Stem Cell Research
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-08-31/stem-cell-research
Researchers are poised to use embryonic stem cells in treating patients with spinal cord injuries and a form of blindness. But the future of stem-cell research is in doubt following a recent court decision on federal funding. Promise, risks and moral objections to stem cell research.
Guests
Dr George Daley
director, Stem Cell Transplantation Program
professor, Hematology/Oncology
Children's Hospital, Boston
Sean Tipton
Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research
Robert Destro
professor of law,
director, Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
Peter Boyer
staff writer, The New Yorker
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
This is a tremendous victory for evangelical faith healers.
Why the federal govt has not gone after the ruling as a purely religious unconstitutional issue is beyond me.
The issue has always been when the soul enters the body and not whether or not it is human life. The skin cells in our mouths are human life yet we destroy them daily by the thousands every time we brush our teeth and we are not put on trial for murder as a result.
It's a religious issue based upon a modern christian church position on the matter.
Jesus stated that jewish law was not to be touched until heaven and earth ceased to be and all things came to pass, none of which has happened. This means that christians pushing this ruling are mandated by Jesus to honor that law regardless of which covenant they believe they are under, and allow the jews and others who choose to live under yevamot 69b to practice their religion and not have christian law be pushed upon them in this regard.
According to Jesus, yevamot 69b still stands. The stemcells and fetus are golem under that law and are considered part of the mother until separation at birth and has no soul until drawing first breath.
To impose christian law on at least the jews in this regard is unconstitutional and attempts to stop stemcell research based purely upon christian law should be immediately stopped.
If there is protest, establish in the court when a soul enters the body and if a soul even exists. This will show that it is not a scientific issue but a purely religious one since science has never been able to establish either condition.
Why congress or the courts have never framed this as a religious and not a scientific ethical issue is a question that should be raised.
The stem cells that are extracted from the cord blood from a newborn baby are a very good source. Surely, the system can be put in place to use them as a standard. See the movie about Tiffany's life being saved by her baby sister.
The stem cells are in the blood stream and then go to the tissue, right?
Be Blessed
Embryonic research is vital to the growth of the human race, not just because of the physical research and health benefits, but because it educates us about the basic functionality of life. The only problem people have with it is due to their lack of understanding. Those of strong religious views and without scientific comprehension, don't understand the complexities of life. They have a very narrow understanding which inhibits, I believe, the development of science in this country.
While this litigious society stalls scientists to develop novel therapies using pluripotent stem cells, wealthy Americans seek the benefit of stem cells abroad under questionable circumstances to fight their afflictions (Read the comments to this essay: http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2009/01/versatile-mind-seeing-without-...). The current legislation does the citizens of this country a great disservice.
People are afraid of scientists who say "peer reviewed = best practices" because it seems like the fox guarding the henhouse. My spouse IS a scientist, and reviews grants including ESC research.
The fear is that scientists are Faustian and will do whatever is possible, as attaining knoweledge is their particular bent
Consider the state of our country when large numbers of people protest companies that experiment on animals to insure the safety of consumer products on one hand, but on the other hand are more then willing to experiment on human beings that have yet to be born. Life is a continuum, from the point of conception when the cell is now genetically distinct from the parent, through the infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult and senior citizen. People cannot be owned. I do not own my children, but rather am just their guardian until age 18.
What makes the USA different and has attracted so much respect from people around the world for 200 years is our ideals of protecting the down trodden and weak and of the rights of the individual. We believe that the the value of each human is more important that the state, unlike countries such as China where the rights of each individual do not exist.
"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."
America claims to believe that every human being is equal and worthy of respect and protection. Experimenting on humans to the point of killing them should stir repulsion.
However, great wealth and fame awaits the men who develop cures for disease, even if human beings at the very beginning of life are destroyed. That, in an essence is what drives this whole issue: The desire for money and fame.
