Ted Kennedy funeral a "scandal"

Catholic Action League calls funeral a "scandal"

Updated: Monday, 31 Aug 2009, 7:19 AM EDT
Published : Saturday, 29 Aug 2009, 6:39 PM EDT

BOSTON (FOX25, myfoxboston) - A leading conservative Catholic lobbying group says Sen. Edward Kennedy's funeral Mass is evidence of corruption in the U.S. church, and called Kennedy "one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality."

C. J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, said the funeral "a tragic example of the Church's willingness to surrender to the culture."

Doyle noted Kennedy supported abortion and gay rights -- both in opposition to church teachings. Doyle's organization lobbies on political and social issues.

President Barack Obama eulogized Kennedy at the funeral Saturday at the Mission Church in Boston, one of city's the most historic shrines. Cardinal Sean O'Malley led the final prayer.

Kennedy once said his Catholic faith was the greatest gift his mother ever gave to his family.

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts Released this Statement:

"The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today decried the scandal which occurred this morning at Boston's most historic Catholic shrine --- the Minor Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, known as Mission Church --- where a Mass of Christian Burial was used to "celebrate the life" of one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy fought for more than three decades to keep the killing of pre-born children legal and unrestricted in the United States."

Surgical abortion has claimed more than fifty-one million human lives since 1973. The Catholic religion defines abortion as an "abominable crime".

President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy, in which he alluded to Kennedy's support for gay rights. One of the Prayers of the Faithful was a petition to end divisions "between gays and straights".

Ecclesial participants included Rev. Raymond Collins, Rector of the Basilica; Rev. Mark Hession, Kennedy's parish priest from Our Lady of Victories Church in Centerville on Cape Cod; Rev. J. Donald Monan, Chancellor of Boston College; and Sean Cardinal O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, who thanked President Obama for his words and his presence. Both the homilist, Fr. Hession, and Cardinal O'Malley suggested that the late senator had found eternal salvation.

The Catholic Action League called the event "a tragic example of the Church's willingness to surrender to the culture, and serve Caesar rather than Christ".

Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: "Senator Kennedy supported legal abortion, partial-birth abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception. He defended Roe v. Wade, endorsed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and opposed both the Human Life Amendment and the Hyde Amendment. Kennedy maintained a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In 1993, he received the Kenneth Edelin Award from Planned Parenthood, and in 2000 received the Champions of Choice Award from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts at the hands of the same Dr. Kenneth Edelin, the infamous abortionist."

"During his 1994 reelection campaign, Kennedy said 'I wear as a badge of honor my opposition to the anti-choicers'. His successful obstruction of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 effectively prevented the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Beyond his specific positions on human life issues, Senator Kennedy, along with the late Congressman Robert Drinan, provided the cover and the example for two generations of Catholic politicians to defect from Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life."

"No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica. This morning's spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself."

Defending Human Embryonic Life - Essay

“Intermediate” or “Special Status” for the human embryo is invalid

By Dr. John P. Hubert MD, FACS
Advisor to Common Good
© CCWVA
Catholic Online
2/27/2006 - 8:15 AM PST

I. Introduction

This essay addresses the moral status of the human embryo. It asserts that on the basis of biology and metaphysics, the human embryo should be accorded full moral status, that is, inviolability. While this is also the position afforded it by the Catholic Church on the basis of divine revelation and elsewhere, the case will not be argued on that basis in this brief. Instead it will provide a critique of the so-called “intermediate” or “special status” which has been proposed by some ethicists including several of the members of the President’s Council on Bioethics. In so doing it will demonstrate why anything other than full moral status for the human embryo is biologically and philosophically untenable.
MORE...

Save the Embryonic Humans

By Deacon Keith Fournier
3/7/2009
Catholic Online, available HERE...

With the stroke off a Presidential pen human embryos will become property, capable of being “manufactured” like a commodity and available to be used as spare parts.

We must speak for human embryonic Life as we speak for all human life. We must expose and oppose this new form of genetic slavery wherein an entire class of human persons is being labeled as property to be used by those who are more powerful.

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) - Two years before he would give his “Yes” to the invitation of the Holy Spirit to become the successor of Peter, Karol Cardinal Wotyla, spoke to the U.S. Bishops. His ominous observation was republished in the Wall Street Journal on November 9, 1978:

“We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence. It is a trial which the whole Church… must take up.”

And take it up we must. The task is huge and the implications beyond what we can begin to expect. The challenges we face in undertaking this task include the insults, accusations and calumny of even our fellow citizens. We will, for example, be accused of being against progress and even “anti-science”, when nothing could be further from the truth. We are simply Pro-life and believe that science exists to serve the person, the family and the common good. Science, after all, can become a force for evil and our common history has shown how that can occur when the human heart and capacity for making the right choice has been so clearly corrupted.

On Monday, March 9, 2009, President Barrack Obama, whose election offered the promise of "hope and change", will hold a signing ceremony where he will sign one more Executive Order against life. This one is expected to remove all restraints from the use of the always deadly process of extracting stem cells from human embryonic life for experimentation. It will also open up the funding of such lethal efforts with Federal tax dollars. This is so even though research has clearly demonstrated that other types of stem cell research, for example the use of adult stem cells which can be extracted with the consent of the donor and which do not kill, have produced even greater promise and results. In addition, cells derived from fetal cord blood have shown significant promise but have received little or no attention or research support.

Recent reports have heralded the discovery of what may be an alternative to the deadly process of extracting embryonic stem cells and killing the embryonic human person in the process. They have led to hopes of using what are being called “induced pluripotent stem cells”, or iPS cells. These can now be produced by activating genes in adult cells which "reprogram" them and do not require the use of dangerous viruses or involve the taking of a human life. However, the signing of this Executive Order is expected to open the door not to the promotion of these life friendly alternatives but rather to the unlimited production of human embryonic life which could then be killed and used.

With the stroke of a Presidential pen human embryos will become property, capable of being “manufactured” like a commodity and available to be used as spare parts in experimentation which has produced no discernible scientific results. Make no mistake, every so called “extraction” of embryonic stem cells kills a living human embryo.

