The Morality of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and President Bush's Decision: How Should Catholics Think About Such Things? *

President Bush George W. , “Address on Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem- Cell Research,” in Origins, Vol. 31, No. 12 (August 30, 2001): 213–215, at 214. See also “White House Fact Sheet: Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” August 9, 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010810.html”) and “Excerpts from Bush Address on U.S. Financing of Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” The New York Times, August 10, 2001, A16, plus the related front page stories, “Of Principles and Politics” and “No New Embryo Use,” in the same edition of the Times.

Gould Stephen Jay “What Only the Embryo Knows” (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/27/opinion/27GOUL.html?todaysheadlines_).

Pontifical Academy for Life, “Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” in the section “Scientific Analysis” (http://www.vaticana.va/roman_curia/p…/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20000824_cellule-staminali_en.htm_). See also, Edward J. Furton and Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, “Stem Cell Research and the Human Embryo,” Part One, Ethics & Medics, Vol. 24, No. 8 (August 1999): 1-2; Thomas B. Okarma, “Human Embryonic Stem Cells: A Primer on the Technology and Its Medical Applications,” and James A. Thomson, “Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” in Suzanne Holland, Karen Lebacqz, and Laurie Zoloth (eds.), The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001), pp. 3-13 and 15-26, respectively.

See National Institutes of Health, “Stem Cells: A Primer,” May 2000, in the section “Potential Applications of Pluripotent Stem Cells” (_ http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm_). Moral theologian Mark E. Ginter has noted, however, that this NIH primer is already out of date as of his writing on October 17, 2001. His article provides an accessible overview of the science of stem cell research and a trenchant critique of the various “biases” in the NIH primer. See Ginter, “Stem Cell Research: WOWS & WHOAs,” Part One, The Priest 58 (January 2002): 15-20.

May William E. Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 2000), p. 214. For an excellent critique of the NBAC The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly report that May refers to, see René Mirkes, O.S.F., “NBAC and Embryo Ethics,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 2001): 163-187 (Obtaining stem cells from miscarriages - a method that May does not mention - would not be morally problematic. However, as Richard Doerflinger has cautioned, if embryonic germ cells are taken from spontaneous abortions, there is the possibility that “when cultured, [they could] reaggregate to form early embryos which then die as the process continues.” Thus, “funding such research could violate the ban on funding the creation of human embryos for research” [“The Policy and Politics of Stem Cell Research,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 2001): 135-143, at 141, footnote #12]). This same fear is also expressed in the Catholic Medical Association's balanced statement on Bush's decision (see the text of the August 9, 2001 statement in The Wanderer, August, 23, 2001, p. 4) and, more strongly, in the paper by the philosopher and biochemist Dianne N. Irving, “Stem Cells that Become Embryos,” included in “Stem Cell Ethics Digest No. 5,” October 19, 2001, available from Jeff Ziegler at: ziegleriti@yahoo.com. Irving writes: “In short, yes - ‘stem cells’ derived from the early human embryo - from the 2-cell stage through the germ line stage (gastrulation) - are not only capable, but are even inherently driven by regulation to ‘heal’ themselves and to form new whole living embryos themselves. Not only do human embryologists know this empirical fact, so also do IVF researchers, clinicians, and their patients,” in the section “Analysis: Part I.” I do not know whether this paper has been published anywhere else. But see also Irving, “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Are Official Positions Based on Scientific Fraud?” available at: www.lifeissues.net/bioethics/irv18stemcell.html. If Irving's argument is sound, then using embryonic stem cells for research would obviously be intrinsically evil. Cf. Nicholas Tonti-Filippini and Peter McCullagh, “Embryonic Stem Cells and Totipotency,” Ethics & Medics, Vol. 25, No. 7 (July 2000): 1-3.

On the science of animal and human cloning in general, see, for example, Gina Kolata, Clone: The Road to Dolly and the Path Ahead (N.Y.: William Morrow and Company, 1998); Ian Wilmut, Keith Campbell, and Colin Tudge, The Second Creation: Dolly and the Age of Biological Control (N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000), especially chapter 13, Ian Wilmut, “Cloning People,” pp. 267-298, where Wilmut argues against human cloning.