Oreilly,
Lets be fair about what this case was about. The 2 lead plaintiffs that brought this case (Dr. Sherley and Dr. Diesher) are both iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cell) researchers. They both have rec'd lots and lots (I don't know the exact amount) of grant money from the NIH to do their research work. Since the NIH recently proposed a definition change to their guidlines for federal funding of stem cell research to include hESC (human embryonic stem cell) research into the grant money pool eligibility, the iPSC researchers now have to compete with the hESC researchers for grant money. So Dr's Sherley and Diesher brought this case to fight the elegibilty of hESC researchers from getting a piece of the money pie they have had all to theirself for 10 years now. In other words, they were crying about having to compete for federal grant money.
The implication in your post is that embryonic stem cell researchers are hungry for money and fame. In this particular case, it iss the iPSC researchers who are the greedy ones.
And your position about killing unborn human beings: These "human beings" you are talking about are balls of about 8 to 16 cells. Only a clump of cells collectively smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. There is no heart, no lungs, no nervous system, or any other organ/system to speak of. Only 8 to 16 round cells clumped together. A vast majority spend their life as a clump of cells frozen in cryogenic tanks (sometimes for 10 years), until the parents of the cells decide they no longer want them and then they are thrown in a medical waste incinerator. This is a tremendous waste. Why on earth would you be agreeable to let these cell clumps be destroyed when valuable life changing, disease curing research can be done on them? Why?
You were one of these "balls of cells" or zygote, as were each one of us. Life is a continum. Just because this "ball of cells" cannot speak and needs to be fed and cared for as it grows does not mean it should not have the dignity and respect give to all human beings. When should a human be considered human? Single cell, zygote, blasocyst, embryo, infant. How should the line be drawn and who should draw that line?
The USA respects human rights especially of the unloved, unlovely and weak among us. Let's not loose that distinction.
An end to human suffering is a wonderful goal, but the ends do not always justify the means.
Oreilly,
Thank you for responding back. I appreciate your point of view. We have a fundamental disagreement about the earliest stages of the human life cycle.
My personal belief is that these blastocysyts can never become a human unless they at least first become attached to something that can supply it with nutrients and protection for a sustained period of time till it can become fully formed. So really, imo, it's nothing but a ball of cells till, at the very least, implantation.
What about the millions of early stage miscarriages every year by women who don't even realize they are pregnant (which happens quite frequently as I've recently learned)? Should those miscarried blastocysts/embryos be somehow saved and stored till a willing woman is found who will accept the ball of cells and have them somehow implanted into her own uterus to then carry it to term? Your response to that (if I may presume) will likely be something like this: "There was likely something wrong with the blastocyst and it was natures way of taking care of that situation". My answer to you would be two-fold:
1. Should it "not have the dignity and respect given to all human beings" (to use your own words)?
2. What if the blastocyst doesn't survive the freezing and thawing storage process (which according to fertility clinic statistics, happens frequently)? Do we hold the storage facility guilty of murder? Or better yet, how about holding the original mother guilty of murder in the first place when a miscarriage occurs? After all, according to you, it is a human life that deserves dignity and respect.
Also note that it is quite difficult to form laws where there is no true consensus about where life begins. If you say it is when the sperm fertilizes the ova, then you need to form other laws and punitive consequences when there is irreparable harm caused to one of them.
O'Reilly,
Your attempt to equate a ball of 8 to 16 cells to a person via the logic we on a "continuum" of human life is undermined by your willingness to experiment on adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are alive and have human DNA. If a researcher successfully reprograms an adult stem cell into emulating all the functions of an embryonic stem cell has he created an embryo with a soul? If induced to divide he has created potential human life. Like my finger tip an embryo is a form of human life, but it's not a person.
We seem to endow a lot more sacredness to embryonic stem cells than we do to actual living human beings. "W" once said refering to stem cells "Sacrificing life to save other life is wrong." Well Mr. Bush what about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Were they not fought, in your own words, to save American lives?
How many actual lives were sacrificed and are being sacrificed in those endeavors to save the lives of others? And keep in mind that not everyone chose to give their lives in those wars like those in the military did. There is, as we all know, collateral damage - that is civilian lives - men, women and children - some pregnant women - who are sacrificed in various attacks. A number is picked for the "acceptable collateral damage" and the president has to approve. So, to say that it is wrong to sacrifice life to save other life is a tad naive shall we say. It is done all the time. If as a society we can make a decision about sacrificing actual lives then why not about embryos?