I listened to President Bush's statement on stem cell research last night and am somewhat confused about this issue.

What do the various Churches have to say about stem cell research from embryo cultures? It would seem there are some real ethical issues here.

(I'll register eventually, Phil, if that's what I need to do to reply later on).

I don't know what the "official answer" is, but it seems to me that anything that destroys a human embryo should be condemned by any Church--Catholic, for sure.

I'm not sure if a cloned embryo counts here, but it seems like it should.

CC

That's right, CC. At least from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church, an embryo is a human being, and if stem cell research calls for killing human embryos, then that's unacceptable. Stem cell research from non-embryonic cultures like bone marrow ought to be acceptable.

My larger question in this one is how did the President get the authority to make that decision? Why not Congress? Do we have here another monumental decision like abortion that never gets to be aired publicly and voted on?

And, keep in mind, all that this only pertains to federal funding of this research. There's absolutely nothing to prohibit a private company from using embryos as a source of stem cells.

This was such an astute thought from George Will that I couldn't abort it without mention:

quote:

A disquieting era of genetic manipulation is coming, one that may revolutionize human capacities, and notions of health. If we treat moral scruples impatiently, as inherently retrograde in a scientifically advancing civilization, we will not be in moral trim when--soon--our very humanity depends on our being in trim.

And since I can't find anywhere else for this, let's let Lincoln's eloquence speak concerning trampling on the rights of others. Perhaps he was speaking of the unborn.

quote:

What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea-coasts, our army and our navy. These are not our reliance against tyranny. All of those may be turned against us without making us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has placed in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prized liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you. � Abraham Lincoln

First of all, WAY TO GO, Brad, in digging up that old thread instead of starting a new one on the exact same topic. I'd forgotten that exchange took place here.

Will's (and Lincoln's) comments are right on. One thing they point up for me is the importance of an open, frank discussion in this country about when human life begins. I know this is a complicated topic, with many different approaches, but it's also a VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC, with many implications concerning abortion and, now, stem cell research. If we don't have clarity about what we're actually doing, here, it's really difficult to morally evaluate the actions.

Here's an article by Richard Strohman, professor emeritus in the Department of Cell and Molecular Biology; it speaks to the failure of the Human Genome Project, but also, indirectly, signals a caution about moving too quickly in terms of the research itself, which is actually quite flawed. The author isn't alone in this assessment, which the public hears little of.

http://www.psrast.org/strohmnewgen.htm


The cell therapies derived from human embryos and stem cells involves much less manipulation by scientists than the fantasy of altering genetic programs. And apparently bone marrow sources are proving to be as effective as embryonic cells.

http://www.stemcellresearch.or...rt/scr-2002-fall.htm

quote:

"The collapse of the one gene for one protein, and one direction for causal flow from basic codes to elaborate totality, marks the failure of [genetic] reductionism for the complex system we call cell biology."

quote:

In order to assemble a meaningful activity or story, a living cell uses a second informational system. Let me give an example. We know that at least 100 genes are related to a heart disease . These genes code for at least 100 proteins, some of which are enzymes. So you have a dynamic/ epigenetic network of 100 proteins, many biochemical reactions, and many reaction products. It is dynamic because it regulates changes in products over time, and it is epigenetic because it is above genetics in level of organization. The output from these networks change in response to signals from the body and from the environment. And some of these changes feed back to DNA to regulate gene expression. The key concept here is that dynamic/epigenetic networks have a life of their own - they have network rules - not specified by DNA: and we do not understand these rules.

Interesting�not that I understand even half of that. But might not this discovery (if it is a discovery) put into question the idea that we are all � our minds, bodies, feelings; everything in the macro world � nothing more than clever devices whose only purpose is to ensure the survival and transmission (and thus some type of immortality) for our DNA? We've discussed this concept before, but why should not the DNA be at the service of, say, us in the macro world? That is, the events in the outer world sort of are stashed and recorded in DNA as a means to reinforce that outer world (and it may be an outer world where less tangible things such as beliefs are encoded). That is, we're not DNA-centric. And considering that there may be a secondary informational system then one might look at various human passions, causes and ideologies in a new way. We very much do live and die for these things and they very much effect who goes forth and multiplies. All the various systems (such as Christianity vs. Islam, capitalism vs. communism, etc.) are in competition with each other for dominance. Our victories in the outside world might closely resonate with this cellular secondary information system. The DNA may just be "dumb". Thoughts and beliefs are the real fuel for change.