Pontifical Academy for Life, “Declaration on…Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” in the section “Therapeutic Cloning.” See also, for criticisms of the practice, John Ahmann, O.P., “Therapeutic Cloning and Stem Cell Therapy,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 2001): 145–150; Alfred Cioffi, “Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning,” Ethics & Medics, Vol. 27, No. 3 (March 2002): 1-3; Wesley J. Smith, “The False Promise of ‘Therapeutic’ Cloning,” The Weekly Standard, March 11, 2002, pp. 24-27.

See Cibelli Jose B. , Lanza Robert P. , and West Michael D. , “The First Human Cloned Embryo,” Scientific American 286 (January 2002): 44–51. In addition to cloning, parthenogenesis was used as well. See also Gina Kolata with Andrew Pollack, “A Breakthrough on Cloning? Perhaps, or Perhaps Not Yet” (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/ll/27/health/27EMBR.html).

See Cibelli Jose B. , “Parthenogenetic Stem Cells in Nonhuman Primates,” Science 295 (February 1, 2002): 819. See also Sean Henahan, “Asexual Stem Cell Production” (http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/SU102001/parthenogenesis.html).

On July 31, 2001, the U.S. Congress passed a bill, 265 to 162, that banned all forms of cloning. Whether the Senate will pass a similar bill is an open question. However, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions conducted hearings on September 5, 2001 and again on February 5 and March 5, 2002. For a powerful philosophical argument against human cloning, see Leon Kass, “The Wisdom of Repugnance,” Human Life Review, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Summer 1997): 63-88 (Originally in The New Republic, June 2, 1997). More generally, see Mark S. Latkovic, “Is There a Clone in Your Future? The Challenge of Modem Biomedical Science and the Response of Christian Faith,” The Catholic Faith, Vol. 4, No. 6 (November/December 1998): 16-20; Cohen Eric , and Kristol William , “Cloning, Stem Cells, and Beyond,” The Weekly Standard, August 13, 2001, pp. 22–26.

Lee Patrick , and George Robert P. , “Reason, Science, and Stem Cells: Why Killing Embryonic Human Beings is Wrong,” (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george072001.shtml). This article was one of several in an online debate the authors carried on with Reason magazine's Ronald Baily. Baily had argued that because each of our body's cells are potential persons, then we cannot appeal to the notion that an embryo could be a person to ground the special treatment we give it (Baily, “Are Stem Cells Babies?” [http://www.reason.com/rb/rb071101.html]). This, of course, neglects - as Brother Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P. has noted, in his critique of R. Alto Charo, who had made the same argument - the important philosophical distinction between active and passive potential. An “embryo has an active potential for adulthood while the somatic cell, even with cloning, does not” (Austriaco, Book Review of Paul Lauritzen, ed., Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research [N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2001], in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 4 [Winter 2001]: 654-656, at 656). Lee and George had essentially made the same point in their first response to Baily. But see also the argument made by Dianne Irving in note 5 above.

Or, more precisely, as moral theologian Germain Grisez writes: Conception, “in the sense of fertilization - when the sperm and ovum fuse - normally should be regarded as the beginning of a new person. But why normally and not always? Because the complications [e.g., twinning] which sometimes arise require certain qualifications” (Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus Vol. 2: Living a Christian Life [Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1993], p. 495, note omitted). Thus, as Grisez argues, twinning and other phenomena do not call into question the fact that most human persons begin their lives at conception/fertilization, while others begin theirs sometime between fertilization and implantation. But what is important to emphasize is that, after conception takes place - unless something goes wrong with the process, as happens in the case of the formation of a hydatiform mole - one is always dealing with a new individual human being. And cloning or even parthenogenesis (as ACT tried to do) does not in any way alter the essential point that human life begins at conception (On this point, see The Way of the Lord Jesus Vol. 2: Living a Christian Life, p. 496; Benedict Ashley, O.P. and Albert Moraczewski, O.P., “Cloning, Aquinas, and the Embryonic Person,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2 [Summer 2001]: 189-201, particularly p. 193 on how to reconcile parthenogenesis with the thesis that human life begins at conception). For further discussion of the science and ethics of parthenogenesis, see my forthcoming article in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Summer 2002).

