 |
          
  |
|
|
Dr.
David Prentice reports that, despite all the problems with unethical
embryo-destroying research and human cloning, liberals in Congress still want
to fund human cloning with your tax dollars.
If
members of Congress really want to promote treatments and prevent human cloning
they should support legislation like the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2009
(H.R. 1050) which is a total ban on human cloning and the Patients First Act of
2009 (H.R. 877) which prioritizes ethical forms of stem cell research which
have the most potential for actual treatments and cures.
The
Washington Post reports. The article’s
sub headline (Critics Fear That Women Will Be Exploited) says it all about the
ethical concerns over the exploitation of women that is inherent to this kind
of policy and to what is required to conduct forms of human cloning.
LifeNews reports. Apparently President Obama finds no use for
ethical considerations when it comes to controversial issues like human cloning
and embryo-destroying stem cell research.
The Culture of Life Foundation offers a “Requiem for the
President’s Council on Bioethics.”
Excerpt:
Two weeks ago President Obama sent a memo
to the members of the President’s Council on Bioethics (PCB) [1] informing them
that their appointments were being prematurely terminated.
CitizenLink reports. Besides the obvious ethical and right to life
issues involved with human cloning, grave health concerns and women’s rights
issues are also raised because of the huge demand for human ovum involved with
human cloning and in the serious health risks associated with human egg
donation.
Congressional
Quarterly gives us a “heads up” on how the upcoming stem cell battle will
focus on human embryo cloning. Excerpt:
As the Obama administration prepares to
greatly expand the government’s investments in embryonic stem cell research,
the next big biomedical research debate in Congress is shaping up: whether to
allow government funding of experiments using cloned human embryos.
As
the Independent
and the Mail
Online report, a fertility expert is claiming he will be able to clone
human beings and bring them to birth.
While most people agree that reproductive cloning is wrong, but many
seem to think that cloning human embryos for the purposes of stem cell research
is okay as long as the cloned embryos are killed and not implanted into the
mother’s womb. Really, they’re both just
as wrong.
The
American Thinker reports. Excerpt:
President Obama's statement that human
cloning is "dangerous and wrong" is a non sequitur in its context,
because there is no material difference between abortion, embryonic stem cell
research, and cloning. They differ in appearance, they sometimes differ in
ends, but they differ not one whit in essence. Each is an instance of
deliberately destroying an innocent human being at a certain stage of
development. If the first two are OK, then the third is OK as well. Let's see
why.
Daniel Herbster reporting
We again have the privilege to hear from Dr. David Prentice about important bioethical issues. Dr. Prentice has years of teaching and research experience, and he now works for the illustrious Family Research Council in Washington, DC. With President Obama’s recent actions on taxpayer funding of embryo-destroying research, I thought it would be good to hear from our friend and my former teacher.
DH: Dr. Prentice, what exactly did President Obama do in his recent executive order? How will it affect the sanctity of life in this country?
DP: President Obama has removed any restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The previous Bush policy restricted federal funds for those lines (dishes) of human embryonic stem cells that were already in existence on Aug 9, 2001; this allowed funding for the research to proceed, but did not provide any incentive for more embryo destruction. Now, any lines can receive federal funding, no matter when the embryo was destroyed, and no matter how the embryo was produced. This would mean even for cases in the future, and for embryos created by cloning, or for human-animal hybrid embryos.
DH: It seems ironic that the President would chose to announce his new policy on embryonic stem cell research a matter of weeks after a major breakthrough in ethically produced induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). Could you tell us what exactly these researchers accomplished and how does it relate to the push for more embryonic stem cell research?
DP: Recently scientists at MIT showed that they could produce these induced stem cells (iPS cells) directly from a Parkinson’s patient, and make the type of neurons in the lab that are missing in the patient. They are still years or decades away from ever using these cells in a patient, but it illustrates the ease with which these iPS cells can be produced, producing cells for study in the laboratory, and all without the use of embryos, eggs, or cloning.
DH: In his remarks President Obama claimed to oppose “human cloning.” What do you think he meant by this statement and do you believe he is being completely accurate?
Daniel
Herbster reporting
 Wesley
J. Smith is an influential writer and commentator who has dedicated his career
to preserving human dignity and educating his fellow man on the principles of
bioethics and justice. He is a senior
fellow at the Discovery Institute and a
special consultant to the Center for Bioethics
and Culture. He has also written a
number of books, and he blogs at Secondhand
Smoke. Smith was kind enough to
share with AdvanceUSA’s readers about important bioethics issues facing our society
today and about his work.
DH: Why are bioethics issues so important?
