Smithies explains his support for embryonic stem cell research
This morning at 4.50am we were visited by two City of London police officers at the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 – the first time since a City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign went up on the back wall of the porch two weeks ago, and which, according to the May issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London’s homeless, gives police “permission to move on anyone found sleeping in a doorway” (see blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”). We were actually packing our bags to leave when the two police officers approached us: they want to have a chat to see if we are okay, PC 864C says. So the usual: that Declan has lodged a second request for priority to the European Court of Human Rights (see blog of 4 July “Second Request for Priority to the European Court”); that no, we can’t go into a hostel or apply for benefits because, first and foremost, Declan would have to withdraw his application to the European Court (see previous blog); and that we have a petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning which has been signed by 519 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates, and in respect of which, since yesterday, we are full on seeking contributions for an international campaign. Declan asked PC 864C to issue us a ticket but he wouldn’t, despite that the back of a ticket states that “you are entitled to a full copy of the record of the stop or search now unless wholly impracticable”. Never mind, at 6.25am, after Declan was woken by two more officers as he was in the middle of his usual half-hour snooze – in the church yard where he washes and shaves every morning (see blog of 10 April “Washing in the street”) – he got his ticket. 
Smithies explains his support for embyonic stem cell research
On 27 June, CNN ran a piece on Nobel laureate Oliver Smithies entitled “Nobel scientist looks to the future”, which carries a story highlight “Smithies explains his support for human stem cell research”. (Smithies won the Nobel Prize for medicine last year – with Sir Martin Evans and Mario Capecchi – for developing gene targeting, a method of using embryonic stem cells to "knock out" genes in mice, then observing what goes wrong to determine any gene's normal function.)
In the CNN video “Smithies on embryonic stem cells”, Smithies explains that scientists have been using embryonic stem cells from mice for more than twenty years, but only relatively recently has it been possible to get cells of a comparable type from humans. "The human embryonic stem cell has been controversial for non-scientific reasons. It has been controversial because of people who have different views as to when life starts, and the religious consequences of working with these cells," he says. “I asked the ambassador to suggest to the president of the United States that we maybe have got this the wrong way round when we talk about when life begins in this respect. As far as embryonic stems cells are concerned, my position would be and my argument would be: When does life end?”
Smithies describes life as being continuous since it began. Evolution has made it more complex, he explains, but even so, simple structures such as human eggs and sperm are alive. And so are fertilized eggs. So in his view, if they are not needed by couples trying to have children using in-vitro fertilisation, discarding these eggs kills them. In his view, using them to create embryonic stem cells keeps them alive. Smithies argues:
How marvellous it would be to think that when one died, part of one’s being was used to help other people, and I think that the use of embryos which are not otherwise being used for helping other individuals must be rather marvellous to the donor of those embryo cells. So I would like people to think of it as the perpetuation of life not the destruction of life, because life was already in those cells.
I believe this is a winning argument against those who oppose such research (see blog of 23 June “US bishops condemn embryonic stem cell research”), and one that will be central to our campaign; in fact, as soon as this homeless business is over, Declan intends contacting Smithies to ask how we could elaborate on it: what aspect(s) of evolution do we need to address?
Besides the hotly contested presidential election, Michigan voters will most likely vote in November on a ballot proposal that would loosen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Currently, excess embryos from procedures such as in-vitro fertilisation are discarded as medical waste. If the proposal is passed, however, people will be given a choice to donate their excess embryos for research. "Under existing state law, it is legal to throw embryos away, but it's not legal to use them for research," said Sean Morrison, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Stem Cell Biology. Penalties for destroying one embryo for the purpose of research can reach up to $1 million in fines and 10 years in prison, he said.
Embryonic stem cell research is already going on in the corporate and private sectors, said John Ruckdeschel of the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and Cancer Center in Detroit. "I would rather have it out in the open in our universities, under appropriate guidelines," he said. "We need to come out of the Stone Age on this."
"The choice that will face Michigan voters is this: Do we take these thousands of stem cells and dump them into the trash, or do we devote them to the research that can bring cures to serious diseases and serious injuries?" said Larry Owen, chairman of CureMichigan, and former member of the Michigan State University board of trustees.
Right now Michigan is one of only five states to ban the use of discarded embryos for medical research (the others: South Dakota, North Dakota, Louisiana and Arkansas), but not everyone wants to see things change: a coalition group called Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation (MI-CAUSE), which includes the Michigan Catholic Conference and Right to Life of Michigan, oppose the proposal because embryonic stem cell research “is a direct assault on innocent human life”. It is interesting that Jewish views hold that human embryonic stem cell research entails no moral issue since genetic (ie, embryonic) materials are not even part of a human being until implanted in a womb. And some US Protestant denominations have expressed support for hES cell research, including the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and the United Church of Christ.
