'Creationism' biologist quits job

Yesterday I wasn't able to do any emailing to scientists and academics to invite them to sign Declan's petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning. I had already added the names and email addresses of over 127 scientists from the Departments of Zoology, Pharmacology and Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Cambridge to Declan's database when the internet went down for over two hours in our local council's Idea Store Whitechapel library. No internet for two hours is quite a hit because on 29 January the library imposed on both our membership cards a maximum of 3 hours of PC access per day, despite that for several months previous we were given "additional time" subject to computer availability in accordance with the council's "Idea Stores PC Usage Policy". Actually, Declan has written quite a number of times to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council; see, for example, blog of 6 August “Library blocks access to Google Mail account”.

On the matter of my arrest by City of London police on the night of 10 September (because I refused to be 'moved on' as result of having nowhere else to sleep), we are sleeping, since 11 September, back in the place I mentioned in the blog “Human Embryonic Stem Cells Reduce Multiple Sclerosis Symptoms”: tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps. (On 4 September, we returned to the porch we had been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 to find an unlocked trellis gate; on 5 September the gate was locked. On the 7th we found the place we are now; but then on the night of the 9th, some guys decided to hold a fifteen-minute party almost beside us – despite the road being described on the internet as a "quiet thoroughfare" – so the next night we went back to where we slept on the night of the 5th, and I got arrested.)



The UK's The Royal Society's embattled director of education resigned on Tuesday, days after causing uproar among scientists with a speech he gave to the British Association for the Advancement of Science on 11 September, in which he “suggested that creationism be discussed in UK science classes”, says New Scientist. Reiss, a biologist and ordained Church of England minister, agreed to step down from his position with the national academy of science after its officers decided that his comments “had damaged its reputation”, according to The Times.

On 13 September, Nobel Laureates Sir Richard Roberts, Sir Harry Kroto (NAC Honorary Associate) and Sir John Sulston wrote to the society's president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, asking that Reiss step down, or be asked to step down, as soon as possible. Roberts wrote on behalf of himself and Kroto and Sulston:

We are greatly concerned by the remarks recently made by Professor Michael Reiss, who is currently Director of Education at the RS. We appreciate that there will be a clarification, but the fact that the comments were made in the first place by an official representative of the premier scientific society in the UK, if not the world, is most disturbing.

We gather Professor Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself is very worrisome. Who on earth thought that he would be an appropriate Director of Education, who could be expected to answer questions about the differences between science and religion in a scientific, reasoned way? Creationism, Intelligent Design etc. have no place in a science classroom discussion and should not be legitimized as acceptable alternative theories to evolution by anyone who claims to be a scientist. Ill-conceived opinions by a representative of the RS will only encourage those teachers, both scientists and otherwise, with a creationist agenda to speak about it to their students in the classroom.

We would urge that Professor Reiss step down, or be asked to step down, as soon as possible.

Following Reiss’s resignation, Kroto told New Scientist that it was unwise of the Royal Society to appoint him in the first place, and very wise of him to step down now. "On the face it, what Reiss actually said at the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting seems fairly reasonable - if uttered by a freethinker for whom evidence-based philosophy is pre-eminent," Kroto said. "Unfortunately the key point is that it was said by the director of the Royal Society education programme who is, apparently, deeply religious. It thus gives a green light to those who wish to foist their own personal religious interpretation of the origin of the universe and its inhabitants on children in the science classroom."

The The Royal Society stood by the scientist initially, insisting that he had not departed from its official policy and that his remarks had been misinterpreted. Many senior figures, however, felt that Reiss had been naive, at best, to make statements that could easily be seen to back teaching creationism as if it were science, and should not have done so while speaking in his Royal Society role. Said Chris Higgins, Vice-Chancellor of Durham University (and a signatory of Declan's petition): "While I have no doubt that Michael Reiss's comments have been misinterpreted by parts of the media, I think that the fact that he has generously stood down allows the Royal Society to clarify the robust position on this issue. There should be no room for doubt that creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory."