WJS: Bioethics is a contraction for “biomedical
ethics.” It is a field that has profound influence over core areas of human
endeavor that help establish and define the morality of society, and indeed,
the meaning of human life itself. Should elderly people have their health care
rationed? Is assisted suicide a proper
medical service? Is it right to create
cloned human embryos for use in research or to bring to birth? Is it wrong to abort fetuses because they
test positive for Down syndrome? Should parents be able to genetically enhance
their children? Are there morally relevant differences between humans and
animals? What should happen if a nurse
refuses to participate in an abortion or a physician wants to cut off wanted
life-sustaining medical treatment because the patient has a poor “quality of
life?” These and other equally important
bioethical issues are much larger than the sum of their parts because they
establish philosophical norms that exert tremendous influence upon society
beyond the policies themselves. Indeed,
I can think of few fields more important than bioethics in determining the kind
of society we shall become in the 21st century.
DH: What is “human exceptionalism” and how does
it relate to issues of life and justice?
WJS: Human exceptionalism refers to the sheer
moral importance and unique value of being human. I believe strongly that adhering to human
exceptionalism is the predicate to defending universal human rights. Indeed,
whether we accept or reject human exceptionalism may be the most important
issue we face as a culture. For if we say that simply being human is not what gives value to life, we have to
ask a second question: What does? That
second question leads directly to a system wherein those with power decide
which of us has greater--and which lesser—value, and who decides those who
don’t make muster. Thus, many in bioethics support “personhood theory,” which
denies the objective moral value of being human and claims that what matters morally
is being a “person,” a status earned
by possessing minimal cognitive capacities. In this view, there is such a thing
as a human “non person,” such as fetuses, newborns, and people who have lost
these capacities, such as Terri Schiavo.
Worse, because the human non person is defined as having lesser value,
they lose the right to life and, can be used instrumentally such as in medical
experimentation or as sources of organs.
Indeed, there is much agitation in bioethics and within the organ
transplant community to redefine death to include a diagnosis of persistent
vegetative state—meaning that if this view prevails, severely compromised
people could essentially be killed for their organs. This isn’t happening—yet—but the only way to
make sure that such policies are never instituted is to adhere to human
exceptionalism.
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics
analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said women should not be enticed to put
their health and their lives at risk for financial benefit.
"That goes against every tenet of
medical ethics," she said. "Serious complications can come into play,
including blood clots, liver and kidney damage, future infertility and even
death.
"And even if the risks are minimal,
this type of idea enters into creating life outside of the marital union, and
that’s something Focus on the Family does not support.”
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Dr. David Prentice is one of the foremost experts on bioethics in the country. He has valuable science experience from his days as researcher and teacher, and he now works for groups like the Family Research Council and Do No Harm speaking out on some of the most important (though sometimes confusing) ethical issues facing our society today. I’ve had the opportunity to meet Dr. Prentice a number of times and have heard him speak often so it is a distinct pleasure to interview him today and share with you his scientific expertise.
DH: First off, tell our readers a little about yourself. What did you do before you came to FRC? What are your responsibilities at FRC and Do No Harm?
DP: Before FRC, I spent almost 20 years as Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, at the same time as Adjunct Professor of Medical & Molecular Genetics for Indiana University School of Medicine.
During those years I taught and did lab research, and also spent a few years in administration.
My job description now is somewhat similar: I lecture, give briefings, and testify about science, especially the scientific facts regarding stem cells, cloning, and other biotechnologies.
DH: You often hear people say that we should “leave science to the scientists,” that we who have ethical concerns with particular research techniques have no right to an opinion if we are not scientists ourselves. Is this true? Do we as a society have a stake in deciding what research should or should not be allowed? Why is this notion so dangerous?
 DP: Some scientists might like that, but the fact is that society sets the agenda, both in terms of what's allowed as well as what resources are provided to science. Everyone has a stake in this discussion, because everyone is affected. Leaving these decisions just to one group means we abdicate our responsibility to help form a strong society.
DH: Dr. Prentice, what are stem cells?
DP: A stem cell has 2 main characteristics: (1) It continues to grow and divide, making copies of itself, and (2) given the correct signal, a stem cell can form many different specialized cells of the body.
DH: What are the two general types of stem cells, and are there any ethical differences between them?
 Unfortunately our pro-life compatriots in Great Britain were unsuccessful in passing a ban on the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for unethical stem cell research in Parliament (for more details check this BBC report). However, it looks as though a move to lower the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 22 or 20 weeks might prove successful. It in encouraging to know that pro-lifers are fighting the good fight elsewhere in the world, but the fact that Britain will likely allow the creation of hybrid cloning is a sobering warning that such research could be coming to American shores in the near future (unless legislation like H.R. 5910 and S. 2358 is passed).
The fact that Great Britain even has a gestation limit on abortion illustrates the surprising fact that the United States is among the nations with the most unrestrictive abortion laws in the world. Many Americans are unaware that the Supreme Court decisions of Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton basically mandate that abortion for whatever reason is permissible at almost any stage of prenatal development.
