The Dark Door of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Kevin Roeten

Recently Bush vetoed federal monies for Embryonic Stem Cell Research(ESCR). From the response, one would believe that he dumped all hopes for curing diseases down the commode. But this demonstrates just how misinformation can provoke a visceral emotional reaction that almost borders on irrationality. With nothing to gain except eternal life, Bush seems to have demonstrated courage under fire.

First, there was no ‘ban’ of ESCR, just a veto of using taxpayer funds for ESCR. Private organizations can, and are, utilizing fertilized embryos to attempt to combat certain diseases.

Second, the hopes generated by proponents of ESCR are dismal. What’s known is that ESCs show a disturbing tendency to turn into tumors when placed in animals. Researchers don’t even know how to stop these cancers from developing. As a result, there are “zero” successes using ESCs. Adult Stem Cells(ASC’s) on the other hand, have partial or total success treating 98 different diseases(as of this writing). Zero people have been helped with ESC’s. But tens of thousands have been helped with ASC’s.

Third, hype from actors such as Christopher Reeve(Superman) and Michael J. Fox(actor) teases a possible cure for their diseases. But no cure has been found. The fallacy that ESCR shows the most promise is a false hope.

Fourth, the gains by ASCs almost never get mentioned. Some of those include heart diseases, Krabbe Syndrome, Parkinson’s, leukemia, sickle-cell anemia, spinal cord injuries, and stroke. The cells can differentiate into cartilage, lung, liver, bone, nerve, skin, and many other types. ASC’s can come from the placenta, umbilical cord, hip bone, fat(from liposuction), and even from a cadaver(20 hours post mortem).

Fifth, it’s claimed that stems cells won’t be used by extremist groups. As can be seen above, adult stem cells(ASCs) differ greatly from embryonic stem cells(ESCs). Actually, 3 out of 4 stem cell types do not involve destruction of the fertilized embryo. Those stem cell types are ethical and used frequently.

Sixth, the uninformed believe that any body cell(e.g., those killed by hand washing, etc…) is somehow an embryo. The more intelligent realize that an ESC requires an egg and a sperm for fertilization and a life.

Seventh, it’s said that with so many fertilized embryos slated to be disposed of, it’s acceptable to use them for research. Being ‘trapped’ in liquid nitrogen shouldn’t affect our decisions. Consider a radical case in which a group of children are permanently trapped in a schoolhouse. It would not be morally acceptable to send in a remote control robotic device to harvest organs and kill the children.

Eighth, in a time when budgets are tight, North Carolina is about to pass H-1837 to spend another $10 million on ESCR. The passage of this bill will be an invite for any state using taxpayer funds for this purpose.

Just look at the money. No thinking corporation would spend money on ESCR, so they want the government to foot the bill. But there’s no patent on using ASC’s, and major money cannot be made using one’s own body cells. Even the Multiple Sclerosis Society is critical of Bush’s decision. Are they ignorant of existing science, or maybe just too worried about their own mortal life on earth?

Most importantly, science, common sense, and morality dictate that life starts at conception. Any destruction of that fertilized embryo is an elimination of that life that likely has a soul. Naysayers have never been able to prove when they think a life begins, when a human body has a soul, or even when a life exists as outlined in the Constitution. Mankind has never evolved when humans only thought about themselves.

The summation of the above is shocking. ESCR is believed to be a human ‘suffering’ savior, even though it causes tumors, likely immunogenic(rejected after implantation), adds additional weight to the budget deficit, has zero successful attempts, and has is likely of destroying life at its initial stages. ASCR, on the other hand, has successfully treated almost 100 illnesses, is not immunogenic in any case, and is completely ethical in that it never destroys a life. The choice seems like a “no-brainer”. It almost sounds as if emotionalism has trumped those espousing ESCR, and rendered them without any judgmental ability.
----------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net or kevin@kevinroeten.us.

###

As a Chemical Engineer, I love politics, and am an orthodox Catholic. I am a "Guest Columnist"('Asheville Citizen-Times'), a regular columnist(North Carolina Conservative), and a contributor to the book "Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture". Politics are usually covered with a skew from a Catholic perspective.

roetenks@charter.net