I guess my bottom line is that there are thoughtful people of conscience on all sides of this issue. It's important that we respect all opinions.

(And I am thankful for our thoughtful moderators, too!)

Jean B

Thanks vicky for trying to word your response as respectfully as you know how..

I don't pretend to know better than God. I pray for God's grace and love and believe Christ is my savior and redeemer.
If believing ESCR should be pursued IS a sin, God will reveal that to me in His own time. I am not one to say, Oh, okay that's exactly right, because someone else believes differently or tells me so.

Faith unshaken-
Steph

Quote:

Really interesting read

Ethical” Embryonic Stem Cell Research?
by Daniel McConchie



Daniel McConchie is Vice President & Chief of Staff at Americans United for Life, Chicago, Illinois.

Post Date:
June 10, 2005

Despite ongoing successes with adult stem cell research, recent months have seen the debate over embryonic stem cell research continue unabated.1 This is especially true in state legislatures across the country where dueling proposals to ban such research or to allow and fund it continue with fascinating political drama.

In an attempt to cool the debate, some researchers have offered imaginative new ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without the necessary step of destroying living human embryos. Four proposals have been floated in recent months.

The Parthenote Proposal2

One of the earliest of these new proposals is the idea to create a parthenote—an egg that develops into an embryo and creates embryonic stem cells. New research has shown that a chemical trigger can cause an egg to begin dividing and organizing—even eggs that have failed to be fertilized by a sperm. Reproductive clinics throw away thousands of eggs that have failed to be fertilized through multiple in vitro fertilization (IVF) attempts. Because mammalian parthenotes cannot develop very far due to the lack of paternal DNA, many researchers do not consider them embryos but “embryo-like” entities.

Method – Since eggs have only half of the requisite DNA, they would have to be obtained from women before the final maturation process (before ovulation) when the egg still has a full DNA compliment, or the eggs would have to copy their own 23 chromosomes to produce 46 chromosomes when exposed to a chemical trigger. Such a trigger or an electrical shock tricks the egg into believing that it has been fertilized. Upon reaching the blastocyst stage, the parthenote would be broken apart and its stem cells harvested.

Technical Challenges – Because of the faulty genetic structure of parthenotes, there are questions about whether stem cells derived from them could be used for treatments. The impact of seriously genetically flawed stem cells is unknown. Incidents of cancer could be higher than the 25% typical when using other embryonic cells. In addition, the available pool of genotypes for research would be limited since only fertile females can be used.

Ethical Issues – The largest ethical issue is the question over whether a parthenote is an embryo, and there is little consensus. Some argue that it is not an embryo because it can never develop, while others hold that it should be treated like an embryo unless it can be proven otherwise.

The Morula Proposal3

Reproductive Genetics Institute (RGI) in Chicago is one of the world's leading experts in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)—a procedure where a cell is removed from a developing embryo and analyzed. Some use this procedure to identify whether a developing embryo has a genetic disorder such as Tay-Saks or Huntington’s disease. Only those embryos passing the genetic test are implanted. The others are destroyed.

Scientists at RGI are claiming a new distinction—a way around of the current objection to pursuing human embryonic stem cell research. Instead of destroying living human embryos, RGI scientists think they can use the same principles of obtaining cells for PGD to develop embryonic stem cell lines.

Method – Scientists would take an early-embryo that has developed to about the 8-cell stage (called a morula), and remove a single cell. They would then attempt to coax that cell to replicate into an embryonic stem cell line. The embryo (less the one cell) could then be transferred to a womb.

Technical Challenges – The largest technical challenge to this proposal is getting a single stem cell to replicate sufficiently to turn into stem cell line. Currently, scientists wait until the blastocyst stage where the embryo has developed into several hundred cells, break the embryo apart to obtain the cells, and use all the available cells to create a line. Even with hundreds of cells, scientists have a difficult time creating cell lines. Doing so requires dozens if not hundreds of embryos. Robert Lanza at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Massachusetts has said that he believes this single cell process can produce stem cell lines, but procedures do not yet exist.

Ethical Issues – There are two primary ethical issues with this proposal. First, it requires a method that is potentially harmful to the embryo. While hundreds of children have been born using PGD, we do not yet know the consequence of taking a cell from the very early embryo. Second, at the morula stage, twinning is still possible; that is to say, it is possible that the obtained cell could be an embryo itself—the single cell may be able to develop if implanted into a womb.

The Organ Transplant Proposal4

50 years after the first successful organ transplant, Donald Landry and Howard Zucker of Columbia University in New York think that the same principles used today to harvest organs from those at the edge of death can be used to find a way out of the current embryonic stem cell morass.

