Sharing Life — Abortion, Stem Cells, Euthanasia, Intelligent Design, Reproduction Technology

THE NATION
No Embryos Lost to New Stem Cells
By Karen Kaplan
Times Staff Writer

October 17, 2005

Scientists say they have created viable embryonic stem cell lines without destroying any embryos — a development that could clear ethical barriers that have sharply restricted federal funding for the controversial research.

Two separate techniques were demonstrated in mice, and researchers are optimistic the processes could be replicated with human cells. The new methods were published online Sunday by the journal Nature.

Scientists and ethicists said the approaches offered a potential compromise with social conservatives who see embryonic stem cell research as an untenable trade-off that amounts to destroying life to create medical cures.

Dr. William B. Hurlbut, a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, said he had persuaded several religious and conservative philosophers that at least one of the new approaches was morally sound.

But given the intractable debate about when life begins, there are lingering ethical concerns.

Neither method “really quells the ethical debate,” said Dr. George Q. Daley, a professor of biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Harvard Medical School. “It’s not clear it’s going to answer all the critics.”

Protection of human embryos has been the guiding principle behind President Bush’s stem cell funding policy.

Bush was the first to approve federal money for the research, but he limited funding to the cell lines already in existence in 2001 to avoid having taxpayers subsidize the destruction of embryos. Scientists have said that only about 20 of them were usable.

Those lines, which have proven unsuitable for some research, were derived from frozen embryos donated by couples that no longer needed them for in vitro fertilization.

The federal restrictions have hampered scientists seeking to tap the therapeutic potential of embryonic stem cells, which have the capacity to grow into any cell type in the human body. Researchers believe, for example, that the cells might eventually be used to treat juvenile diabetes by growing replacements for faulty islet cells that make insulin.

Some researchers have moved forward by using private funds to create their own lines of embryonic stem cells. California has taken the most aggressive position, passing Proposition 71 in 2004 to provide $3 billion for stem cell research.

One of the new approaches reported in Nature is based on a routine procedure used by fertility clinics to look for genetic defects in embryos.

Dr. Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, Mass., and an author of one of the papers, extracted a single cell from a mouse embryo that developed in the laboratory into an eight-cell bundle.

After removing the cell, called a blastomere, Lanza’s team surrounded it with human embryonic stem cells from the Bush-approved lines, allowing the mouse cell to pick up the appropriate biochemical cues to start behaving like a stem cell.

Using 125 blastomeres, they were able to create five cell lines that tests found had the same properties as embryonic stem cells.

To demonstrate that the single-cell biopsy posed minimal risk to the embryo, seven-cell mouse embryos were implanted into surrogate mothers. They resulted in live births 49% of the time, virtually the same as for the regular eight-cell embryos.

Lanza said human stem cell lines could be created using single cells extracted for genetic diagnosis at in vitro fertilization clinics.

In a laboratory dish, the extracted cell would be allowed to divide into two. One cell could be screened for genetic defects and the other used to create stem cells, he said.

“It’s relatively simple,” Lanza said. “It does not damage the embryo, and it’s been used on thousands of healthy babies.”

The other approach, developed by MIT biologist Rudolph Jaenisch, relies on deactivating a gene needed to implant an embryo into a uterus.

Jaenisch altered mouse DNA and inserted it into an egg whose own DNA had been removed using a common stem cell procedure called nuclear transfer.

Because the resulting embryo could not attach to the uterus, it would have no chance to develop into a healthy baby, thus presumably avoiding any ethical quandary. Hurlbut, the presidential advisor, strongly backs this approach.

After the DNA insertion, the egg was prompted to begin developing and stem cells were harvested a few days later.

To complete the experiment, the researchers turned the silenced gene back on. The resulting stem cells demonstrated the same abilities as traditional embryonic stem cells.

Scientists say this approach is attractive because it offers the ability to tailor stem cells to specific patients.

Although the process is cumbersome, scientists would probably be willing to do it to qualify for federal funding, Jaenisch said.

But both methods still present some ethical hurdles.

Some scientists believe that a single human blastomere may be able to develop into an embryo, throwing Lanza’s method into the same ethical terrain as conventional stem cell methods, said Daley, the Harvard professor.

He said that Jaenisch’s method seemed like no more than a cosmetic solution.

“A process that dooms an otherwise normal embryo to later demise” may not “answer all the critics,” Daley said.

Dr. Irving L. Weissman, the director of Stanford University’s stem cell institute who wrote a commentary accompanying the Nature papers, said the new methods amounted to “a diversion of good science by politics,” but that the trade-off would be worth it if it would speed the delivery of therapies to patients.

Hurlbut, the member of Bush’s bioethics panel, said the new research might at least spark a debate about what would make embryonic stem cells ethically palatable to all Americans.

“We need an answer,” he said.

On October 14, 2005, Dr. Harry Jaffa lectured at The Trinity Law and Trinity Graduate Schools in Santa Ana, CA on “The Moral Foundations of the Law”.

