Bioethicist priest: Why the Church says 'yes' to adult stem cell research and 'no' to

theBeacon ^ | 10.25.07 | MICHAEL WOJCIK

[Coleus]

CONVENT STATION - Medical research has been moving at such a lightening pace, it almost doesn't seem far off that doctors in the future might tell many of their seriously ill patients, "Take two stem cells and call me in the morning."  That joke, taken from a political cartoon, points to the fact that the rapidly developing field of stem cell research is growing at a breakneck pace, giving hope of cures to countless patients suffering from diseases such as brain cancer and heart disease and conditions such as spinal cord injury.

About these medical developments, the Catholic Church asks a critical question - what are the sources of these stem cells for these treatments and research?, declared Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a noted bioethicist, who spoke Oct. 16 at the College of St. Elizabeth here.  The question is essential, because the Church supports research on adult stem cells. Research using adult stem cells, doesn't destroy human life - in particular, the lives of the pre-born destroyed in embryonic stem cell research. Thus far, all known cures and treatments in the stem cell research have come from adult stem cells, said Father Pacholczyk, education director of the Philadelphia-based National Catholic Bioethics Center.

The Church says, "no" to embryonic stem cell research because the embryo does not survive the extraction of the stem cells, said priest of the Diocese of Fall River, Mass., who spoke on "Cutting through the Spin on Stem Cells and Cloning" at CSE.   "Most forms of stem cell research are morally acceptable. The Church is not simply about 'no.' Most of what she says is about 'yes,'" said Father Pacholczyk, who earned a doctorate in neuroscience at Yale University, conducted post-doctoral research at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School and studied advanced dogmatic theology and bioethics in Rome.

Stem cells offer so much hope for patients because they offer tremendous possibility - scientists can turn them into any type of desired tissue, including those for the heart, spinal cord and pancreas, Father Pacholczyk told a audience of more than 200 people, including doctors, pro-life advocates, CSE students and citizens.  Still people from many quarters of society, among them scientists, actors, politicians and members of the media, have been sounding an ever-louder drumbeat to push government officials to finance embryonic stem cell research. They claim embryonic stem cell research offers the greatest hope for cures to diseases such as Parkinson's, even though science suggests otherwise, the priest said.

Issue arrives in New Jersey

Father Pacholczyk's presentation was timely, because on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 6, this hot-button issue will be coming to New Jersey. Residents will be asked to approve a bond issue that authorizes the state to borrow $450 million to fund stem cell research for 10 years, which the N.J. Catholic Conference, the state's public policy arm of the state's bishops, adamantly opposes. Father Pacholczyk echoed the state's bishops' stance on the bond issue, and urged Catholics and other concerned citizens to vote against the measure, which OKs funds for both adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research.  In his often poignant talk, Father Pacholczyk asked Catholics to consider the "hype" presented by proponents of pro-embryonic stem cell research, which has yielded no cures so far.

"We believe that not to develop the (embryonic stem cell) technology would do great harm to more than 100 million patients in the Untied States alone, who are affected by diseases potentially treatable by the many medical applications of human embryonic stem cells," the priest said, quoting Thomas Okaram, president of Geron Bo-Med Limited, a U.K.-based company that has been pushing for such research.  In that same line of thinking, researchers argue that these embryos, which are usually "spare" embryos from vitro fertilizations, can be used to find cures rather be discarded, said Father Pacholczyk, an internationally known speaker on bioethics.

"That's a very seductive argument but it treats them as objects rather than subjects of infinite and inestimable value," said  Father Pacholczyk during his talk, which marked CSE 12th annual pro-life lecture for October, which the Catholic Church marks as Respect Life Month.  The researchers' apparent lack of respect for human life extends to the other methods they use or hope to use in extracting stem cells, he said. They collect another type of cell, a "germ cell," from aborted fetuses. In Massachusetts, they hope to change the law so they can make embryos for experimentation. Researchers also have been working on human cloning, he said.  Here's the trouble - many scientists view embryos as nothing more than "a bunch of dots," Father Pacholczyk said.  "These 'dots' are exactly from where you and I came from," the priest said. "The challenge is to reconnect with exactly where it is we came from. This not easy to do."

Adult, cord stem cell use success stories

¥ Cancer: Years ago, 21-year-old Patrizia Durante, pregnant with her daughter, was diagnosed with a severe form of leukemia and was given six months to live. Doctors delivered the baby early and gave her chemotherapy, which failed to arrest the cancer. So they introduced stem cells from her daughter's umbilical cord (the Church approves stem cells from umbilical cords and placenta blood) into Durante's body, which eliminated the cancer cells. She is now cancer-free.

