February 09, 2010
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Friendly Fire: The Rough and Tumble World of the Stem Cell Debate |
| by Dawn Eden |
| 6/06/08 |
|
However, even as pro-lifers' champagne-glass clinking continues with further iPS breakthroughs, a prominent academic is pursuing taxpayer funding for a type of stem-cell research using human egg cells that has sparked heated debate among Catholic ethicists. And, to hear him tell it, he's got the ear of Sen. John McCain.
The technique is known as Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT), and its proponent is William Hurlbut, M.D., a self-described "generic Christian" Stanford University consulting professor and member of the President's Council on Bioethics. ANT and its variant ANT-OAR involve a modification of the human cloning process. In normal human cloning, DNA from a person's cell is put into a human egg; the result is an embryo, which is an identical clone of the person who contributed the donor cell. In ANT, the same process is used, except that either a negative or positive mutation is added to the donor cell.
The result of the ANT process, Hurlbut argues, is not an embryo, but merely biological material from which human embryonic stem cells can be gleaned. For this reason, the professor promotes the process as an "ethical" way to do embryonic stem cell research, and he has acquired the backing of some well-regarded pro-lifers. In 2005, after ANT was discussed in a White Paper by the President's Council on Bioethics, the Westchester Institute, a Catholic think tank directed by Rev. Thomas Berg, L.C., brought Hurlbut together with 34 intellectual leaders, producing a "Joint Statement"endorsing animal trials of ANT-OAR.
However, other respected pro-lifers, including David Schindler, Dean of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, and Adrian Walker, associate editor of the scholarly journal Communio and English translator of many of Pope Benedict XVI's books, aren't so confident. In their view, the product of ANT is actually a radically defective human embryo -- a person purposefully created so as to die before birth.
Understanding the theological and philosophical issues surrounding ANT is a stretch for the layman. What is clear is that reasonable and respected minds can and do disagree sharply about whether at some point during the ANT process, a human embryo -- and hence new human life -- comes into existence, even if in mutated form. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is known to be studying ANT, and a comprehensive collection of arguments from Catholic academics on both sides of the issue is available on the Communio Web site.
In the meantime, the effort of Hurlbut and others to seek taxpayer funding for ANT continues. For pro-lifers wishing to understand what is at stake politically, a historical perspective is in order.
Ten years ago, abortion was the dominant pro-life issue. Certainly, there was a contentious debate over the use of fetal tissue in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the federal government adopting a liberalized policy, yet most pro-life Americans still viewed the life issue singularly, condemning abortion as an obvious taking of human life.
That focus changed with a rapid series of developments in the scientific realm, including Wilmut's cloning of Dolly and University of Wisconsin professor James Thomson's isolating human embryonic stem cells using a technique resulting in the destruction of human embryos. (Thomson, like Wilmut, also made headlines last November declaring that iPS would likely make embryo-destructive research unnecessary.)
Pro-life Americans were initially opposed. For Catholics in particular, the language of the Church, as stated by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, was clear that "the use of human embryos . . . as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings" and that "this moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human embryos . . . either to be used as 'biological material' or as providers of organs or tissue for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases. The killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act."
The muddying of the pro-life waters really began in the spring of 2001, when proponents of human embryonic stem cell research, boosted by Superman-star-turned-patient-advocate Christopher Reeve, launched an emotional media campaign to provide taxpayer funding for the human-destructive research. At the same time, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter was pushing for such funding via his Stem Cell Research Act. Then, on May 24, Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties from Republican to Independent -- handing control of the previously evenly divided Congress from Republicans to Democrats.
At the time of Jeffords's shift, President Bush appeared to be stalwartly opposed to the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. He had written to the Culture of Life Foundation on May 18 that he would "oppose Federal funding for stem-cell research that involves destroying living human embryos." Despite the president's stand, as well as Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback's commitment to filibuster any legislation that would fund the human-destructive research, some pro-life leaders sought a compromise to alleviate the political pressure.
That compromise materialized on August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced that the federal government -- for the first time ever -- would fund human embryonic stem cell research. The caveat was given that only those human embryonic stem cell lines in existence prior to his announcement would be funded.
For researchers, the effective message was that the government would fund embryonic stem cell research, even if not to the extent desired by those conducting the human experimentation. The policy gave researchers reason to believe that if they continued to destroy embryos to create cell lines, their lines might conceivably be eligible for such funding in future, should a later executive order allow the funding of lines created after the arbitrary date of Bush's announcement.
It is ironic that President Bush is often blamed by human embryonic stem cell research proponents for blocking the research. Whether one views Bush's action as praiseworthy or blameworthy, the fact is that under his leadership the United States began funding human embryonic stem cell research.
In his August 9 announcement, Bush announced the formation of the President's Council on Bioethics to consider matters relating to stem cell research and other new scientific developments. Five months later, the president named the council's charter members -- Dr. Hurlbut among them.
During an August 2002 conference in Australia, Hurlbut noted the speculative promise for treatments using human embryonic stem cells while simultaneously casting doubt upon the breadth of therapeutic treatments from adult stem cells. The Age newspaper reported he "offered a proposal to exploit the potential of new cloning technologies while avoiding moral concerns. He said it might be possible to create a 'clonal artifact' with 'no potential for human life' by combining cloning and genetic engineering techniques."
By the fall of 2004, Hurlbut had settled upon ANT as the means of pursuing his vision and had begun his campaign to pursue funding for research. His lobbying efforts followed quickly on the heels of the passage of a California ballot initiative known as Proposition 71, which earmarked $3 billion in state taxpayer funds over a ten-year period for stem cell research, with particular emphasis on research involving embryonic stem cells. Page
1
2
|
|
 |