In 1987, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Holy See issued its important teaching entitled “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation”. Among the many questions it answered with absolute clarity was: “What Respect is due to the human embryo, taking into account his nature and identity?” The answer given by the Magisterium: “The human being must be respected - as a person - from the very first instant of his (her) existence.”

Unfortunately, the prevailing view of human rights entrenched in American judicial precedent and legislation denies the equal protection of the law to the human embryonic person. American law refuses to recognize that human embryos have a right to life and a right to a future. There are a number of differing philosophical arguments offered to promote the lie that these fundamental rights are conferred by positive civil law rather than by the Natural Law. Most of these arguments reserve the use of the concept of “person” to those humans who are deemed to somehow be “independent” and/or “autonomous”. They are also promoted by people who now call themselves “medical ethicists”. These folks have substantial academic degrees and professional pedigree and sit on Advisory Councils.

Some of these new “ethicists” try to make a distinction between “potential” and “actual” human persons and relegate the child in the womb to the category of being only a “potential” human person. Others view interdependency as a negative and insist on independence and “autonomy” as a criterion for any human rights to ever attach. Some equate the human embryo’s
dependency on the mother as a form of “non-personhood”. Still others propose a progressive notion of consciousness as indicative of a growing presence of “personhood”. A few concede that human embryos are human beings but deny they are persons. We find all of these ideas in the field sadly referred to these days as “Bio-Ethics” even though such positions are anything but ethical. We find them in textbooks being used to teach the subject to future medical practitioners. (See, e.g., Singer and Kuhse, “Bioethics”)

One of these “ethicists”, Michael Tooley denies the child in the womb should have any rights at all. His rationale evolved over time. In each version, as scientific research cast serious doubt on his claims, he conveniently shifted his ground to reach the same conclusion. Yet, human embryology and developmental biology affirm that a human embryo is not distinct in kind from a human being, but a human being at an early stage of development. Even prior to implantation, a human embryo is a unique living human being with the genetic constitution and epigenetic primordial that continues to develop throughout his or her life. However, the right not to be killed in the womb, the right to be born and the right to participate in human relationships are rejected for these little persons. Human embryonic lives are reduced to what one astute Catholic philosopher and lawyer, Robert George, called a “pre-personal way of being human”.

The idea that people can be less than persons is now being applied to other stages of human development outside of the womb. The disabled (physically and mentally), the aged and the infirmed are increasingly denied the protection of the law. There is an emphasis on individual rights over relation and autonomy over solidarity. The late Servant of God John Paul wrote in “The Gospel of Life” concerning what he called this “remarkable contradiction”. He further elaborated: “…the roots of the contradiction between the solemn affirmation of human rights and their tragic denial in practice lies in a notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them.”(Par. 19) This counterfeit notion of freedom also views comatose human beings as no longer worthy of being called “persons”. Their caregivers are encouraged to stop giving them food and water. Seriously ill children are viewed as interlopers who should not continue to use medical and social resources. Whether the criteria for being recognized as a human person is a satisfactory level of brain function, an agreed upon notion of self awareness, non-dependency, individual autonomy, or some similar “acceptable” level of physical or mental capacity, this reduces the human being to a human doing, valuable not simply because they are members of our human family and gifts to be received but based upon their functionality and subject to deadly treatment once they are no longer of economic value.

There can be do debate about this fact, we were all once human embryos. We all lived in the first home of the whole human race, our mothers womb. For the Christian, we further profess that the Son of God, the Incarnate Word, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, was a human being, who, in the embryonic stage, lived in his mother’s womb. At every age and stage of our “human-being- ness”, be it in the womb, as an infant, as a child, an adolescent, an adult, in our times of illness, in our old age, we have always been dependent on others and vulnerable. This is what it means to be a human being. The emphasis of the proponents of the culture of death on independence and autonomy informs a worldview that Pope John Paul II taught threatens the “…entire structure of human rights.” (Gospel of Life, Par. 19)

So, we must rise and suffer the indignities of being verbally pilloried, accused of being anti-science” or “impeding progress”. We must speak for human embryonic Life as we speak for all human life. We must expose and oppose this new form of genetic slavery wherein an entire class of human persons is being labeled as property to be used by those who are more powerful. In conclusion, I speak specifically to my fellow Catholics; we will be at the front line. Why? Because our Church has been absolutely clear in her unbroken teaching on the dignity of every human person, including what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith recently called “embryonic persons”. Be ready to be called, as happened recently in response to our opposition to the appointment of dissident Catholic Kathleen Sebelius to the HHS, “Catholic Extremists”. The late beloved Servant of God John Paul II called it and he was indeed prophetic: “We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence. It is a trial which the whole Church… must take up.”

President Obama Confuses Politics with Ethics

Editorial Comment

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

In his White House announcement and executive order today reversing the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) the President left the door open to possible federal funding of human cloning for biomedical research (CBR) while indicating that cloning to produce children (CPC also termed reproductive cloning) will remain unfunded and given the largely negative public reaction to the very idea--one presumes illegal.

Human Cloning Not Controllable:

President Obama speaks as though human reproductive cloning and cloning for biomedical research are completely different. However, the first step in human cloning (the creation of a blastocyst) is the same in either case. As a result, there is no practical way to prevent human reproductive cloning once widespread federally funded human cloning for biomedical research is underway despite President Obama’s claims to the contrary (policing the process of blastocyst creation would be virtually impossible).

Human Cloning for Biomedical Research is Legal Now:

At present, it is legal in the United States to create cloned human embryos for biomedical research. Moreover, there is at least one private company (Advanced Cell Technology, [ACT]) currently engaged in that endeavor albeit privately funded for-profit.

Utilitarian Calculus vs: Traditional Moral Analysis:

From a traditional moral perspective, human cloning for any purpose is immoral as is any kind of embryonic stem cell research (human embryo’s must be killed in order to obtain the ESC’s--given current technology). Should it ever be possible to do so without killing the embryos—it would be morally licit to remove their stem cells only if any potential benefit accrued to the embryo in question (the embryo from which the cells were taken) exceeded the risk. It would remain morally illicit to utilize them for other persons and or purposes.