Phil Willis MP, the chairman of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, told The Times: “It is appropriate for the Royal Society to have dealt with this problem swiftly and effectively, rather than provoking continued debate. I hope the society will now stop burying its head and start taking on creationism."

Commenting in the Guardian yesterday, Professor of philosophy AC Grayling, one of Britain's foremost public intellectuals, wrote: "Take the connections one might make between the resignation of Michael Reiss from the Royal Society because of his views about creationism in schools, and the opening this week of the first Hindu faith-based school. One of the Hindu creation myths has Vishnu asleep in the coils of a cobra, itself afloat on a dark ocean whose waves lap the shores of nothingness … Should chemistry and biology teachers devote part of their lessons to explaining why the story of Vishnu and his cobra is not chemistry or biology? In effect this is what - to put the best construction on it - Professor Reiss was trying to suggest."

The trellis gate is locked

As I stated in the previous blog, on Thursday night we returned to the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 to find an unlocked trellis gate (the blog also contains Declan's letter to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights). Last night the gate was locked, leaving us on a Friday night with nowhere to sleep; it turned out that the local train station closes from 12.00pm to 6.00am on a Friday, so that ruled it out. Our morale was high but nonetheless by 11.00pm we were still walking, having found nothing – oh, and it was raining. In the end we got five hours sleep: we were quite happy really considering we were supposed to get none. Until we find something that is relatively safe and conveniently situated, we will just sleep here and there.

There was a main reason why my morale was high. I kept thinking about a recent commentary from Professor of philosophy AC Grayling (see previous blog): that despite appearances, the world is not seeing a resurgence of religion, only a big turning-up of the volume of religious voices; that this is itself a response to increasing secularism among people tired of the disruptions, obstructions and conflicts religion so often causes; and that the public acknowledgement of atheism by a senior politician who might soon lead Britain is just one indicator of the fact that the tide is actually running in the opposite direction: and that is a welcome and hopeful sign.

US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad on stem cell research

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s announcement that if elected president he will lift the current administration's ban on federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after 9 August 2001 through executive order (see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”) has received a ringing endorsement from the National Academies, advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine. Yesterday, the National Academies released amended guidelines for research involving human embryonic stem cells, revising those that were issued in 2005 and updated in 2007 (see press release here). "It is far from clear at this point which cell types will prove to be the most useful for regenerative medicine, and it is likely that each will have some utility," the panel, chaired by Richard Hynes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (and an early signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells) wrote.

The report was sponsored by the Ellison Medical Foundation, the Greenwall Foundation, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

Opponents of embryo research include the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has released two new print ads addressing stem cell research. The ads were distributed at the Democratic Convention in Denver and at the Republican Convention in Minneapolis/St Paul by pro-life groups, reported LifeSiteNews.com. One highlights scientific advances that are making the use of human embryonic stem cells obsolete and calls attention to the development of "Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells" (iPSCs). Picturing a commuter running for a train, the ad asks: "Science is moving on. Isn't it time for public policy to get on board?" The second ad features advances already being made to treat patients with adult stem cells and directs readers to www.stemcellresearch.org for more information. Its tagline is: "Adult Stem Cell Research. Let's Find Cures We Can All Live With." Clearly, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops doesn’t agree that “it is far from clear at this point which cell types will prove to be the most useful for regenerative medicine,” nor that “it is likely that each will have some utility".

A trellis gate is installed in the porch

In yesterday’s blog “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”, I announced that a spam box seems too good for Declan's email to scientists and academics inviting them to sign his petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning. Now the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006 seems also too good for us: when we got there last night (a little late because it was Declan’s 48th birthday), we found that a trellis gate had been installed – it was open so we bedded down anyway. This afternoon Declan wrote to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights further to his second request for priority of 4 July (the letter is published below).

