[StemCellInformation] # 394 Friday, November 29, 2007 - ARGUING WITH THE CHURCH

# 394 Friday, November 29, 2007 - ARGUING WITH THE CHURCH: Catholic Beliefs to Dictate Stem Cell Program?  

 

 

Religious freedom is a fundamental American right, no matter how foolish that faith may seem to others.  If I wanted to worship goldfish, I have the legal right to do so, without being persecuted," but do I have the right to impose Goldfish Worship on others?

 

My family's faith (though not my own) is Catholic. Should that religion's beliefs be required of Baptists, Episcopalians, atheists, Muslims, Presbyterians, Jews, agnostics, Sikhs and Buddhists?

 

The Catholic Church is trying to force to force its stem cell research policies onto everyone.

 

This is not a casual attempt, but a world-wide effort, beginning with the Vatican, which recently opined that supporting embryonic stem cell research is an excommunicable offense. Think what that means that I should literally be condemned to Hell for all eternity for my opinions on medical research?

 

To me, that is as nonsensical" and cruel" as the religious belief that anesthesia in childbirth was against God's wishes, because it said in the Bible that "In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children ".

 

Personally, I have more faith in God than that. For me, the reason God gave us a brain is to think and solve problems. But that is my opinion, and I would not attempt to enshrine it into law.

 

The reason America separates church and state is because there can never be agreement on something unprovable. How can God be even described, unless we can bring Him/Her/It into the room with us? And if we cannot describe God without arguing, how can we ever hope to agree on religious legislation?

 

But down through history, the Church has been a power structure, as well as a source of comfort and wisdom. And when it steps into politics, it must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

 

If religious officialdom forces a law, that affects us all. If you drive into a town where the Churches "persuaded" local officials to require all stores to close on Sundays, and you need to buy a quart of milk, you are out of luck.

 

And if you live in a state or a country" or a world--- where stem cell research was declared illegal…

 

In the United Nations, Catholic priests accompanied Bush administration officials as they    attempted to impose a world-wide ban on SCNT (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, sometimes called therapeutic cloning) an advanced form of stem cell research.

 

Nationally, the Catholic Church's and other Religious Right organizations routinely bully and terrify legislators, utterly controlling the Republican Party's stem cell policy, preventing the passage of even such a moderate and mild law as the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

 

In state after state, the Catholic Church is the center of the anti-research movement.

 

In Missouri, the church passed out lawn signs opposing Amendment 2 (which said Missouri should not be denied any federally-approved medical research), and let churches be offices for groups which passed out plastic fetuses to children at county fairs, saying this is what embryonic stem cell research is all about.

 

In California, Catholic churches distributed glossy full-color fliers opposing the science supported by Proposition 71" and every California church receives anti-embryonic research materials routinely, for the priests to intone from the pulpit, and for parishioners to take home with them.

 

In Michigan, the Church mailed 504,000 anti-research CDs (think of the money" a church which takes a vow of poverty somehow can afford to burn half a million CDs and postage and padded envelopes for one state mailing alone) to the homes of Catholic families.

 

In Texas, meetings of the legislature are held late at night with little or no public notice" so the Catholic anti-science view can be drummed into the heads of legislators without opposition.

 

And now, with the experimental "success" of an alternative stem cell technique, their campaign moves into high gear.

 

Led by the Catholic Church, anti-research forces will try to use the experimental skin cell technique (Induced Pluripotent Stem cells, or IPSc) to shut down embryonic and SCNT research.

 

Do I exaggerate?

 

In a moment we will see the actual open letter from the New York State Catholic Conference revealing the Church's intent to control stem cell policy. 

 

New York has a $600 million dollar stem cell program. The Catholic Church is attempting to thwart the very purpose of the law, and to divert control away from the voters and the legislature.

They wish to say where the state's tax dollars should be spent" trying to block funding for the Empire State's embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

 

If they can succeed in New York, they will try in other states-- not even California's glorious new program will be safe from attack" and they will try nationally as well.

 

Now politicians are quite understandably timid about challenging the Church.

 

And the Church tries to sell itself as all-knowing, never to be questioned. Have you ever wondered why parishioners are lectured to on their knees? The Vatican's pronouncements are passed down from the top. Debate is (to put it mildly) not encouraged: how often do people stand up on Sunday and challenge the priest? Until very recently, the services were even delivered in Latin, which nobody except the priests understand.

 

What it boils down to is the Church issues pronouncements, and nobody is allowed to say, "Hey, I disagree with that!"