See for example, Lee Patrick , Abortion and Unborn Human Life (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997); Grisez, Living a Christian Life, pp. 489-498. See also The Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics, “Cloning and Stem Cell Research: A Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research,” submitted by Rev. David Jones, June 1, 2001, especially section 3.2, “When does the human individual begin?” (http://www.linacre.org/stemcell.html); Mirkes, “NBAC and Embryo Ethics.” I cite these last two studies, among the many that have been written, specifically because their examination of the question of when life begins is treated in the context of the stem cell research debate.

Mirkes , “NBAC and Embryo Ethics,” p. 185.

Mirkes , “NBAC and Embryo Ethics,”, p. 182.

Quindlan Anna “A New Look, An Old Battle,” Newsweek, April 9, 2001, p. 72. Similarly, the bioethicist Ronald M. Green argues that a clone “is a new type of biological entity never before seen in nature…At the blastocyst stage…it is a ball no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence…It has no organs, it cannot possibly think or feel, and it has none of the attributes thought of as human…[The ethics advisory board of ACT, of which Green is the chair] prefer[s] the term ‘activated egg…’” (Green, “The Ethical Considerations,” Scientific America 286 (January 2002): 48-50, at 48.

See George Robert R “We Should Not Kill Embryos - For Any Reason,” in George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2001), pp. 317–323, at 319.

May William E. Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, p. 158. As Fr. Robert A. Sirico has noted, “[n]one of us ‘became’ a human being at some point after conception. Each was a human being from the point at which we became a distinct organism - that is, conception” (Wall Street Journal, July 11, 2001, A16).

Pontifical Academy for Life, “Declaration on…Embryonic Stem Cells,” in the section “Ethical Problems.”

Quoted in Ponnuru Ramesh “Cells, Fetuses, and Logic,” National Review, July 23, 2001, pp. 18, 20, at 20.

Ponnuru “Cells, Fetuses, and Logic,” p. 20. See also Ramesh Ponnuru, “Lapse of Reason: The Libertarians and Cloning,” National Review, February 11, 2002, pp. 33–36.

The February 11, 2002 edition of Zenit.org reported that researchers at Cornell University's Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility “have built the prototype of an artificial uterus, in which they placed the cells that form the internal mucous membrane of the uterus.” Human embryos were implanted and “adhered to the walls and began to develop over six days.” However, it was at this stage of development that the experiment was then terminated.

According to one story, “an estimated 100,000 embryos are in infertility clinic freezers, most destined to be thrown out” (Maria Mccullough, “Created Embryos Eyed for Research,” Detroit Free Press, July 11, 2001, A14). This story reported on a team of scientists at the Eastern Virginia Medical School who have been creating human embryos for the “sole purpose of extracting the [stem] cells.”

If the parents choose not to have the embryos implanted in the mother, one other solution to this problem is to find couples that are willing to “rescue”/“adopt” these frozen embryos, as has already been done. This, it seems to me, is preferable to letting them be destroyed, used as research material, or simply left to die a natural death. The Church, however, has not rendered any definitive judgment on the issue. For an argument supporting my position and which I am in fundamental agreement with, see Helen Watt, “A Brief Defense of Embryo Adoption,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 2001): 151-154. See also Edward J. Furton, “On the Disposition of Frozen Embryos,” and Sheila Diamond, “Theological Debate over Embryo Adoption,” both of which appear in Ethics & Medics, Vol. 26, No. 9 (September 2001): 1-3 and Vol. 26, No. 10 (October 2001): 3-4, respectively, for good overviews of the debate.