See also: pro-life page, stem cell page
Photo source: roots-travel.co.uk
 The Cures Without Cloning coalition will continue its campaign to amend the Missouri constitution to fully ban human cloning but must wait until 2010. Unfortunately, because of delays in the court process there will not be enough time for the coalition to gather enough signatures to put a true cloning ban on the Missouri ballot in 2008. Anti-cloning forces are encouraged by aspects of a recent appellate court ruling but plan to appeal the final verdict to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Regardless, Cures Without Cloning and other pro-life organizations in Missouri will prepare for the efforts to get the cloning ban on the 2010 Missouri ballot. Click here for read CWC’s press release on the recent court ruling and on plans for the future.
Mary E. Traeger explains
in the Metro Voice. Excerpt:
It is evident the cloners have won the day.
They have again used the court system to stop efforts to ban human cloning in
Missouri. Even though the judges would uphold Judge Joyce's new ballot language
there is not enough time now to gather the needed 150,000 petition signatures
by the 5 p.m., May 4, 2008, deadline. Again the will of the people of Missouri,
the majority of whom do not support human embryonic cloning, is mocked by
ambitious politicians and judicial charades.
At the same time this charade of justice
was playing out in Missouri, a renowned international scientist admitted to the
public that human embryonic stem cell research hasn't been successful. Of
course, this is not news to pro-life proponents, but it is quite an
acknowledgment for a well-accepted embryonic cloning researcher to admit. On
April 8, 2008, the chairman of the UK National Stem Cell Network, Lord Patel of
Dunkeld admitted in a "Scotsman" newspaper interview that this
controversial science may never deliver new treatments for diseases. He
explained, "In terms of embryonic stem cell therapy, there is currently no
such therapy that is available in a large number of patients. We have to be
cautious. It may not deliver therapy for anything. We may find that stem
therapy is quite a risky business." (LifeNews.Com, April 8, 2008) …
Bioethics conservative watchdog Wesley J.
Smith sums it up well in his statement, "By hyping the potential, the
politicized science sector misled people to win a political debate, and in the
process reduced science to just another special interest spinning and
obfuscating to get a greater share of gruel in the public trough."
It is regrettable that the State of
Missouri is also tied up to that public embryonic stem cell trough along with
the State of California which is facing a $16 billion dollar deficit.
The
fight against human cloning in Missouri will continue and you can find out more
about it at MOCuresWithoutCloning.com.
 Think creating half human, half animal creatures is only the stuff of science fiction? Think again. Some researchers want to create human-animal embryos so they can destroy them for stem cell research.
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), who is the chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, has recently introduced legislation which would prohibit the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos. Read the text of this bill here. Similar legislation was proposed last year in the U.S. Senate by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Let your representative and both your senators know that you support H.R. 5910 and S. 2358.
Unfortunately,
it appears that appeals by pro-cloning forces in Missouri may not allow
signature gatherers enough time to get the proposed
cloning ban on Missouri’s 2008 ballot.
It is still possible the feat could be accomplished with determined
grassroots effort, but the fight to fully and completely ban human cloning in
Missouri will continue regardless.
LifeNews reports.
Basically,
even if iPSC did allow for easier cloning or easier creation of hybrid embryos,
it does not change the fact that iPSC is an excellent and ethical source of
pluripotent stem cells. As in many
instances, just because a scientific procedure (i.e. induced pluripotent stem
cell research) can be abused (i.e. human cloning, human-animal hybrid embryos,
etc.) does not mean that procedure is inherently unethical.
AdvanceUSA
contacted Dr. David Prentice and he concurs that recent “concerns” over iPSC
are probably attempts to create hype which undermines the significance of
ethically derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) which make human cloning and embryonic stem cell research unecessary.
There
is disturbing news coming out of Britain as the Telegraph
(UK) reports. Using a process
similar to SCNT, scientists put human DNA into unfertilized cow eggs in order
to obtain mostly-human embryos for stem cell research. Tampering with human life in this way is
degrading, and the scientists’ assurances that the hybrid embryos will be destroyed
(killed) within 14 days does not provide any comfort to pro-lifers.
These
developments highlight why the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act should be
passed in the United States Senate as soon as possible.
LifeNews and Times
Online (UK) also report.
Graphic source: Telegraph
By
Daniel Herbster
When
I first read recent
media reports about research which seemed to indicate mice with Parkinson’s
disease were successfully treated using a form of cloning called somatic cell
nuclear transfer (SCNT), I was skeptical.
But even if the media reports of success were correct, it still would
not make SCNT ethical for use in humans because it would amount to cloning and
killing human beings (embryos). I wanted
get an expert opinion on the actual science behind the reports so I contacted
Dr. David Prentice whom I’ve had the privilege to hear speak and meet on
several occasions.
Reinforced
my concerns with the unethical nature of the research if it were ever tried in
humans, Dr. Prentice told me…
…the whole idea of
so-called "therapeutic cloning" is unethical on several levels. It requires creating and destroying an
embryo, a young life. It also requires a
tremendous number of eggs to make just one dish of cells, so it risks women's
health, making them factories for raw parts for the experiments.
