [emphasis added]:

Talent had come under pressure from McCaskill to take a position on the proposed constitutional amendment. The measure specifically bans human cloning, but would permit all federally allowed stem cell research in the state.

The issue has created a rift among Missouri Republicans. Business and medical leaders strongly support the measure while religious and anti-abortion leaders have campaigned against it, saying the procedure amounts to human cloning.

First, the Initiative does not specifically ban human cloning; it specifically allows human cloning, and specifically prohibits the state legislature from prohibiting human cloning. The initiative intentionally re-defines “cloning” in a manner inconsistent with any biological, scientific, or other reasonable understanding or definition of the term. From the text of the Initiative:

38(d).6.(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

For reference and clarification, below are several actual, accepted definitions of “cloning”.

From Wikipedia:

Cloning is the process of creating an identical copy of an original. A clone in the biological sense, therefore, is a single cell (like bacteria, lymphocytes etc.) or multi-cellular organism that is genetically identical to another living organism. Sometimes this can refer to “natural” clones made either when an organism reproduces asexually or when two genetically identical individuals are produced by accident (as with identical twins), but in common parlance the clone is an identical copy by some conscious design.

From How Stuff Works:

Cloning is the process of making a genetically identical organism through nonsexual means.

From the Roslin Institute:

Depending on the age of the dictionary, the definition of biological cloning can be:

• A group of genetically identical individuals descended from the same parent by asexual reproduction. Many plants show this by producing suckers, tubers or bulbs to colonise the area around the parent.
• A group of genetically identical cells produced by mitotic division from an original cell. This is where the cell creates anew set of chromosomes and splits into two daughter cells. This is how replacement cells are produced in your body when the old ones wear out.
• A group of DNA molecules produced from an original length of DNA sequences produced by a bacterium or a virus using molecular biology techniques. This is what is often called molecular cloning or DNA cloning
• The production of genetically identical animals by ‘embryo splitting’. This can occur naturally at the two cell stage to give identical twins. In cattle, when individual cells from 4- and 8-cell embryos and implanted in different foster mothers, they can develop normally into calves and this technique has been used routinely within cattle breeding schemes for over 10 years.
• The creation of one or more genetically identical animals by transferring the nucleus of a body cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. This is also known as Nuclear Transfer (NT) or cell nuclear replacement (CNR) and is how Dolly was produced.

From the National Acadamies:

Clone – 1) An exact genetic replica of a DNA molecule, cell, tissue, organ, or entire plant or animal. 2) An organism that has the same nuclear genome as another organism.

Cloning – The production of a clone. (For the purpose of this report, generating an individual animal or person that derives its nuclear genes from a diploid cell taken from an embryo, fetus, or born individual of the same species.)

From the National Institute of Health:

In biology, a clone is a cell or an organism that is genetically identical to another cell or organism… The verb “to clone” refers to the process of creating cloned cells or organisms. The process differs, depending on the kinds of cells used in the cloning procedure and the desired result. Usually, when scientists clone an animal, they take the nucleus of a cell — which contains chromosomes made of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and proteins — and place it into an egg cell (also called an oocyte) from which the nucleus has been removed. The egg cell then divides to produce an embryo that develops into an animal, if the procedures work as planned.

Now that we’re clear on the actual definition of “cloning”, we return to the wording of the Initiative, which far from specifically prohibiting human cloning, specifically prohibits the legislature from prohibiting human cloning, or research derived from human cloning [emphasis added]:

38(d).2.(7) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section other than this subdivision (7) to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.

This inconsistency is not an honest oversight; it is an intentional attempt to mislead Missourians into constitutionally mandating that which they believe themselves to be constitutionally prohibiting. The justfication? What amounts to what the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures (the Coalition) describes as a sort of “common-law” understanding of “cloning” as meaning implanting a cloned embryo in the uterus and bringing to full-term the cloned baby.

I also just found this wildly incorrect statement on the Initiative’s ironically titled “Setting The Record Straight” section:

Opponents of stem cell research claim that making stem cells in a lab dish is the same thing as “human cloning.” Scientists and most other people disagree with that view and understand that “human cloning” means creating a duplicate human being – not making stem cells in a lab dish.