Benjamin D. Wiker perceptively argues: “You cannot accept in vitro fertilization and reject cloning; therefore, you cannot remove the horrid specter of cloning without first rejecting in vitro fertilization. But you cannot accept contraception and reject in vitro fertilization - as should be obvious from how quickly the acceptance of contraception led to in vitro fertilization. Therefore, you cannot remove in vitro fertilization without rejecting contraception. And so, like it or not, to reject cloning, you must reject contraception” (Wiker, “Only Catholics Can Tell You Why Cloning Is Wrong,” National Catholic Register, September 16-22, 2001, p. 9).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (“Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation,” 1987), Part II, A and B.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (“Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Part II, B, Section 5.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (“Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Part I, Section 6: “[A]ttempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union.” It should be noted, however, in this context that the Catholic Church is not opposed in principle to science or its discoveries. But, as Pope John Paul II said in 2000, when speaking to scholars and scientists, “every scientific approach needs an ethical base and a wise openness to a culture that respects the needs of the person” (Quoted in Russell Shaw, “Is the ‘Genetic Genie’ Out of the Bottle?” Our Sunday Visitor, October 7, 2001, p. 12).

Many argue that using these “leftover” embryos for research purposes is a “lesser evil” than simply destroying them and therefore letting them go to waste. Or they argue, because of the “great good” that could be achieved by doing research on them - e.g., the discovery of cures and treatments to overcome terrible diseases - it is morally upright to use them and accept the (“lesser”) evil of their deaths. However, many of these same embryo research advocates are at the same time willing to condemn the intentional creation of embryos for research purposes. It seems to me, however, that even on a purely consequentialist/proportionalist analysis, those who support the creation of research embryos that will be killed for a good end are on surer moral grounds than those who support the 97% or so of the 1.3 million procured abortions that take place in the U.S. for reasons of convenience alone. Why remain squeamish about the former kind of killing and not the latter? And by what principle do we condemn the former and not the latter?

Mirkes “NBAC and Embryo Ethics,” p. 181. See also Doerflinger, “The Policy and Politics of Stem Cell Research,” p. 141.

For some of the reaction, pro and con, among pro-lifers, see Goodstein Laurie , “Abortion Foes Split Over Plan On Stem Cells,” The New York Times, August 12, 2001, Al, 22. See also the literature cited in footnotes #33 and #35 below.

For example, Vatican Radio stated on August 10, 2001 that Bush “has gone beyond the moral boundaries of research” and “his decision opens the door to very dangerous developments” (quoted in Zenit.org, “Bush's Decision on Stem Cell Research Is Assailed”).

These various reactions to President Bush's decision are well summarized by theologian Robert Fastiggi, “Human Stem Cell Research: A Catholic Response to President Bush's Decision,” Pastoral Life, Vol. 50, No. 10 (October 2001): 2–6, at 2-3. See also Pádraig Corkery, “The Use of Embryonic Stem Cells - Recent Developments,” The Furrow, Vol. 5, No. 1 (January 2002): 24-34, at 29-30. For a good sampling of the statements of Pope John Paul II and various bishops, cardinals, and other groups (e.g., the Knights of Columbus) and individuals responding to Mr. Bush's decision (including the statement of the National Right to Life Committee, in support), see “Reaction to President Bush's Decision on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research,” in Origins, Vol. 31, No. 12 (August 30, 2001): 205, 207-213. See further the articles by various authors in the “Special Section,” “The Case Against Embryonic Stem-Cell Research,” The Human Life Review, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Summer 2001). Although these articles were written before Bush's decision, they provide helpful background material to the President's decision.

President Bush George W. , “Address,” p. 214.

The articles of Franciscan Brother Daniel Sulmasy, a physician and bioethicist, and philosopher Janet E. Smith appear in a symposium, “Did Bush Get It Right on Stem Cells?,” in National Catholic Register, September 2-8, 2001, pp. 1, 4. Other contributors to the symposium were Cathleen Cleaver, Deal W. Hudson, and David N. O’ Steen. I have chosen to examine the opinions of Sulmasy and Smith since they are of a more philosophical nature.