A trellis gate is installed in the porch

It is our belief that Declan’s case to the Court is very much going backwards: in a letter of 22 November 2007 the Court stated that it was not necessary to consider Declan’s first request for priority of 8 September 2007 because it would be examining his application, also of 8 September 2007, “shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008”; seven months later, in a letter dated 16 June (see here), it is “as soon as practicable” - coincidentally, two days before Declan received this letter from the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, his main bag, which contained all our money and documents, was robbed in the centre (see here).

Tonight, being Friday, we expect to find the gate locked and will head for the local train station to sleep for the night; I am very much resigned to being arrested there by the City of London Transport Police. Still, I am certain it will be safer for me in a cell than walking the streets with all my belongings. (I have my blog and the petition saved to two of my USB drives just in case more coincidences show up; they won’t be able to arrest Declan because he says he will leave the station.)

Professor of philosophy AC Grayling, one of Britain's foremost public intellectuals, wrote a piece for The Guardian of 21 August titled “The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister”, with the subheadline “In this climate of quarrels between religionists and secularists, there are very many reasons to hope for a non-believer at No 10”. He argues that atheist leaders will be sceptical about the claims of religious groups to be more important than other civil society organisations in doing good, getting public funds, meriting special privileges and exemptions from laws, and having seats in the legislature and legal protection from criticism, satire and challenge. “Despite appearances, the world is not seeing a resurgence of religion, only a big turning-up of the volume of religious voices,” Grayling writes. “This is itself a response to increasing secularism among people tired of the disruptions, obstructions and conflicts religion so often causes. Public acknowledgement of atheism by a senior politician who might soon lead his country is just one indicator of the fact that the tide is actually running in the opposite direction: and that is a welcome and hopeful sign.”

Declan’s email letter this afternoon to Registrar Erik Fribergh of the European Court (Erik.Fribergh@echr.coe.int):

Subject: Heavey v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 22541/07)

Dear Mr Fribergh

I refer further to my second request for priority of 4 July 2008 under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, for consideration as supplementary to my initial application of 8 September 2007. (As explained in previous applications, my wife and I have been sleeping rough in the porch of an office building in the City of London since 3 November 2006, the Department of Work and Pensions having terminated my joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance on 27 September 2006 because I did not "sign on" two days before I was due to do so on 29 September.) Under "Necessity of Expedition", this request for priority states in part:

The attempts by the City of London Police to move the applicant and his wife from the porch they sleep in at night to beyond the City boundaries, culminating in the current 'No sleeping' sign on the back wall of the porch, constitutes a violation of the applicant's effective right of application as established under Article 34. These violations constitute a grave threat of irreparable and serious harm.

Last night my wife and I returned to the porch to find an unlocked trellis gate. The Court will note from the aforementioned second request for priority that since 9 May 2008 my wife and I have been visited on a number of occasions by the City of London Police in the middle of the night and ordered to immediately move out of the porch to beyond city boundaries or be arrested; on 10 June I received an email from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, of Snow Hill Police station, advising me to find accommodation with the help of Broadway homeless charity; and on 24 June we arrived back at the porch to find for the first time a City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign on the back wall (as previously stated, that night we were visited at 10.00pm by three workers from Broadway to be asked if we would go on benefits, which I declined because I would have to withdraw my application to the Court).

I submit that this trellis gate was introduced yesterday as no more than an alternative means for the City of London Police to move my wife and I on, and as such is a fabrication: there has never been a complaint against either my wife or I since we started to sleep in this porch almost two years ago; we bed down at 9.00pm, and get up every weekday at 4.30am - on Saturdays and Sundays we get up at 6.30am; neither my wife nor I drink or smoke; my wife cleans the porch floor almost every night; and the office building in question has its own front entrance around the corner. I also wish to emphasise that we have informed the City of London Police on numerous occasions that we have never found a more suitable place to sleep, neither within the City of London nor beyond its boundaries.