Those who embrace Utilitarianism like President Obama and the other advocates of ESCR and cloning for biomedical research (CBR) find nothing inherently wrong with killing human embryos and therefore deem it completely acceptable (in fact extremely useful) to do so as a “means” to the end of promoting ESCR. Presumably they do so believing (incorrectly) that human embryos are not actually but only “potentially” human beings or because they believe that since embryos do not resemble post-natal human beings—they are not--inherently valuable/to be protected as are other human beings. The former represents an error in analysis of the relevant and undisputed biological data, the latter an error in (illogical) intellection (size, shape, etc are irrelevant to the issue as can be seen in the case of triple amputees and other seriously physically disabled persons).

Most advocates of ESCR and CBR are unwilling to engage in a discussion of either the biologically or philosophically relevant issues—presumably because they are aware that their position on these matters will fail to pass intellectual muster. Nevertheless many advocates who recognize this reality (one assumes that some have the requisite analytical ability) continue to advocate for ESCR and CBR. This would appear to represent a Utilitarian calculus in which for them, the “means” employed are simply not relevant to the “end” desired even if the “means” in question are clearly morally illicit (it is never morally licit to intentionally kill an innocent human being) by traditional moral standards. That however is the nature of Utilitarianism as a “philosophy” of right and wrong. It does not recognize the object rationally chosen, “means” or proximate end, only the effect desired. Given that a legitimate moral philosophy must come to grips with an honest analysis of "means" vs: "ends", Utilitarianism is not really a moral philosophy at all in the traditional sense. Rather it is a political philosophy in which a tyranny of the majority can be foisted on the minority. In Utilitarianism the “principle of utility” is purposely allowed to circumvent all other concerns. While it has been around for over a century, only recently has it become the clear reigning ethical (immoral) philosophy in the United States and much of the developed West.

False Arguments:

In listening to ESCR advocates and commentators who opined after the post-executive order signing ceremony--several vacuous arguments were advanced. One completely absurd example was proffered today by Congresswoman Diane DeGette of Colorado (who by the way refused to answer the question of whether human embryos should be considered actual or potential life), is that since the embryonic stem cells which are derived by killing embryos might someday be helpful in preventing or treating dreaded diseases, it is really "pro-life" to kill them for this purpose. From the perspective of the embryonic human being who is killed, nothing could be further from the truth not to mention that there is no evidence in humans whatsoever, that ESCR will ever produce a clinically relevant treatment for disease. Moreover, results in animal models have at best been inconclusive and fraught with untoward side-effects .

Integrity not Politics in Science:

President Obama is correct to insist that integrity in scientific research is paramount and that the results of same not be adulterated or otherwise “spun” in order to advance certain political goals. However, his administration’s claims about ESCR represent an unfortunate example of that very problem. The hype with which today’s announcement and executive order were made regarding the purported efficacy of ESCR was excessive in light of the actual data available. Moreover, the extremely important results which have been obtained with Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) to date were completely ignored. This appears to have been a carefully calibrated political calculation.

Traditional Morality Removed from Scientific Research/Utilitarian Calculus:

The President reasons that it is high time to remove politics from science while engaging in that very practice himself. More to the point, what he really advocates is the removal of all traditional moral precepts (as found in the Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis also know as the golden-rule ethic or the equality of life ethic) from the practice of scientific research; replacing it with a Utilitarian calculus where expediency is allowed to trump all other considerations. In so doing he would effectively eliminate the possibility that desperately needed moral clarification will take place--despite claiming that his administration will be extremely careful to proceed in an ethical (read Utilitarian) manner. The point--one fears--is being missed by the vast majority of Americans who are unaware that Utilitarianism has replaced traditional morality as the reigning ethical (immoral/amoral) construct in the US. It is becoming more and more common-place to find examples of "exigent circumstances" (through the application of a Utilitarian ethic) whereby innocent human beings are being legally killed in the United States (particularly at both extremes of life). The President's executive order and request for Congress to pass legislation compatible with it represent a further descent down the slippery slope which began over 30 years ago in the United States. Whether we like it or not, as Americans, we're all Utilitarians now!

Obama Lifts Bush’s Strict Limits on Stem Cell Research

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
The NEW York Times
Published: March 9, 2009

WASHINGTON — Pledging that his administration will “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” President Obama on Monday lifted the Bush administration’s strict limits on human embryonic stem cell research.

At a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, before an audience that included lawmakers, scientists and patients, several of them in wheelchairs, Mr. Obama announced that he was issuing an executive order intended to advance the research. He said he hoped Congress would follow with bipartisan legislation that would ease the existing restrictions even more.

The president acknowledged that studying stem cells extracted from human embryos, which are destroyed in the process, is deeply divisive.

“Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research,” the president said. “I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.”

But Mr. Obama went on to say that the majority of Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided.”

In making his announcement, Mr. Obama drew a strict line against human cloning, an issue that over the years has become entangled with the debate over human embryonic stem cell research.

He said that he would ensure that his administration “never opens the door” to cloning for human reproduction, adding, “It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society or any society.”

Mr. Obama paired his executive order with another document, a presidential memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to “develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making.”

Taken together, the two actions are the latest in a series of rebukes by Mr. Obama to his predecessor, former President George W. Bush.

Many Democrats criticized the Bush administration for politicizing science on a range of issues, from climate change to protecting endangered species to family planning.

Mr. Obama pledged during his campaign to chart a different course.

Already, abortion opponents are bracing for a battle over the stem-cell policy.

“The administration now steps onto a very steep, very slippery slope,” Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said in anticipation of Mr. Obama’s action. “Many researchers will never be satisfied only with the so-called leftover embryos.”

One Republican lawmaker, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey, called Mr. Obama “the abortion president,” and organized an event Monday afternoon protesting the new policy. He invited some so-called snowflake children, those born after couples who underwent in-vitro fertilization released their remaining embryos for use by other couples, to attend.

“President Obama has chosen to turn back the clock,” Mr. Smith said in remarks prepared for the event, according to an advance text. “Human-embryo-destroying stem cell research is not only unethical, unworkable and unreliable, it is now demonstrably unnecessary.”

