Scientific Breakthroughs and Govenor Blunt's letter
Another great Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez, this time with Robert P. George on the latest in Stem Cells, both scientifically and legally.
Here is George on some of the new science:
"Yes, the word is getting out about actual therapeutic breakthroughs using non-embryonic stem cells, such as cells harvested from umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, fat, and other sources. There are people suffering from a variety of diseases who have been helped and even cured by adult-stem-cell therapies. Many such therapies are well along in clinical trials. Word is also getting out about alternative methods of obtaining pluripotent (i.e., embryonic-type) stem cells. Even those of us who oppose embryo killing and reject the hype about possible embryonic-stem-cell therapies recognize that research involving pluripotent cells is desirable if the cells can be obtained without killing or harming human embryos or violating any other ethical norm. Even if they do not someday prove to be therapeutically useful, pluripotent cells may nevertheless be used in basic science and the construction of disease models. Recently, the President's Council on Bioethics issued a white paper outlining several promising avenues for obtaining these cells without violating the ethical norm against taking innocent human life. I joined the overwhelming majority of my colleagues on the President's Council, including many who do not share my ethical objections to embryo killing, in endorsing further exploration and research into some or all of these methods. There are some exciting possibilities here, especially those involving epigenetically reprogramming ordinary body cells to the pluripotent state."
Contrast this with Gov. Blunt's letter to NRO on June 30, where he writes "The overwhelmingly pro-life House and Senate share my view that somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) does not involve the creation of new human life."
In reply, the NRO editors wrote: "Gov. Blunt would have us believe that cloning isn’t cloning if he calls it SCNT, and that cloning doesn’t create a human life if he has prayed about it. But whatever we call the procedure in question, it creates a living organism of the human species. And in any case, the legislation the governor sank would have prohibited the “creation of a human being by any means other than by the fertilization of an oocyte of a human female by a sperm of a human male.” If the governor thinks that SCNT doesn’t create a human life — for some mysterious reason — he should have been able to support this bill."
Following all this takes a bit of work, but if I understand the difference between the procedure described by Prof. George and Gov. Blunt's version of SCNT, the former works towards the creation of 'pluripotent' cells "without killing or harming human embryos or violating any other ethical norm" - even though (as I understand it) they are 'organisms', while SCNT, in a process that involves the fertilization of an oocyte by sperm, does result in the destruction of life.
If I've misunderstood this or am making an unrealistic comparison, by all means please let me know.
I also appreciate these words of Prof. George: "There is no mystery about when the life of a new human individual begins. It is not a matter of subjective opinion or private religious belief. One finds the answer not by consulting one's viscera or searching through the Bible or the Koran; one finds it, rather, in the basic texts of the relevant scientific disciplines." It makes sense that arguments based on science should be used in debates about matters of science, and George and his colleague Grompe have done a great service by shining a light on this corner of the debate. Although after turning this over for a while I have to wonder if we don't need a simpler rule of thumb by which we can judge these matters. I like what Jonah Goldberg has elsewhere called 'the Ick Factor,' but the problem there is that it becomes a matter of subjective opinion, perhaps even a consultation of one's viscera. One hopes that universal taboos and simple revulsion would do the trick, but there really is no substitute for an informed opinion.
Here is George on some of the new science:
"Yes, the word is getting out about actual therapeutic breakthroughs using non-embryonic stem cells, such as cells harvested from umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, fat, and other sources. There are people suffering from a variety of diseases who have been helped and even cured by adult-stem-cell therapies. Many such therapies are well along in clinical trials. Word is also getting out about alternative methods of obtaining pluripotent (i.e., embryonic-type) stem cells. Even those of us who oppose embryo killing and reject the hype about possible embryonic-stem-cell therapies recognize that research involving pluripotent cells is desirable if the cells can be obtained without killing or harming human embryos or violating any other ethical norm. Even if they do not someday prove to be therapeutically useful, pluripotent cells may nevertheless be used in basic science and the construction of disease models. Recently, the President's Council on Bioethics issued a white paper outlining several promising avenues for obtaining these cells without violating the ethical norm against taking innocent human life. I joined the overwhelming majority of my colleagues on the President's Council, including many who do not share my ethical objections to embryo killing, in endorsing further exploration and research into some or all of these methods. There are some exciting possibilities here, especially those involving epigenetically reprogramming ordinary body cells to the pluripotent state."
Contrast this with Gov. Blunt's letter to NRO on June 30, where he writes "The overwhelmingly pro-life House and Senate share my view that somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) does not involve the creation of new human life."
In reply, the NRO editors wrote: "Gov. Blunt would have us believe that cloning isn’t cloning if he calls it SCNT, and that cloning doesn’t create a human life if he has prayed about it. But whatever we call the procedure in question, it creates a living organism of the human species. And in any case, the legislation the governor sank would have prohibited the “creation of a human being by any means other than by the fertilization of an oocyte of a human female by a sperm of a human male.” If the governor thinks that SCNT doesn’t create a human life — for some mysterious reason — he should have been able to support this bill."
Following all this takes a bit of work, but if I understand the difference between the procedure described by Prof. George and Gov. Blunt's version of SCNT, the former works towards the creation of 'pluripotent' cells "without killing or harming human embryos or violating any other ethical norm" - even though (as I understand it) they are 'organisms', while SCNT, in a process that involves the fertilization of an oocyte by sperm, does result in the destruction of life.
If I've misunderstood this or am making an unrealistic comparison, by all means please let me know.
I also appreciate these words of Prof. George: "There is no mystery about when the life of a new human individual begins. It is not a matter of subjective opinion or private religious belief. One finds the answer not by consulting one's viscera or searching through the Bible or the Koran; one finds it, rather, in the basic texts of the relevant scientific disciplines." It makes sense that arguments based on science should be used in debates about matters of science, and George and his colleague Grompe have done a great service by shining a light on this corner of the debate. Although after turning this over for a while I have to wonder if we don't need a simpler rule of thumb by which we can judge these matters. I like what Jonah Goldberg has elsewhere called 'the Ick Factor,' but the problem there is that it becomes a matter of subjective opinion, perhaps even a consultation of one's viscera. One hopes that universal taboos and simple revulsion would do the trick, but there really is no substitute for an informed opinion.
posted by Quin Finnegan at 11:07 PM
0 comments
