A Programme for the future with one foot in the past - There were strong reasons for the EU not to miss the opportunity to take a step forward with regard to funding stem cell research - by José Ramos-Ascensão

In europeinfos

 

Seven years ago, in a Press release of 22.12.2006 relating to the final adoption of the 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7), the General Secretary of COMECE stated that “given that the financial means available for research are limited, EU funding must – in order to spend the available means in the most appropriate manner – concentrate on joint priorities.” This statement was produced in view of the possibility, foreseen under the FP7, of funding research in human embryonic stem cells (hESC), a research that entails the destruction of human embryos. If this was plainly valid in 2006, it is simply incomprehensible that the new programme, Horizon 2020, that has just been adopted by the European Parliament (EP), sticks with that wrong, ethically reproachable approach to research.

A key Programme with a major ethical problem

Horizon 2020 is an EU programme to run from 2014 to 2020 and was proposed in a legislative package of proposals presented by the European Commission on 20 November 2011. As a major instrument for promoting growth through research and innovation in the European Union Horizon 2020 is to be welcomed.

After almost two years and 1824 amendments tabled in the ITRE (Industry, Research and Energy) Committee of the European Parliament, the procedure has finally came to an end. Unfortunately, as regards the ethical framework of the Programme, some shortcomings have to be mentioned; for example, no reference is made to key principles applicable in the field: protection of human dignity and the principle of primacy of the human being – putting the interests and welfare of the human being before that of society or science.

Nevertheless, the major ethical problem of Horizon 2020 is still the possibility of funding research on hESC. On 21 November last, by voting against six amendments which reproduced the Opinion adopted on 18 November 2012 by the JURI (Legal Affairs) Committee, the EP Plenary upheld the common text allowing for such funding as already agreed with the Council in the context of the trilogue negotiations. It is worth saying that JURI is the EP Committee actually competent to analyse the compliance of European Union acts with primary law and for the interpretation of European law and the analysis of ethical questions related to new technologies.

A position grounded on solid reasons

The Secretariat of COMECE has voiced its position against funding such research on many occasions ever since the proposals were published (cf. Press release of 13.09.2012 and Press release of 7.12.2011). In October 2012 the Secretariat welcomed the granting of the Nobel Prize for Medicine for research on alternatives to embryonic stem cells research (cf. Press release of 8.10.2012).  Horizon 2020 as now adopted does not even prioritize funding research in alternative, much more promising research (can we still say that hESC are promising?) on non-ethically problematic sources of stem cells (see Europeinfos no. 140, of July-August 2011), and this is a matter for regret. On the other hand, the text of Horizon 2020 as adopted has not duly taken into consideration the ruling in the case of Greenpeace v. Brüstle, whereby the European Court of Justice reaffirmed the legal protection of the human embryo, defined as “any human ovum after fertilisation », and the non-patentability of inventions that make use hESC (see Europeinfos no. 139, of June 2011, and Europeinfos no. 144, of December 2011).

Inconsistency and perplexity

The EP Plenary also adopted an amendment referring to a statement of the European Commission on the ethical framework of Horizon 2020. This statement is very much the same as the one adopted by the Commission in 2006 with regard to FP7, so the status quo as concerns funding research on hESC is basically maintained. By paragraph 12 of the statement now adopted, the Commission commits itself to “continue with the current practice» which means that it will not  consider «projects which include research activities which destroy human embryos, including for the procurement of stem cells», making sure however that «the exclusion of funding of this step of research will not prevent Community funding of subsequent steps involving human embryonic stem cells». This is rather inconsistent from an ethical perspective, especially if we bear in mind that such funding of subsequent steps stimulates the procurement of hESC and, thus, escalates human embryo-destructive research. The Secretariat of COMECE has always upheld the exclusion of any research involving the use of hESC including in steps subsequent to their derivation.

Meanwhile, as the European citizens’ initiative One of Us (see Europeinfos no. 150, of June 2012) calls for the EU to stop funding such kinds of research, the reply is much awaited to a Question for written answer asking what measures will the Commission take to ensure that the adoption of Horizon 2020 will not pre-empt such an initiative, the biggest so far with about 1.9 million signatures.

By way of a conclusion to what has been said above, one can say that for ethical reasons, but also in the light of new scientific and legal developments and their impact on the economic rationale of research, it is surely to regret the missed opportunity to take this step forward in the field of EU research policy with regard to stem cells.

Yamanaka and iPSCs: A reply to some skeptical friends in the pro-life community - by Christian Brugger

In Culture of Life Foundation

In 2006/7 Japanese cell biologist Shinya Yamanaka published important research showing that specialized adult cells such as skin cells could be “reprogrammed” to become pluripotent stem cells.  Yamanaka called the reprogrammed cells “induced pluripotent stem cells” (or iPSCs) and the type of research “cell reprogramming”.

He neither created nor experimented upon human embryos in his research.  But to make reagents for reprogramming the somatic cells, he apparently did use cells from a cultured cell line created in 1977 and originally derived from the tissue of a child who was aborted earlier in the 1970s (called “HEK cells,” Human Embryonic Kidney cells).  If I understand the process correctly, the genes used to reprogram the somatic cells were delivered into the cells using viruses (called lentiviral vectors).  These viral delivery systems were created using HEK cells.

Pro-life groups such as Children of God (COG) for Life have drawn attention to this little known fact and in doing so have provided the pro-life community an important service.  

Unfortunately, some of these groups are claiming that because Yamanaka used ‘tainted’ cells in his research, the production of iPSCs by cell reprogramming is intrinsically evil. 

They are incorrect.  The production of iPSCs does not require the use of HEK cells, and can be—and is being—done successfully without them.  If the research is carried out without using ‘tainted’ cells, then the procedure itself need pose no moral problems.  

They also argue that because Yamanaka used tainted cells, his research, for which he received the 2012 Nobel Prize, deserves a blanket condemnation.  For two reasons, I disagree.  

First, a blanket condemnation fails to make distinctions between what is praiseworthy and what might deserve criticism.  With respect to the latter, if Yamanaka knew the immoral origin of the HEK cells, had reasonable alternatives available to him, and yet still used the tainted cells, then (to that extent) I think he did wrong.  

His wrongdoing certainly would not be the wrong of killing; nor would it be wrongful cooperation in killing, since using cells from the cultured line 30 years later did not facilitate the original evildoing in any way.  Moreover, using HEK cells in research is unlikely to cause scandal in the formal sense (i.e., be a cause of leading others into grave sin), since HEK is so widely used in the scientific community that it barely raises an eyebrow.  

Its wrongness would lie in the failure of the duty we all share to testify to the value of human life, in this case by refusing to use products created by exploiting life: a failure of duty to bear witness to the truth.  To constitute a moral failure, however, Yamanaka would have had to know the origins of the cells, have reasonable alternatives available, and not select them.  I don’t know if these conditions prevailed.

Because of Jesus’ perspicuous self-sacrificing witness to truth, Christians, called to be Christ in the world, have an especially strong duty to bear witness.  I don’t know if Yamanaka is a Christian.  If he is, then he shares that stronger duty.  If not, he still has a duty to the truth.  But we know that even Christians, including Christian leaders, sometimes fail to bear rightful witness.  Blanket condemnations of their lives or apostolates would be simplistic and could be wrongful.  Why?  Because one’s life is a complex matrix of actions, some of which may, and others of which may not, bear perspicuous witness.