Dr.
Prentice also mentioned three crucial points the reports neglected to point
out.
- 1 out of every 6 mice showed
"graft overgrowth". In
other words, the implanted embryonic stem cells grew too well.
- They only let the animals go for 11
weeks, so we don't know if they would have gone on to form tumors, or if
the treatment has any lasting effect.
- The technique is also already
outdated. The paper was originally
submitted in Feb 2007, long before most of the results with iPS cells
[induced pluripotent stem cells].
So the science has already passed this by, with easier, ethical,
and successful procedures.
Thank
you Dr. Prentice for sharing your expertise with us. Find out more about Dr. Prentice’s work at FRC.org and at DoNoHarm.
Dr. David Prentice
Graphic source: FRC
Click here for more
information on human cloning, and click here for more
information on embryonic stem cell research.
The
Columbia Missourian reports. Let’s
hope the Appeals Court upholds Judge Joyce’s
ruling allowing Missourians to see an
accurate summary of the proposed human cloning ban on their 2008 ballot.
Cures
Without Cloning is waiting until the court makes its decision before beginning its
signature gathering campaign to get the cloning ban amendment on the
ballot. If you live in Missouri click here to find out how you
can be a trained signature gatherer.
For
more information on human cloning click here or visit MO Cures Without Cloning.
Scientists in the U.S. believe they have been able to treat mice that have Parkinson’s disease using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) which was the same process used to create Dolly the sheep. (Some like to euphemistically call this procedure “therapeutic cloning” but they’re only right about the “cloning” part because there is nothing “therapeutic” in the procedure for the cloned embryo.) The scientists took the nucleus from a mouse cell and inserted it into a mouse egg cell. When the resulting mouse embryo developed to a certain stage it was destroyed so its stem cells could be harvested and injected into the original mouse.
As the media breathlessly reports, some scientists are hoping this type of treatment could one day be used on humans. They neglect to point out that if this research were to be done in humans it would, in effect, amount to creating a twin of the patient (a clone) only to destroy that twin at an early stage of development (embryo) for its stem cells. Cloning humans is unethical because it would violate the rights of the cloned embryo and because it cheapens human life to the level of a commodity. We should not be wasting our time and resources pursuing research we know to be unethical.
These limited results seen in mice pale in comparison to the many exciting results coming from ethical forms of adult stem cell research. Furthermore, with the new research being done in induced pluripotent stem cells (embryonic like stem cells obtained without creating or destroying embryos) we can ethically obtain pluripotent stem cells that do not appear to risk rejection from the bodies of patients.
For more information on human cloning click here.
The
MBC Pathway reports on the status of the proposed
constitutional amendment to fully ban human cloning in Missouri. Excerpt:
[Missouri Secretary of State] Carnahan’s
rewrite of language submitted last fall by Cures Without Cloning (CWC) was
struck down Feb. 20 by Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce under
precedents established by previous judges as insufficient or unfair. Legally it
means her work is “inadequate, especially lacking adequate power, capacity or
competence. The word ‘unfair’ means to be marked by injustice, partiality, or
deception.” In other words, according to legal precedent, she stated the
consequences of the initiative “inadequately and with bias, prejudice,
deception and/or favoritism.”
An appeal filed by people sympathetic to
the argumentation of Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures will be heard by
the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, March 26. Once all legal
appeals are exhausted, it is believed that approximately 150,000 valid
signatures would need to be collected by May 5, the deadline for getting it on
the ballot in November. Many citizens are ready to fan out all over the state
to go get the necessary signatures once elected officials and judges are
finished with their work.
“We are confident the court of appeals will
uphold the ballot summary written by the circuit court and are preparing for
that outcome,” wrote Missourians Against Human Cloning (MAHC) Executive
Director Jaci Winship in an email alert that went out to supporters in the last
week of February. “We are hopeful the appeal process will move quickly so that
our volunteer army that has been preparing for months will be able to move
forward.”
HT: Sam Lee
By Daniel Herbster
I had the opportunity to speak to sophomore biology students and senior chemistry students at my high school alma mater about stem cells, cloning, and the pro-life cause. The students at Community Baptist Christian School were great, and showed genuine interest in the presentation. I'd like to thank Miss Anderson for inviting me to speak to her students and for taking these photos.
Explaining the science of human embryo development.
For more information about bioethics and life issues check the pro-life, stem cell, adult stem cell, and human cloning pages at AdvanceUSA.org or check the stem cell, adult stem cell, pro-life, abortion, and human cloning categories at AdvanceUSA Blog.
LifeNews and KETV
report. It looks like dangerous
loopholes allowing for “clone and kill” research have been removed from this
legislation in Nebraska, causing pro-life organizations to support it for fear
that something far worse would take its place.
Let’s hope Nebraska can continue to avoid following down the same road
that Missouri took
in 2006.
