Prominent pro-lifers who have endorsed ANT include Richard Doerflinger of the USCCB's pro-life office.

Prominent pro-lifers who oppose ANT include Rev. Nicanor Austriaco, O.P.

These are big names. Rough-and-tumble indeed.

Okay, consider this:

What if the "alterations" made to the DNA being implanted are so profound that the organism becomes genetically a chimpanzee? A gecko? A fruit-fly?

I assume no one has any problem conducting experiments on a fruit-fly embryo, even if implanted in a human ovum. (Probably not medically possible, but stick with me here, for the sake of argument.)

Humans differ from non-humans, genetically. Humans without Down's Syndrome differ from humans with DS, genetically. And, Humans differ from humans whose DNA has been altered, genetically.

So here's the problem: The church is obliged to make a judgment it is probably ill-suited to make: Where is the dividing line between a genetically-damaged human, and a non-human, organism...with respect to this research procedure?

But how to choose such a dividing line? And how to logically defend it?

A toughie, to be sure.

Here are two plausible ways to go about selecting a dividing-line between what one CAN, and CANNOT, tinker with at the embryonic level without falling afoul of church teaching:

OPTION ONE: Split the Difference

Find some genetic pattern which represents the "mean" human one, and find the furthest outliers from that pattern (representing the "extremes" of human genetic variability).

Next, find the genetic pattern which represents the "mean" of humanity's next-closest genetic relative (chimpanzees, isn't it?), and the "extremes" of their variability.

Take these two profiles and find the points of their "extremes" which most closely resemble each other, genetically. (That is, the most human-like chimp and the most chimp-like human. And no, we're not about to make lowbrow G.W.Bush jokes here. Keep it above board, please.)

Split the difference between these two extremes, and THAT'S your dividing line: As long as you "damage" the DNA of your altered embryo sufficiently to put it on the chimpward side of the line, then THOU MAYEST TINKER; otherwise, THOU SHALT NOT TINKER.

That's option one.

OPTION TWO: Make PETA (somewhat) Happy

Option two is to take the position that even tinkering genetically with chimps is wrong, though less wrong than tinkering with humans, because even non-human lifeforms have some inherent dignity.

This suggests a spectrum or continuum of moral negatives associated with tinkering with different species' embryos: Higher-species tinkering is more bad, lower-species tinkering is less-bad.

One therefore would need to establish the expected benefits to be obtained from the tinkering, and decide whether "the good outweighed the bad" for a given species.

For example, tinkering with dog DNA to produce a cure for MS: okay. Tinkering with human DNA to produce the same cure: not okay. Tinkering with dog DNA to produce a new wrinkle-cream for vain Hollywood starlets: not okay. Tinkering with fruit-fly DNA to produce the same wrinkle-cream: okay.

The tricky part of option two is that it runs the risk of promoting a conceptual error; namely, the error of thinking of humans as slightly-improved animals rather than as a metaphysically different class of created being. PETA would love it, up to a point; so might atheist biology professors and Peter Singer, up to a point.

Still, it's the more sophisticated of the two views.

Anyone else got ideas about this? Questions? Comments? Snide remarks?

When a baby is genetically programmed to die at less than seven weeks' gestation, they call it "blighted ovum" and say, "Well, we can reesarch on that embryo, because it never would have been born, anyway."

I was genetically pre-programmed so that my aorta would dissect when I was 19 years old (probably sooner without modern medicine), and I would be dead now if not for modern surgery.

Does that make me less than human?

The answer is this: we're not supposed to be messing in these areas, period.

Most people don't realize that fetal tissue research has been going on for decades (started with the vaccines in the 1960s). My mother-in-law, the first woman to get a Ph.D. in bioethics from Auburn University, resigned from her job at the NIH in the 1970s because she found out they were doing reserach on fetuses.

13 years ago, I donated stem cells from my skin to genetic researchers studying Marfan syndrome.

Despite years of research, there has been *no* successful treatment developed from embryonic research. Every person treated with embryonic cells--and many of those treated with fetal tissue--have suffered horrible side effects.