If in one respect his research fails to measure up to ethical standards, in another, the Japanese researcher has been an extraordinary witness to the truth of the sanctity of human life.  As one of the leading adult stem cell researchers in the world, he dedicated years of his life to finding a way of deriving pluripotent stem cells without killing embryos.  His research has transformed a field, which once was almost monolithically committed to embryo destructive research.  At a time when Obama was about occupy the Oval Office and running on a platform of overturning the Bush stem cell policy, just twelve months earlier (Nov. 2007) Yamanaka published this almost incredible news: “a new way to make pluripotent—embryonic like—stem cells without exploiting embryos.”  I don’t think there’s any doubt that because of his accomplishments, many, many less embryonic people are being killed today in research than otherwise would be.  And this was precisely part of Yamanaka’s motives, to stop embryo destructive research.  Whatever in his research deserves criticism, this deserves praise.  

Second, modern secular science is a morally mixed bag.  The wheat and weeds are mixed together in a giant field we call the scientific endeavor.  One of the points of genius of the empirical method is its limitless and unfolding capacity for generating new and deeper knowledge by building on the systematic accomplishments of earlier research.  If earlier research, however, entails immoral activity, the products and knowledge gained by it will in some way be tainted by the immorality.  

In the field of stem cell research, including morally licit adult stem cell research, no one can claim that the knowledge they rely upon or the products they use are “pure” and unrelated to prior research that has been illicitly obtained.

So how should we assess scientific accomplishments, such as those of Yamanaka, that include morally questionable elements?  We condemn gross immorality when we find it; and so we condemn the original killing of the baby in the 1970s, which Yamanaka had nothing to do with.  We criticize the scientific exploitation of the baby’s mortal remains.  We deplore the indifference of some scientists to the original killing.  And we admonish researchers in the present to bear witness to the truth by refusing to use products derived from the baby’s tissues.  

If they use them out of non-culpable ignorance, then they do no more wrong than did children who innocently drank Pepsi products that utilized flavor chemicals developed in research using HEK cells.  

If they use them with full knowledge, but don’t have reasonable alternatives, then we assess two things: 1) whether the use is likely to cause scandal, and 2) if the research is serious enough to warrant tolerating (but not intending) other harms that might arise from the use (e.g., legitimizing in people’s minds the original illicit act).  If there is proportionately grave reason and if using the products is unlikely to cause scandal, then we may conclude the researchers are justified in using them.  

If reasonable alternatives are readily available, and informed researchers don’t use them, then we are warranted in concluding that they fail in their duty to witness to the truth by refusing to use the alternatives. 

But we also praise the good they do, in Yamanaka’s case, in effectively—and by intent— dealing a lethal blow to one of the most immoral forms of scientific research in modern history.

Obispo de Alcalá: Reproducción asistida es un ataque a la familia

MADRID, 26 May. 12 / 02:04 am (ACI/Europa Press).- El Obispo de Alcalá de Henares (España), Mons. Juan Antonio Reig Pla, ha asegurado que, si el instrumento de la primera revolución sexual fue la píldora anticonceptiva, en la actualidad, son las intervenciones de cambio de sexo, la manipulación de embriones, la reproducción asistida y los postulados del feminismo "radical" como el instrumento de la segunda revolución sexual que atacan a la familia.

"Si el instrumento de la primera revolución sexual fue la píldora, en este caso los instrumentos son las intervenciones de reasignación de sexo, manipulación de embriones, reproducción asistida y cultura dominante que, propiciada por la manipulación del lenguaje, pretende promover los postulados del feminismo radical y el relativismo moral", ha afirmado.

Así se ha pronunciado durante su intervención en la sesión plenaria 'La Familia natural y la revolución contra la familia', que se ha celebrado en el marco del Congreso Mundial de las Familias (WCF) de Madrid que tiene lugar desde este viernes hasta el domingo en el palacio de Congresos de Madrid.

Además, ha indicado que los síntomas que ponen de manifiesto la ideología de género son "los llamados modelos de familia, las uniones de personas del mismo sexo con posibilidad de adopción y la salud reproductiva".

En este sentido, ha indicado que la familia ha sufrido, a lo largo de la historia, la "acometida" de "transformaciones rápidas" de la sociedad y la cultura pero ha apuntado que "lo peor estaba por llegar" con la primera revolución sexual favorecida por la venta de la píldora anticonceptiva que provocó, a su juicio, la "ruptura entre sexualidad y procreación, matrimonio y amor", basándose en un "dualismo antropológico", un "individualismo" y un concepto "perverso" de libertad.

Para afrontar este desafío, Reig Pla ha señalado que es necesario partir de los fundamentos antropológicos recogidos en la teología del cuerpo y tener en cuenta dos tesis: la de la unidad entre cuerpo y espíritu y la de la redención del cuerpo o la unidad de las persona en el ser y el obrar. 

Finalmente, ha invitado, entre aplausos del público y una muestra de "cariño" por parte del Congreso ante los "acontecimientos de las pasadas semanas", a presentar el amor conyugal "como un amor fiel y fecundo, exclusivo" y superar el "reduccionismo utilitarista" que, a su juicio, se hace del amor.

Vatican Congress on Stem Cells cancelled - an interview of M. Schooyans - by C. Glatz, for CNS

Were you part of the group of members that called for its cancellation or did you know about people being opposed to it?

I was not directly part of the group of members of the Pontifical Academy for Life who called for the cancellation of the Pontifical Academy for Life Conference on Stem Cells. The Academicians being opposed to this conference had already reacted in 2009 against the statement of a member of the Vatican Curia about the Recife Affair. The unique concern of those Academicians is fidelity to the teaching of the Catholic Church about the respect of human life from the beginning to the natural death and about the defense of the family.

I understand there was opposition to speakers who are vocal proponents of embryonic research. Do you know why the academy invited these researchers? 

A previous question must be considered: Who selected and invited the speakers? On which criterions were they chosen? Who was approached to sponsor this meeting? Is it not to be feared that the weight of those persons could interfere on some running process? I observe that there were different organizers, some of them surprising. Were they unanimous in inviting the different participants? Were the positions of the participants on embryonical research known by the organizing committee? Happy enough some members of the Academy were better informed than the organizing committee!

I know the Pontifical Academy of Sciences invites speakers that don’t agree with the church on many matters, and the academy’s invitation to speak does not indicate an endorsement of these people’s views. Does the Academy for Life have a different procedure? Are all speakers at a PAL event expected to uphold church teaching? 

It is true that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences invites speakers that don’t agree with the Church on many matters, and, generally speaking, it is a good thing because the Academicians can discuss and exchange their points of view. But a subject like the respect of human life, especially of the most vulnerable, is non-negotiable. The halls of the Holly See should not be put at the disposal of researchers whose positions are in open disagreement with the teaching of the Church about life. Besides, because they were invited by the Vatican, some of those researchers will proclaim everywhere that the Church is changing her position about the research on embryo.

Will the academy still hold a conference on stem cells in the future?