Modern organ transplant rules follow the following general principle: a person’s body does not have to be totally dead for it to be “dead enough” to ethically remove vital tissues for transplant. Because the line between life and death is not precise, this principle has been accepted and is used to allow a definition of death other than complete death of every cell in the body. This allows the transplantation of living tissue from an otherwise “dead” person.

In this proposal, scientists argue that embryos exist that are, in essence, dead just like those who are brain dead with functioning organs. The term “arrested development” is often used to denote embryos that are believed will never develop further. Landry and Zucker estimate that 60% of human embryos in cryopreservation are in a state of “arrested development.”

Method – Scientists hope to identify arrested development embryos whose stem cells are functional, obtain the stem cells (using the standard method of breaking embryos apart), and develop stem cell lines for research and possible future treatment.

Technical Challenges – No test currently exists to determine whether an embryo that is not developing is truly dead. Landry and Zucker are working to develop tools to measure the chemical and genetic signatures of embryos after 24 hours of non-development.

There is a question about whether the embryonic stem cells obtained from such embryos would be useful. It is possible that failure to create stem cell lines from “surplus” IVF embryos is due to the failure of the cell from “dead” embryos to replicate.

Ethical Issues – Is it possible to identify a “brain death” criterion for embryos? This is uncertain. There simply is no test similar to that which determines brain death. Chemical and genetic signatures would measure seemingly arbitrary criterion, particularly since we know so little about embryology (and especially compared to current understandings of a fully-developed nervous system that governs the brain death criterion).

The Alternate Nuclear Transfer (ANT) Proposal5

Suggested by Stanford physician and ethicist William Hurlbut, alternate nuclear transfer (ANT) is similar to cloning. Using the cloning method, scientists would create an embryo or “embryo-like entity” that lacks a developmental gene. The entity would be similar to those that generally develop into a cancerous tumor—an entity that most scientists and ethicists consider never to have been an embryo.

Method – A developmental gene is turned off in the nucleus about to be transferred. Using the normal cloning process, the changed nucleus is then inserted into an enucleated egg, stimulated to divide, and stem cells are harvested when the resulting embryo or entity reaches the blastocyst stage.

Technical Challenges – Currently, the proposed method would be both difficult and expensive; the difficulties of cloning are compounded by the difficulties of genetic alteration. It likely would be a number of years before this method was successful, and, due to the technical hurdles of genetic manipulation, cloning technology, and stem cell cultivation, even longer before reasonable.

Ethical Issues – The core question for most ethicists is whether the entity created is a non-embryo or a disabled embryo. Hurlbut suggests that because the entity lacks a developmental/organizational gene and could never develop, it is never an embryo, thus no embryo is destroyed. Others, such as Richard Doerflinger of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, argue that if the knocked out gene offers several days of development, the entity is an embryo for that period of time, and only later ceases to be such.

The answer to the question of whether an embryo-like entity that cannot develop is an embryo or not is likely the same for both parthenotes and ANT.

Conclusion

Currently, Christians oppose embryonic stem cell research for several interconnected reasons. Most importantly, it requires the destruction of human embryos. But also, using embryonic stem cells on human beings likely constitutes a violation of proper ethical considerations regarding experimentation on human subjects. This is in part due to the lack of proper animal modeling and experimentation. This is particularly important in light of current alternative methods of disease treatment for many of the ailments considered possible targets for future embryonic stem cell therapies.

Currently, too many unanswered questions remain about these proposals to be able to move ahead with determining whether any of them are ethical methods for obtaining embryonic stem cells. We must take the cautious route by not pursuing them in human research until it is clear from animal studies that the entity in question is in fact not an embryo.

The Morula Proposal is unique in that it does not require breaking apart an entity that might or might not be an embryo; the question is whether the early embryonic cell is itself totipotent—capable of further developing in the same way that you and I developed from a single cell. Even if we assume that this is not the case, given the possibility of possible unknown danger for the developing embryo (no treatment option currently provides an overriding ethical justification for exposing an embryo to such unknown risk) this method still cannot be justified at this time.