Meanwhile, researchers around the world have had almost miraculous results with adult stem cell research that have been unheard of in the US.

Why? Because Adult Stem Cell Research is relatively simple. Most of the treatments basically involve swabbing a person's throat, culturing their saliva, and injecting the stem cells from the saliva into the affected area.

US pharmaceutical companies and universities want grant money. They want stuff they can research for years and get lots of grant money for, then patent and charge big bucks to do.

Embryonic stem cell research is no more "inevitable" than artificial contraception.

Dawn,

Ethics, embryos, and egos aside,I say connect the dots and follow the money. Patents and power make strange bed-fellows. Money makes all the gray areas go away - it is one-way to "go green".

Call it by whatever name you choose. In common parlance it is called 'laundering' ... money 'laundering' - layers and layers of lawyers and agreements and grants make it look and seem like legitimate research. In the end it hides the lining of pockets with gold-dust.

E K Pavlat stated that

Prominent pro-lifers who oppose ANT include Rev. Nicanor Austriaco, O.P.

This is incorrect. Fr. Austriaco is in favor of proceeding with ANT-OAR research. He has published scholarly articles in Communio and in NCBC Quarterly supporting this position. And he was a signatory on the joint statement Dawn mentioned in her article, in support of animal research (see http://tinyurl.com/6av2zy).

In considering all of this, it is very important to keep in mind that those who support ANT-OAR research, such as the 34 signatories on the joint statement, are not in favor of human research at this time. They simply think there is enough potential in the proposed procedure to justify animal model research at this point. This is standard for biomedical research. Proceed first with an animal model. If it shows promise, and outcomes are as predicted, then, perhaps go ahead to the human.

The whole point of doing only animal research first, is precisely to verify scientifically if the proposed process really works in life in the way that the theoretical reasoning would suggest. The animal research would discover with a high degree of confidence if, contrary to theory, true embryos would be created in the ANT-OAR process rather than cells with embryo-like qualities as expected. This kind of testing has been going on in animal model embryo research for some years now. A true embryo can be implanted in the womb of a mature female hormonally prepared for pregnancy and subsequently undergo the normal course of development in the uterus as a new organism. A group of cells that has embryo-like qualities but is not in fact a true embryo can be implanted endlessly into mature females and will never once develop as a new organism in the womb.

If animal model research were to show that ANT-OAR produced true embryos, it is clear that pro-life supporters of this research would immediately change their view and object to it. The animal research, which would take a number of years, and involve many repetitions of the procedure, would find out if the procedure truly would produce cells that are not true embryos. This would be a major objective of the animal research.

The reason for the sense of urgency is plain. There are scientists, despite iPSC successes, who are determined to do research with human embryonic stem cells no matter what. It is happening now in England. The temptation for some is simply too intoxicating to resist. The push for ANT-OAR is an attempt to provide an ethical alternative that provides embryonic-like cells without destroying true embryos, in the hope that scientists who will not go for iPSC research (because not done with embryonic cells) would, however, turn away from embryo-destructive research if they could do ANT-OAR instead.

Without ANT-OAR or something like it as an alternative, it seems certain that embryo-destructive research will happen in the U.S. whether publicly funded or not. And probably soon (if it has not already happened without being publicized). Unless it is outlawed it is only a matter of time. The question is, will we support efforts to give scientists who will not be convinced to switch to iPSC an alternative to embryo-destructive research?

Sorry if I am commenting too much. But this statement seems to reveal that some people's ethical concerns about ANT may be at least in part rooted in a misunderstanding of the science.

The "virtually identical" phrase has a very significant modifier here that makes a huge difference: "genetically virtually identical." To take this as a possible indicator that Dr. Hurlbut privately thinks that an ANT-OAR cell is in fact the same as an embryo is off base. This is so because to say that two cells are genetically identical (have the same DNA) is not the same as saying that two cells are simply identical without qualification.