 

But what if we could argue with the Church? What if we could have a conversation with the church, run along the lines of a court of law, where people have to speak the truth-- or be instantly challenged? When a lawyer can say, "I object", and an impartial judge and jury can decide" there is an opportunity for truth to prevail.

 

This is not idle chit-chat. Public medical policy affects my family, and yours. Cures found means suffering eased: cures prevented means the agony goes on. 

 

And so, today, I would like to argue with the Church. First, to be fair, I will print their side, a posted letter from the New York State Catholic Conference in which they publicly propose that all New York's money be taken away from ESC research, and given to only the research which they consider worthy.

 

I have taken that letter, and divided it up into separate sentences. I inserted underlines, parentheses, and numbers to indicate places where I disagree, and placed my comments at the conclusion.  But the material itself is unchanged. The article was originally posted at: (http://www.nyscatholic.org/pages/news/show_newsDetails.asp?id=344)

 

 

NEW YORK STATE CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

NEWS: For Immediate Release: November 20, 2007

 

Catholic Conference hails stem cell breakthrough, (1)

urges state funding be directed (2) toward this new research.

 

The New York State Catholic Conference hailed the breakthrough(3) announced today by stem cell researchers from Wisconsin and Japan that allows the creation (4) of embryonic-like (5) stem cells by reprogramming (6) mature human cells, rather than destroying human embryos. (7)

 

The Conference urges the state government to pursue this research with the public funds earmarked in the New York State budget for stem cell research. (8)

 

Kathleen M. Gallagher, director of pro-life (9) activities for the Catholic Conference, made the following comment today:

 

"Today marks the dawn of a new age for ethical scientific research and discovery. (10) This breakthrough announced in two scientific journals appears to solve the ethical dilemmas (11) of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning (12) by eliminating the need for them. (13)

 

Instead, by simply (14) adding four genes to an existing skin cell, the cell can be reprogrammed as a `pluripotent' (15) stem cell. The process appears to be easier, (16) more cost efficient (17), scientifically promising (18) and morally untroubling (19).

 

Beyond the fact that scientists will no longer need to create (20)and destroy (21) human embryos (22) in a laboratory setting, the new process eliminates the need for donor eggs (23) and the potential exploitation of poor women (24) that could entail.

 

Further, it appears that medical issues (25) such as tissue rejection (26) would not be a factor. (27)

 

This may be the best possible outcome (28) for people who yearn for cures of chronic diseases and disabilities. (29)

 

Much work needs to be done, (30) but it seems clear (31) that the hurdles (32) will be much easier to overcome (33) than those that continue to plague (34) embryo research and cloning. (35)

 

"The Catholic Conference urges the Empire State Stem Cell Board, created by Gov. Spitzer and the state legislature earlier this year, to direct all state funding that would have gone to destructive embryo research and cloning into research utilizing this new procedure, (36) which can make our state a leader in the field (37).

 

At the same time, we continue to fully support funding for research on `adult' stem cells, (38) which already have many (39) valuable therapeutic uses in the

treatment of disease and disability.

 

The Conference congratulates those in the scientific community who have pursued this lifesaving (40) research, which should put an end to any scientific justification (41) for embryo-destructive research (42) and the cloning of human beings.(43)

 

The Catholic Conference represents New York State's Bishops (44) in matters of public policy."

 

(End of article).

 

Now, here are some of my objections, places where, in a court of law, arguments would be allowed, the attorney's hand would go up, and the words would be said: "I object, your honor". 

 

1. "breakthrough"" to call any experiment a "breakthrough" is an unfounded assertion. Experimental findings must be tested and re-tested, replicated dozens of times. Can there be a legitimate "breakthrough" on the basis of two apparently hopeful experiments?

 

2. "urges state funding to be directed"" for the Catholic Church to urge such a domination of public funds seems to me a clear violation of our Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state.

 

3. "breakthrough" repeats the  previous unsupported allegation. It is a propagandist's trick to endlessly repeat a lie or half-truth" but a breakthrough does not become one by verbal advertisements, no matter how often repeated.

 

4. "creation""  first, an observation: until now, any scientific advance which involved anything like "creation" was sure to bring down the wrath of the Church. Now, apparently, "creation" is acceptable.  Secondly, if by creation the Church in any way implies the beginning of life, then that must be challenged as a statement of theology: a philosophical opinion. Even the Church itself disagrees on the beginning of life. A great Catholic Saint, Thomas Aquinas, identified the "quickening", when the baby first stirs inside the mother, as the beginning of life. Is Saint Thomas Aquinas now in danger of excommunication, as the Church seeks to define life as beginning before the mother?  