There is exciting new hope that Missouri voters will be able read an accurate summary of the proposed constitutional amendment to fully ban human cloning in state when they step into the voting booth in November. Most Missourians would likely oppose the cloning of human life for the purpose of destroying it for research, but anti-cloning forces must get their message out despite well funded opposition, media bias, and unfriendly state officials (as in this case). Bioethics expert Wesley J. Smith summarizes the situation:
I admit that I am pleasantly surprised. The pro cloning bias among the political elite and media in Missouri make it almost impossible to get the straight information to the people of MO about this crucial ethical issue. When a new initiative to outlaw all human cloning was filed awhile ago, the Secretary of State wrote a summary that was both inaccurate and breathtakingly biased. Well, lo and behold, a court has righted the wrong.
Also, the AP (via the Columbia Missourian) has a lengthy article explaining the situation and its implications. Click here (PDF file) to read a press release from Missouri Cures Without Cloning.
For more background information about the Missouri case and about the science of human cloning check AdvanceUSA’s human cloning page.
The
closing of five Planned Parenthood “clinics” is great news for pro-lifers. LifeNews
reports.
Ken
Connor writes a helpful
piece at Townhall.com in which he praises President Bush’s bold proposal of
a cloning ban in his recent State of the Union address and also highlights the
recent breakthrough in obtaining embryonic-like pluripotent stem cells from
ordinary skin cells.
Pro-human
cloning forces often resort to distorting the terms of the debate in order to
advance their cause. The cloning battle
in Missouri provides many examples.
Missourinet reports on the attempt
to correct the inaccurate ballot summary language
issued by the Missouri Secretary of State.
Unless fixed, the current summary language totally distorts what the
proposed amendment to completely (and truly) ban human cloning would actually
do.
For
more news and information on the cloning battle in Missouri (and to read
the text of the actual amendment) click here.
 Attempting to prevent the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos (or chimeras), Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have proposed legislation to ban this blurring of the sanctity of human life. The legislation is S. 2358, the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2007 (read full text here). Hopefully, this forward-thinking legislation can be passed before this outrageous tampering with the meaning of being human becomes a prominent issue in the United States. Call both your senators and urge them to cosponsor and vote “Yes” on S. 2358, the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act!
 Paul Greenberg at Townhall writes about the recent iPSC breakthrough that allows researchers to obtain embryonic-like pluripotent stem cells from ordinary skin cells without creating or harming human embryos. Unfortunately, as Greenberg shows us, the push for unethical research that threatens tiny human life will continue. Excerpts:
It was heralded as not just a scientific but an ethical breakthrough:
Scientists in this country and Japan had found a new way to produce what are in effect embryonic stem cells - but without having to destroy human embryos to do so.
…
You may remember Ian Wilmut, the Scottish researcher who helped clone Dolly the sheep years ago. He was at least as enthusiastic. He announced he would abandon his efforts to clone - and then destroy - human embryos in order to produce stem cells, and would switch to the new, less politically and ethically troublesome method.
…
Anyone of even passing familiarity with the endless demands of human ambition for fame and/or fortune - the Greeks called it Hubris - will not be surprised to learn that the latest discovery has scarcely discouraged those eager to experiment with human embryos.
Read the entire article here.
 Bruce R. Williams, a family physician in Blue Springs, Missouri, shares in a recent op-ed piece how the recent breakthrough with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) affects the current battle over human cloning in Missouri. He shows how this new research, which derives embryonic-like pluripotent stem cells from ordinary skin cells without creating or harming human eggs or embryos, makes the push for human cloning totally unnecessary.
Excerpts:
The new method, referred to as “direct reprogramming” allows researchers to use skin cells to reproduce stem cells believed to be identical to those that were previously taken from human embryos. No cloning. No destruction of human life. No ethical controversy.
How big is this breakthrough? The scientist who created Dolly the cloned sheep, Ian Wilmut, has already announced he is abandoning cloning research in favor of the new method. Wilmut believes this new method holds more promise for finding treatments, including treating strokes, heart attacks, Parkinson’s and other diseases.
…
The Missouri Cures Without Cloning initiative seeks to prohibit the unnecessary research. It would ensure that human cloning is prohibited within the state of Missouri.
While this new scientific breakthrough holds the promise to new treatments for diseases including diabetes and Parkinson’s, why do some continue their battle to support human cloning?
The time has come to say no to human cloning in Missouri.
For more information on human cloning check out the AdvanceUSA human cloning/Missouri page or check the Missouri Cures Without Cloning website.
The International Herald Tribune reports on a reported case of human embryo cloning. To watch an MSNBC video report of this story click here. Excerpts from IHT:
Scientists in California say they have produced embryos that are clones of two men...
…
The process "involves creating human lives in the laboratory solely to destroy them for alleged benefit to others," said Richard Doerflinger, spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Citing the earlier work in Britain, he also said that as a scientific advancement, the new work was "very limited."