A cell in your kidney is genetically identical to a cell in your liver. Does this mean that a liver cell is the same as a kidney cell? Not at all. Speaking of a genetic identity of one cell or group of cells to another does not indicate an identity of biological cell type. The identical content of DNA from one cell to the next is not what determines whether the two cells are the same type of cell. If this were the case, the human body would have no differentiation of cells into different tissues and organs--we would be one blob of the same type of cell. The cells in your body have identical genes. Yet every cell in your body is not identical to the next. Far from it. They differ dramatically.

What differentiates cell type is the epigenetic state of each cell. Your kidney cells have identical DNA to your liver cells. But they are not the same type of cell. Why? Because your kidney cells have a different epigenetic expression than your liver cells. A different set of specific genes are “turned on” in the kidney cell from those that are “turned on” in the liver cell. This is what makes them different cell types.

There are tissue cultures of genetically identical living human cell lines sitting in petri dishes being used in research all over the world. Some of these cell lines are originally derived from persons now long dead. They are genetically identical to their deceased source. This genetic identity does not mean that these cultured cells living apart from their original source are new human beings (new human organisms).

So, the fact that a cell (such as an ANT-OAR produced cell) has the same genes as the human being from which it came is no admission at all of such a cell being a new organism (in this case, an embryo). The key factor in whether or not one living cell is the same type of cell as another (e.g. an embryonic cell) is whether or not the two cells have an identical state of epigenetic expression. This is what animal research would discover in regard to ANT-OAR produced cells.

Forgive me for the length here, but I think this analogy helps. . . Consider two different computer monitors turned on and hooked up to two computers. They are the exact same make and model of monitor. In this analogy, the monitors' physical mechanics represent the DNA of the cells; the images on the screens represent the type of cell (i.e. the current expression of the DNA). The set of interior mechanics between the two monitors is identical at all times. But, this does not result in their having the same images on their screens. The images they are displaying depend on a whole complex set of conditions as to how the mechanics are being directed by the electrical signals to produce images. Having different images displayed on the screens of two identical monitors is somewhat akin to two genetically identical cells nonetheless being two different cell types because of their differing epigenetic states.

I'll cease now. Sorry for the length!

Scott,

"it seems certain that embryo-destructive research will happen in the U.S. whether publicly funded or not."
It has been happening, since the 1980s. That's why we're having this debate at all. The only question is whether they can force the government to subsidize it.

All of these discussions presuppose that adult stem cells are "not as good" as embryonic stem cells, when all research done so far shows just the opposite. There are people with spinal cord injuries who are walking now thanks to adult stem cell therapy, where the most that's ever been produced with embryonic cells is a little sensation here and there.

There are a number of problems inherent in embryonic stem cells. ESCR advocates say that pluripotency (sp?) of embryonic cells makes them more adaptable. The problem is that the pluripotency has also caused cancer in the patients who've been treated with embryonic cells.

In order to develop any reliable embryonic stem cell therapy, they have to first "cure" the very pluripotency they want to use the embryonic cells to take advantage of, so that they don't cause cancer.

If ANT-OAR "cells" create "embryonic" cells, they're still gonna cause cancer.

And the genetic identity is not the issue. In order to create embryonic cells, one needs an embryo. The argument here is that the "embryo" artificially created will be genetically defective so as to die quickly.

This leads to another question: the whole point of ESCR is to take advantange of the cell's regeneration abilities. Yet, with ANT, they're specifically making an "embryo-like" entity designed to be genetically self-destructive. Any cells produced from such an entity would also be self-destructive.

The American people are allowing themselves to be scammed by a bunch of con artists. Advocates of ESCR themselves have admitted, even in Congress, that they've manipulated the promises they've made to the public in order to get federal funding.

I am flabbergasted: none of the comments pays attention into what the Vatican says on this life subject, which by the way, is ABOVE whoever “prominent” individuals say.

Is this a Roman Catholic forum, or what?

JC,

You are of course are correct about embryo-destructive research here in the U.S. I don't know what I was thinking when I made that error and noticed it soon after I posted it. Thanks for the correction. I was writing hastily and I think I had in mind human-animal hybrid embryos which are now being made in England.