The subject matter of this trellis gate being locked when we return to the porch at night is of considerable concern to me because my wife and I will be forced to sleep in the local train station where she will be subject to arrest due to her refusal to put herself at risk of more ill-treatment by moving out onto the street.

Article 34 (formally Article 25) of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has frequently emphasised that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court. Article 34 states that:

The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.

Under Article 34 applicants must not be subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to modify or withdraw their complaints. "Pressure" includes direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation (of applicants, potential applicants, their families and legal representatives), but also any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy. In assessing the degree of interference, the Court will take account of the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her susceptibility to influence exerted by the authorities, including any legitimate fear of reprisals, and in this regard I beg to refer to paragraph 22 of my application of 8 September 2007, wherein it states:

On 22 November 2006, the Dellow Centre recorded on the applicant's wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that neither the applicant nor his wife could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits".

In the case of Kurt v Turkey (No. 24276/94, 25.5.98, (1999) 26 EHRR 373), the Court found there had been improper pressure in violation of former Article 25, after the applicant alleged that she had been pressurised by the authorities to withdraw her application to the Commission.

I submit that the attempts of the City of London Police to move my wife and I out from the porch we sleep in at night to beyond the City boundaries, culminating in yesterday's installation of a trellis gate, constitute a violation of my effective right of application as established under Article 34, and respectfully request that the Court take this matter up with the respondent Government. I further request that the Chamber or its President decide to give priority to my application of 8 September 2007.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

New Scientist: Faith in denial

Declan's difficulties while attempting to sell The Big Issue (a magazine sold by homeless people on registered street pitches) have continued – on Thursday afternoon he had to write to the founder and editor-in-chief of The Big Issue, John Bird, see previous blog. On Thursday and Friday evening Declan's pitch was unceremoniously taken over by a distributor of the free daily London Lite and he had no choice but to walk off. So since he had some magazines left, on Saturday we decided to take a bus to Covent Garden, where we have a weekend pitch for the two of us. We shouldn't have bothered spending money we don't have on the transport: almost as soon as Declan was on the pitch, four homeless with cans of beer came along, sat beside him and, well, more or less scared away any potential Big Issue buyer. (Noam Chomsky – described by The New York Times as "arguably the most important intellectual alive", and an early signatory of Declan's petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning – identifies economic strangulation as a primary method of domination and control – see blog of 12 June “The threat of a good example”).

        Delacroix's 1830 masterpiece Liberty Leading the People

The latest issue of the New Scientist carries a piece by British philosopher AC Grayling "How humans dared to know", with the subheadline: "Our passion for 'Enlightenment values' owes a lot to the 18th century. But where do those values come from and what do they mean today?" Grayling, one of Britain's foremost public intellectuals, says that if one compares the lives of ordinary people 300 years ago with those we can enjoy now, the impact of the Enlightenment on the structure and practice of society can be fully appreciated - and admired. "As a historical phenomenon," writes Grayling, "the Enlightenment movement emphasised reliance on reason, sought to take a scientific approach to social and political questions, championed science, and opposed the clergy, the church and all forms of superstition as obstacles to progress." He also writes: "Enlightenment values today are commitments to individual autonomy, democracy, the rule of law, science, rationality, secularism, pluralism, a humanist ethics, the importance of education, the promotion of human rights."

Science is also central to an article by Michael Brooks, former senior features editor at the magazine, titled "Faith in denial", with the subheadline: "The Catholic church's insistence on demonising IVF is making it look irrelevant and out of touch". Brooks comments that it is time for the Vatican to accept IVF: Louise Brown, the world’s first test-tube baby, turned 30 last week; and, with more than 3 million people having now been conceived through IVF, she is no longer the miracle she once seemed.

