The following is part of a recent post to a blog called Todd Bradley's Galaxy. Thought it was interesting enough to mention here (and also to comment on, which I did over on his blog site). It contains a series of letters to the editor of his local newspaper (one of the letter-writers is his wife, Beth). Please follow the link and read the letters. Which one do you agree with?

two people in one body?

There was a letter to the editor in our local Broomfield newspaper a few weeks ago. My wife Beth wrote a response. The guy who wrote the original letter then wrote a response to her response and mailed it to our home, which is a little creepy. I guess he looked her up in the phone book. Today, the editorials section has a response to her response. I’ll post the letters here. I’d be curious to hear your opinion on this matter.

—-

From the January 9, 2008 Broomfield Enterprise:

Definition of life must be logical

It is my New Year’s wish that we can finally put to rest the idiotic idea that human life begins at birth. That concept is not logical...If human life ends when brain waves stop, then life begins (at least) when they start. That’s a logical conclusion any child can understand.

With today’s technology, human brain waves have been detected in an 8-week-old fetus. And as technology improves, it’s bound to get even earlier.

From Todd's wife, Beth's, post:

When people say that human life begins at conception, they often fail to mention that defining human life that way changes the definition of personhood under the law. A “person under the law” has certain rights, including the right not to be killed. One’s enemy in war is not a person under the law; nor is someone sentenced to death a full person under the law: Both of them may be killed without that killing being defined as murder under the law.

In the history of U.S. law and English common law, on which it is based, an unborn child has never been defined as a person.

And this from the final letter:

Partin’s point appears to be that legally recognizing human life at conception attaches the legal definition of “person” to unborn human life, making abortion murder. She believes that this would be an undesirable result, restricting women’s access to abortion, and “cause more problems and lead to lawsuits.”

I somewhat agree with her analysis, but not that restriction is an undesirable result. Her belief, in general terms, “We should be careful not to legislate poor public policy.” We might remember that pre-born human beings have no vote. Majority rule can be, and in this case is, absolutism. That is not good public policy.

She fails to distinguish between “human being” and “person.” “Human being” is a biologically defined fact, but has no legal definition; “person” is a legal fiction, created by statute, codifying beliefs of apparent qualities innate to every human being. Is it a person? Biologically, it’s moot.

So what do you think? Check out Todd's blog and read the letters here.

Labels: Abortion, beginning of human life, conception, embryo, fetus

Came across a Web site called Father Joe: From silly to sacred, a priest speaks … Here's an excerpt from one of his posts:

OBAMA: “The issue of abortion, I don’t think, has gone away. People think about it a lot, obviously you do and you feel impassioned. I think that the American people struggle with two principles: There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions.”

FATHER JOE: He is right, the issue of abortion has not gone away, although it is disturbing that so many prolifers are willing to shove it to the sidelines for charismatic candidates. Given the stakes, there is no way for serious people not to feel impassioned. And yet, it is this fire for the cause that is largely extinguished in the Democrat party, and yes, even increasingly among moderate Republicans, especially when it comes to stem-cell research. Senator Obama embraces no middle ground. He is solidly in the abortion camp and has the endorsement of Planned Parenthood. Note that he calls the fetus only POTENTIAL LIFE. This is a refusal to face the facts and to live up to the Christianity he claims for himself. The fetus is ALIVE and he or she is HUMAN. He says that it is “not just an appendage” but then essentially catalogues it as such by the dismissal of rights. Women have a right to some say over their bodies, but so do the unborn boys and girls. This is where the pro-abortion argument becomes nonsensical. Human life is incommensurate. One person does not have more of a right to life than another.

Now Father Joe seems like a nice man, and I'm sure he's sincere in his beliefs. But they are no more than that -- beliefs. People who continue to insist that life begins at conception, ignore, among other things, issues like twinning, where the embryo splits into two separate ones. Or chimeras, when two distinct embryos merge into one. I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for those occurences if, as Father Joe and many others believe, life begins at conception.

And what about the fact that thousands upon thousands of embryos are passed every month by women who never even know they're pregnant. Are we to view those (surely billions by now) microscopic particles as distinct human beings who all died? What a mess that creates for anti-choicers. As Jack likes to say, maybe the Church should start baptizing the menstrual flow to cover all those "human beings" who are flushed away every month.