Smith Wm.B. “Medical Cannibalism?” Homiletic & Pastoral Review (March 2002): 69–71. Msgr. Smith's article appears in his regular “Questions Answered” column. I will refer to him as Msgr. Smith in the article in order to clearly indicate whose views I am referring to: Msgr. Smith's or Janet Smith's. The former Smith is a moral theologian.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” especially pp. 3–6. Although Fastiggi's article was published before Msgr. Smith's, I will treat it after my summary of Smith's article, since among other things, it is a more substantive contribution to the debate and expands many of the same points found in Msgr. Smith's article.

See Shannon Thomas A. “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy,” Theological Studies 62 (December 2001): 811–824. Shannon writes: “One assumption in the traditional discussion of cooperation is that the act with which one cooperated was in fact a moral evil. Given that the act in question is the removal of cells from a blastocyst, that assumption may have to be revisited or at least reexamined. Given my previous analysis for the moral standing of the blastocyst [see pp. 812-818], its destruction would certainly be a premoral evil, but not a moral evil. Since the blastocyst does not have the moral standing of full personhood, its destruction is killing but not murder for there is no person who can be the subject of such a moral wrong. The scientists who accept such cells for research are not, on this analysis, cooperating in a morally evil act” (p. 820). See also Shannon, “Human Cloning: A Success Story or a Tempest in a Petri Dish?” America, February 18, 2002, pp. 15-18, which deals not only with cloning but parthenogenesis. For similar views, see Suzanne Holland, et al. (eds.), The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate, especially the essay by Catholic theologian Margaret Farley, R.S.M., “Roman Catholic Views on Research Involving Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” pp. 113-118.

All quotations here from Smith's article are taken from p. 4 of the Register's symposium.

For example, one might imagine the scenario of a researcher who (1) was not involved with the original embryo destruction, (2) had made his or her pro-life convictions very clear, and (3) who was doing his work for a good end, doing research on the stem cells. But at the present time, at least, I do not believe that Catholic scientists should be involved in research on embryonic stem cells. We are still too “proximately” close to the evil of embryo destruction.

This point about complicity might be disputable, as I will indicate later in the paper.

Sulmasy , p. 1.

Sulmasy , p. 1.

Sulmasy , pp. 1, 4.

Sulmasy , This quotation, as well as the subsequent quotations from Sulmasy's article, is found on p. 4 of the Register's symposium.

“If one's action contributes to the active performance of to (sic) the evil action so much so that the evil action could not be performed without the help of the cooperator, then this is known as immediate material cooperation…If the act in question is intrinsically evil, then immediate material cooperation is always prohibited. If one's cooperation is not needed to perform the evil action, but only assists in the performance of the action, then this is known as mediate material cooperation. This type of cooperation may be justified if there is a serious reason for it because the action on the part of the cooperator is fundamentally good…In cases where the cooperation is only mediate, one must still consider whether the cooperation is proximate or remote…'Proximate versus remote’ refers to how closely mediate (i.e., noninstrumental) cooperation is connected with the evil in some way but not as an instrument of its performance” (Benedict M. Ashley, O.P. and Kevin D. O'Rourke, O.P., Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis, 4th edition [Georgetown University Press, 1997], pp. 194, 195).

Smith “Medical Cannibalism?” p. 69.

Smith “Medical Cannibalism?” p. 69.

Smith “Medical Cannibalism?” p. 69.

Smith “Medical Cannibalism?”, Smith cogently argues: “If human life is a sacred gift from God [as Bush stated in his speech], deliberate destruction is no way to treat a gift of God; if the end does not justify the means, some hoped-for end of curing something does not justify destroying tiny humans to get there” (Ibid.). Smith does not, however, formally treat the problem of scandal in his article.