And just as an aside, a marvelous thing about both our system of government in the U.S. and our predominant religion is that both (what's that word used in Christianity?) "lower" themselves. These two entities do not align themselves around or in favor of genetics, so to speak, in regards to aiding the spread or dominance of any traits normally thought of in terms of genetics such as race. Consider today that most countries and associates of people in the world are still closely bound by racial ties. Most people in Japan are Japanese, that sort of thing. One could say that there is a genetic bind between these people and, from a selfish genetics point of view, they have reason to bind together. But strangely, our rules for forming larger organizational structures in America (and Christianity compliments this nicely) has nothing to do with race. In fact, our laws and Constitution actively work to undermine any sort of possible deeper genetic connection where, say, racial attributes are reinforced. We crash through that boundary and have become the melting pot of the world. We dilute what otherwise had seemed to be one of the major causes of conflict, one of the attributes fighting for dominance. We even wish to bring our advantages and systems to other people (Iraq, Afghanistan) who might otherwise fade away as a competitor if we did nothing.

Good reflections, Brad. And although we may be drifting from the specific topic of this thread, here's some links to research showing the way these epigenetic, or "secondary" systems work:

Click here.

Click on the author listing in blue and you'll get the abstract for each article.

This research, conducted over the past twenty years, shows not only the way environment shapes the nervous system and directly influences gene expression (epigenetics), but how the imprints of these interactions are retained and passed from generation to generation in ways that aren't random, but quite purposeful within organisms. The goal, it seems, isn't merely survival of the fittest, but survival as a means for increasing coherence/intelligence over generations. As you allude, how we treat ourselves and others is embodied as the future of this world.

And regarding nations that are still heavily weighted via race/tribe identity orientation, one can see how several generations of punitive behavior with no pluralisms to offer alternatives, as we see among many Muslim and Arab societies, generates a national spirit that can be globally counterproductive. When a father's honor killing of his daughter is essential for his and the family's/tribe's/nation's own psycho-spiritual survival, then "survival of the fittest" has clearly been put to the service of this "secondary" program. OTOH, the more coherence/emotional intelligence transferred between generations, the more resilence there is for humanizing pluralism. Little wonder Islamic fundamentalism requires insularity re: global relations, and abhors merit-based civil institution building.

But as for this thread, we might consider the importance of only using the parent's or siblings stem cells for treatment, since such cells, even though dedifferentiated, contain the environmental imprints of the host. There's actually been some speculation about this among cardiologists who've noticed heart transplant patients "inheriting" the memories and desires of the donor. OTOH, such transfering of cellular intelligence may be a random way of increasing complexity within society, a sort of biological desegration program. Personally, I'd rather inherit stem cell information from people whose lives I've known. For example, see what you can find under "The Heart's Code," and the story of a heart donor recipient who allegedly had dreams of the donor's having murdered somebody, which led to solving the case. Hard to believe.

quote:

We must now ask two questions. First, where did the Human Genome Project go wrong? That is, where did the mistaken idea originate that complex human diseases could be traced to one or a few major genes? Second, why is the new science of gene management-epigenetic-dynamic biology-not in the news?
In response to the first question, there are indeed some diseases that are traceable to single genes. I worked on one, muscular dystrophy, for 25 years. This group of diseases has provided a simple model for molecular medical genetics seeking answer in terms of a simplified formula: one gene leads to one disease.

One thing I've learned is that it's not "one gene, one disease" (apparently only 2% of diseases can be traced to one gene). Not that I ever supposed it was that simple. I'm not sure what I thought.

quote:

For the vast majority of cases, human diseases are multifactorial: They are influenced by many genes interatcting with one another and by a vast array of signals forming the cellular environment (nutrient supply, hormones, electrical signals from other cells, etc), and all of these will reflect the external world of the organism as a whole.