Supporters of the Initiative know full-well that stem cells cannot just be “[made] in a lab dish”, and that the only way to derive stem cells is to harvest them from a human embryo – whether that embryo be sexually produced, or cloned.

Complicit in this deception, Claire MacCaskill is demonstrating her political opportunism with respect to the Initiative [emphasis added]:

“I don’t think you can have the luxury of calling an issue personal or political just to muddy the waters when a tough issue comes along,” McCaskill said Tuesday.

“To me this isn’t that complicated,” she said. “I support this research, I have consistently and enthusiastically, and I urge Missourians to do the same.”

“Life does not begin in a petri dish. Life begins in a womb,” McCaskill told KMBC.

This statement is so very wrong on so many levels. I hate to break it to you, Claire, but life can and does begin in a petri dish. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), the process by which embryonic stem cell (ESC) research proponents hope to use to harvest ESCs, is the same process by which Dolly the Sheep was cloned (as every single cloning definition reference listed above indicates).

Here is a good opportunity to point out that, once again, the Coalition’s “Setting The Record Straight” gives intentionally incorrect information, in this case, regarding SCNT:

The two basic sources of ES cells are: (1) leftover fertility clinic embryos that will not be implanted in a woman’s uterus and would otherwise be discarded and destroyed; and (2) the Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) process, which uses stem cells made in a lab dish with a patient’s own cells and an unfertilized, donated human egg.

Again, the only way to derive embryonic stem cells is by harvesting them from an embryo – and the Coaltion knows it.

The result of SCNT is a zygote genetically identical to the somatic-cell donor.That the genesis of this zygote was asexual rather than sexual does not negate that, genetically and biologically, a zygote resulting from cloning a human somatic cell is, in fact, a human zygote. This human zygote – again, whether sexually or asexually produced – will, of its own volition, begin the process of mitosis, and will self-direct its development through the various stages from embryo to adult human. This self-volition of growth and self-direction of development is, essentially, the biologically accepted definition of “life”.

From Wikipedia:

While there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:

1. Organization – Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism – Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth – Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation – Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual’s heredity.
5. Response to stimuli – A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction – The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

From Developmental Biology Online:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.

Back to MacCaskill’s egregiously erroneous statement, now addressing her assertion that life begins in the womb: again, MacCaskill, if biology is too difficult for you to grasp, perhaps you need to stick to politics. Life begins at conception; no credible biologist will refute this fact. (To be perfectly clear: for sexual reproduction, a new life emerges the moment the haploid sperm and egg conceive, resulting in a new, unique, diploid cell – called a zygote. For either a sexually or an asexually produced zygote, life is evidenced at the first cell mitosis.) By the time the embryo reaches the womb, it has long-since established itself as a unique, individual life form.

To be fair, I must once again disagree with Senator Talent, and challenge the assertion that Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT) is not “cloning”:

Earlier this year, Talent withdrew as a co-sponsor of a Senate bill that would ban all embryonic stem cell research and impose a $1 million fine and jail sentence on violators. At the time, Talent said he backed another form of research — called altered nuclear transfer — that would not result in human cloning.

The only difference between SCNT and ANT is that, with ANT, the somatic cell is altered such that certain gene expression, required for the embryo to develop past the blastocyst stage (the stage at which ESCs are harvested, destroying the embryo), is disabled/prohibited. Genetically, the somatic cell is still human. Genetically, the result from the ANT process is still a human embryo. Claiming that ANT does not produce a human simply because the embryo has been genetically altered to prevent its development past the blastocyst stage is analogous to claiming that genetically or hormonally preventing a child from developing through/past the adolescence stage renders that child non-human.

The evidence that ANT results in a human embryo lies in the fact that ANT is intended as a method to harvest human ESCs. Only a human embryo can develop human ESCs. If the result of ANT were not genetically human, it would not develop human ESCs.