Continue reading (the comments to Father Joe's post are interesting as well).

Labels: beginning of human life, chimera, embryo, twinning

Here's more from William Saletan, who, in last Sunday's New York Times, reviewed a new book called Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. In Wednesday's Slate, he returns to the subject:

Are embryos morally equal to people? I say no. Robert George, a member of President Bush's bioethics council, and his colleague Christopher Tollefsen say yes. In their new book, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life, George and Tollefsen conclude not only that embryo-destructive stem-cell research should be defunded but that any research involving embryos should be banned if it even slightly risks an embryo's health. They propose to halt the common practice of producing extra embryos during in vitro fertilization and to require that every IVF embryo be transferred to a womb.

In Sunday's New York Times, I reviewed the book's arguments. A day later, the authors replied on National Review Online. This is a conversation worth pursuing. George and Tollefsen are pushing the discussion into an area—embryology—where, in contrast to the usual shrieking about abortion, real progress can be made. They're civil, logical, and smart. I've seen George pick apart fuzzy-thinking adversaries at meetings of the bioethics council. It's like watching a cat with mice. Today, unfortunately, I'll be the mouse.

The virtue of Embryo is that the authors stake their case on science and logic, not religion. What makes you a human being, they argue, isn't a soul, but "a developmental program (including both its DNA and epigenetic factors) oriented toward developing a brain and central nervous system." They believe that this program starts at conception and therefore, so does personhood.

I like this bet on science. It's scrupulous, brave, and constructive. Let's toss in our chips and call the bet. We'll have to accept what science shows: Conception is, as George and Tollefsen argue, the sharpest line we could draw to mark the onset of moral worth. But they, in turn, will have to accept the other side of what science shows: The lines of embryology are dotted, not solid. Such lines don't warrant severe categorical restrictions on stem-cell research or assisted reproduction.

Also:

George and Tollefsen assume a clear distinction between wholes and parts. Eggs and sperm are parts, they reason, while an embryo is a whole. At conception, the parts become a whole, the program launches, and personhood begins. But it isn't that simple. Some embryos divide after conception to become two or more people. Are those embryos, prior to twinning, an individual?

And:

The egg-embryo distinction, too, is permeable. George and Tollefsen write that eggs must combine with sperm or die. They say an organism "was never itself a sperm cell or an ovum." But look what just happened at a zoo in Kansas: another case of parthenogenesis—eggs becoming offspring without fertilization. This process has produced adults in dozens of vertebrate species, including sharks and turkeys.

I highly recommend that you read the whole article (and George and Tollefsen's response to Saletan's original review). It's a fascinating, intelligent back-and-forth on this blog's signature topic, the beginning of human life.

Labels: beginning of human life, bioethics, embryo, William Saletan

The following is excerpted from a blog post at Petunia's.

Well, then. I was getting ready to post about this article on embryonic research and I noticed that it went well with this post Amanda at Pandagon put up a bit ago. Nice timing. Anyway, the article notes the attempt to define the beginning of human life as contraception using science:

“To be a complete human organism,” they write, “an entity must possess a developmental program (including both its DNA and epigenetic factors) oriented toward developing a brain and central nervous system.” The program begins at conception; therefore, so does personhood.

And later:

The program’s collective nature doesn’t discredit individual rights. But it does complicate the authors’ task. They have to show that the embryo is an individual, not just a program. Here, again, science defies them. They write that the embryo’s cells “function together to develop into a single, more mature member of the human species.” Not quite. In one of every 300 cases, the embryo splits to become two or more people, at least one of whom wasn’t a distinct organism at conception. And in every case, part of the embryo becomes placenta, nurturing the other part and passing away. The embryo, too, is collective. [Emphasis added.]

The song and dance with science here is the religious right’s way to try to get contraception outlawed. If they can convince people that embryos are human, then they’re half the way there. In fact most of the way and if they can use science language to help they will, just as they use the language of science to argue for intelligent design (a disguise for creationism–ie religion). The fact that their science is bad might not matter, because it’s just a smokescreen.

Read the entire post.

