US bishops condemn embryonic stem cell research

This morning Declan paid another visit to Brick Lane police station to enquire if PC Van-Gelder (number unknown) has started the investigation into the robbery in the Catholic Dellow Centre of his main bag, which contained all our money and documents (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”) – the robbery took place the same day Declan had intended sending by registered post his second request for priority to the European Court of Human Rights, which I posted to the blog that afternoon; and can be read here. (Two days after the robbery, the Dellow Centre presented Declan with a letter from the European Court, which is published in the previous blog).

No, there is no news at all, and Declan can’t speak with PC Van-Gelder because he is not in the station. Declan will try again tomorrow – the entire canteen area is covered by CCTV; although Declan was informed in Southwark police station the next day that homeless day centres generally don’t provide police with information on clients without a warrant (see blog of 19 June “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”).

Bishops' document blasts embryonic stem cell research

On 13 June, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a document titled "On Embryonic Stem Cell Research", the first formal statement issued by the organisation devoted exclusively to the issue. The bishops voted 191-1 to adopt the statement, without debate or discussion. Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, and part of the bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, was hopeful the document "would be taken seriously by all policymakers".

In a BBC article of 10 April Sir Martin Evans, who received the Nobel Prize for medicine last year, urged British MPs voting on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to "stop listening to the emotive arguments of religiously motivated pressure groups”, adding: “Please look at the evidence. Don't immediately go for the knee-jerk reaction mainly powered by the 'yuck' factor.” The US bishops’ statement finds room for plenty emotive arguments. We read that “harvesting embryonic stem cells involves the deliberate killing of innocent human beings”, that “some researchers, ethicists, and policy makers claim that we may directly kill innocent embryonic human beings as if they were mere objects of research”, and that “the same ethic that justifies taking some lives to help the patient with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow”.

Sir Martin is also quoted in the article as saying: “I think the point of debate really is: are the embryos that are being used for research fully-formed humans? To me and to many other scientists - knowing that these are just a small bunch of cells - the answer is no.” Lisa Jardine, the new chair of the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, is one such scientist. She tells the New Statesman (see blog of 29 May “Stem cells and morality”) when asked about the beginning of life: "I think I need consciousness - I've a little bit of a philosophical temperament - and we're a hell of a way from consciousness at 14 days." She adds: "The moment of fertilisation is not a very helpful moment to begin talking about the sanctity of human life. As a woman who's had a long childbearing life, I know perfectly well that any number of embryos were swept away. Maybe [some] naturally, but some of them weren't. Sometimes I'd jumped up and down in the hope that I wasn't pregnant, you know?"

Also in the same issue of the New Statesman is philosopher Julian Baggini on deciding ethical issues. "When it comes to specific matters of morality, the idea that religious convictions need respect, not interrogation and defence, is absurd," he writes. "The world's major religious texts have nothing to say about stem cells, not least because those words do not appear in any of them. It may be a matter of faith that Christ rose from the dead, but Christians have to defend anything they say about the first stages of life." Clearly the bishops do not believe they have to defend anything they say about the first stages of life: they make their case with appeals like “the human embryo, from conception onward, is as much a living member of the human species as any of us” (and related expressions as “the embryo is a complete and distinct member of the species Homo sapiens” and “human beings at the embryonic stage of development”).

The US bishops’ statement has a problem not just with embryonic stem cell research but with therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer – it is “intrinsically evil,” they say, “because it reduces human procreation to a mere manufacturing process, producing new human beings in the laboratory to predetermined specifications as though they were commodities”. The NSW Minister for Science and Medical Research, Verity Firth, wouldn’t be impressed to hear therapeutic cloning described as “intrinsically evil”: on 19 June she announced at the BIO 2008 convention in San Diego that Sydney IVF and the Australian Stem Cell Centre (ASCC) in Melbourne have launched a project to characterise and compare induced pluripotent stem cells, human embryonic stem cells and stem cells derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer. "Both the NSW and Victorian governments are proud to be supporting this ground-breaking work, which we believe will offer new hope to people living with debilitating diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease,” Firth said. "The combination of the international quality talent and significant resources of these two collaborative partners gives this project the potential to provide world-first advancements in these new biological frontiers."

And what about hybrid embryos, which the US bishops are also troubled by because they “disturbingly blur the line between animal and human species”? Well, on 19 May British MPs voted in favour of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which allows for the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos (see blog of 20 May "UK parliament backs human-animal embryo research") – the hybrid approach is a tool for generating disease-specific embryonic stem cells without the need to use donated human eggs; the cells will not be used in patients, but be used to model diseases in the lab, test new therapies and study cloning processes. (In April, Lyle Armstrong of Newcastle University, a signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning, announced that he and his team had created human-animal hybrid embryos for the first time in Britain. The scientists merged human genetic material with cow egg cells that had most of their own genetic material removed, see blog of 5 April “Declan narrowly escapes being assaulted”.)

The bishops write that adult stem cells “have already demonstrated great medical promise” – but in an article that appeared on 11 June in the Minnesota Daily, Rep Phyllis Kahn, who has a PhD in biophysics from Yale, states: “We can't really maximize the potential of adult stem cells without the parallel embryonic stem cell science." The bishops further adduce: “Researchers have even developed new non-destructive methods for producing cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells – for example, by ‘reprogramming’ adult cells.” However, on 30 January the International Society for Stem Cell Research issued a statement on the stem cell initiatives announced in President Bush’s State of the Union Address, which says: “The breakthrough in iPS cell research was made possible by several years of prior embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research must continue if scientists are going to have the most modern and powerful research tools at their disposal”.

Despite these exclusions, the bishops write: “It now seems undeniable that once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point. The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject the first step down this path.” The concept of human dignity has been dealt with by Steven Pinker – world-renowned thinker and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University (and an honorary associate of NAC and early signatory of Declan’s petition) – in an article for The New Republic entitled “The Stupidity of Dignity” (see blog of 23 May “The Stupidity of Dignity”). Denouncing dignity, for one thing, as a “squishy” concept (ambiguous, slippery, and vague), Pinker writes:

The concept of dignity is natural ground on which to build an obstructionist bioethics. An alleged breach of dignity provides a way for third parties to pass judgment on actions that are knowingly and willingly chosen by the affected individuals. It thus offers a moralistic justification for expanded government regulation of science, medicine, and private life. And the Church's franchise to guide people in the most profound events of their lives--birth, death, and reproduction--is in danger of being undermined when biomedicine scrambles the rules. It's not surprising, then, that "dignity" is a recurring theme in Catholic doctrine: The word appears more than 100 times in the 1997 edition of the Catechism and is a leitmotif in the Vatican's recent pronouncements on biomedicine.

So, despite the best efforts of the US bishops, I can’t help but think about an article by professor of philosophy AC Grayling – and one of Britain’s foremost public intellectuals – published in The Guardian on 3 May 2006, which states that “it is the business of all religious doctrines to keep their votaries in a state of intellectual infancy (how else do they keep absurdities seeming credible?)”. Oh well, granted: I am not the most impartial person in the world.