It will be convenient to consider holding some other conference on adult stem cells in the future. Obviously, it will be important to stress the necessity of experimenting on animals rather than on human embryos. It is urgent as well to show that the researches on adult stem cells are much more promising than the researches on embryonic stem cells. Amidst the scientific community, the researches about embryonic stem cells are strongly controversial, both from the scientific and the ethical points of view. The Church cannot take the risk of being manipulated about topics which are so fundamental. She must support a vision of the Medicine which helps the patient, and not a vision that kills him. This is the reason why it was opportune to cancel the April-planned Congress.

Mgr Michel Schooyans

michel.schooyans@uclouvain.be

Michel Schooyans, Emeritus Professor of Political Philosophy at the Louvain University, is an Ordinary Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and a member of several international scientific societies.

Some extracts of this interview appeared in the article of Carol Glatz, “Organizers: Vatican congress on stem cells canceled for lack of funds”,

Pro Manuscripto.

Padre Serra S. J., la difesa della verità - di Mario Palmaro

In La Bussola Quotidiana

Con la morte di Padre Angelo Serra, avvenuta a Roma nella notte del 20 gennaio, la comunità scientifica perde uno dei più importanti genetisti, e il mondo cattolico perde uno dei più seri e rigorosi bioeticisti italiani. Serra rappresenta un raro esempio di studioso nel quale si univano una grande preparazione scientifica, una modestia sincera e sorprendente, e un rigore dottrinale e morale assoluto.

Ho conosciuto Padre Serra nel 1995, da studente, quando frequentavo il corso di specializzazione in Bioetica presso l’Istituto Scientifico del San Raffaele di Milano. Si trattava di un corso organizzato con serietà, guidato da docenti intelligenti e preparati, ma all’interno di una visione morale piuttosto elastica, disposta a sconfinare dai contorni netti della dottrina cattolica sulla vita e sulla medicina. Fra i docenti si susseguivano monsignor Sgreccia e, appunto, Padre Serra; ma anche Edoardo Boncinelli (“per me – ci diceva – la ricerca scientifica è una cosa, la riflessione morale un’altra”) e Fernanda Pivano, che fu invitata a tenere una lezione sull’eutanasia parlando del suicidio dell’amico Hernest Haminguay. Il tema dell’aborto fu affidato, tanto per dare un’idea, al professor Giovanni Berlinguer, relatore della legge 194 al parlamento italiano.

In quella giornata al San Raffaele, a Serra non ci volle molto per accorgersi che, a dispetto della cornice in cui avveniva la sua lezione, non stava “giocando in casa”: che l’embrione fosse un essere umano fin dal concepimento, che la fecondazione artificiale fosse incompatibile con il rispetto di quell’uomo, che il Rapporto Warnock dicesse delle corbellerie, era tanto chiaro per Serra quanto discutibile per alcuni dei suoi allievi. Sulle prime ebbi l’impressione che quel gesuita, piccolo di statura, dal tratto delicato e gentile, incapace di alzare la voce, con lo sguardo che ti voleva bene a ogni costo; ebbi l’impressione, insomma, che quel buon prete sarebbe stato del tutto inadeguato a far fronte alle obiezioni, talvolta sarcastiche di una platea così provocatoria. Una specie di don Abbondio in mezzo ai “vasi di ferro” della bioetica cattolica-possibilista.

Si trattava, in fondo, di una platea che aveva fatto già perdere la pazienza a Sgreccia, che alla fine della sua burrascosa lezione mi aveva confidato “Io qui non ci vengo più, mi attaccano sempre”. Ma la mia valutazione di Padre Serra si rivelò presto del tutto sbagliata: Padre Angelo, con quell’aria serafica e impassibile, difese le posizioni senza mollare di un millimetro, impugnando di volta in volta le armi della biologia, della genetica, della filosofia, della logica elementare.

Non ci fu niente da fare: più lo provocavano, e più ne veniva fuori con calma e con forza. Ne rimasi molto colpito, anche perché Serra non godeva, né godette negli anni successivi, di quella fama che avrebbe meritato, anche nel mondo cattolico. Era schivo, e non cercava i riflettori; e con quelle idee ortodosse che si ritrovava, tanto meno venivano a cercarlo i responsabili di giornali e Tv, anche cattolici.

Rividi Padre Angelo molti anni dopo, per una circostanza della vita assai strana: insieme ad altri amici, avevamo fondato un’associazione pro life – il Comitato Verità e Vita – spinti dalla necessità di dire pubblicamente che la fecondazione artificiale, anche nella sua forma omologa, quella legalizzata dalla legge 40 del 2004, rimane una pratica inumana, immorale e contraria al diritto naturale. Una pratica che dovrebbe essere vietata dalle leggi di uno stato civile. Una pratica che dovrebbe essere sempre estranea a un medico e a un ospedale cattolico.

Non immaginavamo che questa iniziativa ci avrebbe tirato addosso così tanti guai proprio da parte del mondo cattolico; ma non immaginavamo nemmeno che questa scelta ci avrebbe fatto incontrare tante persone straordinarie, spesso sconsociute ma qualche volta autorevoli e prestigiose, contagiate esse stesse da una certa “emarginazione” culturale per via dell’amicizia con “quelli di Verità e Vita”. Padre Angelo fu uno di questi: quando si trattò di mettere in luce l’altissima abortività indotta dalla fecondazione artificiale, non ebbe esitazioni, e iniziò a tenere pubbliche conferenze, organizzate anche da noi, per spiegare a tutti come stessero le cose.

Ovviamente sarebbe riduttivo limitare a questo snodo bioetico la ricchezza di vita di Padre Serra. Genovese, 93 anni dei quali 78 trascorsi nella Compagnia di Gesù, padre Serra è stata una figura di primissimo piano nel campo della genetica, interpretata sempre nel rispetto della dignità di ogni essere umano. Era uno studioso apprezzato in tutto il mondo: nel 1964 ha insegnato alla Harvard Medical School di Boston. Tornato in Italia, per 30 anni ha risieduto nella comunità della Civiltà Cattolica ed è stato docente presso la facoltà di Medicina dell’Università Cattolica di Roma dove ha fondato e diretto l’istituto di genetica umana. Presidente della Confederazione italiana dei consultori di ispirazione cristiana, negli ultimi anni padre Serra è stato membro della Pontificia Accademia per la Vita e del Pontificio Consiglio per la Salute.

Penso che la sua morte sia una grave perdita per la comunità scientifica, per la Chiesa e per la famiglia della Compagnia di Gesù. Ma è una perdita molto grave anche per l’esiguo (e talvolta tiepido) fronte pro life italiano. Padre Angelo Serra è sempre stato un fiero avversario delle tecniche antiumane applicate alla genetica, e un trasparente nemico delle leggi ingiuste che permettono l’aborto, la fecondazione artificiale, la sperimentazione sugli embrioni umani. Una posizione difficile da sostenere verso il mondo laico dei colleghi; ma per paradosso, difficile da sostenere anche rispetto a certe derive della bioetica e della sanità “cattoliche”.