At the time of Brown’s birth the church was undecided about the morals and ethics of IVF, but it has since banned its members from using the technology, declaring it "morally unacceptable". That, Brooks explains, is primarily because it views the destruction of embryos, a common aspect of the IVF process, as equivalent to murder. The church also takes the view that IVF allows us to play God. “The Catholic church’s position is looking ever more absurd, especially when you consider that it stands virtually alone on this matter,” Brooks writes. “The vast majority of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu groups see IVF as a useful means to an essential end: overcoming infertility. Muslim scholars issued their first proclamation, or fatwa, on IVF within two years of Brown’s birth. This came from the leaders of the majority Sunni group, to which over 90 per cent of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims belong. The fatwa decreed that a married couple was free to use IVF as long as there was no donation of gametes from third parties. The minority Shiite group is even more tolerant: it has allowed its members to use donated eggs or sperm since the mid-1990s, so long as all parties adhere to Islamic codes regarding parenting.”

Brooks points out that most Catholics “are similarly progressive, but this means they have to flout the dictates of their church”. He adds: “After a 1987 Vatican pronouncement on the immoral nature of IVF, Margaret Brooks, an Australian Catholic and the first woman to have a child born from a frozen embryo, boldly told The New York Times that no one paid any attention to such decrees. At the same time, several European Catholic hospitals announced that they would defy the church and continue to provide IVF treatment. It was, one hospital said, ‘an infinitely precious human service’.”

“The pope is not in the business of bowing to popular demand, but even he must sense that the church’s position is becoming ever more isolated,” Brooks writes, adding: “He could do something about it. The church has changed its views in response to scientific and technological developments before. It was the invention of the microscope and the subsequent discovery of the ovum that first persuaded Catholics to err on the side of caution and adopt their current position on the sanctity of the embryo. Why can't the Vatican take account of all we have learned in the IVF area and revise the rules again?”

Brooks goes on to argue that making "a sensible retreat" over IVF would also open the way to resolving other controversies over reproductive technologies – for example, stem cell research, which the Vatican opposes. “This in turn might enable other conservative religious groups to back down without losing face. Muslim scholars have already blazed a trail here too. In 2001 the Islamic Institute, a think tank based in Washington DC, convened a panel of medical, scientific and religious experts to work out how IVF and stem cell research fit in with Islamic teaching. They concluded that IVF is ‘a compassionate and humane scientific procedure’. On stem cells they went even further, calling it ‘a societal obligation’ to perform research on the extra embryos that are produced in IVF procedures because of the potential benefits that could accrue from it.”

Since it seems unlikely the Vatican is going to willingly embrace "Enlightenment values" in respect of IVF, as part of our international campaign on therapeutic cloning and human embryonic stem cell research we intend having a ‘take action’ section with an email to Pope Benedict XVI urging him to revise the church's rules on IVF in response to scientific and technological developments. (Our NAC website, which was suspended on 8 March due to an erroneous Spamcop report that was sent to our web host, carried three original campaigns, one of which "The Vatican and the achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals" contained as a 'take action' an email to the Pope urging him to stop obstructing family planning.)

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.

Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor

Yesterday afternoon Declan wrote to the Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster regarding the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre (see previous blog). Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is also the head of the Catholic Church in Britain (the email letter is presented below). This morning Declan was informed in the Dellow Centre – by the same homeless that on 11 April, while in the Manna Centre, more or less told me I would be found one morning with a knife in my back – that I am going to be “sorted out”. So it seems I don’t have much time left. Oh, well.

On 2 April professor of philosophy AC Grayling, one of Britain’s foremost public intellectuals, wrote an article in the Guardian titled “Sin of omission: Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor's attack on secularism is based on a heavily edited history of Christianity”. The previous day the Cardinal had claimed that "Judaeo-Christian heritage" was the only thing binding British society together, on the eve of a lecture series on the place of faith in British public life. (Incidentally, on 2 April the Guardian asked Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor if he thought that Christian faith leaders should have a privileged position when it came to making interventions in public policy. “Yes,” he replied, “I don't see why not.") Grayling’s article goes so well here, I cannot but publish the first three paragraphs:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's remarks attacking "aggressive secularism" and claiming that "what binds the British people together is their Judaeo-Christian heritage" body forth several major acts of selective amnesia.