Dr. Jaffa is one of the original founders of the Claremont Institute and author of numerous books including “A House Divided” and “A New Birth of Freedom”.

I arrived early at this seminar just as Harry Jaffa arrived in an entourage of two Claremont McKenna College students who had acted as his chauffeurs. Jaffa appears frail, and somewhere in his 80s, but he remains intellectually engaging and immensely knowledgeable on matters of history and political science. His most recent book, “A New Birth of Freedom” traces the principles of natural law in the context of Lincoln’s arguments for constitutional equality of the black race.

These arguments have a quaint feel about them in a society in which even Justice Scalia, a conservative, dismisses the Declaration of Independence as irrelevant to constitutional interpretation. This point is not lost on Jaffa, who notes that the Declaration is one of the nation’s 4 recognized sources of “organic law”. Organic law is derived from four central legal documents in U.S. History: The Northwest Ordinance, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. These documents cumulatively state our abiding principles as a civilized society, and set the framework by which we are to govern ourselves.

Jaffa relaxed a few moments before his lecture, noting that the trip from Claremont was long, slow, and uncertain. His student’s car, with a history of overheating, made the trip only by running the heater to release excess heat. Jaffa is apparently unable to drive, or unwilling at his age, and so unsteady on his feet that he required the assistance of his students to climb the four steps to the entrance to Trinity. Yet, he was energized during the lecture itself, repeatedly declining to rest or take a break, until much younger law students initiated a break for themselves. Meanwhile, Jaffa spoke and answered questions for nearly 3 hours of uninterrupted time on his feet, and remained animated with the subject of natural law and the current (and prospective) U.S. Supreme Court.

Jaffa, and probably every conservative academic in the U.S., takes a fatalistic position: Roe v. Wade is likely to stay the law, and die a slow death by increasing limits on its availability as the law shifts to accord the States greater power to decide the protections to be accorded to unborn human life. Jaffa believes the correct Constitutional outcome is the right interpretation of federalism, that is, that the decision of the right to life, or the right to terminate pre-born life, rests with the States.

I questioned Professor Jaffa on this point. If the 14th Amendment requires the States to apply principles of due process of law as a condition of depriving “citizens” of life, then is not the U.S. Supreme Court authorized to conclude that preborn human life is a “person” under the law. Are not the States then mandated to provide equal protection of the laws to “unborn” persons as well as “born?

Jaffa answered the question obliquely: Lincoln, he noted, made two arguments: African Americans were indeed persons within the meaning of the words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . that all men are created equal”. The other argument, strangely inconsistent with the first argument, was that African Americans were not thereby to be considered politically equal for all purposes. By that he meant that in the interest of preserving the Union, he was prepared to allow the Southern States maintain the institution of slavery. He was however unprepared to allow it to spread to the territories and new states. As a condition of Statehood, the Congress would preclude any law allowing Slavery in the new State. In this way, Jaffa told me, as best I can infer, that the realities are such that overturning Roe v. Wade will not occur outright, but with time its intellectual and legal underpinnings can be removed, until it collapses as precedent.

I later asked Jaffa another question, since I continued to be troubled at the idea that an ethical question of first magnitude could be resolved based by political compromises. I asked him to imagine the state of affairs resulting from his suggestion that the U.S. Supreme Court defer the question of what is “personhood” under the law to the individual states. The result will be that different states will hold different positions, and “personhood” and the “right to due process” will depend on the accident of geography for the hapless infant. The morally unsustainable result will be that a “person” carried in the womb in one state will become disposable biological “property” of the mother as she crosses into another state to obtain an abortion. Only if the U.S. Supreme Court finds that the unborn child is a person under the law can the nation achieve moral and legal integrity. The States then would be required to protect the lives of unborn children with the same equal protection of the laws afforded all citizens.

Jaffa acknowledged the patchwork result, and it ethical implications, but again, I sensed he talked obtusely to the “realities” of the last 30 years of precedent and the unlikely action of the Court to reverse its earlier statements that Roe was woven into the fabric the culture too tightly to be unwound. Again, Jaffa was ready to take whatever ground a compromise might offer: perhaps a waiting period, or a mandatory disclosure of alternatives to abortion, or other restriction as might be enacted by an individual state. California, on the other hand, would be free to continue as it does: offering unlimited access to abortion through the 9th month.

In the end, Professor Jaffa’s lecture left me with this question: if we state that human life is entitled to dignity, then what is the measure of “dignity” to be accorded to unborn human life? There is no logical or scientific justification for a double standard of dignity for pre-born and post-born human life. Helplessness has never been an impediment to dignity. To the contrary, helplessness is the test of dignity, for dignity is intrinsic, not earned or conditional. Human dignity is first expressed by the protection of the laws against abuses of power by the enfranchised against the weak and voiceless. This is the great calling of the law, and the highest trust given to the Court. It is the spirit and heart of our nation that “equal opportunity” to life and prosperity is accorded to all without regard to status, wealth, or lineage. Each “person” is to be accorded the opportunity to realize and use his natural talent, skill, and drive to achieve his measure of happiness. This opportunity is constitutionally the right of the unborn, and to the extent Roe v Wade states otherwise, it fails as moral law.