Per questo mi sembra giusto ricordare di lui questo profilo che lascia a tutti noi una sorta di “testamento bioetico”: Serra sostenne sempre la illiceità di ogni tecnica di fecondazione artificiale extracorporea, e la profonda ingiustizia di una legge come quella italiana, la 40 del 2004, che – fatte salve le buone intenzioni e il contesto in cui venne votata - permette di produrre l’uomo in provetta. Più di una volta, Padre Angelo mi ha confidato la sua sofferenza profonda per la confusione diffusa anche nel mondo cattolico sui temi della bioetica; non capiva i silenzi, i compromessi, le ambiguità, i veri e propri errori, i silenzi intorno alla fecondazione artificiale, e in particolare il clima di generalizzata “difesa” della fivet omologa a norma di legge 40.

Il suo sorriso è la grande lezione che ci rimane più impressa: imparare ogni giorno a difendere la verità, senza odiare nessuno.

Critic points out media bias against adult stem cells

By Marianne Medlin

Seattle, Wash., Nov 25, 2011 / 08:52 am (CNA).- After researchers in California called off a major U.S. embryonic stem cell study, a legal expert says that most major news outlets have given zero coverage to the far superior benefits of adult stem cells.

“Since embryonic stem cells were first derived, the media has told a materially unbalanced story,” said Wesley J. Smith, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism.

Smith said in a Nov. 23 interview with CNA that successful adult stem cell clinical trials “have either been ignored totally, or generally underplayed as story after story has claimed adult approaches offer more limited benefits than embryonic.”

His remarks come as the California-based biopharmecuetical company Geron announced on Nov. 18 that it has dropped a widely publicized embryonic stem cell research study.

Geron said that the FDA-approved study, which began in 2009 in attempt to treat spinal chord injuries, would have to end due to “capital scarcity.”

Fr. Tomasz Trafny, a member of the Vatican’s Council for Culture, said the move shows how companies are beginning to see that it's “not worth it to invest money, energy,” and “human potentiality” in embryonic stem cell research.

The decision by Geron to end its study is significant “because they publicly acknowledge that that they don't see any significant improvements in that research,” he told CNA on Nov. 23.

Fr. Trafny said the shut down is also important because “it shows that those who focused on adult stem cells were right not only because of potential clinical applications but also from ethical point of view.”

The priest is a key player in the Vatican's recent and unprecedented contract with NeoStem, a public firm pioneering new medical research with adult stem cells.

He noted that stem cells are the body’s master cells from which all of the body’s 200-plus types of tissue ultimately grow. Their versatility allows for potential in providing replacement tissue to treat countless illnesses and disorders.

However, despite the widespread advances of adult stem cell research as a potential cure, Wesley argued that media coverage on the topic has been scarce if not non-existent.

“No one forced editors and reporters to ignore the press releases and published studies that described the ongoing and very encouraging adult stem cell successes. They simply usually chose to overplay embryonic and underplay adult stem cell research in their reporting.”

Smith believes that a contributing factor to this is that the media generally view issues through a political or religious lens.

He said that “disdain for pro-life views” as well as “anti-Catholic” sentiments can impact a particular news outlet's analysis “of what constitutes an important story.”

“The media are particularly biased on 'cultural' issues and the embryonic stem cell controversy fits right in with that paradigm,” he added.

Smith said that in order to counteract this dynamic, alternative media “has to keep setting the record straight” and stay factually accurate in their reporting.

“In doing so, it is important that they not engage in the same journalistic malpractice from the other side,” he noted. “In other words, stick to the facts and don’t engage in the same kind of hype that the pro-embryonic stem cell research media have.”

Smith also said it's necessary to remind people “that the field is still young and many of the encouraging adult stem cell successes constitute early experimentation.”

“This is important both as a matter of credibility—the double standard that cuts against 'conservative' views may be unfair but it isn’t going away—and as an example of what real journalism looks like.”

Nunca puede justificarse destrucción de una vida humana, dice el Papa

Uso de las células estaminales embrionarias no respeta derecho a la vida

VATICANO, 12 Nov. 11 / 10:52 am (ACI/EWTN Noticias)

Al recibir a los participantes del congreso internacional sobre las células estaminales adultas, el Papa Benedicto XVI señaló que la ciencia sirve al hombre y explicó que nunca puede justificarse la destrucción de una vida humana.

En la Sala Clementina del Palacio Apostólico, el Santo Padre se dirigió a los participantes del congreso "Células estaminales adultas: La Ciencia y el futuro del hombre y la cultura", a quienes recordó que dado que el hombre ha sido creado a imagen y semejanza de Dios, "hay dimensiones de la existencia humana que van más allá de los límites de lo que las ciencias naturales pueden determinar".

"Si los límites son trasgredidos, existe un serio riesgo de que la dignidad única y la inviolabilidad de la vida humana sean subordinadas a consideraciones puramente utilitarias. Pero si en vez de ello esos límites son debidamente respetados, la ciencia puede hacer especiales contribuciones a la promoción y salvaguarda de la dignidad del hombre: de hecho, en este reside su verdadera utilidad".

El Papa explicó luego que "el hombre, agente de la investigación científica, a veces, por su naturaleza biológica, hará parte de lo investigado. Sin embargo, su dignidad trascendente lo hace siempre el último beneficiario de la investigación científica y nunca puede reducirse a un instrumento".

"En este sentido –continuo– los beneficios potenciales de la investigación con células estaminales adultas son muy considerables, dado que abre una serie de posibilidades para curar enfermedades degenerativas crónicas al reparar tejido dañado y restaurar su capacidad de regeneración".

Así, indicó, "la mejora que tales terapias prometen constituye un significativo paso adelante en la ciencia médica, dando nuevas esperanzas a quienes sufren y también a sus familiares de igual modo".

"Por esta razón –aseguró el Papa– la Iglesia naturalmente brinda su aliento a quienes están comprometidos en conducir y apoyar la investigación de este tipo, siempre con la premisa de que se hará respetando el bien integral de la persona humana y el bien común de la sociedad".

Esta premisa, dijo Benedicto XVI "es muy importante. La mentalidad pragmática que con frecuencia influencia la toma de decisiones en el mundo de hoy está demasiado predispuesta a sancionar cualquier medio disponible para obtener el fin deseado, pese a las amplias evidencias de las consecuencias de ese modo de pensar".

"Cuando el fin en perspectiva es uno tan deseable como el descubrimiento de una cura para una enfermedad degenerativa, es una tentación para los científicos y quienes elaboran las políticas eliminar las objeciones éticas y presionar con cualquier investigación que parezca siquiera ofrecer un prospecto de un descubrimiento".

El Papa advirtió que "quienes defienden la investigación con células estaminales embrionarias con la esperanza de lograr un resultado cometen un grave error al negar el inalienable derecho a la vida de todos los seres humanos desde el momento de la concepción hasta la muerte natural".

"La destrucción de una sola vida humana nunca puede justificase en términos de los beneficios que podría presumiblemente dar a otro", precisó el Santo Padre.

El Papa explicó también que, en general, "no existen problemas éticos cuando las células estaminales son tomadas de los tejidos de un organismo adulto, del cordón umbilical al momento del nacimiento o del feto que ha muerto por causas naturales" como lo indica la Instrucción Dignitas Personae de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe.