Labels: beginning of human life, contraception, embryo

From The New York Times

Labels: beginning of human life, embryo, stem cells

Not everyone's happy with the recent stem-cell breakthrough. Read on:

Baptist Press, Jan 21, 2008, WASHINGTON (BP)--Scientists used cells from aborted babies in recently reported research that has been hailed as a breakthrough in the ethical development of embryonic-like stem cells.

Pro-life advocates decried the abortion connection, but bioethicists said the newly successful technique could be utilized without the employment of such cells and thereby be considered ethical.

Research teams in Wisconsin and Japan reported in November they had converted adult skin cells in human beings into the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells. Pro-lifers hailed the development because the scientists had found a way to produce the stem cells with seemingly the most potential for providing therapies for debilitating afflictions while avoiding the destruction of human embryos.

Children of God for Life, however, reported Jan. 8 the researchers had used cells from aborted fetal cell lines to produce a virus to reprogram the adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells. The organization, which monitors stem cell research and the presence of aborted fetal cells in medical products, said the Wisconsin team also utilized material from embryonic stem cells in its research.

"Using aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells from deliberately destroyed human beings is certainly not any kind of moral victory," said Debi Vinnedge, director of Children of God for Life.

Southern Baptist bioethicist C. Ben Mitchell said, "The principle is clear: Science should never perform an evil act -- or contribute to evil acts -- in order to achieve good ends. So, deriving therapies from electively aborted fetuses ethically taints the discovery.

Continue reading.

Labels: Abortion, embryo, embryonic stem cell

The New York Times, By GINA KOLATA, November 21, 2007 -- Two teams of scientists are reporting today that they turned human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without having to make or destroy an embryo — a feat that could quell the ethical debate troubling the field.

All they had to do, the scientists said, was add four genes. The genes reprogrammed the chromosomes of the skin cells, making the cells into blank slates that should be able to turn into any of the 220 cell types of the human body, be it heart, brain, blood or bone. Until now, the only way to get such human universal cells was to pluck them from a human embryo several days after fertilization, destroying the embryo in the process.

The reprogrammed skin cells may yet prove to have subtle differences from embryonic stem cells that come directly from human embryos, and the new method includes potentially risky steps, like introducing a cancer gene. But stem cell researchers say they are confident that it will not take long to perfect the method and that today’s drawbacks will prove to be temporary.

Researchers and ethicists not involved in the findings say the work should reshape the stem cell field. At some time in the near future, they said, today’s debate over whether it is morally acceptable to create and destroy human embryos to obtain stem cells should be moot.

Keep reading article.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, stem cell research

Came across this lively blog discussion from about 1-1/2 years ago. The blog, "Times & Seasons," is apparently written by a group of Mormons on a rotating basis, with the occasional guest writer tossed into the mix. Since the title of this particular blog entry is "The Beginning of Human Life," it naturally caught my attention. Here's an excerpt:

When does a human person first come into being?

Here is where the crux of the matter lies and where distinctions might be made. When people argue that human life does not begin or exist prior to implantation (or a certain level of fetal development or birth), they cannot logically argue that a developing organism does not exist or that it is not biologically part of the human species. What they can, perhaps, coherently argue is that this organism does not yet have the moral status of a human person. So the questions then are, What is a human person, and when does a human organism become a human person? Many answers have been made to these questions, including viability outside the mother’s womb, the point of the mother’s decision to accept the pregnancy (which implies a possibility of it going out of existence if she changes her mind), certain levels of neurologic development of the fetus, certain levels of self-awareness of the fetus or child. My own opinion is that any definition that subdivides human beings into human persons and human non-persons (or potential persons) is highly morally suspect at best.

Read the article and discussion here.

Labels: beginning of human life, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, embryo, fetus, Mormons

Came across this "editorial" (courtesy of Google) on a site called opinioneditorials.com, a branch of something called "Frontiers of Freedom." FoF appears to be a conservative site, hyping the usual conservative issues. This particular editorial is so rife with mis-statements and weak arguments that it's tempting to deconstruct it one argument at at time. But I'll leave that exercise to someone else. I just want to give you a few examples, and then you can visit the site and read the column in its entirety. (Caveat: I didn't spend a lot of time at opinioneditorials.com, so I have no idea if they ever publish anything from a more liberal (or at least "less conservative") point of view.