Other objections to cloning include concerns about health risks and exploitation if large numbers of women are asked to provide eggs.
Those objections are one reason that an alternative route to stem cells made headlines last November. Scientists reported a relatively simple way to turn skin cells directly into stem cells.
In other bioethics news, the Times Online reports that the House of Lords in the UK has approved research that creates human-animal hybrid embryos (human-animal cloning). LifeNews reports here.
For more information on these critical bioethics issues check the AdvanceUSA stem cell page, human cloning page, or adult stem cell page.
UPDATE: The plot thickens. The Daily Mail reports that the
cloning scientists actually cloned themselves.
The Daily
Mail reports on this outrageous
example of reducing human life to the status of a commodity. Excerpt:
Women are being given cut-price fertility treatment if
they donate eggs for controversial cloning research.
Those taking part in the taxpayer-funded scheme receive
half-price IVF treatment in return for giving half their eggs to scientists
working on human cloning.
Count
AdvanceUSA as one of the “critics” mentioned below as we share these concerns.
But critics say it reduces the sanctity of human life to
nothing more than the barter of body parts - and accused the researchers of
taking advantage of women when they are at their most vulnerable.
Here are
the two key problems with paying women for their eggs:
- the cheapening/destruction of
human life
- the exploitation of women
(dangerous procedures for benefits)
 No, AdvanceUSA has not become a Star Wars fan site, but we are concerned about the multi-part battle over human cloning going on in Missouri and its implications for the sanctity of human life. Here are two important items relating to this issue.
Bruce R. Williams, a Missouri physician, has written an important op-ed piece entitled “Human Cloning's Curtain Call” in which he explains how recent scientific breakthroughs make the quest for human cloning and embryonic stem cell research totally unnecessary. Now that scientists can obtain induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) from regular skin cells that have been coaxed into an embryonic-like state, the major argument for cloning human embryos for research is completely obliterated. It is also important for citizens to hear from people they trust (like doctors and scientists) who understand the science of the issue but also oppose violating ethical standards by using and destroying human life like a commodity. To hear about other scientists, doctors, and ethicists who oppose human cloning check out the Missouri Cures Without Cloning website.
Noted writer, lawyer, and bioethicist Wesley J. Smith responds to a recent column by cloning promoter Donn Rubin. Smith often exposes the distortions and outright deceptions frequently employed by the pro-cloning “Coalition for Life Saving Cures” and his latest piece, “The Mendacity of Missouri Coalition for Life Saving Cures”, calls Rubin to task for downplaying the significance of the recent breakthrough in ethical stem cell research, iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cells).
Check out AdvanceUSA’s human cloning page for more cloning information and news from Missouri.
LifeNews reports. Excerpt:
Statisticians at Virginia Commonwealth
University have released
the results of their annual poll in scientific research and found that more
Americans favor non-embryonic stem cell research than the kind that destroys
human life. The poll also finds that Americans are strongly opposed to human
cloning.
As the BBC reports, it appears Professor Ian Wilmut has finally faced the fact that the successes of ethical stem cell research indicate that human cloning is totally unnecessary. The professor makes clear his concerns are purely pragmatic as he does not share the ethical concerns of the pro-life community. The Telegraph also reports here.
Hopefully the human cloning promoters in Missouri will take notice.
Click here for more information on human cloning.
In what
is either an example of scientific ignorance or intentional distortion, the
main stream media seems intent on portraying Colorado’s proposed ballot initiative as
seeking to give rights to “human eggs” or “fertilized eggs.” As the New
York Times reports (distorts):
A proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that
would give legal rights to fertilized human eggs may be headed for the ballot
next year, raising the prospect of a heated local debate over abortion…
And from
the Associated
Press:
The Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for an
anti-abortion group to collect signatures for a ballot measure that would
define a fertilized egg as a person.
What the
New York Times and other media outlets apparently fail to understand is that
when a human egg is fertilized (naturally or in a lab) what results is no
longer an egg but an individual human embryo (a zygote to be scientifically specific).
This embryo is a separate human life which should benefit from all inalienable
human rights, and that is exactly what the proposed Colorado constitutional amendment would
do. To call an embryo a “fertilized egg” is like calling a newborn child
a “fetus outside the womb.”
It seems
very ironic that even though religious conservatives are accused of being scientifically
ignorant, it is actually the media that gets its science wrong.
For more
information on stem cells, human cloning,
and the amazing results coming from ethical adult stem cell research
check AdvanceUSA.org.
The
Telegraph reports that for the first time scientists
have successfully cloned monkeys. The
ability to clone primate embryos indicates that the unethical cloning of human
embryos for research is a real possibility. Once again, scientists have
shown what is possible. It is now up to mankind as a whole to demand what
is ethical. Do we believe that human lives can be used for scientific
experimentation, or do we believe science should be subservient to ethics?
As
another UK
paper, the Independent, reports:
A technical breakthrough has enabled scientists to create
for the first time dozens of cloned embryos from adult monkeys, raising the
prospect of the same procedure being used to make cloned human embryos.
