 |
          
  |
|
|
|
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.
| | |