En la parte final de su discurso el Papa Benedicto indicó que es un deber de justicia permitir que todos se beneficien de los resultados de las investigaciones que siguen los parámetros éticos y recordó la gran labor de la Iglesia para que todas las personas accedan a la atención digna de la salud.

Tras encomendar a los participantes a la intercesión de la Virgen María, el Papa elevó sus oraciones para que "vuestro compromiso con la investigación de las células estaminales adultas traiga grandes bendiciones para el futuro de hombre y el genuino enriquecimiento de su cultura".

UK scientists warn about secret human-animal hybrid research

by Thaddeus Baklinski

LONDON, July 25, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a scenario that a panel of scientists with the Academy of Medical Sciences warned bears resemblance to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” British scientists have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos in secret research conducted in British laboratories.

According to the Daily Mail, 155 “admixed” embryos, containing both human and animal genetic material, have been created over the past three years by scientists who said stem cells could be harvested from the embryos to be used in research into possible cures for a wide range of diseases.

The secret research was revealed after a committee of scientists warned of a nightmare scenario in which the creation of human-animal hybrids could go too far.

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge of the National Institute for Medical Research and co-author of a report by the committee of scientists, warned about the experiments and called for stricter oversight of this type of research. He especially zeroed in on human genetic material being implanted into animal embryos, and attempts at giving lab animals human attributes by injecting human stem cells into the brains of monkeys.

It was revealed that labs at King’s College London, Newcastle University and Warwick University were given licenses to carry out the research after the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act that legalized the creation of human-animal hybrids, as well as ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell, and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos.

However, the scientists did not call for any additional legislation regulating such controversial research, but called instead for a panel of experts to oversee it. Prof Martin Bobrow, chair of the Academy working group that produced the report, said: “The very great majority of experiments present no issues beyond the general use of animals in research and these should proceed under current regulation.

“A limited number of experiments should be permissible subject to scrutiny by the expert body we recommend; and a very limited range should not be undertaken, at least until the potential consequences are more fully understood.”

Peter Saunders, the CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organization with 4,500 UK doctors, expressed his skepticism about any such regulatory body.

“Scientists regulating scientists is worrying because scientists are generally not experts in theology, philosophy and ethics and they often have ideological or financial vested interests in their research. Moreover they do not like to have restrictions placed on their work,” observed Saunders.

In a question and answer session in Parliament led by Lord David Alton following the release of the report, it was revealed that the human-animal hybrid research has stopped due to lack of funding.

“I argued in Parliament against the creation of human-animal hybrids as a matter of principle,” Lord Alton said. “None of the scientists who appeared before us could give us any justification in terms of treatment. At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail.”

“Ethically it can never be justifiable – it discredits us as a country. It is dabbling in the grotesque,” Lord Alton added. “Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells, not embryonic ones. On moral and ethical grounds this fails; and on scientific and medical ones too.”

Josephine Quintavalle, of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics (Corethics), told the Daily Mail, “I am aghast that this is going on and we didn’t know anything about it. Why have they kept this a secret? If they are proud of what they are doing, why do we need to ask Parliamentary questions for this to come to light?”

“The problem with many scientists is that they want to do things because they want to experiment. That is not a good enough rationale,” Quintavalle concluded.

Update on Embryo-Destructive Research: Legislation Developments in the US and Abroad

by E. Christian Brugger, D.Phil., Senior Fellow and Director of the Fellows Program

In Culture of Life Foundation

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 25, 2011 (Zenit.org).- You might recall that last summer a federal judge put a temporary hold on all government funding for human embryonic stem cell research (hESC) in the United States.

In August 2010, Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia made headlines for halting the research on the grounds that President Barack Obama's March 2009 executive order revoking the President George Bush restrictions on hESC research was illegal. The president's order, put into policy by the NIH, freed up money for research upon stem cells derived from spare IVF embryos; but the policy required that the actual destruction of the embryos be funded privately.

The judge said the Obama policy violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment , which prohibits federal money for research in which human embryos are created or destroyed. You see the point of the dispute? Dickey-Wicker prohibits funding for embryo destructive experimentation; the Obama policy says "no embryo destruction here, it's all been done elsewhere." The wily policy attempts to make an end run around the clear meaning of the congressional amendment. Judge Lamberth unsuccessfully went for the tackle. He issued a preliminary injunction, which dried up NIH funding for a whopping 17 days before his injunction was temporarily halted by a court of appeals on a request by the Obama Justice Department.

On April 29, 2011, Judge Lamberth's preliminary injunction was formally revoked by a 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court ruled that the injunction if implemented would impose unreasonable burdens upon hESC researchers. Since the injunction had already been temporarily halted, the practical effect of the appeal court's decision is nill. It simply makes permanent what was only temporary.

Both Lamberth's injunction and the appeals court's ruling have occurred in the backdrop of the case, Sherley v. Sebelius, brought by two researchers, James Sherley, formerly of MIT, and Theresa Deisher, founder of AVM Biotechnology, challenging the legality of the Obama policy on the grounds that it violates Dickey-Wicker.

Sherley v. Sebelius is still pending. An unbiased court would plainly rule in favor of the plaintiffs. As Wesley Smith notes in his recent First Things blog : "The Dickey-Wicker Amendment … reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed. This prohibition encompasses all "research in which" an embryo is destroyed, not just the "piece of research" in which the embryo is destroyed."

But when it comes to issues related to human embryos unbiased courts in the U.S. are hard to find.

Whichever way the court goes, we can be sure the decision will be appealed. In the meantime, the Obama order to fund embryo-destructive research is alive and well.

Meanwhile, the California biotech company Geron Corporation announced on May 11 it had begun clinical treatments on its second spinal cord injury patient using human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). The patient, recently paralyzed from the chest down in a car accident, received an injection of stem cells at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago.

The Geron cocktail was derived from "surplus" IVFembryos donated for research by the parental donors. The cells were manipulated to produce early nerve cells (called "oligodendrocyte progenitor cells") that Geron hopes will not be subject to the same tumor-forming tendencies as undifferentiated hESCs.

The trial is not aimed at curing the patient, but rather at determining whether the stem cell treatment is safe.

The first patient treated with hESCs in the United States, 21-year-old Tim Atchison, was injected only six months ago. Doctors say it's still too early to judge the effects of the treatment. David Prentice of the Family Research Council explains that because the patient was injected within the first two weeks after his accident, as required by the Geron protocol, we may never know with certitude whether the treatment was effective, even if improvements occur: "a significant number of such patients show some spontaneous improvement within the first year after injury."

Discouraged about the old USA? Perhaps a better day is dawning for embryos in Europe. On March 10 , the European Court of Justice issued a preliminary opinion that procedures established using human embryonic stem cell lines are not patentable. The decision by Judge Yves Bot of the European Court followed upon a request for clarification by the German Supreme Court of the legal definition of human embryos in relation to patentability.

The request was precipitated by a German court case challenging the patent of a technique to generate nerve cells from established hESC lines. The case was filed by -- get ready for this -- the Amsterdam based activist organization, Greenpeace, which argued that patenting procedures derived from embryonic stem cell lines was unethical because the lines are derived from human embryos.

