Church responds to stem cell research developments

Social justice news
August 2001

Church responds to stem cell research developments
Digging up the paperwork on ending poverty
President Bush gets some Catholic schooling on stem cells and globalization
Research group helps cut the trial and error of social change

Church responds to stem cell research developments
Breaking a taboo against creating human embryos expressly for medical experiments, scientists at a Virginia fertility clinic mixed donated eggs and sperm to derive embryonic stem cells, the primordial cells at the crux of a national debate over federal research funding.

The experiment was conducted at the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Norfolk, Virgina, a privately financed clinic that pioneered in vitro fertilization in the United States.

Meanwhile in another example of how stem cell research is running ahead of public policy, a Massachusetts company is trying to use cloning technology to create human embryos that
would yield the cells, which in turn might give rise to tissues that were a perfect match for patients.

At least one other for-profit company is racing to develop large amounts of embryonic stem cells—buying leftoever embryos from fertility clinics—even as President Bush struggles to decide what the federal government should do about such research, now largely unregulated by the government. Proponents of such research say stem cells hold the potential to cure diseases and ailments from cancer to spinal cord injuries. Companies capable of devising such therapeutic uses of stem cells stand to reap millions—if not billions—in profits.

Each company's research involves plucking the coveted stem cells from 4- or 5-day-old human embryos, which must be destroyed in the process. Anti-abortion activists and others consider all three techniques unethical, saying they result in the destruction of human life. Proponents of such research argue that these days-old, undifferentiated cells cannot be viewed as human, and they stress that they have no intention of implanting them in a womb and producing babies.

Since 1996, federal law has banned the use of tax dollars for research that destroys embryos. As a result, such research has been conducted exclusively in the private domain, beyond the control of government regulators. The Clinton administration decided federal money could pay for research as long as the stem cells were extracted with private money.

On July 11, the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, urged Congress not to fund embryonic stem cell research. "Embryonic stem cell research has not helped a single human patient or demonstrated any therapeutic benefit," said Fiorenza.

Fiorenza called public funding for research that relies on the destruction of human embryos one of the most important decisions before this Congress. "We know that speculation about the possible benefits of such research, and mistaken views about the status of the human embryo, have led many to urge you to abandon your convictions," he said. "We believe it is more important than ever to stand for the principle that government must not treat any living human being as research material, as a mere means for benefit to others."

Richard M. Doerflinger, Associate Director for Policy Development at the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, continued the church's resistance to the use of human embryos in stem cell research at a July 18 Senate hearing. Doerflinger said: "Forcing U.S. taxpayers to subsidize research that relies on deliberate destruction of human embryos for their stem cells is illegal, immoral and unnecessary." He also said that some proponents of embryo research have misstated or distorted the facts to serve their political goal.

Commenting on a proposal by the National Institutes of Health for funding embryonic stem cell research, the Catholic official said "It is illegal because it violates an appropriations rider . . . passed every year since 1995 by Congress." That provision forbids funding research in which human embryos (whether initially created for research purposes or not) are harmed or destroyed outside the womb.

"This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. . . . Finally, this proposal is unnecessary because adult stem cells and other alternatives are already achieving some of the goals for which embryonic stem cells have been proposed, and new clinical uses are constantly being discovered.

"In our view, human life deserves full respect and protection at every stage and in every condition," Mr. Doerflinger said. "The intrinsic wrong of destroying innocent human life cannot be 'outweighed' by any material advantage—the end does not justify an immoral means."

"The kind of exaggerated claims now made for embryonic stem cells have been seen in this Congress before," Mr. Doerflinger continued. "A decade ago it was fetal tissue from abortions that was hailed as the magic bullet that might cure diabetes, Parkinson's disease and many other conditions in a few years if only federal funds were provided. By the time such funds were approved in 1993, however, it was already becoming clear that fetal tissue from abortions would be largely useless in treating diabetes. . . . the chief result of the campaign for fetal tissue research by some Parkinson's disease groups is that a significant number of Parkinson's patients may now be incurably worse off than before."

"At the very least, past experience argues in favor of greater humility than some researchers and organizations are now showing in their campaign for destructive embryo research," Doerflinger said. "To quote two bioethicists who do not oppose such research on moral grounds, 'much of the hype that surrounded the debate about the clinical value of fetal tissue implants was exactly that—hype.' This ought to be kept in mind by those now engaged in the debate over stem cell research."

Doerflinger said the real issue in the debate over stem cell research is: "Should the federal government subsidize—and force millions of morally opposed taxpayers to subsidize—research that requires the destruction of innocent human life? We hope that the President and Congress will answer that question in the negative, and will unite instead to support promising medical research that everybody can live with."

For more information:
USCCB fact sheet on the use of adult stem cells for research

Back to page top