The word “apologetics” in its Greek origin means “to explain or account”. In Theology, it is used to mean “to provide a defense of the Faith”. In a world of skeptics and a culture openly disdainful of God, “apologists” are busy.

A not so new argument against God is that he doesn’t exist because He is not perfect, and because He is not Perfect, He is not eternal or all-powerful. Evil you see implies things are askew, out of control, and ultimately chaotic. A God who created evil, or is even subject to it, is out of control, and therefore not God.

I recently attended a Biola University lecture in a series entitled “Christian Apologetics”` The speaker, with the aid of a Power Point presentation, took us through the “apologies” or arguments for the defense of God. Frankly, I can’t think of a higher calling than to be God’s defense attorney. That I have a law degree and nearly 30 years of litigation experience only adds to the hubris. However, I suggest a word other than “apology”. It seems a bad start to “apologize” for God. Theologians, I’m convinced, live in an insular world and are therefore unconnected to the language of the people. So they use terms like “apologetics”, “providential”, “election”, “sin”, “grace”, “born again”, “salvation” and “redemption” without regard to whether those terms help or hinder the “average Joe” in his struggle to know God.

So, what is the Case for God? The “prosecution” presents a mound of evidence that there is evil in the world. That evidence is loud and convincing, and covers horrendous misdeeds. After hearing centuries of murders, rapes, power grabs, beatings, deprivations, and loveless relationships, the Court raises its hands in exasperation, and declares that the evidence is cumulative and unduly time consuming. Turning to the Defense, the Court asks for a stipulation that truly there is evil in the world, and not just trivial evil, but such evil as turns the blood cold. I so stipulate, and we move on.

Now the burden of proof shifts to me. What is the case for God? Here are the notes of my lecture at Biola:

1. God made an evil world because an evil world permits the free assertion of moral action. That is, what is the merit of ethical conduct in a world that does not challenge the “good”? The argument then is that a sinful world is better than a sinless world because only in a sinful world does “goodness” have meaning. Now, in heaven, as opposed to earth, “goodness” is the soup of the day, and there is no evil in heaven. To the contrary, we are incapable of evil in heaven. How then do we know of “evil” in a perfect heaven? The answer is that we acquire the knowledge of evil without the disposition to do it because God has conformed our character to be like his own. We have real choice in heaven, but the conditions of our soul produce only one outcome: to honor God. Thus, our new natures in heaven can produce only good, and evil is not possible.

2. The second argument I will refer to as the “humble pie” argument. I love this argument, because with a little reflection, it is powerfully persuasive: Is my human capacity and knowledge sufficient to contain, grasp, and account for all possible explanations for evil in the world? That is, if I reach a conclusion based on the available evidence and by use of my available mental powers and my limited experience, may I then conclude that only those reasons I have generated are among the plausible? Add to this refreshingly humble approach that there is abundant evidence in Creation for the existence of a Creator, and that His creation is “good” or at least has many numerous “good” tendencies. In the law, we consider burdens of proof as matters of degree. We know that in a “case” there are facts and arguments for both sides on an issue. The question is never one of “no evidence”. The question is: What degree of persuasion does the evidence present? The scales may be tipped by a “preponderance of the evidence” for one side or the other. Based on that balance, juries by supermajority come to conclusions as to the “probable” truth. Stated simply, the balance of evidence, particularly in the thinking of Intelligent Design, is that there is a wonderful and awesome Creator behind Creation. Some would say the evidence is “clear and convincing”, or even “beyond a reasonable doubt”. We are like children when it comes to proof of God. We conduct our daily lives based on degrees of persuasion, but when it comes to God, we want absolute proof, and we want it now. Yes, we are like children. Further, while I may in my own powers reason to a definition of a “good God” who conforms to my idea of the world based on my human, mortal perspective, it may be that God is bigger than that.

Conclusion: We underestimate God continuously. As I have heard, God created man in His own image and man has ever since been busy returning the favor. Our hubris is amazing. We cannot grasp a God who knows all that is, including all the possible other universes that could be, but are not, and Who knows all there is to know in one instant, without regard to linear time. Still, having only an infinitesimally small piece of the evidence, and only a minuscule intellectual ability to process even that evidence, we proudly assert conclusions that a god who does not conform to our notion of God is no god at all. We are like Job’s accusers in the Book of Job, offering up various definitions of what and who God is, and spinning theories to account for the reality of evil that assume a “reasonable” God would see things our way. We do not so much make a case that God is “evil” as we make the case that God is “unreasonable”. As God responded to Job: Who are you to be my counselor? Were you there when I laid the foundations of the Earth? This accusation turns the tables: It would seem that man, and not God, has the burden of proof. Perhaps it is we who should “apologize”.