Judge Bot's preliminary opinion will now go before the 13 judges of the court's Grand Chamber. If the Grand Chamber agrees with the opinion, it could put a wrench in the works of European hESC research. Dare we hope?

Democratic Bioethics and Eugenics

Prominent bioethicists Arthur Caplan and Robert P. George on the role of bioethics in a democracy and the dangers of eugenics.

by Sherif Girgis

In The Public Discourse - April 15, 2011

In December 2010, Sherif Girgis sat down with Arthur Caplan, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and unofficial “dean” of liberal bioethicists, and Robert P. George, a professor at Princeton University and a conservative member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, to discuss the current state of bioethics in America. Today we present the second part of an adaptation of that interview. Part one may be read here. – Ed.

AC: In the early days of bioethics, we had these conferences at the Hastings Center, where I began my bioethics career, where Alasdair MacIntyre, Paul Ramsey, Leon Kass would come and talk about issues. And I began to form an idea of what bioethics’ role was—and I still believe it to this day: My philosophical idol is Socrates. He worked frequently in the pubic sphere. I think as a bioethicist you try to alert the public, you warn people, you push to see what’s true, but at the end of the day, bioethics gets out of the way. You don’t issue final judgment; you must resolve issues in the political sphere. If Robby’s guys get elected all the time, and they ban embryonic stem-cell research, I’ll scream and yell, but if that’s what people decide, that’s what people decide. I favor bioethics commissions that raise issues, clarify them, and then give them to the polity to resolve.

RG: Well, it’s true that President Bush’s council on bioethics, on which I had the honor to serve, sometimes went beyond advising the president of the United States himself. But it’s worth remembering that the Executive Order creating the Council included a mandate to “provide a forum for a national discussion of bioethical issues.” The collected readings we published were an effort at large-scale public education. I think that kind of work can easily be defended, and the best defense is that by doing it under the auspices of a commission, and especially an ideologically diverse commission like ours, it is possible to draw attention to the basic values issues that Americans should think about when they consider bioethical questions. I doubt that it would be possible to do it as well in reports issued by, say, Princeton University, or even the premier center for bioethics here at the University of Pennsylvania. If the commission is not the place, where, then? Because the universities aren’t doing it very well, and perhaps can’t.

AC: So it’s funny you should say that, because I’ve also thought—and I don’t know how to make this happen, exactly—but if I had a politician ask me for advice on something, I’d like to be able to bring Robby in—really—and say, “I’ll tell you my advice, and you can listen to the minority, distorted, bizarro other opinion…”

RG: Soon to be the majority! [Laughter]

AC: But here it is, listen to the other view, and you’ll get more from a conversation than you might from me just talking to you.

RG: Art is absolutely right on this. I was asked by three Republican presidential candidates in the run-up to the 2008 election for briefings on embryonic stem-cell research. Senator McCain, Governor Romney, and Mayor Giuliani. Mayor Giuliani did it differently than the other two. He invited me and an advocate of embryonic stem-cell research from one of the New York-based patient advocacy groups to discuss the question with him. Essentially, it was a debate in front of Mayor Giuliani. And I do think that it was more fruitful than the other two briefings, where I had my little captive audience, but would just give my best answer when they asked, “Well, why do the people on the other side think what they think?” And I’d try to give the argument, but I think I was probably less effective in giving the argument than someone who actually believed it.

Let’s have one of those exchanges now about a big issue in bioethics: eugenics. You have people like Professor Kass, who are warning that it is popping up again in the availability of certain options for improving the gene pool or selecting for or against early human life that has certain defects and so on—but that the “new eugenics” are disguised as opportunities for practicing autonomy, and that, as a result, they are viewed as morally okay. Do you think that’s happening, as a factual matter? And is even uncoerced eugenics wrong in principle? Was eugenics in the 1930s, say, wrong only because it was coercive, or also because it was eugenics?

RG: You’ve heard me make the argument about human dignity without any appeal to religious authority or biblical revelation or theological premises. But the most vivid expression of that idea is that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Whether or not that’s literally true, I would still hold that human beings have a certain dignity that distinguishes them from other material objects that we know about. There may be other creatures in the universe that possess a rational nature, and I would say that if there are such beings, they too are of inherent and equal dignity and cannot be reduced to the status of mere means or property. In the end, this is really the only reason to oppose something like slavery, or to consider that domination and conquest are a bad thing. So people who oppose these evils have to embrace some notion of the special worth—we can use the word “dignity” or “sanctity”—of a human being. But that means there are some ways you can’t treat human beings. You can’t treat them as instruments, or just the way you treat cows and horses. That is true even when it comes to breeding, or to improving the quality of the race. Or treating them like products—this is what Leon Kass is so worried about. He’s worried about reducing human beings to the status of products of manufacture. And he’s absolutely right to be concerned about that. That is incompatible with our dignity as human beings. Which leads me to think that the problem with eugenics is eugenics itself. It’s not just that the eugenics practiced by the Nazis was coercive. The idea predated the Nazis. The book Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens (Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life) was not written by the Nazis. It was written by German progressives in the Weimar period, Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, who were, respectively (as I recall), a jurist and a medical doctor. And they weren’t thugs like the Nazis; they were well-educated, well-intentioned, polite people—the kind of people that you’d be pleased to have dinner with. But I believe they embraced a very bad idea that was easily taken by the Nazis as a justification for the atrocities that they committed. So I would like to see eugenics itself, and not just the Nazi version of it, relegated to the ash-heap of history. Today we are seeing a revival in eugenics, this time under the cover of (and often in the name of) autonomy. People say, for example, that so long as it is parents who are choosing to abort a Down syndrome baby, or failing to treat a handicapped newborn, and it’s not the state mandating it, then it’s okay. That, I believe, represents the abandonment of something precious in our civilization and in our polity. And that’s the idea of the equality and dignity of all human beings. This treasure of our civilization is the idea that, in some fundamental sense, all of us are created equal.

AC: So, I think that the coercion is, historically, really what made the Nazis’ position absolutely wrong. They practiced government-mandated negative eugenics. They killed involuntarily as social policy to improve the German genome. So put that aside, that’s just an issue of making sure you know when you’re going to use the metaphor—it’s not just eugenics, it’s that kind of eugenics. So to me, I think that intervening to try to improve health and function is part of what medicine does. And there’s some role for medical engineering and cellular engineering to achieve those goals. I think when you start to slide into the aesthetic and cosmetic improvements—I’m not sure that’s something that society or the public has to fulfill. But do I think we will someday try to alter a genetic message to get rid of certain diseases? Yes. Do I think that we’re likely to see the selection of certain types of gametes that might avoid certain clear-cut disease states? Yes. Do I think that the state has to be in the business of affording the opportunity for everyone to have a 6’5” basketball-playing mathematician? No. For me, there is some role for what I’ll concede as eugenics—if you want to take eugenics as just trying to improve the overall hereditary health of the public. For example, if you could fix the child with Tay-Sachs, I don’t think it takes away from the dignity of the child with Tay-Sachs.