For more
information on human cloning click here.
 Some couples
unable to have children naturally are choosing to adopt unwanted IVF embryos
(snowflakes). The Columbia Missourian reports on the case of Chad
and Tanya Tatro and others who chose embryo adoption because of their religious
convictions. Their stories belie the oft repeated excuse by embryonic
stem cell proponents that “leftover embryo will only be discarded if we don’t
use them for research.” Note: The graphic to the left is an actual
photograph of the Tatro’s adopted embryos. Excerpt from story:
Embryo adoption is a growing phenomenon, especially among
Christians whose faith has put them in the middle of the debates over abortion
and stem-cell research. For people like the Tatros, this relatively new,
controversial form of adoption is as much a moral issue as it is a personal
decision. Moreover, many conservative Christians are re-focusing their energy
on the culture wars in a way that emphasizes adoption and foster care as part
of a solution. Embryo adoption is an option created by the explosion of in
vitro fertilization, which often results in embryos that are subsequently
destroyed or donated to stem-cell researchers. Stoddart, the executive director
of California-based Nightlight Christian Adoptions, established Snowflakes in
1997 to give leftover frozen embryos a chance at life. A year later, the first
stem cells were extracted from a human embryo, and Stoddart said the new
science and the ethical debate it has generated have helped his business. “If
it weren’t for that, trying to get the word out would be much harder,” he said.
“Embryo adoption is more relevant when juxtaposed to the embryonic stem-cell
debate.”
Embryo
adoption raises a number of legal questions which are discussed in another
article in the Columbia Missourian.
Check out
the Snowflakes website
to find out more about this exciting program. Click here for more
information on stem cell research.
As reported earlier some pro-cloning members of the media have taken to utilizing the euphemistic “early stem cells” instead of the scientifically accurate term “embryonic stem cells” in an effort to mislead the public into thinking this type of research does not destroy human embryos. Wesley J. Smith has some insightful commentary in which he observes that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) does not recognize the term “early stem cell” and challenges the Kansas City Star (and reporter Kit Wagar in particular) to use scientifically accurate terms.
He also notes that the NIH clearly defines Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) as a type of cloning, unlike what many in Missouri’s pro-cloning movement would have people believe.
For more information on the latest efforts to truly and fully ban all forms of human cloning in Missouri check AdvanceUSA’s Missouri cloning page or visit Cures Without Cloning.
Welsey J. Smith reports on this example of anti-life, liberal spin.
Some pro-cloning reporters and publications in Missouri (and elsewhere) have taken to referring to embryonic stem cells as “early stem cells” in an effort to deceive the public. Slowly but surely the general public is realizing that embryonic stem cell research destroys or endangers tiny human lives. Using the euphemism “early” instead of the established scientific term “embryonic” is a desperate attempt to hide that fact.
For more information on the cloning issue in Missouri click here or check the other blog posts in the Missouri category. For more information on stem cells and cloning click here.
After narrowly losing a fight against a so-called “cloning ban” on the state-wide ballot last year, anti-cloning forces in Missouri have begun the effort to close the glaring loopholes and truly prohibit all forms of human cloning. The proponents of the new constitutional amendment to completely ban human cloning have to gather 139,181 - 151,619 signatures to get the measure on the 2008 ballot.
Their efforts hit a snag yesterday when the Secretary of State of Missouri (Robin Carnahan) released the official ballot summary which reads like an opposition talking point. Understandably anti-cloning groups charge the language is unfair and deceptive. To read the text of the ballot summary click here or continue reading.
Excerpt from Columbia Tribune blog post:
Curt Mercadante, a spokesman for Cures Without Cloning, said the language “in no way accurately reflects what we’re attempting to do.”
“Quite honestly, it sounds like a talking point out of an opposition group’s playbook,” Mercadante said. “What the amendment is attempting to do is very simple: attempting to prohibit all human cloning in the state of Missouri.”
Despite exaggerated claims of the potential of embryonic stem cell research, one disabled Missourian is speaking out against unethical research and supporting the efforts of Cures Without Cloning to truly ban human cloning in Missouri.
Excerpt:
"No matter what potential good may come of it, you know, you can't create and destroy human life for research," said Chelsea Zimmerman from Cures Without Cloning. "It's just wrong."
A car accident nearly eight years ago left Zimmerman in a wheelchair, but this did not change her view of embryonic stem cell research.
"Obviously, I would love to walk again, I would love to see other people out of their suffering," Zimmerman said. "We aren't trying to limit research, and we are in favor of cures, and there are cures and treatments happening with adult stem cells and adult stem cell research."
For more information visit Cures Without Cloning or the AdvanceUSA Missouri/Human Cloning page.
UPDATES:
Text of deceptive ballot summary below:
LifeNews
reports on the British government’s recent
decision to allow several forms of unethical research.
