Stem-cell debate must consider ethics as well as science

One of the most lively and volatile issues in the public debate these days is that of stem-cell research.

On the surface, it seems to be a no-brainer. Many scientists and medical professionals assert that stem cells offer a revolutionary breakthrough in being able to treat Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, leukemia, diabetes and spinal-cord injuries, just to mention a few.

Several celebrities who suffer from these and other debilitating or life-threatening diseases for which stem cells offer promise, have been involved in a high-profile campaign to secure governmental funding for aggressive research in this area.

Much of the reason for the confusion and simmering disagreements, I believe, is the complexity of the science and ethical issues involved.

Stem cells

While not a scientist or professional ethicist, let me try to offer a primer on this vitally important issue. (I rely heavily on the findings of Todd Aglialoro of the Sophia Institute Press and the work of Kathleen Gallagher of our New York State Catholic Conference for a popular exposition of the scientific dimensions of this issue.)

Cells are the building blocks of the body, the simplest and most basic units of life. Each cell has a character and function proper to it. But stem cells are distinguished from the body's other cells by their native potential to develop into many different kinds of cells.

Most of the body's cells are specialized: a hair cell is a hair cell, a brain cell a brain cell and so on. But stem cells have in them the power to become and produce any of these and more.

Advantages

This ability to become any number of different kinds of cells (known as multipotency or pluripotency) is not the only advantage stem cells possess. They also have a unique and prodigious capacity for self-renewal or proliferation.

Much of the current stem-cell research focuses on figuring out why stem cells have this dual capacity for self-replication and remaining unspecialized, as well as on determining the precise combination of environmental signals that make stem cells give rise to desired specialized cells.

The potential of stem-cell therapy stretches nearly as far as the imagination, which is one major reason why the ethics debate has become so heated. Earnest proponents of unfettered stem-cell research cannot understand why any moral or political limits should be placed on their efforts.

Moral issues

Our Catholic Church shares with doctors, scientists and patient-rights advocates enthusiasm for the potential of stem-cell research, and the Church fully supports moral and life-affirming scientific advances designed to treat disease and disability.

But we are concerned about the moral limits of this research and development. The heart of the ethical dilemma comes from the fact there are two types of stem cells: embryonic and adult, and the technology empowered to harvest these cells is quite different.

Embryonic stem cells are extracted from live human embryos. There are three places where scientists can obtain embryonic stem cells: 1) from tissues of aborted babies; 2) from "leftover" embryos at fertility clinics; and 3) from cloned human embryos. Embryonic stem-cell research cannot proceed without obtaining human embryos through one of those means.

Embryos for sale

As a consequence, legislation to promote embryonic stem-cell research commonly includes provisions to legalize the sale of aborted babies for research; direct the donation of unused embryos at fertility clinics to research; and legalize human cloning to mass produce human embryos for research.

Proponents of embryonic stem-cell research seek to statutorily legalize human cloning in order to obtain the large supply of human embryos desired by researchers.

Human cloning for the purpose of scientific research has been cleverly but deceitfully dubbed "therapeutic cloning" by some scientists and advocates. That misleading term implies that this form of cloning is less harmful than "reproductive cloning" and somehow provides a therapeutic benefit.

This is not true. The more accurate term would be "research cloning."

Destruction of life

In fact, the scientific process of cloning for therapeutic and reproductive purposes is exactly the same.

Legislation that allows "therapeutic cloning" allows much more than the reproduction of embryos. It requires the destruction of those embryos or implanting them into a woman's womb where the human clone can develop into the fetal stage, as long as he/she is aborted for stem cell use sometime before his/her birth.

That represents the only difference between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning: In "reproductive" cloning, the human clones are allowed to be born; in "therapeutic" cloning, human clones must be killed and used for research at some point prior to birth.

This methodology for obtaining embryonic stem cells is the reason for the Church's opposition to embryonic stem-cell research: This research always involves the destruction of defenseless human life. The catechism of the Catholic Church states clearly that "it is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."

Bad end

In other words, the Church's opposition to embryonic stem-cell research is rooted in our centuries-old tradition that no good end, no matter how noble or compassionate, justifies intentional killing.