RG: I agree. But would you draw the line at intelligence as trying to enhance—

AC: I do. I think intelligence is so complicated that you don’t know what the hell you’re doing. If someone came to me and said, “Well, I’m going to try to enhance memory,” that may be good and that may be bad. It’s tricky business, number one. And number two, that isn’t a disease. So I’ve never been a proponent of allowing sex selection. We don’t allow it at Penn, actually. We could do it instantly. It’s not that hard. And other places do it. But gender is not a disease. If you come to us and say, “Could I use gene therapy”—as I said, “for Tay-Sachs, or to try to improve muscular dystrophy”—I’d be first in line to say, “I think that’s great, and we have to test it, and there may be some risk to that, but I’m okay with it,” even though some in the disability community might say, “Well, then, your goal is to get rid of disability, isn’t it?” And I might concede at that point, “Yes—if I could do it.”

RG: But not by getting rid of the disabled.

AC: Oh, no, no, no.

RG: Because that’s the key distinction.

AC: I agree, but some in the disability community hear inferiority, lack of respect, when you say, “I’d prefer people who could function more.” I’ve heard this with the deaf community. To me, hearing is better than not hearing. And it’s pretty clearly a function you’re supposed to have. It’s true that you can sign, and that there is a deaf community. And I get that there’s Gallaudet College. I’m not proposing to close them; I think you should fund them. But at the end of the day, if I’m the child of a deaf couple, I’d rather be able to hear and sign, and decide what I’m going to do from there. I’m not going to make a deaf baby because the couple says, “We want a kid like us.” No steps should be made to honor that kind of autonomy—things that will harm or set back people. I’m worried for that reason about things like intelligence or athletic ability. You’re narrowing futures, deciding what the kid is going to be, raising expectations, instead of allowing them to be more open. So I favor, if you will, ‘eugenics’ on the disease-elimination front, but I am not so crazy about performance-enhancement or the behavioral meliorism.

So it sounds like both you have two distinctions you want to draw. One is between enhancement and therapy—

AC: Right. And many say you can’t, but I think you can at the extremes.

And the other is between negative and positive, between destroying life that has the therapeutic problems versus—

AC: Trying to engineer it away. Medicine does that now, right?

RG: I think Art’s reminding us of the ends of medicine: the goal of medicine is the restoration of healthy functioning of the organism and its parts, within the bounds of ethical norms. I mean, you don’t restore health by murdering someone conveniently to get a heart for somebody else who happens to need a heart transplant. We understand that. That’s just a plain violation. But my point is that when we treat medical professionals as people who are supposed to enhance our lifestyle choices—the kind of kids we want to have, whether our kids are good at math, whether they’re basketball players and 6’5”—it causes medicine to lose track of its mission and places at risk its commitment to ethical norms shaped by that mission.

Read the first part of this interview here.

Addressing Homosexuality with “Love in Truth”

By Hilary White

ROME, October 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – What is the best way to present Christian teachings on homosexuality in the face of an increasingly hostile secular culture? How can Christians answer the accusations leveled against their beliefs? John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com’s editor-in-chief, told an audience of the world’s pro-life and pro-family leaders at a conference in Italy this week that the only way is “caritas in veritate;” to speak the truth in love.

(Read the complete speech here)

It is an act of love, he said, for parents to correct and discipline their children. “It is not love,” he said, “to allow your children to rampantly misbehave without correcting them.”

“So too the Church, especially Her shepherds – the fathers of souls - must feed the flock, must teach the truths however difficult and politically incorrect. That is true love.”

Speaking at Human Life International's Fifth Annual World Prayer Congress for Life north of Rome on Wednesday, Westen proposed that the “vast majority” of clergy and bishops have shied away from the forthright presentation of Christian teaching on all aspects of sexuality out of a fear of losing “human respect” - in essence, out of a desire to fit in and be accepted.

“And what has come of these lapses in teaching? Has the silence of the Church led to cultural peace in these matters? No.”

Christians, he said, have balked at defending their beliefs in all the areas of concern in the Culture Wars, from abortion, adultery, homosexuality and divorce to human embryonic stem cell research.

“It is precisely in those hard cases where it was believed prudent, or convenient, caring or pastoral, to be silent and appease the prevailing culture.”

Westen identified the issue of acceptance of homosexuality as particularly urgent across the western world. Homosexual “marriage” is legal in 10 nations; homosexual civil unions are legal in another 20 nations, and the matter is under political consideration in another 43 nations.

Westen posed the question of how Christians can now begin to present their beliefs forthrightly in a culture that is so firmly rejecting them. The answer, he said, is to be found in the Christian principle of love of neighbour. Specifically, the love of those suffering from homosexual temptations and those men and women in the grip of a destructive lifestyle.

“Even from just a medical perspective it is love to oppose homosexual acts,” Westen said.

Addressing a largely Catholic conference audience, Westen highlighted a flaw in the approach of most of the Catholic Church’s hierarchy towards the “gay marriage” debate. He noted that despite the fact that the Vatican forbade silence on the matter of the immorality of the homosexual act, the vast majority of Catholic leaders have failed to teach this relying rather on less controversial arguments in favour of heterosexual marriage.

The 1986 CDF document entitled “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” states: “But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”

“Unfortunately, the ways in which we have communicated the Church’s truth on sexuality, or failed to communicate it, have for the most part helped us to lose the majority of Catholics,” said Westen.

The failure of the Church in recent decades to address effectively the smaller issues, he said, has led to a virtually uncontested field for the opponents of life and family and traditional Christian values.

“The rampant practice of contraception has inevitably led to the abortion holocaust. Unchecked immodesty and total lack of custody of the eyes has brought us to the near universal addiction to pornography. In vitro fertilization gave us embryonic stem cell research. Homosexual acts by their acceptance have led to homosexual ‘marriage’ and even restrictions on the freedom of religious practice in various nations.”

Westen said that homosexualist activists, in seeking to create “gay marriage,” had little interest in committed, permanent unions, but were rather focused on attaining marriage “as a societal stamp of approval to homosexual behaviour.”

Societal approval of their behaviour, he said, is sought as a means of quelling the voice of conscience. “For practicing homosexuals as with all those engaged in aberrant sexual behaviour, the conscience speaks uncomfortably.”

Westen received a standing ovation after his talk with numerous conference participants personally thanking him for the talk throughout the day. A European bishop even invited John-Henry to come to his diocese to give the talk to his priests and seminarians.

Read the full text of Westen’s talk here.

A Legal Review of Sherley v. Sebelius and Obama's Embryonic Stem Cell Research Policy

by Margaret Datiles, Esq., Associate Fellow in Law

In Culture of Life Foundation

I. Introduction

In his August 24, 2010 order in Sherley v. Sebelius [1], U.S. district court Judge Royce Lamberth declared that the Obama Administration’s new embryonic stem cell research policy is illegal because it violates the plain language and intent of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. For a short time, all federally-funded embryonic stem cell (ESCR) research was halted.

With the Sherley v. Sebelius case pending, a possible appeal on the horizon, and congressmen introducing legislation to override Dickey before the November elections, the existence of a ban on the use of federal funds for destructive ESCR appears to hang upon a thread. However, the solid legal reasoning behind Judge Lamberth’s preliminary injunction, the overall public opposition to taxpayer funded ESCR, and other factors may indicate the opposite.