He was referring to progress that scientists have made using adult stem cells derived from nonembryonic sources, such as umbilical cord blood, bone marrow or skin.

Still, the president’s decision drew warm praise from a number of Democratic lawmakers. “Today, an extraordinary medical breakthrough was achieved with the stroke of a pen,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. “With today’s executive order, President Obama has righted an immense wrong done to the hopes of millions of patients.”

The Bush administration, in a careful compromise eight years ago, allowed tax dollars to support studies on a small number of existing lines, or colonies, of stem cells that had already been derived from embryos, though not on creating new lines. That meant that a provision renewed by Congress every year since 1996, banning research in which embryos are destroyed, no longer stood as an absolute barrier to the stem cell work.

Mr. Obama’s new executive order will open the door wider, but not as wide as Congress would if it were to remove its legislative restrictions.

Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes, Parkinson’s and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, such as spinal-cord damage.

The promise that these advances might help bring a cure for Alzheimer’s disease and other afflictions made Nancy Reagan an avid supporter of stem cell research. Her husband, the late president, suffered from Alzheimer’s.

Other prominent Republicans who opposed President Bush’s stance included Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, who lost three family members to Parkinson’s, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.

Limitations on federally funded research in American laboratories gave an indirect boost to such work abroad, particularly in Britain, where it received unabashed support.

“The current policy is eroding our national advantage on stem cell research,” Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said during a congressional debate on the question in July 2006. “We’re tying our scientists’ hands. We’re holding back our doctors.”

Commentary on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Editor's NOTE:

While several years old the commentary which follows outlines many of the still relevant issues involved in ESCR. The references are included for those who wish to avail themselves of more information.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert


Commentary
Nature Medicine 7, 397 - 399 (2001)
doi:10.1038/86444
Embryonic Stem cell research - The case against...
Michael Antoniou

Division of Medical and Molecular Genetics GKT School of Medicine, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
michael.antoniou@kcl.ac.uk

Although the United Kingdom government has approved the use of human embryonic stem (ES) cell/therapeutic cloning research—a move that was endorsed by the House of Lords on 22 January this year—it may not be apparent to the outside world that the British scientific community as well as the public at large is deeply divided over this issue. In the face of a substantial vote in favor of ES cell research, this division was articulated by some of those who gave evidence at the Lords session.

Despite our government's approval of this technique, some of us within the UK involved in research to develop therapies for debilitating, degenerative diseases agree with John Wyatt (Royal Free Hospital, London) when he says, "The creation and manipulation of living human embryos for the sole purpose of generating therapeutic tissue seems incompatible with respect for vulnerable human life. The redefinition of human embryos as mere biological material, as `totipotent stem cells' in order to allay public concerns, smacks of semantic trickery rather than responsible debate." (House of Lords Hansard, 22 January 2001).

Assertions that ES cells offer the only hope of a treatment for say Parkinson disease are not the case. What is evident from studies conducted to date is that adult stem (AS) cells show as much therapeutic potential as ES cells. Indeed, as Philip Jones (University of Oxford) told the Lords, AS cells offer far greater potential for cures than embryonic stem cells.

The isolation of human ES cells1, 2 and the demonstration of AS cell `plasticity'3 both took place in 1998. ES cells can be induced to differentiate into numerous cell types in culture4. Animal transplantation studies with ES cells are presently more limited, but they have been shown to contribute to the development and regeneration of the nervous system5, 6, 7. AS cell research in animal models is more extensive showing, for example, that bone-marrow−derived AS cells contribute to not only blood cell lineages but to all neuronal cell types8, muscle3, 9 and liver10, 11; neuronal AS cells have also been shown to have a broad differentiation potential12.

The main advantages of ES cells are that they can be propagated almost indefinitely under laboratory conditions; they can be easily genetically modified and, in principle, be induced to differentiate into any desired cell type. However, the wide-scale application of ES cells by necessity involves a `therapeutic cloning' step to overcome problems of tissue rejection after engraftment. This in turn raises major practical considerations. First, a large supply of human eggs will be required as this procedure is very inefficient; and second, the treatment procedure becomes very time consuming, labor intensive and as a result expensive. Moreover, ES cells will need to be induced to differentiate down the desired cell lineage before implantation in order to avoid teratoma (tumor) formation6. This potentially limits ES cell applications in certain circumstances as it renders them incapable of self replication, requiring further rounds of treatment as the original graft progressively ages and degenerates.

AS cells, however, can be readily obtained, grown and if necessary genetically modified from, for example, the patients' own bone marrow. Therefore, problems of rejection after engraftment back to the patient do not arise, thereby negating the need for a therapeutic cloning step. Admittedly, AS cells are, at present, more difficult to propagate en masse under laboratory conditions. The more restricted differentiation potential of AS cells is also seen as a major limitation to their use. However, from a safety point of view this may be advantageous as it reduces the chances of inadvertent AS cell proliferation in a part of the body where it is not desired. Many years' experience within the medical field of bone-marrow transplantation also shows that AS cells are not prone to teratoma formation. In addition, AS cells appear to retain their self-replicating capacity while contributing to tissue development or regeneration8, 9.

It has also recently been claimed, by Ilham Abuljadayel of the Dublin-based company Tristem, that T-cells can be induced to undergo a process of `retrodifferentiation' to generate virtually endless supplies of pluripotent AS cells13. Although this work has yet to undergo the scrutiny of scientific peer review, it has been independently verified in both academic (Adrian Newland, Royal London Hospital, London) and industry (Anthony Lockett, Covance, Harrogate, UK) settings, clearly raising further exciting therapeutic possibilities14.

Regardless as to which option is pursued, the clinical use of either ES or AS cell technology is still many years in the future. As Neil Scolding (Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, UK) warned attendees at the Lords' meeting, that, "there are two fallacies, one that cures from embryonic stem cells are imminent and the other that adult stem cells are unlikely to be as effective." This is a point agreed upon by the UK Chief Medical Officer Liam Donaldson's report of 1998 on ES cell/therapeutic cloning recommendations.

