Bush's stem cell ruling & Bishops' reaction:  Some criticize what's wrong; others praise what's right

By Kevin Luperchio, Worcester Catholic Free Press, Aug. 17, 2001, at 1

For further background by Luperchio on stem cell issue see below: misconceptions cloud stem cell debate.

President Bush’s plan to allow federal funding for limited stem cell research has divided politicians, scientists and even bishops.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference both released statements in response to the president’s Aug. 9 decision.

The USCC condemned the plan while the MCC praised President Bush for his “clear, understandable and well-reasoned” announcement.

During a nationally televised address, President Bush announced he would authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research involving roughly 60 existing stem cell lines. In those cases, the president said, “the life-and-death decision has already been made.”

“This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem-cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life,” he added.

President Bush also declared his strong opposition to human cloning, his support for “aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells,” and his decision to establish a president’s council on stem-cell research. 

Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, president of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops, called President Bush’s funding plan “morally unacceptable.”

“The federal government, for the first time in history, will support research that relies on the destruction of some defenseless human beings for possible benefit to others,” Bishop Fiorenza said.

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy office of the state’s four (arch)dioceses, applauded the president’s courage.

“President Bush had an opportunity to stand up for the dignity and inviolability of innocent human life and came through on the critical issues of cloning and embryo-destroying research,” the statement read.

The decision to permit research funding on already developed stem cell lines, while disturbing, “does not diminish the significance of the president’s refusal to fund research involving the future destruction of embryos,” the MCC release stated.

Daniel Avila, associate director of policy and research, called the discrepancy in opinions “a half-full/half-empty” situation.”

“The USCC’s analysis about what was wrong with the President’s statement was correct. . .a legitimate critique,” Mr. Avila said. “But the bishops in Massachusetts felt the positive aspects had to be acknowledged as well.”

The key, he added, is to take both responses together.

Archbishop of Boston Bernard Cardinal Law addressed both the positive and negative aspects of the decision in a statement released last week.

Cardinal Law commended President Bush for setting limits in embryonic stem cell research but warned that his line will be difficult to maintain.

By choosing an arbitrary date (Aug. 9) as a cut-off for acceptable embryonic stem cell lines, the president has opened himself to future pressure from scientists, according to Mr. Avila.  

These researchers may lobby to push the Aug. 9 cut-off date forward, he said. Thus, embryos destroyed through privately funded research might be eligible for federal funding, he added.

Following the Aug. 9 statement, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said President Bush will stand by his plan despite any technological advances that may occur.

Bishop Reilly did not comment directly about President Bush's decision but said in a statement this week, "The questions regarding the destruction of embryonic life for research purposes are clear. Scientists are being asked 'Can we do this?' In an attempt to establish legal precedent, politicians are being asked 'May we do this?' Morally, the question that must be asked is more straightforward. 'Should we do this?' The only answer can be an emphatic 'no.'”

Several local groups offered the president’s decision qualified support.

The Massachusetts Citizens for Life, in a statement dated Aug. 10, expressed satisfaction that “the people of the United States will not be forced to subsidize research which requires the destruction of any more human embryos.”

However, the organization remained “troubled by that part of President Bush’s decision allowing funded research on existing stem cell lines which were acquired by the earlier destruction of human embryos.”

Laurie Letourneau, chairman of Life Action League of Massachusetts, credited President Bush with drawing an important distinction in the stem cell debate.

“While Life Action League does not support any form of research on embryos, Bush’s decision at least prevents future human lives from being destroyed,” Ms. Letourneau said.

In his announcement, President Bush did not disclose how much federal money will be allocated for stem cell research under his plan. Mr. Avila said the actual figures have probably not been determined.

Last year, the National Institutes of Health, the organization responsible for distributing federal grants for scientific research, spent $226 million on adult stem cell research, $147 million of human adult cells and $79 million on animal cells, according to published reports.

Material from Catholic News Service reports was used in this story.