First as to "aggression". The cardinal chooses to forget that when the church was in a position to be aggressive towards those who disagreed with it, it did not restrict itself to robust and uncompromising language, as today's secularists do, but committed murder by burning its opponents at the stake, often torturing them beforehand. That was genuine "aggression"; using this word to describe the forthright and sometimes scornful language of those who disagree with his outlook (and what he tries to do with it, like blocking medical advances for the suffering) is a sort of running to mother, thumb in mouth.

Secondly as to "secularism". The cardinal chooses to forget or ignore that progress towards contemporary liberal democracy, pluralism, civil liberties, individual autonomy and the rule of secular law was achieved only once the hegemony of the church over minds and bodies was broken, and in spite of it. The church fought hard, long and bloodily to abort the beginnings of secularism in the 16th and 17th centuries, as it also then sought to stop the rise of science, and throughout the history of the growth of literacy it attempted to limit the spread of more general knowledge and awareness by placing almost every book of value on the index of forbidden books.

This is Declan’s email letter to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor (Abhreception@rcdow.org.uk):

Subject: Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre

Dear Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor

I am writing to you in your capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, of which Tower Hamlets is part. As you are aware, the Dellow Centre of the Sister of Mercy Providence Row Charity is a day centre in Tower Hamlets that provides, among other services, free breakfast, showers and clothing for vulnerable people in the City of London and the East End – the charity's Annual Review 2006-2007 cites the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, London Councils and The Corporation of London as statutory funders, as well as 28 churches among a long list of supporters.

My name is Declan Heavey. I am the director of Network of those Abused by Church (NAC), an international secular humanist organisation which my wife and I launched on the internet after moving from Dublin to Birmingham in 2003. Although NAC has yet to be registered as a company, it has a distinguished list of 13 international (agreed) trustees and 32 honorary associates – I regret that I cannot provide you with a link to the NAC website as it was suspended on 8 March after SpamCop drew up a report on 6 March stating that emails from me to scientists and academics, inviting them to sign my petition to the United Nations in support of work on therapeutic cloning and the use of stem cells for research and for the treatment of disease, was spamming. (My wife and I are in the process of trying to raise £4,000 to run a campaign in support of the petition, which since 22 October has been signed by 512 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates.)

Having had to go on state benefits in July 2005, the Department for Work and Pensions ceased our allowance entitlement on 27 September 2006 because I did not “sign on” two days before I was due to do so on 29 September. Consequently, my wife and I have been sleeping rough in a porch in the City of London since 3 November 2006. My case is currently before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In December I received (c/o the Dellow Centre) a letter for and on behalf of the Registrar turning down my request of 8 September for priority, but informing me that the Court would examine my application, also of 8 September, possibly before the end of January. I have yet to learn if my case has been dismissed or if the Court has invited the Government to set out its observations on the merits and admissibility of my case.

I wish to draw to your attention that since 10 April I have been washing and shaving on the streets as a result of all the harassment and threats I have received from other homeless while attempting to wash in the Dellow Centre’s men's washroom. For example: (1) on Friday, I had to leave the washroom as a homeless was shouting loudly and menacingly at me because I grabbed an empty chair, and (2) on 1 April, I narrowly escaped assault in the washroom, having had to twice call staff.

My wife and I are especially concerned that we could be barred from the Dellow Centre through no fault of our own – the breakfast provided by the centre is the only food available to my wife for the entire day; whilst I daily walk a round trip of two hours to the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) to avail of the free lunch provided to homeless people. I beg to point out that on 18 June we were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission by the minister's wife due to concerns about our safety following an unprovoked assault on my wife by a homeless woman in the canteen of the premises. Despite that the Whitechapel Mission 130th Anniversary Review states that homeless people are not be barred or excluded, and that I wrote by registered post to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter, my wife and I were never readmitted.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey