Stem cells: fetal & research is fatal.

The growing of spare parts

A scientific team headed by Dr. James Thomson, and based at universities in Wisconsin, U.S.A., and Haifa, Israel, reported in November, 1998, that they had developed 'immortal' cells which they could continue to culture indefinitely. This achievement was welcomed by the media with the usual accolades as another scientific breakthrough.

Biological facts

This research resulted in the death of human embryos. As all biological textbooks agree, a human being is conceived once a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum. The resulting single-cell zygote rapidly splits in two. Each new cell splits in two again and again. This process is called "cleavage." When the clump of cells is approximately 60 to 150 in number, a cavity develops. This occurs on the fourth day of life. The embryo is then called a blastocyst. At five to seven days, the blastocyst starts to implant itself in the wall lining of the uterine cavity, a process which takes a further five to seven days.

During the process of in-vitro-fertilization (IVF) doctors fertilize many ova at the same time. Of the embryos which result, three are introduced into the mother's uterus and the remaining ones are "stock-piled" and kept for future use in case the first attempt at IVF fails. It was stock-piled embryos that were used in this research. The cells from these embryos that were chosen for culture were taken from the actual body of the embryo, the 'inner cell mass' of the blastocyst. These cells were then propagated artificially in an undifferentiated condition or stimulated to undergo specific lines of differentiation. The researchers succeeded in getting them to grow into the cells that make the tissues of bone, skin, gut, etc. The time at which these cells were taken from the embryo was the same as that at which if normally located in the uterus, the embryo would have implanted itself in the uterus. These 'harvested' cells are called embryonic stem cells (ES).

Other researchers use cells taken from the bodies of aborted fetuses.

Benefits claimed

Those endorsing the use of stem cell research list the following benefits:

1) Specific cell types can be grown: skin, bone, heart muscle, nervous tissue.

2) A limitless resource of cells for drug research and tissue transplantation.

3) Possible life-long treatment of diseases which result from the dysfunction of one or a few cell types - juvenile onset diabetes, Parkinsonism.

4) The prevention of immune rejection of transplanted cells.

5) Repair of tissues damaged by heart attacks.

6) Blood cells for use in bone marrow transplants.

7) Staving off the aging process.

8) New kinds of vaccines.

Dr. Janet Rossant, one of Canada's leading stem-cell researchers, and senior scientist at the Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, has said that this research "could change the face of medicine."

A moral problem remains however. Are we, as a society, so avid for instant cures that we are willing, as Dr. Baird, a professor at the University of British Columbia, has put it, to "start to create human embryos as a means to an end?... It can lead to turning the embryo into a commodity".

Catholic moral teaching

What is technologically possible is not necessarily for that very reason morally permissible.

1. "The transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a personal and conscious act and as such is subject to the all-holy laws of God.... For this reason, one cannot use means which would be licit in the transmission of life in plants and animals"-Pope John XXl11, Mater et Magistra, 111: AAS 53 (1961) 447.

2. "Human procreation requires on the part of the spouses responsible collaboration with the fruitful love of God"--Gaudium et Spes, 51.

3. "The gift of human life must be actualized in marriage through the specific and exclusive acts of husband and wife, in accordance with the laws inscribed in their person and their union" --Gaudium et Spes, 51.

4. As regards experimentation on the embryo, the following holds. "As with all medical interventions on patients, one must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect its life and integrity and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed towards its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its survival"--Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987.

5. "Medical research must refrain from operations on live embryos, unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm to the life or integrity of the unborn child and the mother"--Instruction, as above.

In this recent research, the embryos experimented on were not conceived as a result of sexual intercourse in marriage, but artificially in a culture medium by mixing ova, aspirated from the mother's ovary by needle and syringe, and sperm obtained most likely by masturbation.

The embryos from which stem-cells were removed were disposed of and they perished.

Clearly such stem-cell research is morally wrong. It fails to respect both the life and dignity of the unborn child and the dignity of marriage. Human embryos should not be treated like lab rats. There is little doubt that the researchers have good ends in mind. However, good ends do not justify evil means. Dr. Rossant admits, "There are those who would say it is not acceptable ... but I would argue that the gain in being able to maintain cells that could potentially be used to cure many humans outweighs the ethical use of fetal material." Dr. Rossant seems not to realize that the death of the embryo is an intrinsic moral evil which can never be justified. She also assumes that one can quantify and balance off good moral effects against bad moral effects. This is meaningless- there are no units of good and bad to measure. This concept of measurement applies only to science.

The research laboratory has now become a factory for human spare parts, in which human beings are sacrificed on a regular basis. Thus modern research, heavily financed by industry, is in the process of creating a vast market in human tissues. Why have we come to this? Because, since the eighteenth century, many intellectuals have lost their faith in God and no longer even ask the fundamental philosophical questions about the origins and purpose of life. They also assume that there is no such thing as an objective moral good. Modern man holds that freedom has no relationship to the laws of God or to the truth. But Pope John Paul 11 has issued a challenge to this modem refusal to look squarely at all reality. He says that man cannot afford not to reflect on the "ultimate purpose of personal existence, ... the theme of philosophy and theology alike". He asks, "How can it be an exercise in true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization?" (Encyclical Fides et Ratio, Oct. 1998).

Twenty years ago, IVF horrified everyone. Now, growing demand has made it socially acceptable. For a modern society which holds that morality is not objective but relative to time, place, and culture, social acceptability is equated with moral justification. This kind of thinking has already led to the acceptance of IVF to achieve sex selection. The medical profession long ago acquiesced to the public demand for the abortion of unborn children with abnormalities, and, as we all know, in much larger numbers, of normal unborn children. It is only a matter of time before the public will demand designer babies. We are almost at the point where parents will choose certain traits (e.g. skin, hair, and eye colour, waist size, height, weight, body build, intelligence, talents etc.) and then reject others (e.g. baldness, obesity, shortness, and of course all possible diseases).

In January 1999 it was reported that scientists are considering the possibility of "creating new species from scratch". Dr. Ventor, of the Institute of Genomic Research in Maryland, said that they still hesitate to do this however. What he had in mind was the creation of a synthetic bacterium which could be tailored to clean up environmental pollution or deliver drugs. His reason for hesitation was that such an organism could be used for the purpose of biological warfare.

It is of interest to note that in January, 1999, the National Institutes for Health in the U.S.A. (NIH) stated that they intended to fund stem-cell research. This news was warmly greeted by many of the scientific community involved in this work. The news from the NIH is indeed a bad omen.

There may be, however, some light at the end of the tunnel. Christopher Bjomson, a Canadian scientist, reported in the journal Science that a Calgary team of researchers had succeeded in changing certain brain cells in mice into blood-producing marrow cells. Angelo Vescori, a co-author of the study, said, "I think, I hope, it's going to work in people; ... your body turns into a (stem-cell) reservoir, and since you are using your own cells on yourself, you bypass all problems of tissue rejection" (Toronto Star, Jan. 22, 1999). This research suggests that it may yet be possible to grow new tissues without causing the death of human embryos.

John Shea is a retired diagnostic radiologist and a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada, and is Catholic Insight's contributor on medical and bioethical issues.