I would suggest that you are wrong about the presupposition here, at least for pro-life supporters of ANT-OAR. The crucial context for pro-lifers who support ANT-OAR animal research is the fact that (as you realize in pointing out my sloppy error above) there are scientists who are doing embryo-destructive research and want to continue doing so, despite the fact that they could turn to iPSC methods or to adult stem cell research without the moral evil of destroying nascent human life. There is great need for something else that might have a chance of satisfying the desire to harness the perceived near-magical potential of embryonic cells. The ANT-OAR approach, then, is a life-saving attempt to stop the killing of human life taking place now when embryos are destroyed for research. The fact that the actual treatment successes achieved thus far are entirely on the side of adult stem cell research has not eliminated (and likely will not eliminate) the thirst for embryonic stem cell research.

I understand that adult stem cell research has up to now given far more promising results in actual clinical applications. And I'm sure the signatories of the joint statement supporting ANT-OAR do as well. That doesn't lessen the moral urgency of trying to do something to stop those who are intent on pursuing embryo-destructive research in spite of this lopsidedness.



The need to have an embryo before you can get cells with embryonic pluripotency is precisely the issue that supporters of pursuing ANT-OAR animal research, such as Dr. Hurlbut and Fr. Austriaco, claim ANT-OAR would bypass. The very reason that pro-life scientists have for proposing a method such as ANT-OAR is to try to come up with a way to get embryonic-like stem cells without actually creating (and disaggregating and thereby destroying) embryos first. If their theoretical explanation of the biology involved is correct (and animal research would test this), they would be able to skip directly to embryonic-like cells that are pluripotent, without making embryos first. (Note: an embryo, which is a whole, integrated, independent, unique organism, is not the same thing as an individual embryonic-type cell, which, while embryonic in type is not a whole, integrated organism.)

Here is a quote from Fr. Austriaco's article "Altered Nuclear Transfer: A Critique of a Critique," published in the Spring 2005 issue of Communio (which I highly recommend reading in full):


Here is a link to a pdf of the full article:
http://tinyurl.com/5m54t3

And to further support my claim about about the intentions of pro-life supporters of ANT-OAR, here are the opening sentences of the "Joint Statement on Oocyte Assisted Reprograming":



See http://tinyurl.com/6av2zy

Scott, you write:


If that were the case, scientists wouldn't stop doing the research just because pro-lifers stopped supporting it. But pro-lifers would find themselves in the position of having supported research that proved to be human-destructive.

The question is, where, as Catholics and other pro-lifers, should our priorities lie--in supporting research that might kill embryonic human beings, or supporting other forms of stem-cell research, such as those using adult or induced pluripotent stem cells, that have no chance of destroying life?


Scott, why should we, as Catholics and other pro-lifers, feel compelled to satisfy scientists who feel the "intoxicating" temptation to "do research with human embryonic stem cells no matter what"? This strikes me as a fatalistic, bandwagon approach that could lead to ethical compromise.

As I have stated in my article, there are prominent scientists such as Ian Wilmot, the father of reproductive cloning, who do claim to be done with embryo-destructive research in light of induced pluripotent stem-cell findings. To say that we have to advocate financing for ethically questionable research because major scientists won't support adult or iPS stem-cell research is simply not true.

Dawn, you responded,


If ANT-OAR were shown in animal research to produce true embryos, then there would be no attraction for researchers already indifferent to embryo destruction to opt for this procedure.

From their point of view, this would be an unnecessary and more expensive extra step to what they can do with less hassle by simply using donated "extra" embryos or by doing cloning (SCNT) without the OAR process. When there is no perceived moral issue involved to the scientist, researchers are pragmatic enough to prefer the easiest and least costly possible route to their desired outcome. There are always constraints upon time and money. It would make no sense from the POV of a researcher indifferent to embryo destruction to want to do ANT-OAR. They already have access to embryonic stem cells without it. . . so long as they don't mind destroying embryos.

The sole purpose of the "altered" component of the ANT proposal, is to prevent true embryo creation and thus prevent embryo destruction. Again, if animal research were to show that this doesn't work, the whole reason for altering the epigenetic state prior to nuclear transfer would be moot. Only a researcher who cares to avoid embryonic destruction would bother with this extra work.