Some use the specious argument that the result of ANT is no more living than the somatic cell used to produce it. Recall the definition of life: self-volition of growth, and self-direction of development. A somatic cell neither attempts to grow or develop. It is no longer a living cell once it is removed from its donor. The embryo produced by ANT, however, demonstrates that it is living by both undergoing mitosis of its own volition, and directing its own development.

However, regardless of my disagreement with Mr. Talent with respect to our understanding of ANT, I understand the consistency of his position (incorrect though it may be). For one who thinks that ANT is not cloning, it is entirely consistent to support ANT while at the same time opposing the Initiative. Likewise, withdrawing support from a blanket ban on human cloning due to the belief that such a ban would prohibit ANT – under the assumption that ANT is not cloning – does not constitute a “flip-flop” on support for banning human cloning. Perhaps this position is too subtle for MacCaskill and this negligent KMBC-TV report to grasp.

Via John Combest.

I had a bit of difficulty getting to the meat of this opening article of a multi-part series to appear this week in the Columbia Missourian, as the article spends several paragraphs attempting to evoke an emotional connection to the two protagonists: each disabled, and each on differing sides of the Stem Cell Initiative issue. Note: I appreciate the reporter finding equal time for both sides of the issue; however, comparing and contrasting the stories of two disabled people with respect to this issue in no way contributes to putting forth the facts surrounding the issue. Doing so only serves to appeal to emotion, and could be construed to be using their respective disabilities to “sell” the story, much as the Coalition continues to use plight of the disabled in their attempts to gain support for the Initiative.

Anyway, I’ll pick up the article at the section titled “Is Breakthrough Possible?” Several statements need parsing:

Both Rob and Kara Clardy are hopeful that stem cell research and passage of a constitutional amendment in November will yield results both for people suffering and for the state as a whole.

First, once again, the issue is obfuscated by using the all-encompassing “stem cell research”, when what is implied is “embryonic stem cell research.” The distinction is small, but significant. I will address its significance in a moment. Second, this statement alludes to embryonic stem cell (ESC) research’s dirty little secret: in the end, it’s all about the money. Much more on that point in the days to come.

Embryonic stem cell research has not produced any major results for humans, but scientists are excited about an experiment that John McDonald conducted on rats.

…has not produced any major results for humans? How about, has not produced any results whatsoever.

While at Washington University, McDonald studied 62 rats whose spinal cords had been severed, thereby making them incapable of using their legs. Twenty-eight of the rats were treated with somatic cell nuclear transfer, the process used in embryonic stem cell research.

Whoops; someone needs an editor. Perhaps the rats were treated with stem cells derived from embryoes resulting from Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), but they were in no way “treated” with SCNT, which is a cloning method, not a treatment or therapy for a disease or disability. It is this kind of journalistic sloppiness that prevents the average person from understanding the issue fully. Intentionally or unintentionally (in this case, I suspect the latter), this kind of carelessness will result in an uninformed electorate going to the Missouri ballot in November, and deciding the fate of a constitutional amendment.

“If we have this, we could find cures for Parkinson’s and diabetes, and we have a better chance of finding those cures that might emerge in fifteen to twenty years,” Neaves said. “We should declare once and for all that if a field of research is allowed by federal law, it shouldn’t be prevent [sic] by the Missouri legislature.”

A dream long on hype, and short on reality – in other words: false hope. As indicated in this NewsMax article, any ESC-derived human treatment is more than a decade away – and that statement was made at the time when claims to have successfully isolated SCNT-derived human ESC lines had not yet been proven to be fraudulent. (That one step alone – successfully performing SCNT with human cells, harvesting ESCs from the resultant embryo, and isolating the stem cell lines – could add decades to any ESC-derived therapy/treatment timeline.)

And about using stem cells to find curse for Parkinson’s and diabetes? Adult stem cells have already been producing therapies for Parkinson’s disease. (Note also that this second article – written in 2002, also addresses ASC-derived treatments for MS – the same disability from which the pro-Initiative protagonist in the Missourian article suffers. Oh, and it also mentions advances in ASC-derived diabetes treatments in mice.) Further, this article demonstrates that ASCs have proven superior to ESCs in both Parkinson’s and diabetes, and at the same time debunks the hype of the very rat ESC spinal cord experiment referenced earlier.

Moving on to the “Alternatives” section:

Opposition to stem cell research most often has to do with the creation of embryos in order to destroy them.

Embryonic. Opposition to embryonic stem cell research…

Another alternative involves using embryos from fertility clinics. These embryos, which are usually destroyed anyway, could be used for SCNT, thereby averting the need to create new embryos.

Whoops! Looks like that editor needed earlier is needed again. Embryoes are not used for SCNT, embryoes are the result of SCNT.

Since our reporter still seems to be confused about this whole process, let me lay it out one more time. SCNT is the process of removing the nucleus from (”enucleating“) an egg, and then implanting the nucleus from a somatic cell. (Cells are either somatic or gametic. Gametes are reproductive cells, and are “haploid” – only having half of genetic material of the cell donor. Somatic cells are non-reproductive cells, and are “diploid” – having the full genetic material of the cell donor.) Next, the joined cells are given an electric impetus, and if all goes well, the joined cells begin mitosis (cell division). At this point, the entity is biologically an embryo. At this point, SCNT has been used to clone the donor of the somatic cell, and the result of the SCNT process is an embryo that is a clone of the somatic cell donor.

Next is the harvesting of ESCs. Regardless of how the embryo came about – whether through sexual reproduction (including IVF) or asexual cloning – the harvesting process is the same. The embryo is allowed to develop to the blastocyst stage, at which point the embryo consists of an outer layer that will later become the placenta, and an inner cell mass. At the blastycyst stage, this inner cell mass consists of undifferentiated stem cells. These stem cells are removed, thereby destroying the developing embryo.

Moving on to “Hope for the Future” – I must point out once more:

For now, Rob and Kara Clardy patiently wait and staunchly defend stem cell research.

Embryonic. Patiently wait and staunchly defend embryonic stem cell research. The omission is especially important here. The Clardys are the article’s Initiative supporters. The article’s Initiative opponent likewise waits paintently and staunchly defends stem cell research; the critical difference is that the latter has had some the source of his hope yield some results, because he supports adult stem cell research.

I haven’t commented on the content of the beginning of the article, and I debated whether or not to do so, because I realize that any criticism of the position of the pro-Initiative protagonist could be perverted into shamefully attacking a disabled person’s desire to find a cure for her condition, and that I lack the moral authority to question her position. However, after reading this compelling argument from Mary Meets Dolly that now is the time to stand on principle, I can’t help but to challenge such a blatantly wrong position as espoused in this article.

In the “Fighting Back” section:

Kara and Rob Clardy, both self-described conservative Republicans, have weighed the arguments of their religion and their ideological positions, and they are confident that support for the issue is not inconsistent with their beliefs.

I still have yet to see a Biblical defense of ESC research, but let’s see what is presented:

“The priest here in town has never said anything about this, but if he did, I’d go up and tell him that if the God I worship and love told me I was going to hell for supporting this, then I guess I’m going to hell,” said Kara Clardy, who was raised Catholic. “If it’s going to cure me, and I’m going to be able to spend time with my kids … then I’d rather be able to do that, and have my kids have a better memory of life than (of) mom being sick all the time.”

Well, I don’t know what Bible she’s reading, but my Bible says:

⁵ And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. ⁶ “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

Genesis 9:5-6 (NIV)

You shall not murder.

Exodus 20:13

It’s the same problem I have with Arlen Specter’s position: what makes him think that his life is worth more than that of the (several, untold numbers of) embryoes that would be destroyed in the yet-unproven hope of finding a cure or treatment from ESC research? Life is not ours to give and to take away, to choose who will live and who will die in the name of research, the “greater good”, or any other morally relativistic reason.

No offense intended, and all due respect, but, it’s not all about “me”. My Bible also says:

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.

Romans 12:3 (NIV)

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

Philippians 2:3 (NIV)

Contrast that position with that of the article’s other protagonist, who has been wheelchair-bound for 20 years:

“This became a driving force that I would speak about to other people,” he said. “There should be no exception to destroying a life in order to enhance mine or someone else’s.”

McGarry empathizes with those who are suffering, but for him there is no question that the process is unethical and immoral.

“In no way would I let them perform the surgery, even if there was a breakthrough, because of my beliefs,” he said. “It’s been 22 years, and I’d love a cure, but not at the expense of destroying a human being.”

Can’t say it better than that.

The deceptively named Missouri Coalition for Life-Saving Cures (the Coalition) isn’t going to get away with their equally deceptive attempt to re-define cloning in order to pass a constitutional amendment to protect cloning.

I can appreciate an open, honest, intellectual discussion – and I think that, generally, those actually performing Somatic-Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT – i.e. cloning) research espouse that intellectual honesty. For instance, as reported by the Columia Missourian, the pro-SCNT Diana Schaub, a member of President Bush’s bio-ethics committee and the political science chair at Loyola College of Maryland, says the language in Missouri’s proposed constitutional amendment to protect stem-cell therapeutic cloning is deceptive:

I certainly agree that banning cloning to produce children is a good idea, but I disapprove of deceiving voters into thinking that embryonic stem-cell research by means of SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer, the common method for stem-cell research) is not cloning.”

(Emphasis added)

Money section:

According to Schaub, the scientific definition of cloning is: “the asexual production of a new human organism that is, at all stages of development, genetically identical to a currently existing or previously existing human being.”

Somatic cell nuclear transfer, says Schaub, is the procedure for cloning a somatic cell, or body cell, and putting it into a nucleated [sic] egg (an egg in which the nucleus has been removed) and then stimulating that egg to produce cell division. The result is a clone, or an organism that has the identical genetic makeup to the donor of the somatic cell.

“In both cloning for children and cloning for cures, the initial process is the same,” Schaub said. “SCNT is a cloning technique.”

The deception, she says, is that the amendment defines cloning as involving implantation.

“It pretends to ban human cloning in total, when in fact, it only aims to ban the cloning of a live born human child,” she said. “We should have an honest discussion about whether human cloning for research purposes, should it become possible, whether that’s a good idea or not.”

That last sentence is the whole key: opponents of the Coalition don’t want to prohibit the vote; we simply want to have an honest discussion and a vote based on facts, not deception.

Faced with this straight-forward statement, proponents of the Coalition can do nothing but admit their deception, and sound sophmoric doing so:

Alex Bartlett, a panelist and lawyer who was involved with writing the initiative’s language, disagreed with Schaub’s assessment. He said the ballot language, which seeks to ban the cloning or the attempt to clone a human being, outlines very specifically what cloning is and what it is not.

“I think John Smith on the street or Joe Blow, when they think of cloning they are thinking of creating a human version of Dolly the sheep (the first cloned animal),” Bartlett said. “We tried to get at that and that’s we were preventing.”

Translation: we’re trying to dumb-down Missourians, in order to pass an amendment protecting the very thing that Missourians are against.

I can think of at least two means for the Coalition to be intellectually honest:

1. Clarify that the Initiative bans reproductive cloning, while protecting therapeutic cloning.
2. Clarify that the Initiative does not ban cloning, but prohibits implantation of cloned embryos.

The reason that the Coalition won’t choose either of these options is that they know that neither, having truthfully identified the intent of the Initiative, would garner the support of Missourians required to pass a constitutional amendment.

While the Columbia Missourian gets the facts out in a mostly unbiased manner, the Jefferson City News Tribune is still getting it wrong, and reporting with bias:

The proposed ballot measure, entitled the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, includes language that would “ban human cloning,” which it defines as an attempt to implant into a woman a scientifically created embryo that did not come from a sperm and egg.

But opponents call the title and ballot language deceptive and misleading for failing to classify a certain form of embryonic stem cell research, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, as the scientific equivalent of human cloning.

SCNT isn’t a “certain form” of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research; it is the form of ESC research. SCNT isn’t the “scientific equivalent” of human cloning; it is the definition of cloning – it is the method of cloning, period. These qualifier phrases clearly portray the pro-ESC research bias of the reporter, and it is against this very bias that obscures the facts that I will continue to fight. But the mis-information doesn’t stop there:

Under that procedure, the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg is replaced with the nucleus from a skin or nerve cell. The altered egg then is stimulated to grow in a lab dish, and researchers remove the resulting stem cells.

This last statement is wrong; missing is that the researchers can only remove (embryonic) stem cells because the result of SCNT is an embryo, and it is from this embryo – which is destroyed in the process – that stem cells are extracted.

And on top of biased reporting, we see just plain wrong reporting:

Not all the panelists supported the type of stem cell research likely to be voted upon in Missouri in the fall.

Diana Schaub, a political science professor at Loyola College in Maryland and a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, sided with opponents of the proposed November initiative. She called the ballot language a “definitional sleight of hand.”

Yes, that’s the same Diana Schaub quoted above – very much in favor of SCNT and ESC research. The irony here is, Schaub is in favor of the research, but opposed to the language of the Initiative. Though, perhaps Schaub here is incorrectly identified as an opponent of the Initiative in order to discredit her criticism of that language?

And in related news, the Coalition is suing a rival organization to have its web site taken down. Apparently, they don’t like being Google-bombed:

“They’ve stolen our Web site,” said Donn Rubin, chairman of Lifesaving Cures. “They’ve stolen our codes, our pictures, our graphics” in what he alleged was an attempt to confuse Internet search engines and the public.

In the words of Glenn: heh.

Good luck with that…

All sources via John Combest.

I often reference StemCellResearch.org’s list of ASC-versus-ESC treatments, which indicates that Adult Stem Cells (ASCs) have yielded 65 treatments while Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) have yielded none. This list was last updated July 19, 2005, and appears to be outdated.

According to CorCell, those numbers are now 80 ASC treatments, and still 0 ESC treatments.

If I ever get a spare month or three, I’m going to start looking into the pipeline. (Michael Fumento reports that ASCs have some 1,000 clinical trials in process.) Since the hype about ESCs involves so-called “potential”, I want to compare them to ASCs with respect to real potential. I’ve not seen a comprehensive list.

Via Michael Fumento.

Consistent with the Clone the Truth campaign, I am committed to ensuring that the truth about adult and embryonic stem cell and related research is made known.

A group of 55 “Catholic” Congressional democrats have released a “Statement of Principles Prevarication” in which they take the untenable position of “work[ing] every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being” while (without explicitly so stating) being against making abortion illegal.

Seems like as good a topic as any for a Saturday-afternoon fisking, eh?

As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition — a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose.

The “living Catholic tradition”? I’m not a Catholic, so maybe this phraseology is accepted in the Catholic church. Of course, my protestant/evangelistic upbringing has instilled in me the unchanging and inerrant quality of the Word of God, which would contradict a “living tradition” with respect to doctrine in much the same way that words of the U.S. Constitution, as ratified, contradict the concept of a “living constitution” with respect to legal issues.

That little phrase aside, I am struck by this collection of words expressing nothing more than that the signitories to this Statement are adherents of liberal ideology. In so doing, it exposes the contradiction of that ideology on its face.

Expressing a “consistent moral framework for life” and working “to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being” would imply that adherents to such philosophies would 1) define life in a consistent and moral manner, and 2) work to advance respect for the life and dignity of every human life so defined. However, the signitories to this Statement will spend the duration of its text rationalizing away their disregard for both of these points.

The only scientifically, morally consistent definition for life concludes that life begins at conception. Scientifically, conception is the point at which a genetically unique entity comes into existence. Morally, respect for and sanctity of life presumes that benefit of the doubt must be given to the entity created by conception.

Therefore, advocacy of abortion becomes a moot issue with respect to consistent scientific and moral argument. Thus, unable to avoid this point, proponents of abortion resort to re-defining “life”. So much for expressing a “consistent moral framework for life.”

As for working “to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being” – several (if not perhaps, all) of the signitories of this Statement would oppose partial-birth abortion (so-called “late-term” abortion, a term used to disguise the fact that such abortions occur with all but the head of the baby having been birthed). To the contrary, advocating abortion serves to advance convenience versus responsibility and panders to the extreme ideologues who back the candidacy of such politicians.