Peter Andrews (University of Sheffield, UK), who hopes to develop ES cell/therapeutic cloning technology, also acknowledged this point when he wrote, "I find it difficult to envisage routine use [of ES cells] on other than selected volunteers in the next 10 years"15. Therefore, there is a risk of raising false hopes within patient groups by giving the general public the impression that ES cell/therapeutic cloning treatments are about to happen once research is given the go-ahead.

As it is widely agreed that the generation of cloned human individuals is highly undesirable, it is important to appreciate that the distinction between `therapeutic' and `reproductive' cloning is slight, as these two options differ only after a viable, cloned human embryo (blastocyst) has been generated. We may find the thought of human clones abhorrent but there are organizations (for example, http://www.clonaid.com and http://www.humancloning.org) and individuals, such as Severino Antinori in Rome16, that are totally committed to this end.

Even scientists who are staunch supporters of ES cell/therapeutic cloning technology within the UK have admitted that reproductive cloning is "inevitable"17. Thus, how will the UK government ensure that ES cell/therapeutic cloning techniques developed in Britain will not be abused by being taken forward to support reproductive cloning in an unregulated part of the world? Is our government prepared to lead the way in the establishment of not only national but also international law prohibiting reproductive cloning? Once in place how will governments police the `global village' to make sure this legislation is not violated? Would it not be wise to at least wait until international law is in place banning reproductive cloning before embarking on a program of ES cell/therapeutic cloning research?

Technical and legal problems can in principle always be overcome, but the major ethical and moral objections to the use of ES cell/therapeutic cloning are much more difficult to address and clearly constitute deep human concerns that can be neither ignored nor lightly dismissed. The issues raised include not only fears that ES cell/therapeutic cloning will ultimately lead to reproductive cloning and genetically engineered human beings, but also whether embryos should be created solely for the purpose of providing `spare parts' for others, reducing human life to a purely utilitarian value.

The UK has already received condemnation from Germany when the deputy chairman of the Reichstag's ethics committee, Hubert Hueppe, said that it was cannibalistic to "breed a human being, only to kill it, disembowel it and impregnate something with it." Such strong statements serve to highlight the fundamental nature of the ethical issues that are raised.

The UK position has also gone against not only the decision of the European Parliament (Strasbourg, 7 September 2000) but also the advice of a report sponsored by the European Commission by the 12-member European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies which recommended "prudence" and a precautionary approach saying that, "At present the creation of embryos for somatic cell transfer would be premature"18. John Wyatt expressed the ethical dilemma well when he said, "I and many of my fellow health professionals have a profound disquiet about the introduction of therapeutic cloning."

Eleven religious leaders headed by His Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi, the Cardinal Archbishop of Glasgow, the President of the Muslim College, the Director of the Sikh Network and leaders of Christian denominations within the UK took the unprecedented step of cosigning a letter to the UK parliament House of Lords encouraging members not to endorse the British government's position to allow ES cell/therapeutic cloning research but to take time to reflect on the ethical and moral consequences of this work more carefully.

Therefore, despite the Government's vote in favor of allowing ES cell/therapeutic cloning research within the UK, debate and objections are as prevalent here as in those countries that are still undecided as to which route to take. In my view, given the lack of agreement over ES cell research within the scientific community as well as general society both nationally and internationally, governments around the world should back major initiatives in AS cell research which could harbor the same if not a greater and safer therapeutic potential, and avoid the problems of working with ES cell/therapeutic cloning. Moreover, these practical and especially ethical problems associated with the ES cell/therapeutic cloning should not necessarily be viewed as a setback, as they can encourage investigation into AS cell alternatives as has already happened in the USA (ref. 19).

Note: This commentary expresses the personal opinion of the author and does not represent a position statement of either the Division of Medical and Molecular Genetics or the GKT School of Medicine.

REFERENCES

1. Thomson, J.A. et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282, 1145–1147 (1998). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
2. Reubinoff, B. et al. Embryonic stem cell lines from human blastocysts: somatic differentiation in vitro. Nature Biotechnol. 18, 399–404 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
3. Ferrari, G. et al. Muscle regeneration by bone marrow-derived myogenic progenitors. Science 279, 1528–1530 (1998). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
4. Lee, S.-H. et al. Efficient generation of midbrain and hindbrain neurons from mouse embryonic stem cells. Nature Biotechnol. 18, 675–679 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
5. Benninger, Y. et al. Differentiation and histological analysis of embryonic stem cell-derived neural transplants in mice. Brain Pathol. 10, 330–341 (2000). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
6. Liu, S. et al. Embryonic stem cells differentiate into oligodendrocytes and myelinate in culture and after spinal cord transplantation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 6126–6131 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
7. Brüstle, O. et al. Embryonic stem cell-derived glial precursors: a source of myelinating transplants. Science 285, 754–756 (1999). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
8. Brazelton, T.R. et al. From marrow to brain: expression of neuronal phenotypes in adult mice. Science 290, 1775–1779 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
9. Gussoni, E. et al. Dystrophin expression in the mdx mouse restored by stem cell transplantation. Nature 401, 390–394. | PubMed |
10. Peterson, B.E. et al. Bone marrow as a potential source of hepatic oval cells. Science 284, 1168–1170 (1999). | Article | PubMed |
11. Alison, M.R. et al. Hepatocytes from non-hepatic adult stem cells. Nature 406, 257 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
12. Clarke, D.L. et al. Generalized Potential of Adult Neural Stem Cells. Science 288, 1660–1663 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
13. Abuljadayel, IMSS and Dhook, GJ. A method for preparing an undifferentiated cell. UK Patent GB2297558 (1995).
14. Times of London, 15 January 2001.
15. The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 January 2001.
16. The Sunday Times, London, 28 January 2001.
17. The Independent, London, 30 August 2000.
18. Dickson, D. European panel rejects creation of human embryos for research. Nature 408, 277 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
19. European Ethics Committee. Ethics can boost science. Nature 408, 275 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |

Obama Is Leaving Some Stem Cell Issues to Congress

Editor's NOTE:

If the following article is correct, President Obama will leave it to Congress to decide whether or not to attempt repeal of the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment--which specifically bans the use of tax dollars used to create human embryos for experimentation/research.

According to the piece below, the President's "order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded."