 

5. "embryonic-like"" this is an unsupported scientific judgment. Science itself does not fully understand the properties of embryonic stem cells; how can a non-scientific body assert that equivalency has been achieved? IPS may turn out to be "embryonic-lite" instead of embryonic-like.

 

6. "reprogramming"" that was the attempt of the experiment. But scientific practice forbids claiming it as an accomplishment, until it is reliably replicated by numerous independent efforts.

 

7. "destroying human embryos"" here a religious organization attempts to impose faith-based definitions on a scientific debate. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines embryo: "especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception."  According to the world's leading dictionary, therefore, the Catholic Church is just plain wrong when it claims embryos are destroyed" because these were not embryos in the first place, having never been implanted in the womb.

 

8. "The Conference urges the state government to pursue this research with the public funds earmarked in the New York State budget for stem cell research." The spokesperson for the Church has no more right to dictate public policy for science as science has to dictate theological positions to the church" which is to say, no right at all.

 

9. "pro-life"" how can a religion call itself pro-life when it opposes research which may save the lives of millions?

 

10.  "Today marks the dawn of a new age for ethical scientific research and discovery". The Church has been a consistent enemy to medical advances, opposing everything from dissection and the study of human anatomy (the very basis of medical research), to x-rays (opposed because they might be used to see through women's clothing) to polio research (which used tissue from aborted fetuses) to the cloning of viruses and DNA research which gave us artificial insulin and over 100 critical medications for heart disease and cancer, " just as now, it opposes embryonic stem cell research" but today is somehow a "new dawn", because the church graciously accepts one form of stem cell derivation, while still attempting to block others?

 

11.  "ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research"" the only ethical dilemmas have been those emotional firestorms the Church itself stirred up. For it to make such a claim is like an arsonist complaining about heat.

 

12.  "human cloning"" the research the Church seeks to block (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, SCNT, sometimes called therapeutic cloning) does not clone humans at all. "Cloning" of cells is what science wants, not the dangerous and useless nightmare of attempting to clone people. Reproductive cloning is against the law in California, a state which understands the difference between copying cells and copying people.

 

13.  "eliminating the need for them"" Embryonic stem cells are the gold standard for the scientific community, as acknowledged by the very scientists the Catholic Church is praising right now. The lead investigators of both studies are on record as supporting the continuation of embryonic stem cell research. As a non-scientific body, the Church has no standing to make such a claim, pretending to foresee the needs of medical science.  

 

14.  "simply adding four genes"-- there is nothing simple about adding four genes (genetic research, of course, was also opposed by the same Church which now blesses its results)--  one of the genes in the experiment has properties that create tumors. Approximately 20% of the laboratory mice in one of the two experiments developed cancer. In the second experiment, one of the four genes used is known to cause leukemia. Also, genetic manipulation also carries the risk of cell mutation" these are not "simple" problems.

 

15.  "the cell can be reprogrammed as a pluripotent stem cell". This is the hope of the experimenters, not a proven fact. Many steps must follow before any such statement can be made. It should be noted that many such claims have been made before (see bottom of page) and did any of those claims eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells?

 

16.  "The process appears to be easier"" this assumes not only that the goal has been accomplished, but also that it can be done again-- and easily too! That is like saying, well, it should be easy for a human being to lift five hundred pounds overhead, because two world champions have done it.

 

17.  "more cost efficient"" this is a complete unknown. No one has even attempted to perform reprogramming on a mass scale. For any new medicine to be developed, vast quantities are required for testing, which is part of the reason it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring one new drug or practice to market. What we have here is an apparently promising experiment, nothing more. It may take decades before theory (even assuming success) can be translated into practice. Only when multiple trials have produced sufficient materials which actually work, which bring healing results to people" only then can true costs be estimated.

 

18. "scientifically promising"" this is pure opinion. We will not know this technique's true promise until it is replicated successfully, and translated into useful therapies. 

 

19. "morally untroubling""  Morals are based on opinion, and opinions change. For instance, apparently the church no longer objects to experiments on material drawn from aborted fetuses (which was the case in one of the two experiments they praised) or flesh taken from the penis of a newborn child (the other).  