Kevin Roeten, August 14, 2007--Recently Bush vetoed federal monies for Embryonic Stem Cell Research(ESCR). From the response, one would believe that he dumped all hopes for curing diseases down the commode. But this demonstrates just how misinformation can provoke a visceral emotional reaction that almost borders on irrationality. With nothing to gain except eternal life, Bush seems to have demonstrated courage under fire...

...hype from actors such as Christopher Reeve(Superman) and Michael J. Fox(actor) teases a possible cure for their diseases. But no cure has been found. The fallacy that ESCR shows the most promise is a false hope. [Er, maybe no cure has been found because researchers have been too busy scrambling for funding since the federal government (and most states) have all but shut them down?]

... it’s said that with so many fertilized embryos slated to be disposed of, it’s acceptable to use them for research. Being ‘trapped’ in liquid nitrogen shouldn’t affect our decisions. Consider a radical case in which a group of children are permanently trapped in a schoolhouse. It would not be morally acceptable to send in a remote control robotic device to harvest organs and kill the children. [If they're permanently trapped, are they going to die? Sooner rather than later? Still, I'd have to say no, killing them probably wouldn't be morally acceptable. Be we are talking about living, breathing, developed, functioning children. Not a cluster of cells the size of this period.]

There's lots more. Why don't you check it out for yourself. And if, by chance, you agree with Kevin Roeten, please take just a minute to leave a comment and tell us why. Or if you disagree with him, let us know that, too.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, ethics, morality

I love "Seinfeld". My husband John and I now own DVD sets for the first 6 seasons, and we plan to eventually buy them all. The other night, while watching an early episode in season 6, we both suddenly sat up and looked at each other as the show took an unexpected step into the abortion issue. (This was especially interesting to me because I'd so recently posted to this blog a newspaper column from the late '80s in which the author referenced the great divide between pros and anti's. Now here's Seinfeld, in 1994, using making pizza as a metaphor for creating a human being.) And while the show asked, "when does a pizza become a pizza?", this blog continues to ask, "when does an embryo become human life?"

We just cannot seem to resolve this question , can we? Here's part of the Seinfeld episode, "The Couch," which first aired on October 27, 1994, and which features Poppie, Kramer's restauranteur friend, who once grossed Jerry out by not washing his hands after using the bathroom:

JERRY: Poppie, I was just curious...where do you stand on the abortion issue?

POPPIE: When my mother was abducted by the Communists, she was with child...

JERRY: Oh, boy.

POPPIE: ...but the Communists, they put an end to that! So, on this issue there is no debate! And no intelligent person can think differently.

ELAINE (offended): Well...Poppie. I think differently.

POPPIE: And what gives you the right to do that?

ELAINE (standing up): The Supreme Court gives me the right to do that! Let's go Jerry, c'mon.

WOMAN AT NEXT TABLE (to her date): I heard that. Let's go, Henry.

HENRY: But we just got here...

WOMAN AT ANOTHER TABLE: I'm with you, Poppie!

WOMAN AT YET ANOTHER TABLE (to her date): Let's go!

ELAINE (to Poppie): And I am not coming back!

POPPIE: You're not welcome!

JERRY: Well, I'm certainly glad I brought it up.

[Later in the episode, Kramer and Poppie are planning their "Make Your Own Pie" restaurant, and Kramer is making the first test pie when he adds an ingredient Poppie doesn't approve of.}

POPPIE: No, no. You can't put cucumbers on a pizza.

KRAMER: Well, why not? I like cucumbers.

POPPIE: That's not a pizza. It'll taste terrible.

KRAMER: But that's the idea, you make your own pie.

POPPIE: Yes, but we cannot give the people the right to choose any topping they want! Now on this issue there can be no debate!

KRAMER: What gives you the right to tell me how I would make my pie?

POPPIE: Because it's a pizza!

KRAMER: It's not a pizza until it comes out of the oven!

POPPIE: It's a pizza the moment you put your fists in the dough!

KRAMER: No, it isn't!

POPPIE: Yes, it is!

And the debate continues.

If you'd like to see more Seinfeld scripts, here's a link to a site that has all of them.

Labels: Abortion, beginning of human life, embryo, pizza, Seinfeld

Readers of this site tend to have their minds more or less made up before coming here -- which, indeed, is what makes it imperative that the two sides focus on the things they have in common, rather than beating one another up about their differences.