Smith , Smith also briefly notes the “fruitful alternatives” to using human embryos for their stem cells, e.g., bone marrow, umbilical cords, placental material, and human fat cells (see pp. 69-70), notes the dangers of using embryonic stem cells (see p. 70), defends the humanity of the embryo (see p. 70), and argues that the use of the human embryo for stem cells violates the first principle of medicine, “Primum non nocere! First, do no harm!” (See pp. 70-71).

As will become evident, Fastiggi and Msgr. Smith share similar views on the questions of scandal and cooperation in evil.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” p. 6.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,”, p. 4. “For similar reasons, the comparison of research on stem cells derived from destroyed human embryos with the use of vaccines cultured from fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions is not valid” (Fastiggi). Here, Fastiggi argues, the connection between the latter two actions is “more remote.” That is, women are not (or were not) having abortions with the intent of donating their dead fetuses to government- funded researchers so that they could develop vaccines from them.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,”, See also Moraczewski Albert S. , O.P. “May One Benefit from the Evil Deeds of Others?” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 2002): 43–47.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” p. 4.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,”, emphasis added. The Pontifical Academy for Life asks the question: “Is it morally licit to use [embryonic stem] cells and the differentiated cells obtained from them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable? The answer is negative, since: prescinding from the participation - formal or otherwise - in the morally illicit intention of the principal agent, the case in question entails a proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them” (“Declaration on…Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” in the section “Ethical Problems,” emphasis added). Despite the sound judgment of the Academy, I do not think that research on embryonic stem cells is intrinsically evil. What is intrinsically evil is the destruction of embryonic life to get its stem cells. See also Corkery, “The Use of Embryonic Stem Cells,” for a convincing argument that one should not accept the benefits from embryonic stem cell therapies, should they arise in the future.

Fastiggi, “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” p. 4. Fastiggi takes his definition of negative or indirect cooperation from Fr. Herbert Jones's classic manual, Moral Theology, 2nd ed. (The Newman Bookshop, 1946), ef, no. 355. See also Dominic M. , Prümmer O.P. Handbook of Moral Theology (N.Y.: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1957), 274.7.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” p. 5. Fastiggi adds, “[p]ledging money for research on what was obtained by the intrinsic evil of destroying human embryos hardly seems to be an adequate denunciation of such evil” (Fastiggi takes his definition of negative or indirect cooperation from Fr. Herbert Jones's classic manual). President Bush did make clear in his speech, however, that he affirms the fundamental humanity of embryos and is opposed to destroying them. And so, Bush's talk of “human embryos that have at least the potential for life,” should not, in the context of his entire speech, be interpreted to mean the same thing that many pro-abortion supporters mean by using the phrase (see Bush, “Address,” p. 214, emphasis added). We rightly respond to such views by saying that embryos are persons with potential, not potential persons (see John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., Who Count as Persons? Human Identity and the Ethics of Killing [Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001], Ch. 4, “Endowments of Embodied Persons,” pp. 48–70).

On the Dickey amendment, see Doerflinger , “The Policy and Politics of Stem Cell Research,” pp. 137–139.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” p. 5.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,”, emphasis added. This point (i.e., when Fastiggi writes, “in principle”) might have been expressed more clearly had Fastiggi noted that, even though Bush's policy would prohibit federal funding for on-going embryo destruction, there is nothing to stop privately funded researchers from continuing to kill embryos; and then, some time from now, when it appears that more embryonic stem cells are needed, there is nothing to prevent these same researchers coming to the President and asking permission to use these same stem cells that were extracted after the August 9th deadline. But Bush's policy is meant precisely to prohibit using any federal funds on the stem cells that might be derived from these embryos after 9: 00 p.m. on August 9, 2001. The more important practical question remains, however, whether the presidential policy's “line in the sand” will hold. See also Peter J. Riga, “The Stem Cell Dilemma - An Overview,” Linacre Quarterly 68 (November 2001): 335-339.

Filteau Jerry “Experts Tell Senators to Reject Embryo-Killing Research,” National Catholic Register, September 16-22, 2001, p. 3. As noted earlier, Senate hearings on cloning called by the Judiciary Committee were also recently held on February 5, 2002.

