Wednesday July 12, 2006
Santorum-Specter Stem Cell Bill Raising Serious Concerns Despite 'Pro-Life Dream Team' Support
By John-Henry Westen
WASHINGTON, July 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Senator Rick Santorum
has a stellar pro-life record. He is a mover and shaker for
pro-life and pro-family forces in the US Senate and has been recognized
as such by pro-life movements around the world. So his
sponsorship of a stem cell bill, along with notoriously pro-abortion
Senator Arlen Specter came as a surprise to many. The bill is
coming up for Senate debate July 17 and a vote on July 18; it will
require 60 votes to pass.
The real controversy in this story however goes back further than the introduction of the Santorum-Specter "Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act" (S. 2754). The history further explains the backing of the bill by what might be called a pro-life dream team, which includes the National Right to Life Committee and Princeton professor Robert P. George, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and an academic of impeccable credentials who is a great defender of life and family.
The notion of creating an embryonic-like stem cell with the properties of embryonic stem cells - that can then be turned into any type of body tissue - without causing the death of an embryo, was an idea first proposed by Stanford University biochemist William Hurlbut, who is, along with George, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.
It is the science, not so much the concept of the proposal, which makes for the controversy. A rough description of the method involves the use of a normal human cell like a skin cell, which is injected with a protein (nanog) which in animal experiments seems to bring the cell back to a more primitive or undifferentiated stage. That altered cell is then put through the cloning process, as it is placed in an egg cell (which may have had nanog or mRNA inserted into its cytoplasm) which has had its nucleus removed and shocked into life. Stem cells can then be derived from the embryo-like (but supposedly not an embryo) cell mass which grows from the procedure.
This procedure--at least for animal experimentation to show it a possibility--received backing from some of the most noted names in the pro-life academic, philosophic and even medical realms. Commonly known names such as Robert George, and NRLC were joined by moral theologian William E. May of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Washington, D.C., Germain Grisez of Mount Saint Mary's University, John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Kevin FitzGerald, S.J., of Georgetown's Center for Clinical Bioethics Research, Patrick Lee of the Franciscan University of Steubenville, and Kevin Flannery, S.J., of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome: a group Crisis magazine Christened as the "pro-life dream team".
The approval however is mostly about the concept of the generation of (embryo-like) pluripotent stem cells without the need for the creation and destruction of human embryos. The Pope's biographer George Weigel, a friend of Hurlbut's, told LifeSiteNews.com that Hurlbut "is trying to find a morally acceptable way for science to make use of the possibilities of this kind of research without taking human life." Weigel was unaware of the legislation at the time of the LifeSiteNews.com interview.
However when put into practice, as is now the case with Santorum's proposed bill, different scientists and medical professionals and ethicists begin to disagree about the morality of the procedure on more than one point. Dr. John Shea, medical advisor to the Canadian pro-life group Campaign Life Coalition, has studied the debate extensively. Dr. Shea explained to LifeSiteNews.com that the concern in the procedure comes down to the science, and may not necessarily be understood by philosophers.
The approvals of the many Catholic theologians and philosophers was contingent on the fact that the research would be conducted solely on animals, and that only if it establishes "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the procedure is workable without creating embryos would human cell research take place. The bill proposed however, does not seem to limit the research exclusively to animals. While it does suggest animal research to ensure they are not working with embryos, the determination that they are not embryos is to be made by bureaucrats.
While some scientists and medical professionals suggest that embryos would not be created, others such as Biologist Dr. Dianne Irving, and Embryologists Dr. Ronan O'Rahilly and Dr. Fabiola Muller say that human stem cells have the capacity to revert into an embryo. Dr. Shea notes the principle that where it is a question of potentially destroying human life, certitude about the scientific facts is required.
One point in the debate is a matter that most scientists and ethicists agree on, namely that it is morally problematic to create a situation where oocytes or eggs from women are in demand. This is especially so since the normal procedure used to extract eggs from women (superovulation) carries at least some risk of causing cancer of the ovary, cancer of the breast, blood clots, electrolyte imbalance with a danger of harm to liver and kidney, and future infertility of the donor.
LifeSiteNews.com confirmed with two of the 'pro-life dream team' that such a procedure, which is not ruled out in Santorum's bill, would be unacceptable. "Regarding the procurement of oocytes," Fr. Flannery of Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University told LifeSiteNews.com, "I am certain that all the signers would reject any unethical manner of their procurement." Fr. Flannery added, "I know that there was some discussion within the group of using oocytes from deceased women. I know too that at least two members of the Bioethics Council have insisted that oocytes not be obtained by superovulation of women--even with informed consent."
Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, O.P., Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Biology Providence College, RI, also confirmed to LifeSiteNews.com that using human oocytes was "an ethical problem" and suggested using "artificially created ovarian tissue".
Thus while the Hurlbut proposal may have passed their scrutiny, Santorum's proposal seems to have gotten ahead of the curve.
The controversy has also split the pro-life movement. While US National Right to Life is backing the bill, asking pro-lifers to lobby their senators in support of S. 2754, American Life League has spoken out against the proposal.
American Life League President Judie Brown told LifeSiteNews.com that with the bill Santorum "is trying to placate those in the middle of this debate because he's looking to run for president and in the process he's selling out the pro-life principle." She explained, "Our position has always been with regard to this research that because there are so many unknown factors we must morally oppose it until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no human embryo will ever lose his life. That has not been proven. This is like opening Pandora's box."
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.