A good place to start -- the most basic of "things they have in common" -- are the simple facts of stem cell research. Figure out and agree on what we're talking about, and then maybe (maybe) we can begin to draw up guidelines about what to do with the facts. All of this is one reason why I especially appreciated a recent post by Catherine Morgan, of the BlogHer site: "What You Might Not Know About Stem Cell Research."

Now, Ms. Morgan certainly has an opinion on many of the questions at hand. Yet she's posted a 12-minute YouTube video dispassionately explaining stem cells in general, adult vs. embryonic stem cells, and so on. (You can watch the video here if you don't want to read her commentary.)

Labels: dialogue, embryo, embryonic, stem cell, YouTube

The following was posted on Iowa Voice by Brian, Tuesday, June 12, 2007

USA Today has an article up on embryonic stem cells and includes this quote:

Last fall, a political ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox shaking and swaying from the effects of his Parkinson’s disease focused white-hot attention on the battle over research on embryonic stem cells.
This week, President Bush is likely to veto, for the second time, a stem cell bill passed by Congress. And another Hollywood figure, filmmaker Jerry Zucker, is trying to influence the debate with his own video, this one a slickly produced spot posted on youtube.com. [NOTE: You can view the film below.]

The 3½-minute film, which is not scheduled to run on TV, portrays Bush in a video conference with two workers at a fertility clinic who plead for guidance about what to do with the embryos that are no longer wanted by couples.

“Well, they’re human lives. And that’s sacred,” says an actor whose lips are juxtaposed on footage of the president in the Oval Office. “Throw them in the trash.”

Zucker, a longtime stem cell activist whose directing credits include Airplane! and Ghost, says he wanted to focus on what he sees as the heart of the issue. “For the fertilized eggs that are being discarded on a daily basis in this country, why is it better to throw them away than to use them to cure diseases?” he asks. “Nobody ever answers that question.”

(My emphasis)

Mr. Zucker, you obviously haven’t been paying attention, because MANY people have answered, and far more eloquently than I’m about to.

Read what Brian has to say here..

Labels: embryo, embryonic, Michael J. Fox, Parkinson's, stem cell

On July 18, 2006, The Washington Post published a timeline of the stem-cell debate. We've reproduced it here, with links to the actual Post story where applicable:

Nov. 5, 1998: The first stem cells are isolated by scientists at the University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins University. Stem cells can develop into any tissue, but the process is controversial because it requires destroying human embryos. Post Story

Aug. 9, 2001: President Bush declares federal funding will go to research only select stem cell lines derived from destroyed embryos left over at fertility clinics. States retain the ability to appropriate money for research or to restrict it. Post Story

However, scientists say some of the 64 designated cell lines are fragile. Post Story

Nov. 25, 2001: Scientists in Massachusetts perform the first cloning of human embryos. In a process called therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, cloned embryonic stem cells could generate replacement tissues that patients' bodies would not reject. Post Story

Nov. 2, 2004: In Proposition 71, Californians vote to spend $3 billion over 10 years on stem cell research, making the state the first to fund such research; 59 percent of the state's voters support the move.

Jan. 11, 2005: New Jersey's governor announces the state will fund a $150 million stem cell research center and promises to champion a ballot initiative to allocate another $230 million.

May 20, 2005: Bush vows to veto any legislation that would ease the restrictions he imposed on stem cell research in 2001. He has not yet used a presidential veto. Post Story

May 24, 2005: The House approves a bill to loosen Bush's restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research by a vote of 238 to 194. In voting in favor of the bill, 50 Republicans break with Bush. Post Story

To continue reading this timeline, click here.

Next, we'll look at what's happened in the past year.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush, stem cell research

From the Home News Tribune:

RUTGERS — As legislation to help fund embryonic stem-cell research makes its way toward President Bush's desk — and an inevitable veto — New Jersey is opening the doors to the first state-funded stem cell research lab in the nation.

Rutgers University held a ribbon-cutting ceremony Saturday to open the 4,250-square-foot Stem Cell Research Center at Nelson Biological Laboratories, the first step in establishing a statewide stem-cell research institute with state money.