 

20.  "Beyond the fact that scientists will no longer need to create" (embryos) First, scientists do not create embryos for research. They use IVF blastocysts already in existence, which are scheduled to be destroyed. Or, they may use the product of SCNT, which involves neither sperm, nor womb, nor implantation" calling that an embryo is like saying a lightning bolt is a light bulb because both involve electricity.

 

21.  "and destroy". This is a deliberately loaded word.  If we do not except the religious definition, then it is not destruction we are talking about, but science in the public good: this is an attempt to save lives, not take them.

 

22.  "human embryos"" again, imposition of a religious definition.

 

23.  "the new process eliminates the need for donor eggs"" how do we know this? Can the Catholic Conference predict the future?

 

24.  "potential exploitation of poor women"" this refers to the payment of cash to women who donate their eggs to the In Vitro Fertility (IVF)  process used world wide to help childless couples, and, rarely, donations for research. An estimated one million Catholics have been born by the IVF procedure, many involving a financial payment. Interestingly, the Church at one point declared the IVF procedure itself to be the moral equivalent of abortion, and recommended excommunication for parents who sought to have a child by that method. That policy has never been revoked, and to the best of my knowledge is still in existence today" just not enforced, perhaps because the church does not want to lose so many members.  

 

25.  "medical issues"" the Catholic church lacks standing to offer an opinion on the multiple scientific/medical questions yet to be answered.

 

26. "tissue rejection"" ibid

 

27.  "factor"--ibid

 

28.  "best possible outcome"" for whom? Scientists who want the freedom to find out which scientific method works best? Or Religion which seeks to impose its will on the public? Certainly it is not the best outcome for patients whose suffering will continue as their cures and therapies are delayed by stifling other forms of stem cell research.

 

29.  "people who yearn for cures of chronic disease and disabilities"" these are the last people who would benefit from the scientific censorship the Church has so frequently imposed, and is attempting to do so again.

 

30.  "Much work needs to be done"" colossal understatement. Scientists must be allowed to go forward on all four main areas of stem cell research" adult, embryonic, SCNT, and the new "programming" method.

 

31. "it seems clear"" to whom? Religious opponents of research?

 

32.  "hurdles"" the greatest hurdle to scientific advance is political opposition, which the Church embodies. 

 

33. "will be much easier to overcome"" again, the Church sets itself up as an arbiter of science and medical research, a job for which it has no qualification.

 

34.  "than those that continue to plague"" the difficulties of finding cures to disease have always been huge" or so many diseases would not be called incurable. An estimated one hundred million Americans alone suffer chronic illness or injury, from autism, Alzheimer's,  spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, on and on" and the Church still opposes embryonic stem cell research, which might help millions.

 

35.  "embryo research and cloning"" if embryo research was stopped, many of the most terrifying birth defects could never be fought" and cloning? Human reproductive cloning is a science fiction nightmare with neither need nor constituency. But to remove cloning from science would be as ludicrous as denying it to gardeners, who practice cloning every time they cut a slip from a plant. Shall we also deny the cloning of viruses, part of the DNA research which gave us artificial insulin?

 

36.  "direct all state funding that would have gone to destructive embryo

research and cloning into research utilizing this new procedure"" this is a clear attempt at religious domination of the political process, from an institution that has neither qualifications to determine the best science, nor legal standing to impose its will.

 

37.  "which can make our state a leader in the field."" The Church has systematically opposed the medical research which gave us the medical benefits we now enjoy" why should we accept their prescription? We should be guided rather by  California, in which biomedicine is the number one provider of jobs" California which by Constitutional law supports the very research the Church would ban.

 

38.  "we continue to fully support funding for research on "adult" stem cells." Despite loudly-voiced vows of poverty, the Catholic Church is the largest property-owner in the world. If it wished to "fully support funding" the church should at least contribute what California has" surely three billion would not be too much from such a powerful global institution. Instead, however, the Church has spent undisclosed amounts seeking to block research, as in the state of Michigan, where the church (by its own admission) sent out half a million (504,000) propaganda CDs to Catholic families, "educating" them to oppose embryonic stem cell research.

 

39.  "which already have many valuable therapeutic uses in the treatment of disease and disability." The word "several" would be more accurate than many. Adult stem cell research has been fully funded and studied for over 40 years and so has produced treatments, as for example in the use of blood stem cells to fight certain forms of cancer. However, in too many cases, there is no immune system match between the donor and the patient. All too often, the patient dies for lack of this match.  Embryonic stem cell research could allow the successful treatments of adult stem cell research to be expanded to include all patients with a disease, not just a select few. No one suggests that adult stem cell research be abandoned, or criminalized" it is a part of full stem cell research" but no major scientific, medical, or educational establishment supports the Church's attempts to limit research to adult cells alone.   