¥ Heart disease: German doctors have extracted from heart-attack victims stem cells from their own bone marrow and introduced them into their damaged heart muscles or coronary arteries. These cells repair scar damage to the heart muscle.

¥ Spinal cord injury: Laura Dominguez of Texas was paralyzed from the waist down. She went to Portugal, where doctors extracted cells from her nasal cavity and used them to bridge the damaged site in her spinal cord. With physical therapy, Dominguez can flex her foot and walk short distances with braces. This type of treatment isn't a cure yet, but is "a reminder that we stand on the cusp of new era of regenerative medicine" using stem cells, said Father Tad Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

Acceptable sources of stem cells used to save lives

¥ Adult stem cells: extracted from adults with their consent from blood, skin, olfactory bulb, bone marrow, testicles, fat from liposuction as well as from other tissues.

¥ Pregnancy-related tissues: umbilical cord, placenta and amniotic fluid.

¥ Those in the womb who have died of natural causes from miscarriages-with the parents' permission.
¥ Cadavers up to 20 hours after death: neural cells.

- Source: Father Tad Pacholczyk, National Catholic Bioethics Center

[brooklyn dave]

Good post. Yes, medicine is progressing at break necy speed. I can say that my ethics mirror exactly those of the RC Church, but they are saying something very important; folks there is another way to do this thing—and with good results. Why is there such a nihilistic insistance on using embryos when there is another way of achieving the good medicine is trying to accomplish.

Not that I expect the RC Church to condone the RU pill, the morning after pill or even a plain old condom. They don’t, they won’t and at least they are standing their ground. But why are the pro-choice folks so enamored with a barbaric procedure such as abortion—let alone partial birth abortion when other methods may be available (won’t make these methods any more ethical in the eyes of the Church)—just less barbaric. Makes you wonder if some of these folks aren’t possessed by the spirit of a human heart eating Aztec sun god needing the sacrifice of innocent human life.

[Gondring]

It’s a shame that the RCC is behind the times in research, and would rather see embryos discarded like trash than to participate in research. They’d rather a person die than to have the cells of an already long-dead embryo go to their cure.

[Pyro7480]

Only the embryos that have been destroyed for their stem cells are “dead.” The rest, who are frozen, are in suspended animation.

[Gondring]

They are against using the lines of stem cells harvested more than a decade ago.

[Coleus]

Speaking of being behind the times, embryonic stem cell research doesn’t work; I’m surprised that you don’t know that.

[Gondring]

Thus far, all known cures and treatments in the stem cell research have come from adult stem cells [...]

Is that surprising, considering the first human clinical trial for embryonic stem cells was approved only three days after President Obama took office?!?

There's promise in this branch of research, even if there are many successes with adult/iPSC research.

Researchers produce blood in lab from embryonic stem cells

Researchers Use Human Embryonic Stem Cells To Kill Cancer Cells

Human embryonic stem cells become functional pancreatic cells

[Gondring]

That optical storage stuff doesn't work...magnetic tapes are where it's at!

</sarc>

[Coleus]

escr started in 1981 and to date there has NOT been one successful human clinical trial.

[Coleus]

.

[Gondring]

Please tell me the date of the first human clinical trial.

[Gondring]

I hate to break it to you, but the successful iPSC work was based on embryonic stem cell research.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"It’s a shame that the RCC is behind the times in research, and would rather see embryos discarded like trash than to participate in research."

First off, it's not the Church being "behind the times in research," it's some researchers being "behind the times in ethics." W-a-a-y behind the times. Following WWII, there was pretty much a consensus that scientists would not use research that derived from non-consenting experimental subjects. But I guess lessons learned have to be re-learned in every generation.

Second, it's not true that the Church "would rather see embryos discarded." You must have misunderstood something in your caeful reading of ethics, there. The Church would approve the adoption of these embryonic human beings in the wombs of "rescue moms," as such women volunteer. It's already happening with the participation of embryo adoption agencies--- though not nearly to the extent needed.

The Church has never approved either the in-vitro creation, nor the discarding/destruction, of a human embryo.

When discussing the snail-like "progress" of ESCR in developing anything that's medically usable (present therapeutic applications: -zero-), you consistently ignore the fact that it has never been illegal in the U.S. to use human germ cell lines of whatever provenance, or human embryos themselves, for experimentation. States are free to fund it. Universities are free to fund it. Consortia of private investors and speculators are free to fund it.

And why are they apparently lacking that good-ol' can-do spirit, that entrepreneurial enthusiasm? As you know --- because I've told you --- the Wall Street Journal made this pretty clear two years ago:

James Thomson, the first scientist to derive stem cells from a human embryo, made this point clearly just a few weeks ago: "I don't want to sound too pessimistic because this is all doable, but it's going to be very hard." He added, "those transplantation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time."