Childress James quoted in ibid, emphasis added.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” p. 5. He cites a newspaper story, “Third of 64 Stem Cell Lines May Be Unusable,” Detroit News, August 28, 2001, A4. There is also concern that these stem cell lines may run into problems with the FDA because of the fact that in the process of culturing them, mouse “feeder” cells are used, and thus the problems associated with animal to human transplants arise. The FDA has stringent guidelines in this area of research.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” p. 5. He cites a newspaper story, “Third of 64 Stem Cell Lines May Be Unusable,” Detroit News, August 28, 2001, A4. There is also concern that these stem cell lines may run into problems with the FDA because of the fact that in the process of culturing them, mouse “feeder” cells are used, and thus the problems associated with animal to human transplants arise. The FDA has stringent guidelines in this area of research.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,”, pp. 5–6.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,”, p. 6.

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,”, Michael Novak, however, thinks that although the President truly “stumbled in his moral reasoning,” he “conceived and executed a shrewd enough political stroke to have temporarily disarmed his foes, won some time, and earned sufficient public standing to lead the nation through a great new era in our history” (Michael Novak, “The Stem-Cell Slide,” National Review, September 3, 2001, pp. 17-18, at 18).

Bush , “Address,” p. 213.

Bush's decision to name Dr. Leon Kass to chair his President's council on bioethics that will monitor stem cell research was also welcome. Kass is a man of great wisdom and integrity, who opposes such practices as human cloning and assisted suicide. On January 17, 2002 President Bush named 17 other members to the council, including pro-life Catholic scholars Robert P. George and Mary Ann Glendon, and the pro-life Protestant scholar Gilbert Meilaender. As of this writing, the council has had one meeting, and have planned to issue a report sometime in June 2002.

“Of the roughly $250 million a year the government currently is spending on stem-cell research, [Dr. John Chute, who heads the Naval Medical Research Center's Hematopoietic Stem Cell Studies Section in Bethesda, Md.] said, up to now nearly all has gone to research on adult stem cells.” However, Chute said “there is discussion of diverting about 40% of that, or $100 million, ‘to jump start the federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.’” And he warned that doing so ‘“would be a mistake of historical proportions and would risk harming hundreds of thousands of patients in the United States who currently benefit'” (Jerry Filteau, “Experts Tell Senators to Reject Embryo-Killing Research,” p. 3).

Fastiggi “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” p. 6.

See, for example, Krauthammer Charles “The Great Stem Cell Hoax” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/magazine/mag64601/krauthammerart64601.asp”).

However, as reported in the media, two papers in the online publication of Nature have cast some doubt on the potential of adult stem cells to be a useful alternative to embryonic stem cells (See, for example, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full295/5562/1989). However, Catherine Verfaillie (see footnote 77) argued that, “the papers do not disprove adult stern cell plasticity findings by other researchers, including herself” (Alex Dominguez, “Two Studies Cast Doubt on Stem Cells,” http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news).

Culture of Life Foundation, Medical Facts of Life (Newsletter 2001), Vol. 1, No. 1, “The Promise of Adult Stem Cell Research,” pp. 1, 3. On p. 3 in the endnotes, numerous scientific studies are cited from such journals as Science and Cell. See also, The Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics, “Cloning and Stem Cell Research,” section 2.1, “Adult stem cells,” for references to prestigious scientific studies which indicate that adult stem cells are presently yielding beneficial results in patients, and Maureen L. Condic, “The Basics About Stem Cells,” First Things (January 2002): 30-34 on the arguments in favor of using adult stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells.

Henahan Sean , “Asexual Stem Cell Production” (http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SU/SU102001/parthenogenesis.html).