"New Jersey should be one large research lab, working with each other for cures," said state Assembly Deputy Speaker Neil M. Cohen, D-Union, who helped push the funding through the state Legislature. "This is about children who may be born with leukemia having the opportunity to see a sunrise. This is about a senior with Alzheimer's being able to remember remember who they were, who their children are."

Opponents of embryonic stem-cell research argue that embryos used for harvesting stem cells are the beginning of human life, and that destroying those embryos can be avoided by obtaining stem cells from other sources such as umbilical cord blood.

But advocates for embryonic stem-cell research say the possibilities for curing spinal cord injuries and certain diseases are too great to ignore. The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted in January, found that 61 percent of Americans support embryonic stem-cell research.

Read the complete article and let us know what you think. Are opponents of embryonic stem-cell research ignoring the fact that the embryos used for research would be destroyed anyway? Are they favoring potential life over actual life? Which is more important? Is that an answerable question?

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, New Jersey, Rutgers, stem cell research

It's important to remember that all of the discussion about embryonic stem cell research refers to the blastocyst, a microscopic clump of about 120 cells. (To put that in perspective, estimates of the number of cells in the fully developed human body range from 10 trillion - 100 trillion.)

From an ABC News report:

WASHINGTON Apr 12, 2007 (AP)— A stubborn Senate voted Wednesday to ease restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, ignoring President Bush's threat of a second veto on legislation designed to lead to new medical treatments.

The 63-34 vote was shy of the margin that would be needed to enact the measure over presidential opposition, despite gains made by supporters in last fall's elections.

"Not every day do we have the opportunity to vote to heal the sick," said Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a senator less than 100 days following a tough 2006 campaign in which the stem cell controversy played a particularly prominent role. "It is a noble cause," she added.

The Senate bill, Bush said, "is very similar to legislation I vetoed last year. This bill crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling. If it advances all the way through Congress to my desk, I will veto it," the president said in a statement after the vote.

Read the complete article.

Also visit the University of Kansas Medical Center's site on stem cell research for more information and illustrations.

Labels: blastocyst, embryo, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush, Senate

From today's "New York Times":

The Senate easily approved a bill this week that would free embryonic stem cell research from the worst shackles imposed by the Bush administration. The House passed its version earlier. A substantial majority of Americans tell pollsters they support embryonic stem cell research. Yet one man, President Bush, and a minority of his party, the religious and social conservatives, are once again trying to impose their moral code on the rest of the nation and stand in the way of scientific progress.

Mr. Bush is threatening a veto, and neither house had enough votes for the bills on initial passage to override him. Concerned voters will need to ratchet up the pressure on recalcitrant Republicans to help stop the president from killing the second enlightened stem cell bill in less than a year.

Here's an example of the results of Bush's intransigence:

The restrictions on federal financing have led to absurdly complicated and costly maneuvers. Scientists are forced to buy extra equipment and laboratory space with private money to perform off-limits research while using equipment and supplies bought with federal money on the permitted stem cell research. In a shocking example cited during Senate debate, a California researcher who had been cultivating stem cells in a makeshift privately financed lab suffered a power failure but was unable to transfer her lines into industrial-strength freezers in another lab because they were federally financed. Two years of work melted away because of this inanity.

Read the complete article.

Labels: embryo, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush, Senate

Although Florida seems determined not to fund embryonic stem cell research (for this year at least), things are looking up on the national level. From an "Orlando Sentinel" editorial:

As the U.S. Senate again considers a bill to ease President George W. Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, members would be wise to heed one of Mr. Bush's appointees. National Institutes of Health Director Elias Zerhouni recently told a Senate panel that "American science will be better served, and the nation will be better served, if we let our scientists have access to more stem-cell lines."

Mr. Bush's restrictions limit federal funding to research on embryonic stem-cell lines that existed before Aug. 9, 2001. The number of those lines available for research has fallen since then from 78 to 22, and their scientific value is limited.

Stem cells can be derived from adult sources, but many scientists believe the ones from embryos offer the best hope over the long term for treating or curing paralyzing injuries or devastating diseases such as Alzheimer's and diabetes.

Read the complete article.