My education is strongly deficient in biology, chemistry and electronics so I like so soak up as much of this type of stuff as I can�if it's interesting or if it's presented so as to make it interesting.

quote:

But HGP scientists thought, and still do, that they could find a small number of genes that were the key to these diseases. However, this strategy is flawed, because for most multifactorial diseases affected by many genes those genes have small, not large effects. And genes with small effects are very hard to find. Even when found, one would have no way of predicting the disease outcome unless one also knew the "initial conditions' surrounding the developmental history of the individual. In addition, most multifactorial diseases like cancer take many years, even lifetimes, to develop, and one would have to know all the historical details to make predictions. Finally, the strategy is flawed because it takes all causality back to genes rather than to genes coupled with dynamics: the duration of exposure to changing environments. Here again lung cancer is instructive since the disease is dependent on the dose (number of cigarettes) and the duration (number of years) of exposure.

And thus the real problem gets quite difficult. Maybe eating right, shedding stress and not making a pass at MM are the surest ways to stay healthy.

quote:

We thought the program was in the genes, and then in the proteins encoded by genes. But, as already mentioned, knowing all the individual proteins would not reveal a program; for that you need to know the rules of protein networks that are coextensive with the cell itself. The program location is the cell as a whole, and the cell, through signaling pathways, is connected to larger wholes and to the external world.

I thought that described the situation fairly well.

WC said: And although we may be drifting from the specific topic of this thread

Perhaps we need a general thread on biology or perhaps one on the ethics of biology or rename this one "Primordial Ooze and Up".

Click on the author listing in blue and you'll get the abstract for each article.

Okay�

quote:

Here we report that increased pup licking and grooming (LG) and arched-back nursing (ABN) by rat mothers altered the offspring epigenome at a glucocorticoid receptor (GR) gene promoter in the hippocampus.

Oops, I think I just stumbled into a rodent porn room. Here's another one:

quote:

In part, these effects can involve an activation of ascending serotonergic pathways and subsequent changes in the expression of transcription factors that might drive glucocorticoid receptor expression in the hippocampus.

I think I just inadvertently bumped into JB.

The goal, it seems, isn't merely survival of the fittest, but survival as a means for increasing coherence/intelligence over generations.

Interesting, WC. There are many implications in that, I think. What we may be seeing is not the survival of rote, rigid genetic sequences, although DNA is surely at least equivalent to non-volatile RAM where certain information can be permanently saved for some other processes to work on later. From another perspective, because of these dynamic processes, it gives much more credence to those systems of belief where one's world is very much a result of how one thinks (thinking of everything from "The Power of Positive Thinking" to Wayne Dyer's schtick). Are there subtle internal changes inside us that are effected by our beliefs? (I believe Phil has mentioned that indeed this is the case.) But no matter these changes, our DNA stays the same, although if we reproduce we successfully pass it on. Only in this way are our "positive" thoughts or successful behaviors passed on�or is it? Perhaps one can see all the attributes of culture � religion, politics, economics, etc. � coming into play as an external storage medium which is nearly as permanent as DNA but not as precise, but certainly quite dynamic and influential.

I suspect that this is why our passions run so high when it comes to our ideas, whether they be encoded in politics or economics. And it's not our DNA driving this. DNA simply records our progress. It's our behaviors and ideas that drive life.

It's terribly difficult to see how life could ever have got started. The physics and the chemistry of it are extraordinarily problematic. And if it was nothing but a simple matter of random chance and the right chemicals being in the right place at the right time then why in all the oceans of the world do we not see the beginnings of the evolution of life even now? Are conditions today different somehow, perhaps amenable only for the existence of life but not for the creation of life? Do we just not notice these beginnings because we don't know what they would look like or what to look for?

But what if life itself requires or is nurtured by more spiritual realms? What if there is something more than physicality driving evolution? It seems possible to me simply because, as we've touched on in other threads, there seems no inherent need for consciousness. We could function just as well as biological creatures even if we lacked awareness. Perhaps our awareness costs natural selection very little. We get it for free, so to speak. Considering that natural selection is not a process without waste, it's usually pretty efficient. Maybe some other paradigm other than "random chance" has better explanatory power, or at least equally compelling explanatory power.