I don't think this is what I am supporting. I say this because we are not talking only about future possibilities--scientists theorizing about what might be possible (in which case your critique might be on target). We are dealing with human lives being destroyed now by embryo-destructive research as we speak. And those engaged in such work now I suggest will not feel compelled to stop because professor Wilmut had a change of heart, as admirable as his change may be.

Darn, my attempt at being catchy with the title on post 14 above was cut short. Here is what I tried to write: "Perceived unnecessary steps: such researchers would be deemed schlepps."

Scott, you have bested me in noticing the headline field--something I missed in my first comment--and especially in writing a hed that uses Yiddish.

Apparently, the unknown-though-powerful automated posting police will cut you off at the end of the box when you post, even though you can write a title longer than that when you compose it.

I wasn't sure if "schlepps" should have two p's or one. Good 'ole m-w.com reports that it can be used with either one or two.

The insistence on animal research misses the point of the critiques raised against ANT-OAR. The entities created by ANT-OAR are designed to self-destruct or break down before reaching a certain point in their development. Nobody doubts that they will do so. What is the point, then, of animal research? It can only serve to prove that indeed, the entity does not grow into a "recognizable" embryo. This does not solve the problem or even approach the question: the question is the status of the disabled or altered entity, not whether it will fail to grow as it has been designed to fail to grow.

Moral urgency requires that we say NO to those who insist upon killing children in the name of <i>helping</i> others. We needn't provide them with other alternatives, it's their job to find those. We need only say, <i>NO! Killing children is not allowed.</i> And, if it's not clear whether such research will kill children, then moral urgency demands that we say <i>WAIT</i> until we can make a determination one way or another.

We do so by passing and enforcing laws that protect those who cannot protect themselves and that's where our focus should be. Scientists are not children whom we must teach to divert their energies and desires constructively. They are adults who should already be adept at accepting limits; without such acceptance they cannot do their work.

Any other response allows scientists and those gung ho for unacceptable or questionable research to engage in the kind of childish behaviour we don't accept from children. For goodness sake, the argument, <i>they're going to do it anyway</i> is silly. If we prosecute those scientists who refuse to follow the law, they will discover that conducting research does not confer upon them exemption from living within society's boundaries. Of course, we must be the kind of society that creates and upholds such boundaries and limitations.

Drusilla,

I don't think you and I are in fundamental disagreement, even though you seem to think so.

You say that it is "their" job (scientists who want to do embryo-destructive research) to come up with alternatives that do not kill innocent human beings, and not ours.

I would point out that there are people among "us" (the pro-life camp) who are also scientists. Don't you agree that it is perfectly acceptable for a pro-lifer who is also involved in scientific research to propose a method to do stem cell research that would not take human life?

When a scientist is also pro-life, the "they" is also "we."

And may I also say, as in my comment 12 above, that the proposed ANT-OAR animal research, regardless of whether or not it confirmed Dr. Hurlbut's et al understanding of how the biology would work in real life, would not itself be unethical. For in any case, it would be research using <i>animal</i> cells--not one human life would be at risk of destruction in the proposed research. The animal research would make it possible to determine if the proposed process could be ethically attempted with human cells.

Among the reasons that Hurlbut and other pro-life scientists care to do this first with an animal model, is so that they would be able to say no to any further pursuit of this method before risking any loss of human life. If animal research were to show definitively that the pro-life scientists' understanding of how the biology of ANT-OAR would work is correct, then there would be no risk of loss of human life in doing it with human cells. For in such a case, the death of ANT-OAR created cells would not mean the death of an embryo, but would be like the death of a skin cell of the body, which happens all the time and is certainly no moral tragedy.

The proposed ANT-OAR research would not kill children, because it it would research using animal cells. No human life would be involved.

The current theoretical explanation for how the details of the biology of ANT-OAR would work, though given with confidence, cannot be confirmed or negated with certitude without being tested through research. Only God knows (as He created the natural world and knows how it works in all the details) for sure what the real truth would be in this case. By opposing animal research, you are opposing what is needed for mere humans to go further toward reaching a firm conclusion in this particular ethical debate.