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cloning/cloning.jsp. It has also been reported that researchers had discovered that adult stem cells circulating in the bloodstream are able to grow new tissue in the liver, gut, and skin. The study, by J.L. Abkowitz, “Can Human Hematopoietic Cells Become Skin, Gut, or Liver?” The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 346, No. 10 (March 7, 2002) suggests, according to one newspaper account, that cells can morph into many different kinds of tissues.

I heard these claims made by a prominent orthodox Catholic bioethicist during an October 3, 2001 talk in Ann Arbor, MI on embryonic stem cell research. Until given permission, I am not at liberty to cite his paper, which serves as my source for these remarks (which I hope I have gotten right) in the above paragraph (see also note 80 below). This speaker also rejected, for various reasons, Bush's use of the chicken-pox analogy to justify his decision. Bush had used this example in an op-ed piece that he wrote for The New York Times on the weekend after giving his nationally televised address on Thursday evening. The speaker noted, among other things, that in the case of the vaccine, the parents using the vaccine for their children did not assist in the procurement of the abortion in order to make the vaccine (unlike the case of the scientists killing embryos precisely to harvest their stem cells), their was a sufficient need, there was no available alternative (as there is with adult stem cells), and no further abortions are needed in order to make the vaccine. However, besides rewarding with federal money those persons who destroyed embryos for the purpose of deriving their stem cells, if therapies are eventually developed from this research, it seems likely that more embryos will be needed and thus destroyed. See also Corkery, “The Use of Embryonic Stem Cells,” pp. 31-34 for a useful discussion of how the use of vaccines developed from the tissue of aborted fetuses is morally different from the deliberate destruction of embryos for their stem cells. The author argues that the former is morally legitimate, while the latter is not.

As this article was being prepared for publication, I found that Cathleen A. Cleaver had just published an article that gave a similar account of the background to the President's August 9th decision (See Cleaver, “Stem Cell Policy and the Culture of Death,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 1 [Spring 2002]: 27-33, at 29-30). Cleaver goes on to say that the President's policy raises real questions of cooperation in evil and scandal - both are implicated. She concludes: “The decision to publicly finance research on the remains of these destroyed embryos brings the research into the mainstream and makes it a public affair - it systematizes this approach and helps to make it part of the fabric of society. Therefore, such a policy will make it even more difficult for society to see in every human embryo the image of God” (p. 33). In the same issue of the Quarterly (see “A Cooperation Analysis of Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” pp. 35-41), Peter J. Cataldo takes the opposite position: “Given the nature of cooperation, the federally funded researcher cannot cooperate in the past destructive acts from which the cell lines he or she uses were derived. If his or her work is not directly intended as assistance to the contemporaneous or future destruction of human embryos, it is not explicit formal cooperation” (p. 37). Neither would the work of the federally funded researcher constitute “implicit formal cooperation,” according to Cataldo (Ibid.) Moreover, he argues, “[f]ederally funded research would seem to constitute neither proximate material nor remote material cooperation in the destruction of human embryos” (p. 39). Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to analyze more thoroughly these two articles.

Bush , “Address,” p. 214.

See Bruni Frank “Bush Says He Will Veto Any Bill Broadening His Stem Cell Policy” (http://www.nytimes.co./2001/08/14/politics/l4BUSH.html).

Kass quoted in Shaw, “Is the ‘Genetic Genie’ Out of the Bottle?,” p. 12. See also Leon Kass, “Triumph or Tragedy? The Moral Meaning of Genetic Technology,” American Journal of Jurisprudence 45 (2000): 1-16. The danger that Kass warns us of is illustrated in another even more radical method than cloning or parthenogenesis for generating human embryonic stem cells which was used recently in Seoul, Korea: “cross-species cloning,” in this case, using human cells and cow eggs (see Antonio Regalado and Meeyoung Song, “Furor Over Cross- Species Cloning: Fusing Human DNA and Egg of Cow Creates Embryo - And World-Wide Debate,” The Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2002, B1, 9). The so- called “humanlike” or “hybrid” embryos that were created lived up to one week, but stem cells were unable to be grown. However, this was not the first time that animal-human transgenesis has been attempted, as the article makes clear.