When a father's honor killing of his daughter is essential for his and the family's/tribe's/nation's own psycho-spiritual survival, then "survival of the fittest" has clearly been put to the service of this "secondary" program.

Or, to put it another way, WC, if our non-DNA storage systems can be beneficial, they can also be pathological. It's the same with DNA. It can mutate into forms that will kill an organism (internally, in this case).

Let's say, for instance, the belief in Christ and Christian principles brings life or is more compatible with life, just in a general sense, not in a sense that this or that particular sect has a better change of surviving because they are all "tight" Christians who stick together. Think of the Christian ethics (opposition to abortion, for one, or western ideas of democracy) that lead to the enhancement of other cultures; cultures that are quite disconnected from Christianity. We're sure to see prosperous and dynamic developments in the years ahead in Afghanistan. Technically, this will do little to strengthen Christianity but it should greatly strengthen life (as opposed to the killings and oppression that was previously occurring in the region).

Contrast that with some of th anti-life influences in the world right now.

Thanks for those reflections, Brad. It is inspiring to see how the body enshrines our intentions in ways that are passed on so deeply.

And very funny commentary . . . .

Cures That Don't Kill
By S. T. Karnick

quote:

A critical point that is too often missed in the debate over stem cell therapies in the United States is that so-called adult stem cells (ASCs) have shown great success in doing the very things that advocates of embryonic stem cell (ESC) harvesting hope to achieve with ESCs.

quote:

"A South Korean woman paralyzed for 20 years is walking again after scientists say they repaired her damaged spine using stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood."

quote:

As this case vividly illustrates, all the evidence appears to show that there is no need whatever to argue over the morality of using embryonic stem cells, with the attendant killing of developing human fetuses. We can already do much more with adult stem cells, and all indications are that there are countless possibilities for their use that are still untapped. This should be very good news for everyone, of course, but supporters of ESCs seem not to want to hear it, and the press appear to be taking their orders from them.

The Adult Answer
Moving beyond the embryonic-stem-cell debate.
By Michael Fumento

More on the adult vs. embryonic stem cell debate. It�s a bit dry but it does contain a plethora of links which might be useful.

Brad:

That's a very helpful article.

If it turns out that adult stem cells are capable of being used therapeutically as successfully as embryonic stem cells, then well . . . the cat is out of the bag. I mean, we probably already know what's in the bag, with all the noise and everything. Could this just be another left-wing, pro-choice platform struggling to keep its face as the real world evolves underneath and around it?

Yes, very interesting!

Considering the BIG DEAL John Kerry and Reagan's son made about this during the run-up to the election, I wonder why Bush didn't make some of these points. I also wonder if Kerry et al didn't harp on the need for embryonic lines precisely because Bush was opposing them and he could lend to the perception that Bush was opposed to r & d in this area?

What Child Is This?
Microscopic Dot or Imago Dei?
By Colleen Carroll Campbell

quote:

The utilitarian arguments are compelling. Michael Kinsley argued in a recent issue of The New Republic that the decision about supporting embryonic stem-cell research boils down to a decision between "you � versus that microscopic dot." Not surprisingly, Kinsley predicted a lopsided loss for the human embryo when its rights are pitted against the self-interest of the American voter.

Considered in Kinsley's terms, opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research is indeed a tough sell. But the debate changes when we consider that each of us began life as "a microscopic dot." If the 82 percent of Americans who affirm Jesus's divinity thought more carefully about the implications of their religious beliefs � that when God himself began his life on earth, his human body was no larger than a "microscopic dot" � public opinion on killing embryos might change dramatically.

To even a religious believer, a ban on stem cell research is nonsensical. Some microscopic goo on a subatomic level is not human life. After all, when it comes to helping millions of people who have chronic debilitating conditions and the possibility to save millions of lives, there's nothing like taking ancient parables written thousands of years ago literally.

It always amazes me that, the deeply religious, who claim to have a union with God, continue to exercise prejudicial treatment on people. No euthanasia, no stem cell research, no abortions, no homosexuality---nothing prejudicial there. But capital punishment for Christian followers, that's ok.