This article will discuss the district court’s interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and other issues affecting the political landscape for ESCR research funding. Let us begin with a brief summary of important dates and events relevant to the current legal situation:

II. Legal Timeline for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

- December 2, 1994: President Bill Clinton announces that federal funding should not be allocated to destructive ESCR.
- January 26, 1996: Congress enacts the Dickey-Wicker Amendment [2], which prohibits the use of federal funds for research involving the creation, destruction or endangerment of human embryos.
- August 9, 2001: President George W. Bush announces his policy prohibiting the use of federal funds for research on human embryonic stem cell lines derived after August 9, 2001 [3]. The policy was subsequently formalized via executive order [4].
- March 9, 2009: President Obama overturns Bush’s restrictions by executive order by allowing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct federally-funded ESCR and by mandating NIH to implement new policy guidelines for stem cell research, including ESCR [5].
- Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010: Approximately $143 million and $137 million in federal funds were appropriated by NIH for embryonic stem cell research.
- August 23, 2010: U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia issues a preliminary injunction against Obama’s new stem cell policy because it violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, thereby putting a hold on all federal funding for ESCR and stopping all current research projects.
- September 9, 2010: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifts the preliminary injunction until Monday, September 20th , 2010. Until then, federally-funded ESCR may resume. On September 20th, the Court will decide if the injunction will be reinstated. Argument briefs for both parties are also due on that day.

III. The U.S. District Court’s Interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment states that the use of federal funds is prohibited for “(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero” under applicable law [6].

The Obama Administration sought to skirt around the provisions of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment by arguing that the destruction of a human embryo takes place prior to the research, and therefore the research “does not involve nor result in an embryo’s destruction.” [7]

In court, the Obama Administration argued that the term “research” in Dickey is ambiguous. It insisted that the meaning of the term “research” is so vague that the congressional intent of Dickey is unclear. The argument was that in this situation deference should be given to NIH’s interpretation of the statute – that is, that the prohibited “research” does not refer to the all of the steps and developments of a particular investigation, but rather refers only to the “piece of research” where the embryo is destroyed.

Judge Lamberth held this distinction meaningless. He found that the definition of the term “research” is not vague, that the congressional intent of Dickey is evident, and therefore the NIH Stem Cell Guidelines’ definition of “research” as a “piece of research” is not to be applied.

Lamberth agreed with the Plaintiffs’ argument that the plain meaning of the statute is to be followed. The “plain meaning” rule is a legal doctrine which provides that laws must be interpreted according to the ordinary, literal meaning of its terms, unless the statute explicitly provides otherwise. [8]

The Court noted that the Health and Human Services research laws on “Protection of Human Subjects” [9] defines research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” (emphasis added). As this common definition of research is supported by the language of the statute, the Court concluded that this definition (and not NIH’s definition of research as “a piece of research”) is to be applied.

If Congress had wanted to prohibit funding only for the step of research where the embryo is destroyed, it would have written the statute that way. But since it did not, “the language of the statute reflects the unambiguous intent of Congress to enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed” (emphasis added).

In particular, the Court clarified that “ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.” The destruction of an embryo “is an integral step in conducting ESC research…If one step or ‘piece of research’ of an ESC research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment” (emphasis added).

Judge Lamberth issued the preliminary injunction against Obama’s stem cell policy on the grounds that, since the policy violates the clear language of Dickey, the Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of winning the case on the merits. [10]

IV. Legislative Challenges to Dickey-Wicker

In recognition of the credibility of Judge Lamberth’s interpretation of Dickey and the possibility that Obama’s policy will be ultimately struck as illegal, Democrats – in both the House and Senate – are scrambling to pass legislation that will repeal Dickey. If such legislation is enacted, any pending case involving Dickey will be rendered moot, and any decisions invalidating Obama’s policy will be overturned.

Sen. Arlen Specter has just introduced a bill, S. 3766, to authorize federal funding of ESCR in the Senate. Rep. Diane DeGette introduced a similar bill in the House. The DeGette bill, H.R. 4808, provides in part that the government “shall conduct and support research that utilizes human stem cells, including human embryonic stem cells.” After gaining the support of Republican Rep. Mike Castle, DeGette intends to re-introduce the bill jointly with Castle as a primary sponsor. In addition, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, will be holding a hearing this Thursday, September 16th, on his own bill supporting ESCR in the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee.

With the November elections fast-approaching, supporters of these bills are aware that their chances of repealing Dickey will plummet in the event of a landslide election of pro-life Republicans.

V. Other Considerations

Other influential factors working against the legalization of federally funded ESCR include the fact that the American public opposes the idea. A Rasmussen poll (taken the week Judge Lamberth granted the preliminary injunction) indicated that 57% of Americans oppose taxpayer funded ESCR, with only 33% favoring it. In addition, the overwhelming success of adult stem cell research and the failure of ESCR in treating patients draw attention to the priority and promise of adult stem cell research over ESCR.

VI. Conclusion

In short, Judge Lamberth concluded that Obama’s stem cell policy clearly violates the plain language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment because it authorizes funding for research wherein the destruction of a human embryo is the first and necessary step.

This leaves the Obama Administration with two ways to fight back: (1) it can proceed with the lawsuit, followed by an appeal (since it has already been established that the Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success); and (2) it can focus on pushing legislation through Congress to repeal Dickey.

However, with strong evidence of a clean pro-life win in the trial court and the impending surge of newly-elected pro-life congressmen, the Obama Administration may only have a matter of weeks to claim victory on the issue of federal funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research.

_____________________________

Notes

1. Dr. James L. Sherley, et al., v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1575 (RCL) (2010).
2. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment is an appropriations bill rider that first appeared in the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-99, § 128, 110 Stat. 26, 34 (1996). Congress has included the rider in every Health and Human Services appropriations bill since 1996.
3. Address to Nation on Stem Cell Research from Crawford Texas, 37 Weekly Compl. Pres. Doc. 1149 (Aug. 9, 2001).
4. Exec. Order No. 13,435, 72 Fed. Reg. 34,591 (June 20, 2007).
5. Exec. Order No. 13,505, 74 Fed. Reg. 10,667 (Mar. 9, 2009) (NIH “may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law,” and the agency must “issue a new NIH guidance on such research that is consistent with this order.”)
6. Id. at note 2.
7. The National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research (NIH Guidelines) created after President Obama’s executive order attempted to draw a distinction “between the derivation of stem cells from an embryo that results in the embryo’s destruction, for which Federal funding is prohibited, and research involving hESCs that does not involve an embryo nor result in an embryo’s destruction, for which Federal funding is prohibited.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 32, 173 (2009).
8. In addition, the plain meaning rule need not be applied if such a reading would result in a cruel or absurd result. When a term is vague, a judge may use legislative history and purpose to find meanings. Adherence to these legal principles is necessary to maintain the judicial branch’s role as an interpreter – and not a creator – of the law.
9. 45 C.F.R. § 46.102(d).
10. A preliminary injunction may be granted when the party seeking the injunction has shown (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case, (2) the party will suffer irreparable injury without the injunction, (3) an injunction would not substantially injure others, and (4) an injunction would further public interest. If the party has a very strong showing for one of these factors, they need not have a strong showing for the others.