Northeast Tennessee Right to Life

EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH – THE HYPE AND THE HOPE

In legislation approved during its first 100 hours, the newly-elected, Democrat-dominated House of Representatives called for increased government support for embryonic stem cell research – a measure, which if approved by the Senate, President Bush will almost certainly veto on principle – a principle which many fail to understand or choose to ignore.

That principle is clearly enunciated in the founding document of the United States.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness –“ Any biology textbook will attest to the basic fact that a new life is created at the moment of conception. It follows that research that requires the destruction of one life for the benefit of another involves an ethical consideration that has been largely overlooked in the hype that has appealed to the public hope for miracle cures for vexing illnesses.  Only the law of the jungle permits the sacrifice of the weaker for the benefit of the stronger.

Seizing on the hope for miracle cures, the public has enthusiastically endorsed embryonic stem cell research without full realization of the ethical dimensions and the scientific realities of the glowing promises advanced. The public has been subjected to a barrage of hype about the range of human ailments that embryonic stems cells promise to cure. Nancy Reagan has suggested that cells from embryos will cure the Alzheimer’s that afflicted her husband. Michael Fox leads the public to hope that embryonic research will produce a cure for his Parkinson’s.  Dana Reeve predicted that Superman would walk again. The American Diabetes Association has falsely claimed that a cure for that dread malady is “just around the corner.”  Most of these promises are unfounded and some have been downright fraudulent. They have obscured the reality of both the scientific and ethical questions posed in using stem cells to treat human illnesses.

            The public has been led to believe that embryonic stem cells hold much greater promise for cures than stem cells from other sources.  The reality is that stem cells from adult sources, bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and even skin, have successfully treated spinal cord injuries and a variety of ailments but so far no such successes have been achieved using embryonic stem cells. 

            The contention is that stem cells harvested from embryos can be induced to create a wider range of tissue than those from other sources. This may be true, but such cells also pose a danger that they will mutate into cancerous growth that cells from other sources do not pose.

            They have the advantage that they are easier to harvest than stem cells from other sources.

The media have given voice to the clamor of those who have a vested interest in such research and political opportunists who use the confusion to blast the administration as being insensitive to human suffering that could be relieved by embryonic stem cell research. The pressure for government support for embryonic stem cell research is coming from laboratories and scientists who anticipate huge research grants and pharmaceutical houses that envision great profits from the results.

            The public has been given the impression that the current administration has blocked support of stem cell research.  The reality is that the Bush administration has refused to provide funds for research that destroys embryos to create new lines of stem cells, but funding has actually been increased for research using stem cell lines already in existence and research using stem cells derived from other sources.  In addition, the government has placed no restrictions on privately funded research using embryonic stem cells.            

Protection of embryos is dismissed as a bothersome offshoot of the abortion dispute or an element of religious fundamentalism.  Many pro-abortionists have used the call for stem cell research to salve consciences that are uneasy about abortion to claim something good can come from abortion.

Some attempt to avoid the pro-life argument against creating embryos solely for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells by proposing that cells from frozen embryos that are surplus from in vitro fertilization efforts be used.  They remain uninformed about the success of the results of adoption and implantation of such embryos demonstrated by the Snowflake Embryo Adoption Program. They also fail to recognize that the same ethical constraints apply to the destruction of frozen embryos.

In a novel approach, some have recently attempted to circumvent the objections of groups that respect life, by advancing a claim that a new technique enables the harvesting stem cells from fertilized eggs without creating embryos.  With this biological nonsense they hope to appeal to a population that lacks basic understanding of the origin of life.

The final question is will we be so blinded to the basic humanity of embryos by our desire for miracle cures that we ignore the core concept of American liberty, that every human being deserves the right to life, and subscribe to the concept of sacrificing the weakest for the benefit of the stronger?  Might we be well-advised to ponder the lessons Mary Shelley offered nearly200 years ago in her classic novel, Frankenstein, about the dangers of pursuing scientific aims in reckless disregard for human consequences?

 The above article was written by Dr. Murvin Perry.  It was printed in the Johnson City Press on Sunday, Jan. 28, 2007 and is reprinted here by his permission.  Dr. Murvin Perry has been a tireless soldier and champion of Life for over 35 years.