"Leading British stem cell expert Lord Winston has been even more blunt: "I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody's lifetime, for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will."

Bottom line: private investment money for ESCR has been, at best, a trickle because of the remoteness of the possibility that it will ever pay off. Because as I said, after millions of dollars spent and cutting-edge experiments on 5 continents, all it's been able to produce in vivo is tumors.

But I repeat myself.

[Coleus]

I hate to break it to you, but the successful iPSC work was based on embryonic stem cell research. >>>

Um, I hate to break it to you, but ipsc work does NOT involve using embryos. In order to create and obtain these cells, the scientists, not the RCC or any other church, used retroviruses and gene therapy.

[SuziQ]

They’d rather a person die than to have the cells of an already long-dead embryo go to their cure.

The stem cells don't come from DEAD embryos. The embryos are ALIVE, at least until the stem cells are extracted.

The Church HAS kept up with the research, and she sees, as does anyone who honestly wants to cure disease, that ADULT stem cells are the only ones that have actually worked for that purpose.

[Gondring]

Adult stem cells didn’t work until they were tried. Embryonic stem cells have just had their first human clinical trial approved. Of course they haven’t helped yet.

[Gondring]

The stem cells don't come from DEAD embryos.

Actually, that's true.

The embryos are ALIVE, at least until the stem cells are extracted.

That's not true. The cells used in these experiments come from subculturing a line, not from a live embryo.

[Gondring]

The Church would approve the adoption of these embryonic human beings in the wombs of "rescue moms," as such women volunteer. It's already happening with the participation of embryo adoption agencies--- though not nearly to the extent needed.

And if people don't buy the bread, you'd rather it be discarded than given to the hungry?

By your own implication ("not nearly to the extent needed"), embryos are discarded. That is occurring...it's a fact. And given that end, or the alternative (participation in research), the RCC chooses against the latter.

And why are they apparently lacking that good-ol' can-do spirit, that entrepreneurial enthusiasm?

Perhaps because there's funding available elsewhere.

"[...] those transplantation therapies should work but it's likely to take a long time." --James Thomson, pointing out the promise of the research path.

"[...] be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will." --Lord Winston, downplaying hopes, but not saying they won't be helpful.

Bottom line: private investment money for ESCR has been, at best, a trickle because of the remoteness of the possibility that it will ever pay off. Because as I said, after millions of dollars spent and cutting-edge experiments on 5 continents, all it's been able to produce in vivo is tumors.

That claim is demonstrably false, but I have no reason to believe you will stop using it even if I falsify it again. However, any honest third party can do a Google search and see that you're wrong.

But I repeat myself.

Yes, you do...despite being wrong.

[Gondring]

Um, I hate to break it to you, but ipsc work does NOT involve using embryos.

Sorry, but even if there aren't embryonic cells used now, they were used in early stages of the research. Shinya Yamanaka studied embryonic stem cells to identify the most active genes in them, to know what to try inserting into non-pluripotent cells with retroviruses.

Without the look at embryonic stem cells, the Kyoto team wouldn't have known what to do to get the embryonic stem cell action.

[SuziQ]

They originally come from embryos that are alive. You can’t get a cell line, without having had an embryo to begin with.

[SuziQ]

Embryonic stem cells have just had their first human clinical trial approved. Of course they haven’t helped yet.

The problem is that they haven't been that successful in earlier trials on animals. It will be interesting to see how they do in human clinical trials.

The best thing about adult stem cells is that they can be taken from other parts of the patient's own body, precluding the need for a lifetime of taking anti-rejection drugs

[Gondring]

The problem is that they haven't been that successful in earlier trials on animals. It will be interesting to see how they do in human clinical trials.

LOL!

Yeah, right. Are you really drinking that Kool-Aid, or are you thinking people reading this are dumb enough to believe that they are approving human trials with poor success on animals?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your bread analogy:

Embryos are not remotely analogous to bread because they are persons, not physical resources. But let's instead use the analogy of looted antiquities (goods which, like human embryos, are of incommensurable value but were wrongly obtained to begin with.) You can't exchange - trade - barter - sell looted antiquities because it is unethical as well as illegal to receive remuneration or to profit from them. The sense of this is that if profit is allowed to occur, it creates a perverse incentive to go out and loot some more.

The analogy works, but is imperfect, chiefly because embryos have, intrinsically, a far higer ontological status than antiquities. They cannot be treated as YOUR property, a RESEARCHER's property, or anybody's property, because they are not property at all. They are human beings; as such, created equal in fundamental rights to Gondring and Mrs. Don-o.

The law at present treats them as property, but that only shows how abysmally corrupt our law has become.