____________

Trying to correct misconceptions that cloud issue

By Kevin Luperchio, Worcester Catholic Free Press, Aug. 17, 2001, at 1

    • The Catholic Church completely opposes stem cell research.   
    • The only viable source of stem cells are human embryos.
    • Stem cells will eradicate diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s
and cancer.
    These are some of the media-driven misconceptions clouding the complex
issue of stem cell research, according to Father John W. Barrett.
    During his 23 years as director of the diocesan communications office,
Father Barrett said he witnessed first-hand how the media can mis-
communicate information through ignorance or outright prejudice.
    In reality, he said, the Catholic Church supports stem cell research
 as long as it does not come at the expense of human life.
    The Church opposes research on stem cells derived from frozen human
embryos or cloned embryos for two reasons. First, Father Barrett said, these
embryos were created by in vitro fertilization, a process the Church deems
immoral. The only acceptable method of fertlization, according to Catholic
teaching, is through sex in the context of marriage.
    This precedes the whole debate regarding the morality of embryonic stem
cells, he said.
    The Church also opposes research using embryonic stem cells because the
extraction process results in the death of the embryo. Catholics, who are
taught that life begin at conception, believe the death of this embryo is the
death of a human life, not simply a cluster of new cells.
    The idea that life begins at conception is a biological fact, Father
Barrett said. “Every reputable textbook used in colleges and universities in
this country state that human life is present at the moment of conception,”
he said.
    Peter Bradley, a biology professor at Worcester State College, confirmed
the biological fact but said said the origin of life is defined differently
according to different ethical, legal and political viewpoints.
    From a biological perspective, life can be determined using a number of
criteria, he said. These include: whether the organism can replicate, whether
the organism responds to stimuli and whether it undergoes various biochemical
processes.
    Judging from these criteria, Professor Bradley said, the next generation
of a human being begins at conception.
    The fact that extracting embryonic stem cells ends a human life is often
overlooked in the media, according to Father Barrett. Thus, he said, when
people read or hear about the Church’s opposition to embryonic stem cell
research, they may think, “here is the Catholic Church again interfering with
science.” 
    “Evil can never be done in order to produce good,” Father Barrett
explained. “Evil must never be committed no matter what good might take
place.”
    This philosophical principle, upon which the moral tradition of Western
civilizaton is based, means that any good achieved through evil acts is
automatically tainted with that evil, according to Father Peter R. Beaulieu,
coordinator/adviser of the diocesan bioethics commission. The 12-person
commission, composed of doctors, scientists, priests, psychologists and
ordinary citizens, advises Bishop Reilly on morally troublesome issues such
as stem cell research and cloning. 
    Bishop Reilly, in a statement released Tuesday, said the principals of
the Nuremberg Code can apply equally well to stem cell research. Under the
Nuremberg Code, scientists and government officials worldwide decided not to
study the findings of Nazi physicians who used Jewish prisoners as unwilling
test subjects, according to the bishop.
    “The objects of embryonic stem cell research are less recognizable to us,
but they are human,” he said.
STEM CELL SOURCES
    The entire morality debate surrounding embryonic stem cells is
unneccessary, according to Father Barrett, because other, morally sound
sources for stem cells exist. These include: the placenta and umbilical cord,
adult bone marrow and animal bone marrow.
    Embryonic stem cells are often preferred by many scientists because they
are easier to harvest, more abundant and more easily changed into every organ
and tissue cell in the body, according to published reports.
    However, the claims of embryonic stem cells’ superiority may be
misleading. Harvesting of human adult stem cells has been taking place
throughout the last decade while embryonic stem cells weren’t successfully
extracted until 1998, a July 23 article in the Wall Street Journal reported.
    While embryos are believed to have larger numbers of stem cells than
adult or animal bone marrow, scientists have found stem cells in every major
adult organ and have proved more adaptable than originally believed possible,
the Wall Street Journal article reported.
    “We have demonstrated that the potency of these (adult stem cells) was
far greater than expected and what seemed to be a fairly restricted cell type
can give rise to many different types of cells,” Jonas Frisen was quoted as
saying. Mr. Frisen, a scientist working with a Stockholm-based biotech
company, published the results of his research in the June 2000 issue of
Science magazine.
    Among the results: human adult stem cells have been transformed into
cartilage, muscle, bone, cardiac tissue, neural cells, liver tissues, and
blood vessels.
    Both the Wall Street Journal article and a July 19 story in the Harvard
University Gazette highlighted research suggesting that adult stem cells of
animal or human origin are easier to control than embryonic stem cells.
    The possibility that stem cells may grow uncontrollable once transplanted
into humans is a major concern of many stem cell researchers, according to
both articles. This danger seems more acute in embryonic stem cells, for
reasons scientists cannot yet explain, the articles explained.
    Professor Bradley offered a different motivation for scientists who wish
to continue harvesting and researching embryonic stem cells.
    During these early stages of research, researchers do not know what type
of stem cells, if any, will prove most effective when transplanted into
humans, he said. For this reason, prohibiting or restricting to one type of
stem cells does not seem sensible.
ERADICATE DISEASE
    The idea that stem cell research holds any guarrantees is also misguided,
according to Father Barrett.
    While new advances are reported on almost daily, some studies of
embryonic stem cell in Parkinson’s and cancer patients have been
unsuccessful. These include a recent study of Parkinson’s patients reported
about in the March 25 issue of the National Catholic Register. 
    While the potential of stem cell research is enormous, scientists are
still years away from any substantial results, according to Professor Bradley.
    Even if stem cell research eventually finds a cure for one or several
diseases, who will benefit and who will be left behind?
    Jesuit Father Kevin T. FiztGerald, who holds doctorates in genetics and
bioethics, posed this question to the Catholic News Service during a
telephone interview Monday.
    “Our health care system is indefensible,” Father FitzGerald said, adding
that poor people and those in Third World countries will not have access to
these new treatments.