The British government has caved in to pressure from
scientists there and announced it is backing a revised bill in parliament for
human-animal hybrids, or chimeras. The creation of part-human, part-animal
embryos has pro-life advocates upset as they say it's another step in the
devaluation of human life.
As if
creating human chimera embryos for the sole purpose of killing them for their
stem cells weren’t enough LifeNews continues:
The bill also allows the creation of so-called
"savior siblings" for serious illnesses and not just life-threatening
ones. In addition to taking embryonic stem cells from the human being, the bill
would allow scientists to harvest organs and take "other types of tissue
and cells."
LifeNews article excerpt:
A New Jersey
court will hold an initial hearing on Monday on a lawsuit pro-life advocates have filed to stop a bill that would make taxpayers
fund embryonic stem cell research. They are challenging the bill Gov. Jon
Corzine signed asking voters to approve borrowing $450 million to fund grants
over the next 10 years. The lawsuit says the bill fails to disclose that
the money will also pay for human cloning.
For the
rest of the story click here.
 Many supporters of human cloning would have us believe that it is totally harmless. This New York Times pieces reveals that cloning scientists are having a hard time recruiting women to donate their eggs because of the dangers and discomforts of egg harvesting procedures. This has resulted in the increased demand for human/animal hybrid embryos (called chimeras) in order to make up for the lack of human eggs. When human life begins to be looked upon as a commodity for the use of others, such unethical procedures will be increasingly in demand.
A doctor
who specializes in spinal cord injuries has come out in support of Missouri’s “Cures
Without Cloning” ballot initiative to fully ban human cloning in the
state’s constitution. Excerpt:
Those
who allege human cloning is necessary in the pursuit of these cures and
treatments are providing false hope.
The
Cures Without Cloning initiative would only prohibit research involving human
cloning - nothing more, nothing less. There are plenty of promising research
methods, including many forms of stem-cell research, that do not involve human
cloning.
For more
information on this important pro-life cause in Missouri check the Cures Without Cloning website
or the AdvanceUSA human cloning page.
Last
November, a dangerous and deceptive amendment to the Missouri constitution was narrowly approved
by voters (51% - 49%). The amendment claimed to ban cloning but in fact
created a constitutional right to clone human embryos as long as they were
killed for their stem cells before 14 days of development. So cloning of
the “therapeutic” variety is actually legal in Missouri at this time.
Yesterday
morning a new amendment was proposed by the group Cures Without Cloning.
The proposed amendment would close the glaring loopholes in last year’s
amendment by clarifying the definition of cloning so that it is scientifically
accurate and so that it protects all innocent human life. The St. Louis
Post-Dispatch reports
here. Cures Without Cloning must obtain approximately 150,000
signatures in order to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot, but Missouri pro-lifers are
convinced that with the truth on their side they will see human cloning truly
banned in their state.
Some Missouri bloggers
covering this story are Rodney Albert at Press
On and the folks at Missourinet.
UPDATE:
More Missouri
bloggers will be linked here as blog posts on this issue become available:
UPDATE
2: Noted
bioethicist Wesley J. Smith exposes
an incident of media distortion regarding the new Missouri amendment on his
blog.
We can expect similar distortion from many (but not all) major news media
sources concerning the Missouri
anti-cloning movement in the days ahead.
UPDATE 3: David Freddoso at NRO has a
particularly helpful summary in his piece entitled ‘Third
Clone War: Missouri measure would repeal “right to clone”.’
For more
information on human cloning (including helpful diagrams) and the conflicts in Missouri check the
AdvanceUSA Missouri Cloning page.
Also, check the Cures Without Cloning
website.
To listen
to a recording of yesterday’s press conference click
here. To read the text of the new amendment click here
or continue reading.
US researchers announced that they have successfully extracted embryonic stem cells from cloned monkeys. Proponents of human cloning hail the development as progress toward miracle cures, but defenders of life realize that human cloning is now a clear and present danger.
South Korean cloning scientist Hwang Woo-suk has said he intends to continue his unethical research abroad. Hwang had been famous for advocating embryo research and cloning by promising “miracle cures” to desperate patients. Last year Hwang was embroiled in controversy when it became clear his research team had blatantly falsified data showing they had successfully cloned a human embryo. He was subsequently fired in disgrace.
For more information on the history of the Hwang scandal and how it reflects on the overall ethics problems of human cloning research check the stem cell page.
The U.S. House of Representatives will likely vote Wednesday on a bill that claims to “ban” human cloning but would, in reality, protect the cloning of human embryos, as long as they are killed for their stem cells. In essence, the phony "ban" would allow "therapeutic" cloning while prohibiting "reproductive" cloning. Advocates of unethical research have often used this strategy of proposing “phony cloning bans” to deceive people into supporting unethical research (particularly in Missouri in 2006).
For more important information on the dangers of human cloning click here (helpful diagrams and educational resources are near the bottom of the page).
|
|
|
| |