I, for one, would like to follow the principles Jesus probably would have liked us to live by: treat everyone equally and generously, show tolerance and acceptance, treat others with dignity and respect, and be loving, not spiteful and prejudicial. But who cares about advancing civilization? Lets regress by believing ancient fairytales.

I, for one, would like to follow the principles Jesus probably would have liked us to live by: treat everyone equally and generously, show tolerance and acceptance, treat others with dignity and respect, and be loving, not spiteful and prejudicial.

Drew, does that apply to human embryos as well? And if adult stem cell research overwhelming looks more promising than human embryo stem cell research (and it's sure looking that way), then can you see how some of the zealotry on the pro-embryo stem cell research side tends to look in actuality more like the Looney-Tune picture you try to paint of the inflexible, intolerant whacko Christians?

It always amazes me that, the deeply religious, who claim to have a union with God, continue to exercise prejudicial treatment on people. No euthanasia, no stem cell research, no abortions, no homosexuality---nothing prejudicial there.

I see that it's called "prejudice" when it's something you don't agree with. No doubt it's called "ethics" or "social justice" when it's something that you do agree with. But surely we're all arguing morality and ethics. Surely you're arguing for your sense of what is right. Surely you see that Christians are doing the same thing. And surely you don't think that your idea of the way things should be is inherently higher up on the food chain and free from such prehistoric notions as morality? You're simply offering another type. On what is this morality based, I wonder?

I don't happen to agree with the Catholic position on euthanasia. But that's another story. But I know *why* they hold such a position and I respect that position greatly. I find it more consistent than any other position on the issue (including mine�but I'm working on it). And I'm not sure where you got the idea that Catholics (this is a Catholic site) are for the death penalty. Do your research next time. Maybe Christians aren't the monolithic stereotype that you've been taught.

quote:

Originally posted by drew:
[qb] . . .Some microscopic goo on a subatomic level is not human life. . .[/qb]

An embryo is not "microscopic goo" and it's not "subatomic."

I'd like to welcome you to the forum, drew, but your entry is trollish, misinformed, and inconsiderate of views different from your own.

Let's see what happens next. Can you do any better?

drew,

GOD LOVES YOU!!! Ever since he formed you in your mother's womb. he loves you! It's very important to understand this procedure. There is a little baby with it's arms and legs waving and kicking and it's head is still inside the mother. Scissors are stabbed into the back of the head and the brains are sucked out. This is a partial birth abortion. Any word besides "baby" is a euphemism for murder. Anyone who sees a partial birth abortion knows this is a baby. It has to operate under secrecy and lies.

God loves homosexuals. I have seldom met one I did
not like personally. I just do not believe in teaching six-year-olds that they can choose their gender. They already know that, if they have been to the bathroom that day.

Do you have any other post-modern fairy tales?

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

drew,

By all means tell us what you think. Here is what I think: We print "In God We Trust" on our money, but perhaps we ought to print "In Money We Trust" on our God. It is love of our profits and our pleasures that have caused us to offer our children up to Moloch. Our consciences have been seared. We are as
brute beasts without natural affection. Mother Teresa felt sorry for America. She said while other nations may be poor materially, many who live hear are spiritually poor. I include myself in this, but at least my blinders are being removed. This is a national tragedy, IMO.

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

Our consciences have been seared.

Yes, we've certainly come a long ways where, instead of giving a reasonable benefit of the doubt to the living (sort of like in baseball�the tie goes to the runner), we have people hitting the road to try to convince us that giving the benefit of the doubt to the living is on par with being intolerant, unloving, homophobic and whatnot. How successful the pro-abortion movement has been! Our consciences have indeed been seared, MM. And I'm not holding Drew up for any special treatment (or mistreatment) in this regard. Who among us doesn't hold ignorant notions? Who among us doesn't confidently believe something that is wrong? But IF this is true (and seems self-evident to me) then the solution is to question our assumptions. What if many of the people who hold religious views are not mind-numbed robots who actually can reason themselves out of a wet paper bag and who sincerely do care, to the best of their ability, about protecting the innocent.

If there is any brainwashing involved then I would take an honest look at the pro-abortion movement. (Pro-choice is a misnomer...since when have they ever glorified the choice if the choice is not to abort?)