This means that it will become legal to utilize any already existent embryonic stem cell lines as well as those subsequently created either from already existent embryos or those "to be created embryos" brought into existence in fertility clinics. If Congress were to repeal the Dickey-Wicker amendment it would also allow federal funds to be spent in order to artificially produce human embryos destined for destruction in the process of removing their stem cells as well.

One of President Obama's science advisors Harold Varmus was quoted as saying the following with respect to the new executive order:

"As a result of lifting those limitations, the president is in effect allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to the extent it's permitted by federal law -- that is work with stem cells themselves, not the derivation of those stem cells,"

The morally significant issue is whether it is morally licit to destroy (read kill) human embryos for any reason. Traditional morality answers a resounding no. A Utilitarian calculus answers yes in essence arguing that the further "end" of potentially providing life-saving treatments for patients justifies the proximate end or "means" of killing innocent embryonic human beings in order to obtain their stem cells. The obvious question then is: what other human beings can be killed in order to serve some identified potentially desirable "further end"?

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
The New York Times
Published: March 8, 2009

WASHINGTON — While lifting the Bush administration’s restrictions on federally financed human embryonic stem cell research, President Obama intends to avoid the thorniest question in the debate: whether taxpayer dollars should be used to experiment on embryos themselves, two senior administration officials said Sunday.

The officials, who provided details of the announcement Mr. Obama will make Monday at the White House, said the president would leave it to Congress to determine whether the long-standing legislative ban on federal financing for human embryo experiments should also be overturned.

Yet, people on both sides of the stem cell debate say Mr. Obama’s announcement could lead to a reconsideration of the ban on Capitol Hill, an idea so controversial and fraught with ethical implications that the mere discussion of it would have been unthinkable just a few months ago, when President George W. Bush was in office.

The ban, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, first became law in 1996, and has been renewed by Congress every year since. It specifically bans the use of tax dollars to create human embryos — a practice that is routine in private fertility clinics — or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury.

For a time, the ban stood in the way of taxpayer-financed embryonic stem cell research, because embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them. But in August 2001, in a careful compromise, President Bush opened the door a tiny crack, by ordering that tax dollars could be used for studies on a small number of lines, or colonies, of stem cells already extracted from embryos — so long as federal researchers did not do the extraction themselves.

On Monday, Mr. Obama will throw open the door much farther with an executive order that will “make clear that the government intends to support” human embryonic stem cell research, said Harold Varmus, the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, who advises Mr. Obama on science matters.

To the delight of patients’ groups and scientists, the order will allow research on hundreds of stem cell lines already in existence, as well as ones yet to be created, typically from embryos left over from fertility treatments that would otherwise be discarded.

The order comes just in time for researchers to take advantage of money in Mr. Obama’s economic recovery package and use it for stem cell studies. But because of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, federal researchers would still be unable to create their own stem cell lines.

Mr. Obama has no power to overturn the Dickey-Wicker ban. Only Congress, which attaches the ban to appropriations bills, can overturn it. Mr. Obama has not taken a position on the ban and does not intend to, Melody C. Barnes, his chief domestic policy adviser, said Sunday. The president believes stem cell research “should be done in compliance with federal law,” she said, adding that Mr. Obama recognizes the divisiveness of the issue.

“We are committed to pursuing stem cell research quite responsibly but we recognize there are a range of beliefs on this,” Ms. Barnes said.

Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists and advocates for patients believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, like damage to the spinal cord.

Mr. Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded his 2001 policy.

Although Mr. Obama’s action on Monday has broad bipartisan support, it could still be overturned by a successor so House Democrats are expected to draft legislation that would codify the president’s executive order.

But with Mr. Obama revisiting the Bush policy, Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and a leading advocate for embryonic stem cell research, said Sunday in an interview that overturning the embryo experiment ban might not be as far-fetched as some critics imagine.

Ms. DeGette said the first move for lawmakers would be to turn the steps Mr. Obama takes by executive order on Monday into law. But she said she was also talking to her colleagues about overturning the broader Dickey-Wicker restriction.

“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,” Ms. DeGette said. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”

A senior House Democratic leadership aide, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue, said overturning the ban “would be difficult, but not impossible,” adding, “It’s not something that we would do right away, but it’s something that we would look at.”

Fertility researchers also believe the climate is ripe to allow federal money for their work, especially in light of the recent controversy over the birth of octuplets in California, said Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“I think we’re thrilled that the president is going to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research,” Mr. Tipton said Sunday. “It is clear, though, that Congress needs to remove the restrictions it puts on other forms of embryo research.”

Already abortion opponents are bracing for a battle. “The administration now steps onto a very steep, very slippery slope,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. “Many researchers will never be satisfied only with the so-called leftover embryos.”

One Republican lawmaker, Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, is calling Mr. Obama “the abortion president,” and is planning his own event on Monday to protest Mr. Obama’s new stem cell policy.

Mr. Smith said in an interview Sunday that he did not think lawmakers would go along with overturning the embryo experiment ban.

“I don’t think it will fly because the movement in the country is in favor of life,” he said. “For Congress to say that the new guinea pig will be human embryos, most Americans will find that highly offensive.”

Mr. Obama’s announcement on Monday will be part of a broader initiative to make good on his pledge to separate science and politics. Dr. Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health who is a co-chairman of a panel that advises Mr. Obama on science issues, said the president would issue a memorandum to “restore public confidence in the process by which scientific policy is used to guide government action,” by directing his administration to draft guidelines for the use of scientific information and the appointment of outside science advisers.

In reversing the stem cell policy Mr. Bush put in place in August 2001, Mr. Obama will direct the National Institutes of Health to come up with new stem cell research guidelines within 120 days.

Ms. DeGette said she is already talking to the White House about what legislation codifying the executive order might say.

“It’s a wonderful development tomorrow,” she said, “but it’s really the first step in opening up ethical cell-based research.”

FDA Approves Embryonic Stem Cell Research Trials on Humans Despite Concerns

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
January 23, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Despite grave concerns that problems such as the causing of tumors and immune system rejection issues haven't been solved, the FDA has approved the use of embryonic stem cells for human trial. Embryonic stem cell research has never cured or helped any patients to this point.