 

40.  "life-saving research"" opponents of embryonic stem cell research often criticize us for being too enthusiastic" for "hyping" our hopes. Is this not exactly that?  Potentially life-saving would be more accurate. 

 

41.  "which should put an end to any scientific justification"" again, this is ideological opinion, nothing more. The Church is not qualified to make any such assertions, any more than a scientist should be considered experts on theological debates.

 

42. "for embryo-destructive research"" this is loaded language, implying killing of embryos, when in point of fact these are not embryos. Linguists may debate about what makes an embryo, and the science is so new that language must change to fit the new information. But it can be argued that even the contents of a married woman's tampon contain a higher form of life than the blastocysts used for research. That humble discarded item contains materials that were once inside a woman's womb, whereas neither IVF-derived blastocysts, nor an SCNT-derived ovasome will ever be inside a womb, and therefore cannot possibly begin a pregnancy.

 

43.  "cloning of human beings""  fear and smear tactics. No responsible scientific or medical organization supports human reproductive cloning. But the copying of cells, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, (SCNT, sometimes called therapeutic cloning) is supported by every major scientific, educational, and medical group which has taken a position.

 

44.  "The Catholic Conference represents New York State's Bishops in matters of public policy." This seems an area of potential litigation. The Catholic church cheerfully accepts a non-political status when it comes to paying taxes. If it wants to avoid paying its share of taxes, like a non-political charity, why then does it feel free to engage in politics? Indeed, an argument can be made that as representatives of the Vatican, (which has the status of a country) those who represent its wishes should be required to register as foreign agents. Why is the Catholic Church allowed to act like a domineering political agency whenever it wishes, but retreat to its "non-political" status when it comes to paying taxes?

  

 

P.S. Karen found the following alleged "breakthroughs" some hailed as "alternatives" to embryonic stem cell research. One, found seven years ago, is even called the same name as the newest "breakthrough", reprogramming. Did it replace the need for all the other "breakthroughs"? Did any of these prove so wonderful that all the other methods to derive stem cells were abandoned as useless" including the newest one? 

 

 

"BREAKTHROUGHS":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/06/000602072837.htm 

Adult Stem Cells Can Produce A Wealth Of Cell Types, Science Authors Report

Science Daily (Jun. 2, 2000) "  Washington D.C. -- Reprogrammed adult neural stem cells can potentially generate a cornucopia of cell types-giving rise to cells in heart, liver, muscle, intestine and other tissues, a 2 June Science study suggests.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010814063557.htm
Study Identifies New Source Of Stem Cells

ScienceDaily (Aug. 14, 2001) "  Montreal, August 13, 2001 -- A new study from the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) of McGill University has identified a non-controversial source of stem cells that can produce a number of different cell types, including the type of neural cells needed to potentially help patients recover from a spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease.

PLUS MORE!

 

Personally, I have no objection to any of them. I do not pretend to have all the answers. If there is benefit from Adult, Embryonic, SCNT, or IPS cells, that is to the good.

 

Science will find a way, unless it is censored into a new Dark Ages.

 

For an idea of the results of what scientific censorship can mean, we have only to look back to the Dark Ages, when the Catholic Church had unopposed power, and the Black Plague wiped out much of Europe" and medical dissection for research was illegal.

 

Do we want that again?

 

Don Reed
www.stemcellbattles.com
 

 

Don C. Reed is co-chair (with Karen Miner) of Californians for Cures, and writes for their web blog, www.stemcellbattles.com. Reed was citizen-sponsor for California's Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act of 1999, named after his paralyzed son; he worked as a grassroots advocate for California's Senator Deborah Ortiz's three stem cell regulatory laws, served as an executive board member for Proposition 71, the California Stem Cells for Research and Cures Act, and is director of policy outreach for Americans for Cures. The retired schoolteacher is the author of five books and thirty magazine articles, and has received the National Press Award.

 

 

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Calendar

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

•  1
  New Links

Visit Your Group

Fitness Edge

on Yahoo! Groups

Learn how to

increase endurance.

Real Food Group

Share recipes,

restaurant ratings

and favorite meals.

Yahoo! Groups

Wellness Spot

A resource for living

the Curves lifestyle.

.

__,_._,___