Stem cells revealed

While morally questionable and theoretical embryonic stem-cell research gets the spotlight, several Church-approved methods that respect human life are already showing success in treating disease

By Ann Carey

During a recent cable news program, one news analyst declared: "The Catholic Church is opposed to stem-cell research," and not one other panelist corrected him.

This incident demonstrates how easily such misinformation is promulgated to millions of people, and it helps explain why some misinformed people believe that the Church is opposed to scientific progress.

Actually, the truth is quite the opposite, for the Church encourages ethical scientific research that will benefit mankind and has been quite outspoken in supporting the kind of stem-cell research that causes no harm to human life.

Morally and practically sound

The error made by the news analyst was that he failed to distinguish between the different kinds of stem-cell research. The Church indeed is opposed to embryonic stem-cell research because it kills the human embryo from whom the stem cells are extracted. However, the Church supports research on adult stem cells -- cells extracted from a born person that are found in bone marrow, in umbilical-cord blood, in the pulp in baby teeth, inside the nasal passages, on the skin and in countless other places on the human body where these cells can be extracted without injuring the person.

Happily, the position of the Church not only is the correct moral position, but it also is proving to be the most practical and productive position, too. Therapies derived from adult stem-cell research already have helped thousands of people in clinical trials. On the other hand, embryonic stem-cell research has not yet been used to treat any patients and has encountered many problems, including the uncontrollable proliferation of tumors.Threats to the vulnerable

Presently, no federal law prohibits embryonic stem-cell research, so it can be carried out with private funding. An executive order issued by President Bush on Aug. 9, 2001, allows federal monies for embryonic stem-cell research only on cell lines developed before that date, but that may be about to change.

A strong lobby mounted by the biotechnology industry has kept embryonic stem-cell research in the spotlight, with all kinds of tantalizing promises for miraculous cures, if only enough government money is made available. And various celebrities like Nancy Reagan, Michael J. Fox and Mary Tyler Moore have thrown their weight behind this effort with emotional pleas to help afflicted people by funding this research.

Government's stance

The House of Representatives passed a bill in its last session to undo the funding restrictions imposed by President Bush and allow federal money to be used for research that destroys human embryos.

The U.S. Senate had planned to vote on the bill this month, but discussion of the measure could be delayed as Congress addresses needs in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The bill could gain momentum from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's announcement in July that he supports legislation to expand federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research.

Cardinal William Keeler, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Affairs, made the Catholic Church position quite clear in a letter he wrote to U.S. senators this summer about the funding:

"It would be bad enough to promote such destruction of life if it had been found necessary to save patients with devastating diseases. In such a case it would be important to remember that the end, however worthwhile in itself, does not justify an evil means.

"But in fact, the practical argument for funding ESC [embryonic stem-cell] research fails even on its own amoral terms. For adult stem cells and other avenues posing no moral problem have advanced quickly toward human clinical trials to treat juvenile diabetes, corneal damage, Parkinson's disease, spinal- cord injury, sickle-cell anemia, cardiac damage and many other conditions."

Promising research

Certainly it is legitimate to question why there is such a strong push for funding embryonic stem- cell research that polls say is morally repugnant to most people when moral alternatives already are getting good results and new moral possibilities are constantly being discovered.

One of the newest possibilities posed, called oocyte-assisted reprogramming (OAR), involves fusing an altered adult stem cell to an altered human egg to provide stem cells that would be "pluripotent" -- able to form all types of human body cells, as embryonic stem cells are said to be capable of doing. This technology would not produce an embryo, but rather would provide stem cells that have the benefit of matching the genetic makeup of the donor of the adult stem cell, thus diminishing the chance of rejection.

Some 35 experts endorsed a June statement supporting OAR, including many respected Catholic moralists.

However, the statement did recognize the complex moral questions that arise when scientists work with the basic elements of human life, and warned: "Our proposal is for initial research using only nonhuman animal cells. If, but only if, such research establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that oocyte assisted reprogramming can reliably be used to produce pluripotent stem cells without creating embryos, would we support research on human cells."

Complex questions

Indeed, as technology advances and research on human life becomes more complex, the ethical questions also become more daunting and complex, and Catholics often are asking for answers before the Church has weighed in on an issue.

"It usually takes quite a while for the Church to come to terms with almost any bioethical issues," explained Janet Smith, who holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.

"We have to live with things for a long period of time to get what Thomas Aquinas calls a 'co-natural' sense of things," she said. "Sometimes we let the moment define the question, rather than taking a step back and really examining it as a thoughtful whole."

For example, Smith said that she had never heard anyone question the ethics of using human ova for research purposes like the OAR project, but that discussion should take place. While the ova does not have the same status as an embryo, she said, it nevertheless is destined to be directed toward union with a sperm. So, the ethics of doing something very different with the ova must be considered, she said.

Meanwhile, as the Catholic Church and its moralists ponder such questions, the Church has thrown its full support behind the ethical adult stem-cell research that is reporting such gratifying successes.

 --Ann Carey is a senior correspondent for Our Sunday Visitor