Only the use of adult stem cells and treatments derived from them have cured or reduced the effects of any diseases or conditions afflicting patients.

That efficacy reason, combined with the fact that embryonic stem cells can only be obtained by destroying early human life, has prompted the pro-life movement to oppose their use.

But now, the Food and Drug Administration has given biotechnology company Geron Corp., based in California, permission to conduct the first-ever human trial for a treatment derived from the controversial cells.

The trial will involve 10 spinal cord patients with injuries the company hopes to treat with an experimental drug containing embryonic stem cells.

"This is the dawn of a new era in medical therapeutics," Thomas B. Okarma, Geron's president and chief executive officer, told the Wall St. Journal. "The hope that stem-cell therapy will repair and regenerate diseased organs and tissue goes beyond what pills and scalpels can ever do."

The timing of the announcement appears suspicious to some pro-life advocates who note that Obama campaigned on a pledge to overturn the funding limits President Bush put in place.

Bush limited spending on embryonic stem cells to existing cells and would not fund the destruction of more human lives to advance science. Instead, he spent hundreds of millions on adult stem cells because of these ethical concerns and because they were the only cells to help patients.

Karen Riley, an FDA spokeswoman, denied that politics had anything to do with the timing of the decision.

"The FDA looks to the science on these types of issues, and we approve [such applications] based on a showing of safety," she told the Journal. "Political considerations have no role in this process."

Though the FDA approved the trial, that doesn't mean the political battle over embryonic stem cell research funding is over.

President Obama will either have to issue an executive order to overturn the Bush protections from making taxpayers fund life-destroying research or he will have to rely on Congress to do so -- which seems more likely.

In a recent interview with CNN, he indicated he may rely on Congress to overturn the limits.

"I like the idea of the American people's representatives expressing their views on an issue like this," he said.

However, the reason may be more political in nature as a Congressional bill would have the force of law and be harder for a pro-life president to overturn, as legislation would be needed to reverse the decision.

Approval of the study is no guarantee that the treatment will work or that drugs based off of it will enter the market and be available to patients on a national basis.

That's in part because embryonic stem cell researchers have yet to overcome all of the problems that have plagued the drug in use with animals.

The cells have had two main scientific problems in that they tend to cause tumors after they are injected and the body's immune system rejects the foreign cells. These problems are not seen in use with adult stem cells.

The patients in the trial will be ones who can receive treatment within 14 days after a spinal cord injury has left them paralyzed. They will need to be followed for a year to determine if the treatments had any effect.

World's First Embryonic Stem Cell Study In Humans

Editor's NOTE:

Apropos the pending Obama administration announcement which will purportedly legalize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is the following ESCR trial to be conducted at UC Irvine in humans.

To date, there have been no successful ESC treatment applications in humans. Complications have included destructive tumor formation (teratomas) and problems relating to systemic immunity. As is well-known, there have been myriads of successful clinical applications/treatments utilizing adult stem cells and those procured from fetal cord blood.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

Article Date: 26 Jan 2009 - 0:00 PSTA
Medical News Today

A therapy developed at UC Irvine that made paralyzed rats walk again will become the world's first embryonic stem cell treatment tested in humans.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the therapy, based on work by a research team led by Hans Keirstead, co-director of the UCI Sue and Bill Gross Stem Cell Research Center, for a clinical trial in patients with acute spinal cord injury.

Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif., will conduct the clinical trial.

"This trial was approved only after rigorous safety testing and consultation of countless experts in the field," Keirstead said. "Any benefit to the patient, even an incremental one, would be a resounding victory."

The therapy contains human embryonic stem cells destined to become spinal cord cells called oligodendrocytes. These are the building blocks of myelin, the biological insulation for nerve fibers that is critical for maintaining electrical conduction in the central nervous system. When myelin is stripped away, through injury or disease, paralysis can occur.

In laboratory tests, Keirstead and his colleague, Dr. Gabriel Nistor, developed a technique for prompting human embryonic stem cells to develop into oligodendrocyte cells.

Injected into rats with spinal cord injuries, the precursor cells turned into oligodendrocytes and migrated to the injured area of the spinal cord. As the cells wrapped around damaged neurons, new myelin tissue formed, allowing electrical conduction to resume and the rats to walk again.

This success, published in the Journal of Neuroscience in 2005, was the subject of dozens of media stories, including a "60 Minutes" segment.

According to Geron, patients eligible for the phase-one trial must have a certain type of spinal cord damage and be willing to receive injections 7-14 days after injury. Geron has selected up to seven U.S. medical centers that may participate in the study.

UCI has a robust stem cell research program that has received more than $52 million from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. UCI's scientists are pioneers in regeneration, large-scale production of specialized cells with very high purity, and methods for treating damaged tissues.

UCI recently broke ground for a four-story building dedicated to stem cell research. When finished in 2010, the building will house the stem cell center, dozens of laboratory-based and clinical researchers, a stem cell techniques course, a master's program in biotechnology with an emphasis on stem cell research, and programs and activities for patients and public education.

Obama Set to Reverse Bush’s Stem-Cell Restrictions

By DAVID STOUT and GARDINER HARRIS
The New York Times
Published: March 6, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce Monday that he is reversing Bush administration limits on federal financing for embryonic stem cell research as part of a pledge to separate science and politics, White House officials said Friday.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama spoke out in favor of stem cell research, so his intention to undo the curbs put in place by President George W. Bush is not surprising. But the decision is nonetheless of great interest, involving a long-controversial intersection of science and personal moral beliefs.

The officials said that advocates of unfettered stem cell research, as well as about 30 Democratic and Republican lawmakers who support it, had been invited to a White House ceremony scheduled for 11:45 a.m. Eastern time, when Mr. Obama is expected to make an announcement.

One person familiar with planning for the event said the president would also speak about a general return to “sound science” in his administration, as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to draw a demarcation line between politics and science. The Bush administration was often accused of trying to shade, or even suppress, the findings of government scientists on climate change, sex education, contraceptives and other issues, as well as stem cells.

Mr. Obama’s announcement is not likely to lead to any immediate change in government policy, since it may take many months for the National Institutes of Health to develop new guidelines for research.