Labels: congress, embryo, embryonic stem cell, George W. Bush

Following Gov. Charlie Crist's lead, Florida's legislators avoid the embryonic stem cell research debate by moving forward bills that restrict funding to non-embryonic research. As mentioned here in an earlier post, although the governor's campaign platform included embryonic stem cell research, he back-pedaled on the issue once in office and opted to support other types of research.

Although Gov. Crist's lead on this issue is disappointing, I have to give him credit for some of his decisions in other areas. The most recent? Restoring civil rights to non-violent felons. The governor should be commended for helping move Florida out of the Jim Crow dark ages toward a more just and hopeful future. Now, back to the topic at hand.

From the St. Pete Times:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Two state legislative committees voted Tuesday to focus limited dollars on research using stem cells culled from adults and umbilical cords, rather than human embryos.

The House and Senate panels both unanimously approved bills that set aside money for non-embryonic stem cell research - although how much money would be put into the grant program isn't clear yet.

With their votes, the House Health Care Committee and the Senate Health Policy Committee rejected a competing proposal to also allow state money to fund embryonic stem cell research. Many people oppose such research because it requires the destruction of the embryo.

Read the complete article.

Labels: adult stem cells, Charlie Crist, embryo, embryonic stem cell, Florida

Do you like Wikipedia? I do. While it's certainly not the last word on anything, it is sometimes a wonderful launching pad for research on just about any subject. Take "embryonic stem cells," for example. (A topic this blog is very interested in.)Here's the Wikipedia lead in to the subject:

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo known as a blastocyst. Human embryos reach the blastocyst stage 4-5 days post fertilization, at which time they consist of 50-150 cells.

ES cells are pluripotent. This means they are able to differentiate into all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. These include each of the more than 220 cell types in the adult body. Pluripotency distinguishes ES cells from multipotent progenitor cells found in the adult; these only form a limited number of cell types. When given no stimuli for differentiation, (i.e. when grown in vitro), ES cells maintain pluripotency through multiple cell divisions. The presence of pluripotent adult stem cells remains a subject of scientific debate.

One thing I like about Wikipedia is the Table of Contents that divides each topic into sub-categories, many with links of their own. Under Embryonic Stem Cells, one can click on "stem cell controversy" in the second paragraph, which will take you to a separate entry on just that. (Of course the controversy is grounded in differences of opinion on when human life begins.) From the "controversy" entry:

The status of the human embryo and human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue as, with the present state of technology, the creation of a human embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. Stem cell debates have motivated and reinvigorated the ‘pro-life’ movement, whose members are concerned with the rights and status of the embryo as an early-aged human life. They believe that embryonic stem cell research instrumentalizes and violates the sanctity of life and constitutes murder.[1] The fundamental assertion of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research is the belief that human life is inviolable, combined with the opinion that human life begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell to form a single cell.

Most stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are slated to be destroyed, or stored indefinitely. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos.[2] This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.[3]

The bracketed numbers are links to the source material for that particular item (and many of the sources cited have links to the source itself). Ah, the wonders of the Web. As long as you remember not to believe everything you read, and to check and re-check the sources, Wikipedia is a great resource for an initial look into a subject.

Labels: beginning of human life, embryo, embryonic stem cell, in vitro, Wikipedia

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, says, "The reason we should be opposed is a moral reason. [Embryonic stem cell research] involves, at least for now, the destruction of innocent human life to obtain the cells."

George went on to compare embryonic stem cell research with harvesting organs from mentally retarded infants. Talk about apples and oranges! No one disputes that infants, mentally retarded or not, are human beings. Whether embryos are human beings is being widely debated, however, and linking scientists working with 3-5 days old embryos with baby killers is insulting, not to mention overly dramatic.

"An embryo must be regarded as a human being because the embryo is 'a distinct and complete human organism in its earliest stage of development,' George said." This is the same position taken by the Religious Right, the Pope, and George Bush. A great many people disagree, however, and offer various opinions on exactly when the embryo becomes a human being. Some base it on brain development, others to breath, still others to viability outside the womb, and so on.

The reality is that we're no closer to agreeing on the beginning of human life than we've ever been. For example, I still question why it's more moral to give preference to microscopic clusters of cells over living, breathing, suffering human beings. If anyone has a better reason than the ones I've been given so far, I'd really like to hear it.

Read the complete article.

Labels: beginning of human life, embryo, embryonic, stem cell