We are not facing a huge array of permissible alternatives. There are only two: if the embryos are viable, they must be preserved until they can be implanted. If they are not viable (dead) they require the respectful disposition appropriate for any other human remains.

Two more points on the lack of successful therapeutic applications derived from ESCR: first, you have (as you mentioned) repeatedly asserted that such applications have been demonstrated in vivo, but have never been kind enough to document this assertion. Second, the vanishingly remote hopes referred to by the two people quoted in the WSJ are especialy persuasive because they are themselves dependent on research funds -- that's their income stream --- and so for THEM to say ~but really, folks, these hopes are [ahem] a long, long time from now and far, far away ~ means, to the rest of us, hey, this is not the most promising venue for medical progress.

Sincerely interested in your documentation.

[tiki]

Yes, but if I profit off of their death healthwise or moneywise, I am profiting from MURDER, which will only beget more MURDER.

Here’s a question for you, what if your in utero child or grandchild was in the womb and the government made you kill the child for it’s stem cells because he had some genetic strength?

Although embryonic stem cells have not WORKED, it is all about people playing God. They think they can control the weather and they think they can cure all disease and soon they’ll be picking choosing which children can be born based on their genetic make-up. Then we’ll be back to forced sterilizations or as in China forced abortion. The slippery slop will soon be vertical and we will all fall off the cliff.

[SuziQ]

Stranger things have happened. Have they solved the problems of runaway tumors that were so prevalent in the trials on animals? I’ve not read anything that says they have.

[Gondring]

Read to the end of this article.

[Gondring]

Thought you might be interested in reading what your source had to say about iPS... "Well, what I hope will not happen is that everybody says, ‘See? We don’t have to do embryonic stem cell research now.’ ... This may not be the end of the story. These pluripotent cells may not be perfectly like embryonic stem cells. We don’t know yet." --James Thomson

[TASMANIANRED]

Here’s the add that should have been run.

Results of adult stem cell..List the cures.

Results for embryonic stem cells: Cancer.

[Gondring]

[...] all it's been able to produce in vivo is tumors. [...]

These rats did not get tumors...

By early summer, a handful of patients with severe spinal cord injuries will be eligible for injections of specialized nerve cells designed to enable electrical signals to travel between the brain and the rest of the body. When the cells were administered to rats that had lost control of their hind legs, they regained the ability to walk and run, albeit with a limp.

[...]

The cell therapy is made from one of the first batches of human embryonic stem cells ever created. Researchers had feared those cells could never be used to treat people because they were derived using molecules from mice and cows and thus might be rejected by the human immune system. Newer stem cell lines that are animal-free have not been eligible for federal research funding under the policy set by President Bush in 2001. As a result, many people had expected FDA approval for any embryonic stem cell therapy to be years away.

Now, however, the FDA appears satisfied that the stem cells are safe for human use, and more clinical trials are sure to follow, said Amy Comstock Rick, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a patient advocacy group that supports stem cell research. "It shows that things are starting to move through the pipeline," she said.

[hocndoc]

I’m Baptist, and agree with the Catholic Church which has always been against in vitro fertilization and the freezing and storing of our children of tomorrow.

So, you believe that 2 wrongs make a right?

[hocndoc]

Virtually every “success” of embryonic stem cells in animals and in the lab have been achieved, first, in adult stem cells. Way behind the times, always.

As is President Obama, with his determination to fund embryo destruction for more behind-the-times research.

[hocndoc]

Using the Bush-Policy approved lines, we found out that Oct 4 was vital to the reprogramming. Wow! We knew that from the murine lines!

iPSC research is only “based on embryonic stem cell research” because of the behind-the-times-assumption that it’s necessary to reprogram the cells all the way back to the embryo. As well as the determination to use human stem cells, rather than the animal models.

Also, for some reason, the gold standard is seen as the ability to achieve embryonic-like stem cells, rather than the ability to achieve functional cells and tissues.

We keep hearing about “basic research” into the molecular basis of the disease - like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s are expressed in the embryo! How likely are they to be expressed in tissue cultures?

Functional cells and tissues, and the local factors that act on *them* will hold the key to etiology as it has to treatment.

[hocndoc]

Wait, you’re saying that it’s cutting edge news that the new embryos created at Harvard or California from solicited oocytes and sperm?

Singapore has been throwing money hand over fist at embryonic stem cell research. That wasn’t enough? Are you saying that $3 Billion in California, $250 million in Houston, all that money at Harvard, South Korea, the UK, were just not enough additional funding and opportunities over and above the millions the NIH has allocated for the currently approved embryonic stem cell lines?

Well, perhaps if all the money spent so far can’t show us nearly the results that adult stem cell has — much less the hoped for successes from iPSC’s — perhaps we don’t need to throw good money after bad.