©2004 Matthew A. C. Newsome

The debate about stem cell research is once again being brought before the public eye.  It seems that the Democrats are keen on making this an election year issue.  At the recent Democratic National Convention, speakers mentioned the stem cell issue more than 20 times, more than unemployment, more than abortion -- more than any other issue, in fact.  Speakers such as Senator Hillary Clinton were crying for "an end to the ban on stem cell research." 

Senator Kerry himself is making stem cells an issue at just about every one of his campaign stops.  In a radio address, he stated, "Three years ago, the president enacted a far-reaching ban on stem-cell research," a ban that he promised to lift if elected.

The ban is supposedly another example of how President Bush's faith is blinding him to reason.  People of faith, such as many faithful Catholics, who oppose the practice of embryonic stem cell research, are seen as ignorant and unscientific.  Many Catholics are now taking a fresh look at the issue, and wondering just why their Church would oppose scientific research that might lead to the end of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other horrible diseases.

These are important issues to consider, so to begin with, let's ground ourselves in some facts.  First of all, did President Bush really place a ban on stem cell research in the United States?  No, he did not.  What Kerry and Clinton and others are referring to was Bush's authorization, on April 9, 2001, of federal funding on embryonic stem cell research, but only for those cell lines (about 40) that were created before that date.  Bush did not want federal money to be spent on the creation of new embryonic cell lines (resulting in the death of the embryo) for study.  Prior to this date, there was NO FEDERAL MONEY being spent on stem cell research at all.  Far from banning the practice, Bush was actually the first president to authorize federal spending for it.

Under the present guidelines, federal money is allowed for embryonic stem cell research on those numerous existing lines, and across the board for adult stem cell research.  Private funds are, of course, available for both kinds of research, unrestricted.  In other words, the "far-reaching ban" on stem cell research that Kerry is promising to lift does not even exist.

Now lets look at some other facts -- what is the difference between embryonic and adult stem cell research?  What are stem cells, for that matter?  The Catholic Church opposes one kind, and not the other, so let's look at the reason why.

A stem cell is a cell that has the ability to continuously divide and differentiate (develop) into various other kinds of other cells and tissues.  This means that they have the ability to replace cells that have died, making them very useful for therapeutic purposes.  Stem cells taken from umbilical cord blood and bone marrow (which can be taken from a person with no harm to them) have already been used to treat over 40 different types of cancer.

Adult stem cells are those, as the name implied, taken from mature people (not necessarily adults, but not embryos).  Embryonic stem cells, however, are those that are harvested from human embryos before they have formed into other types of cells.  This is, theoretically, supposed to make them more usable in treating diseases, but it also kills the embryo that they are harvested from.

This is where ethical issues come into the picture.  While many pundits are attempting to paint the Catholic Church as unscientific because of her "opposition" to stem cell research, in fact the Catholic Church has no problem with and actively supports therapeutic research done with adult stem cells.  What the Church opposes (as well as many non-Catholics) is the killing of an innocent human being, even if it is for the so-called good of another. And this is just what embryonic stem cell research does.

Note what I said above -- embryonic stem cells are "theoretically" supposed to be more usable in treating diseases.  This is far from proven.  According to Professor Angelo Luigi Vescovi, co-director of the Stem Cell Research Institute of Milan's St. Raphael Hospital and internationally recognized expert on the subject, the notion that stem cells "extracted from embryos are really the panacea of all ills is not founded scientifically."  In a recent talk in Rimini, he goes on to explain that stem cells from adults, called 'somatic' or ‘pluripotent' stem cells, are designed to repair tissues.  They are constantly active in us, ready to do what is needed to replace dead cells.  Our red corpuscles in our blood are completely replaced every 15 days, for instance.  By contrast, stem cells from embryos, called 'totipotent,' are designed not to repair cells, but to create cells.  This could have some very undesired effects, as Professor Vescovi pointed out.  "Contrary to what the media says, stem cells rarely have the expected effect. They could even turn out to be very dangerous, creating the conditions for the formation of neoplasm or tumors."

Vescovi, one should point out, describes himself as "agnostic, partially atheist."  Yet he recognizes that is is an "undeniable" fact that an embryo is a human being.  He says, "An attempt to make human life begin at a later time is arbitrary and not supported by scientific argumentation." For embryonic stem cell research, he only advocates using stem cells harvested from embryos that have been voluntarily aborted.  He stated, ""the 44 abortions that occur weekly just in the province of Milan would suffice for the therapy of tens of thousands of sick persons."  Why bring this up?

One fact not being mentioned much in the media is the link between embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.  Embryonic stem cells actually have a limited use in therapeutic medicine because they are not genetic matches to the patient, and therefore may be rejected.  What many in this field actually are pushing for is license to clone an embryo from the DNA of the patient, in order to harvest the stem cells (killing the clone), thus guaranteeing a genetic match.  Need a new liver?  No problem, we'll clone you, create a twin, sacrifice him or her, and grow a new liver for you from their stem cells!

Sounds rather Frankenstenian, does it not?  But this is just what has been recently permitted in the UK.  This August, doctors in one UK lab have received authorization to clone human embryos for "therapeutic" purposes, limited to the 14th day after conception.  I suppose some scientist somewhere determined that on the 15th day the embryo becomes a person and so it would be unethical to harvest its parts and kill it, but on day 14 this is just fine.

A recent statement from the International Federation of Associations of Catholic Doctors in reaction to this news stated, "Once again, the high uncontrolled growth potential of these cells, which signifies a high risk that they will deteriorate if used to repair or replace organs or tissues, has not been mentioned... Research with adult stem cells is not recognized, despite the fact that they are the only ones that have already given important results from the clinical point of view."

That note reaffirmed that "it is ethically unacceptable to deliberately sacrifice the life of any human being, including in the embryonic state, even if it is done to improve the conditions of health of other human beings."

And this is what is essentially boils down to.  If people wonder why the Catholic Church speaks out against stem cell research, denying cures to ailing people, denying the advances of science, all you need to know is this. The Church endorses and supports legitimate research on adult stem cells -- research in which no person is killed in the process and the only research that has so far yielded actual therapeutic results.  But the Church, now and always, remains unequivocally opposed to the destruction of innocent life.