Contrary to the popular perception that embryonic research is dealing with only a few unwanted embryos (the destruction of which would be wrong in itself), in point of fact what we are really talking about here is the beginning of a whole industry of embryo research.

As Dr. Gilbert Meilaender, a professor of Christian Ethics at Valparaiso University and member of the President's Council on Bioethics has written: "To really make progress, researchers will want to produce embryos, cloned embryos with particular diseases, and make their own custom-cloned, diseased embryonic humans to experiment with."

Hence, while it is immoral to kill embryonic life directly and intentionally, it is even more heinous to do so for purely utilitarian purposes, no matter how compassionate the motive may be.

Dr. Meilaender also points out that "the course of Western history has been a very long, slow process in the direction of greater inclusiveness in our understanding of who belongs to the human community. Yet in the case of embryonic life we suddenly become less inclusive. Advocates of using embryos need to face up to that."

Unsuccessful

In addition to the serious ethical and moral issues embryonic stem-cell research raises, there is the pragmatic reality that this research has not been successful to date.

In fact, embryonic stem-cell research has produced many troubling and disastrous results, including uncontrollable tumor growth in animals. Embryonic cells are so energetic and uncontrollable that they are "the terrible twos" of the microbiological world, bursting with unpredictability and mischief.

Hence, we are far from realizing any practical medical benefit from embryonic stem-cell research. Despite the promise of advocates for this research, there is yet to be a single case of successful therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells in humans.

False hope

That is why the kind of hype often associated with this issue in the public discourse is very disingenuous, even cruel. It creates false hopes for suffering victims and their families.

For example, just recently, Dr. Michael Shelanski of the Columbia University Medical Center stated, "I think the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small."

Many scientists believe that the exaggerated promise of results from embryonic stem-cell research is true for other diseases as well.

Father Tad Pacholczyk, a neuroscientist and well-known ethicist with the National Catholics Bioethics Center, says, "We have made an act of faith in embryonic stem cells as a panacea for all future health problems."

That gives rise to self-perpetuating myths about the potential benefits of embryonic stem-cell research, myths that often drive public and political support for it.

Ethical research

The second category of stem cells -- adult stem cells -- are obtained from born human beings without harm to human life because they are commonly extracted from the circulating blood of an adult, bone marrow and umbilical cord blood.

They are present within all human tissues, including the liver, skeletal muscle, dental pulp and even our fat.

In contrast with embryonic stem-cell research, adult stem-cell research is both ethical and quite successful. The research does not rely on destroying human embryos or engage in the business of cloning human embryos; instead, it uses the cells found in every living body.

Success seen

Already, at least five major types of adult stem cells have been isolated and are being used to treat over 100 diseases, including the cure of leukemia, the improvement of the pumping capacity of damaged hearts, and the restoration of some sensation and movement in the limbs of paraplegics.

European hospitals are having considerable success in treating such diseases with adult stem cells. In January, for example, Courtney Hoffman, a 19-year-old paraplegic from Michigan, went to Portugal so that her severed spinal cord could be treated with her own adult stem cells. Courtney is now showing signs of improved functioning.

In the United States, researchers have been successful in using adult stem cells to treat genetic diseases in children, including rare diseases affecting the heart, liver and brain.

The Church fully supports adult stem-cell research as the best way to treat human disease and suffering while avoiding any harm to human life.

Indeed, researchers at Catholic institutions -- New York Medical College in Valhalla and Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center in Boston, to name two -- are in the forefront of progress in the exciting field of adult stem-cell research.

Steps to take

As we in the Catholic community observe our annual Respect Life month in October, I would suggest there are four things we can do to foster stem-cell advancement that is both ethical and beneficial:

1. support proposals for increased research and funding using adult stem cells;

2. let our state and federal legislators know of our opposition to any bills that would allow cloning or embryonic stem-cell research;

3. continue to acquaint ourselves and the public with the scientific and moral dimensions of stem-cell research and development; and

4. comfort, help and pray for families struggling with disease, disability and suffering.

In a society hurtling toward a point where human life is no longer perceived as a gift of love to be respected and cherished but as a commodity to be used, we must insist that medical research and treatment remain within the realm of ethical behavior.

(For more information, visit the website of the New York State Catholic Conference, www.nyscatholic.org, or the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, www.usccb.org/prolife.)

(9/29/05)