I’ll come back to the matter of government serving a moral purpose.

We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need.

Without question, the “most vulnerable among us” are unborn children. Abortion deprives these human lives of “meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country.” Access to education by unborn children is greatly increased when we protect them from being aborted. The rest of the text here only serves as a distraction from the primary issue: so-called “Catholics” rationalizing their disagreement with the Catholic church in support of abortion.

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion—we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children=s healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.

I envision a world in which every human life has protected its God-given right to life. The Bible teaches that humans are created in the image of God, and that man does not have the right to take the life of another man in murder. The Bible teaches that even our lives are not our own, since we were bought by the life of Christ on the Cross. We no more have the right to murder unborn humans than we have the moral right to take our own lives.

To my knowledge, the Catholic church does not preach merely the “undesirability of abortion”, but rather its utter moral reprehension. Advocacy of post-birth social policies does not constitute sufficient nor appropriate substitution for absolute support for the unalienable, God-given right of every human – born or unborn – to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In all these issues, we seek the Church=s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church’s role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate — a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.

Read that first sentence one more time:

In all these issues, we seek the Church=s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience.

When did the Catholic church start teaching modernism, secular humanism and moral relativism? One cannot claim to adhere to Christianity, yet proclaim that the conscience is primary to the Word.

These issues are only complex because advocates of abortion must introduce non-existent and specious complications in order to justify their morally unjust position. Human life begins at conception, and every human life is sacred. Any act intended to deprive a human of his right to life thus cannot be defended morally.

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

And what of your duties to preserve the religious freedom for unborn humans? Protection of abortion is not a matter of religious freedom (please point out the religion that preaches abortion?). Religious freedom does not supercede the unalienable, God-given rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is the right of polygamy protected as a religious freedom? Pedophilia? Sacrifice of children? Beheading infidels?

Thus we find the moral purpose of the government: to safeguard the expression of religious belief of everyone, by defining the point at which the exercise of one’s beliefs encroaches upon the rights of another. Therefore, the key issue remains: unborn children are living humans; as such, their right to life trumps the right of religious expression of their mother, father, or anyone else.

As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the “people of God,” called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church’s bearing as it does on ours.

The church is called to be the light of the world. By advocating the destruction of human life via abortion, you extinguish your own moral light, silence your own moral voice, and render impotent whatever moral force you wish to exert. In what way does advocating or allowing the murder of unborn humans created “a more just America and world”?

And there you have it.

Plenty of reaction from the Catholic community (whom, for the most part, I will leave to discuss the Statement with respect to Catholicism – being that I am not Catholic). ProLifeBlogs does a great job distilling the argument to its bare essentials, and then taking it to the logical conclusion:

Here’s what I don’t get. I used to be one of these “personally pro-life” people who thought abortion was undesirable. Why do these people think it’s undesirable? There can only be one reason. Because they, like I, know it’s the taking of a human life.

So, why then aren’t we allowed to put a stop to that? Why, on this one isssue, are we told we have no “right” to stop others from “choosing” to end human life?

If the goverment has no business being in the bedroom (does anyone here know of any abortion that’s ever taken place in the bedroom?) why outlaw rape? Rape happens in a bedroom often. Why isn’t a rapist free to choose to rape?

Why are murderers not free to choose to murder? What business does the goverment have in telling any of these people what to do?

The truth is, ALL laws tell people what to do. ALL laws take away certain choices, choices that hurt others.

Other commentary: LifeNews, EWTN Global Catholic Network, Catholic News Service, The Catholic League, BeliefNet, Mirror of Justice, Catholic Online, LifeSite,

Via Pro-Life Blogs.

The official campaign in opposition to the Missouri Stem Cells Initiative is kicked-off, as of today: Missourians Against Human Cloning:

Missourians Against Human Cloning is a coalition of Missouri citizens and organizations established to provide Missouri voters with the truth about this amendment to our state constitution. We are confident that when Missourians truly understand the truth about this initiative and it’s ramifications, they will oppose it wholeheartedly.

Get involved today!