As a final note, all other objections aside, we do not yet have sufficient knowledge from animal models to justify the pursuit of any embryonic stem cell research in humans. While pursuing in animal studies the knowledgebase that might justify human trials, these methods of obtaining such cells should be used so that we might have as much knowledge as possible for determining potential ethical means of obtaining embryonic stem cells if or when it becomes necessary to do so. CBHD


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been thinking about your post EN and it is very convincing. Everything is always constantly moving even after death the cells just go back into the dirt but move on and are you saying you believe that the scientists have just learned how to "grab 2 and do something with them" - it would explain why they have been referred to as "silly putty.'

paula

You know...this is such a wonderfully thought provoking thread when all the peripheries are cut through.
It has had me thinking back to the times I would sit in my car,late at night,and stare at the blue haze around the moon...and I would wonder...where does space end and where does it begin? Who decides?
At what stage does earth begin and end? Does someone have this magical ruler that marks such a thing?
Who decides where earth begins and ends.or how high is the sky?

At what stage do ingredients become recognised as a "dish" a "cake?"
When they are on the tree? As a seed? In the factory? On the supermarket shelf? After all a tub of butter has the potential to be a cake.At what stage does it become known as one?

This isn`t as daft as it seems.
How many of you,look at your children,and wonder at the odds of them being created,being here,developing,growing?
It is only by chance that the little wiggly thing hit its target.And created another human.What about all those who failed to hit the bulls eye? After all,they are all potential lifeforms.Where do they go when they realise they have run the race and lost? Why do our bodies produce so many "spares" when chances are only one or two are going to make it? Do we regard that as a waste.Do we mourn all the potential joinings,couplings of sperm and egg that never make it?
Do we admonish ourselves and feel immoral because for every one that makes it,thousands go to the "wiggle and egg " graveyard and accept their fate?
Has God messed up? Has science bombed?
The times I have thought about those that didn`t connect and what they would have looked like had they have done..All those lost children that we will never know,never see.The times I have gazed upon the beuatiful faces of my son and daughter,and shuddered at the thought that if the two vital components had not met,I wouldn`t have known them.
But we accept it as nature...this glut of spares..this loss.And we move on.
They are there for a reason..the losers.They are there to provide greater odds for the victorious.
And as sad as it is,for every life that is created,there are a million losses.
And we have to accept that.
When it comes to science,I imagine the decisions are equally as heartwrenching.
And I am neither condoning or dismissing the stem cell business.

I am simply saying this..that even in nature,regardless of whether you believe life is created by God,or the Big Bang,or whatever...there are sadnesses to equal the joys.
And all I can say is this.I choose to live my life respecting those who are fighting for a cure for all manner of diseases,I pray that their decisions will be wise,informed and just.My compassion is reserved for the agonising decisions that have to be made in the face of progress.
And in terms of my fellow men.I am but a tiny tiny speck in this huge cog that is life. And I choose to remain quietly respectful of the diversity of opinions here.I am at peace with myself and prefer to reserve my judgement with the knowledge that my way is not necessarily the way of another.
But to listen with respect,to respond with dignity and compassion,to have an understanding and an open mind,paves the way for learning and harmony within society.
It gives rise to each individual feeling worthy and precious,not condemned and damned.
We are all on a journey,which twists and turns,events and opinions may sway our thinking and allow us to change our minds on issues.Let gentleness,encouragement and humour be the beacons which light the way.

With my love
x

Looking at it this way I could almost take a deeeep breath...inhale...release guilt. And continue on.

That would be exhale....release....


paula

hi paula-
scientists take their theory or the theory of others, and run with it. hence our medical world today! : )
Steph

steff-
"And in terms of my fellow men.I am but a tiny tiny speck in this huge cog that is life."
We are all just a small part of this universe, but precious, precious to God.
Many blessings-Steph

Thank you for that.Yes we are all precious,and you know...He gives us so much to be thank ful for...above all a warm and willing heart...no matter how many times we bomb or fall...a hand is there to brush us down and set us on our feet again.
You have a lovely manner..

X

I've read all the posts on this thread and find myself exactly where I started, as is true for most everyone else. It's important to understand where each of us is coming from on this topic, but equally important to accept the fact that we're not likely to change any minds. It always comes back to the question of when human life begins, and this is very tied into people's religious beliefs. That is sensitive ground for any of us to be treading on.

My line in the sand, so to speak, is that religion should not dictate science. And certainly not in a pluralistic society like ours where separation of church and state is a Constitutional provision. Should ESCR reveal cures, those opposed to this research need not take advantage of these, but the rest of us will.

Many people say they don't want their tax dollars going to fund research they find morally objectionable. I'm with you all the way, but everyone must have this same option. Let's put check boxes at the bottom of the IRS form and allow people to assign percentages of their tax dollars to go to fund everything from the war in Iraq and building a wall on our southern border to education and healthcare. Who knows, we may have the first war that no one comes to... an added benefit.

Sheryl