Still, research advocates are expected to push for the process to go as quickly as possible to ensure that universities have time to submit grant proposals that can be reviewed and accepted before September 2010, when the health institutes must commit the last of the $10.4 billion given to the N.I.H. as part of the economic stimulus program.

Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe that they may one day be able to provide tissues to replace worn-out organs or non-functioning cells and, thus, offer powerful new treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and other ailments. Some researchers say the stem cells may even be used someday to treat catastrophic injuries like damage to the spinal cord.

But many people have a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research because creation of the cells entails destruction of human embryos. For that reason, Mr. Bush ordered in August 2001 that federal research be limited to lines of cells that were already in existence, since the embryo destruction for those had already taken place.

The main suspense about what Mr. Obama would do centered on whether he would seek to undo the Bush-era restrictions through legislation or by executive order. The event set for Monday indicates that he might have decided on the latter course, although one person expected to attend the announcement said he understood that the president might also seek to involve Congress.

Advocates of stem cell research have been hoping for an order lifting all restrictions and allowing scientists and ethicists at the N.I.H., not the White House, to make decisions related to stem cell research.

One prominent advocate of stem cell research is Larry Soler, executive vice president for government relations and operations at the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Mr. Soler said in a telephone interview Friday that he was sure that Mr. Obama would indeed signal a return to an era of “scientists making scientific decisions.”

Discussions about stem cell research have often been deeply personal as well as scientific. Advocates of unrestricted research note that the cells are typically obtained from embryos that have been abandoned by couples seeking in-vitro fertilization and that the embryos would be discarded anyway.

But many of those opposed to the research say the embryos are nothing less than tiny human beings, with souls, and that destroying them is akin to murder. They argue that research on embryos that would be thrown out is a slippery moral slope to be avoided by a decent society.

Critics of embryonic stem cell research also argue that scientists can use different types of stem cells, like those found in amniotic fluid or the placenta. But supporters of using embryonic cells say those are by far the most promising.

No matter what is announced Monday, the debate over embryonic stem cell research will not subside. That was clear from the reaction unleashed Friday.

“It must be Friday night because word leaks of yet another deadly executive order by President Obama,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, calling Mr. Obama’s intention “a slap in the face to Americans who believe in the dignity of all human life.”

But the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation praised the president’s plan.

“By removing politics from science,” said Peter T. Wilderotter, the organization’s president and chief executive, “President Obama has freed researchers to explore these remarkable stem cells, learn from them and possibly develop effective therapies using them.”

The actor Christopher Reeve died in 2004, nine years after being injured in a horseback riding accident. His wife died in 2006. “The Reeves’ belief in the promise of stem cell research is a part of their lasting legacy,” Mr. Wilderotter said.

Among the lawmakers reportedly invited to the White House on Monday are Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, all Republicans; Senators Dianne Feinstein of California, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado, all Democrats.

NOTE:

Two glaring problems inherent in the human embryonic stem cell debate are made evident in the above article. First, is the question of what moral philosophy should be operative/normative in considering the ethical question involved (Utilitarianism vs: Traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophy) and second whether it is morally licit to destroy (kill) human embryos for any purpose.

Currently, the procuring of human embryonic stem cells (ESC's) requires the destruction of human embryos. Human embryos are in fact biologically/ontologically entirely human from the moment of conception/fertilization at which time DNA from paternal and maternal gametes are combined and reshuffled. Once in existence, these entities are in every relevant sense--nascent human beings--irrespective of how they came into being or where they are located. They are completely innocent from a moral perspective.

In traditional moral philosophy it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being (as is done routinely in "harvesting" embryonic stem cells from human embryos). All such embryonic human beings are killed in the process of removing the highly sought-after embryonic stem cells. Therefore, as presently performed--yet from a traditional (golden-rule ethic) moral philosophical perspective, embryonic stem cell research is immoral as is all human destructive embryo research (DER). As such, only if the stem cells could be removed without harm to the embryo and if doing so directly benefited the embryo itself would such manipulations be morally licit.

Since in the United States and Western culture in general, rank Utilitarianism is the reigning (unethical) moral construct, embryonic stem cell research has been embraced by most scientists involved and many interested advocates. President Obama has embraced Utilitarianism as his operative (immoral/amoral) philosophy and thus is prepared to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. It is unclear whether this will involve utilizing (killing embryos in order to obtain their embryonic stem cells) only those embryos already in existence (e.g. those currently cryopreserved in fertility clinics) or whether he also envisions federally funding the wholesale creation of embryos from which embryonic stem cells will be liberally "harvested." This practice is currently legal albeit completely privately financed. The change which President Obama may be advocating is to make federal funds available for this purpose as well. We must wait to see what the details of his policy will be. Only time will tell.

Just as it is immoral (from a traditional moral perspective) to kill human embryos in order to obtain their embryonic stem cells, it is also immoral to artificially create human embryos for that purpose (in fact it is immoral to create them for any purpose such as in IVF although that involves a different moral calculus). Not only should there be a ban on human destructive embryo research (DER) from the perspective of federal funding but it should be made illegal entirely meaning that private entities would also be prohibited from doing so. As a society we must either always and everywhere protect innocent human life or admit that in the United States, some human beings--the most innocent among us--lack the right to life and can be sacrificed for the sake of expediency--a rank utilitarian calculus that. To do otherwise is to be intellectually inconsistent and morally bankrupt.

As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Utilitarianism is a completely inadequate (and often immoral) construct by which to analyze complex ethical problems. It is frequently productive of an ad-hoc/self-serving result which is incompatible with the common good. It is not surprising that those who embrace a Utilitarian ethic would support destructive embryo research (DER).

Many who support DER (such as the referenced individuals quoted in the above article including spokespersons for the White House) engage in sophistry by which they attempt to eliminate all ethical considerations from scientific research by incorrectly conflating the "political" with the ethical. While it is admirable in some circumstances to remove political considerations from scientific investigation, it is never morally licit to eliminate ethical considerations from scientific research. History is replete (e.g. Nuremberg tribunals on human experimentation and US military experiments on syphilitic black males) with examples of what occurs when that is allowed to happen.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert