Biology 101: Embryos of Humans are Human Life

"New approach in stem cell creation Gains seen without destroying embryos"

By Gareth Cook, Of the Boston Globe, (October 17, 2005)

"Two teams of Massachusetts researchers" reported Gareth Cook in the Boston Golobe, "announced yesterday that they have made progress creating embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, suggesting that scientists might someday find a technical solution to one of the nation's most highly charged ethical debates.
The experiments are remarkable because they were done primarily to answer ethical criticism, not to investigate major biological questions, marking a new stage in the ongoing debate over stem cell research. They are a measure, scientists said, of the intensity of the frustration researchers now feel with federal restrictions on their work. But they are also a sign of the increasing interest in finding a new, less controversial way to make embryonic stem cells, and perhaps the beginnings of an unusual dialogue between leading stem cell scientists and their critics.

''I am very encouraged," said Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a prominent critic of embryonic stem cell research who is director of education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. ''We may be able to work around this with some creativity and good will."

One team, working at the Worcester-based biotech company Advanced Cell Technology, created embryonic stem cells by removing a single cell from a growing embryo, without seeming to harm the embryo. Another team, based at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, tried another approach that used genetic manipulations. The two teams worked separately, but reports of their work, describing experiments done with mice, were both published yesterday by the prestigious journal Nature.

A number of specialists said that neither of the techniques, in their current forms, represented a way of making stem cells that would be widely accepted because they still faced technical hurdles and ethical questions.

Still, the new research, which was published online to make it available faster, is politically charged. The US Senate is considering legislation, already passed by the House of Representatives, that would overturn some of the Bush administration's restrictions on funding stem cell research. Supporters of the legislation fear that talk of potential alternatives -- all of which are at least years away -- could sap support for the measure.

''If you are supporting these alternatives at the expense of the proposal to expand access to the stem cells that are available today, you are essentially voting to delay the research," said Dr. George Q. Daley, a stem cell scientist at Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital in Boston.

Scientists are interested in embryonic stem cells because they have the ability to form any cell in the body, giving them a powerful tool to study diseases, and perhaps find cures. Embryonic stem cells are typically obtained from frozen human embryos, donated by women who have been through fertility treatments and no longer need them. But these embryos, which are virtually formless balls of several hundred cells, are destroyed in the process, prompting charges that the scientists are taking human lives.

On Aug. 9, 2001, President Bush said the federal government would not fund any research that used batches of embryonic stem cells created after that date, saying the government should not be encouraging the destruction of human embryos. The experiments announced yesterday were aimed at finding a way around this restriction, which scientists say has been holding back stem cell research in this country.

The scientists at Advanced Cell Technology, led by Dr. Robert Lanza, sought to show they could create embryonic stem cells without harming the embryo. They built on a technique that is commonly used to test embryos for genetic abnormalities at fertility clinics. In this technique, called pre- implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, a technician delicately removes a single cell from an eight-celled embryo. If the cell is genetically normal, then the embryo is placed in the mother. The procedure does not appear to harm the embryo, according to the paper in Nature.

Lanza's team, working with mice embryos, showed that this single cell can be used to make embryonic stem cells. In an interview, Lanza suggested that a fertility clinic doing PGD could remove a single cell, as it normally does, but then allow it to divide once in a dish. One cell could be used for the genetic testing, and the other could be used to make stem cells.

But scientists and ethicists identified several potential problems with the approach. Pacholczyk said Catholic teaching does not approve of PGD, because it is a violation of the embryo and is not aimed at helping the embryo. It is also possible that the removed cell has the potential to become an embryo, meaning that its destruction would also be viewed as taking a human life.

There are also practical problems, according to Douglas Powers, chief scientific officer of Boston IVF, a fertility clinic. For example, he said, there is the chance that the removed cell could die in its dish -- meaning it could not be tested for genetic abnormalities -- while scientists were waiting for it to divide. This could interfere with the patient's care, and perhaps mean that she would have to delay her attempt to become pregnant.

''When you start mixing the obtaining of research material with a clinical test, you get into a very tricky area," Powers said.

The other research, conducted by Rudolf Jaenisch, a Whitehead scientist, and his graduate student Alexander Meissner, is a test of a concept proposed last year by Dr. William Hurlbut, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics who teaches ethics at Stanford University. The idea is to create a genetically modified egg cell that is able to create embryonic stem cells, but is not able to develop into an embryo.

The technique gets its name, ''altered nuclear transfer," from the fact that it is a variation on nuclear transfer, also known as cloning. In nuclear transfer, the nucleus of an adult cell, which contains its DNA, is placed into an egg cell that has had its own nucleus removed, and the new cell is prompted to grow.

This can grow into an embryo genetically similar to the adult who donated the original cell. With altered nuclear transfer, the aim is to alter the genes of the nucleus before they are placed into the egg cell, to ensure that it is unable to become an embryo.

In the experiment, which was done using mice, the team showed that when they prevent a particular gene from functioning, the egg cell can create embryonic stem cells but is unable to become a viable embryo. In the experiment, the cells appear to divide and develop normally for several days, but it is then unable to develop a crucial outer layer of cells that eventually becomes the placenta.

But Pacholczyk said he has reservations about the particular gene used because it seems that the procedure creates a ''crippled embryo" -- which he considers to be a life that is quickly extinguished -- instead of avoiding the creation of an embryo.

He said that he and others were more hopeful about a variant on the idea that targets different genes. This idea was proposed by Dr. Markus Grompe, who is director of the Oregon Stem Cell Center and a professor at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.

Grompe said that he plans on doing experiments to test the ideas using monkey embryos, but that he does not yet have funding for the work."

Gareth Cook can be reached at cook@globe.com.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

BABY TEETH REVEALED AS SOURCE OF STEM CELLS

The tooth fairy could soon face competition for baby teeth from
scientists who have discovered the teeth are a source of stem cells. The
cells could help repair damaged teeth and perhaps even treat neural
injuries or degenerative diseases.

Currently, researchers can isolate two types of stem cells. Embryonic
stem cells can develop into any cell in the body, but their harvesting
requires the destruction of embryos, which pro-life groups oppose. Adult
stem cells avoid this problem, but have more limited abilities. Now it
appears that the stem cells from children's lost teeth could provide an
intermediate and easily accessible source.

"These stem cells seem to grow faster and have more potential to
differentiate into other cell types than adult stem cells," says Songtao
Shi, a pediatric dentist at the US National Institutes of Health in
Bethesda, Maryland. Shi and his colleagues found the baby teeth cells
can differentiate into tooth-forming cells called ondontoblasts, and
also neural cells and fat cells.

Baby teeth, also called milk teeth or deciduous teeth, appear from the
age of about six months and then fall out when children are between six
and 13 years old.

Source: Pro-Life E-News (enews@interlife.org)

The Case of Dr. Thomas Theodore

(Update): Paradigm Shift

    Several months ago the below article regarding the case of Thomas Ronald Theodore, M.D. and his work was published on www.marycoredemptrix.com in an on-line magazine entitled The Center Review (Winter 2003-2004).

    In December 2003 the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated his motion for a new trial, and remanded it back to the U.S. District Court for further hearings. The First Circuit Court of Appeals said that the District Court abused its discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court stated that Dr. Theodore's lawyer was not only negligent but utterly ignorant of the Rules of Federal Procedure and that the District Court should reconsider.

    After remand the trial judge recused himself from the case. The trial judge was actually a witness at an evidentiary hearing held in U.S. District Court on June 28 and 29, 2004. At the hearing the trial judge, as a witness, stated that in retrospect he should have given Dr. Theodore a new counsel prior to trial. The trial judge also stated that more often than not, the trial was not a “meaningful test of the adversarial process.” He said that jury instructions did not cure the government's erroneous portrayal of Dr. Theodore's not being a qualified physician. The documentation came in too late to eliminate “the skunk in the jury box.”

    The new presiding U.S. District Court Judge indicated he would order a new trial once both sides have filed summary memorandums. It should be ordered by September, 2004.

    For the first time since the entire case started it has now been placed into the record that something was very wrong about this prosecution including a government informant was let go who had telephone tape that was exculpatory.

    For the first time the Court is now aware that Dr. Theodore has U.S. and worldwide patents. These patents and his initial research show that there is a real probability that adult stem cell production can be stimulated in healthy and ill individuals. This information has been known by the FDA and the NIH. They have subordinated it and tried to discredit Dr. Theodore. The truth is that a simple search on the NIH/PubMed website for HEPES during the last few years, indicates that researchers around the world have begun to note the effects of this compound (previously thought to be a buffer) in many major journals. The validation is significant.

    There are real scientific alternatives to embryo derived stem cell research. Dr. Theodore's work should be brought forth and validated without delay before those with socio-economic interests deceive Congress into unnecessary compromises.

    President Bush means what he says about not allowing embryo derived stem cells. The moral road is not always an easy road to travel. Embryo derived stem cells are not necessary if there are alternatives. There are alternatives, and they utilize God's own design, not manipulate it. Please make others aware of this issue.

                                                                                                  ***************
The Strange Case of Dr. Thomas Theodore
by Bro. Thomas Mary Sennott

   The academic community and the media, always in cahoots, tell us that they need dead babies,
which they call "fetuses" or "tissue", for their embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells
have not yet specialized, and are ancestral to specialized cells such as blood cells. The research possibilities for the use of these cells, they tell us, is practically endless. They always hint loudly of
a cure for cancer. The research is usually accompanied by huge grants from the federal
government of the taxpayer's dollars.

    Therefore, claim academia and the media, abortion is absolutely necessary to supply the
researchers with fetuses for this embryonic stem cell research. They always affect a high moral indignation when pro-lifers assert that abortion is murder. Pro-lifers are seen to be against
medical research, and are depriving us of numerous benefits, such as a cure for cancer. But you
would know, a priori, that God would not bless this research, founded as it is on the killing of
children. When an attempt was made to treat Parkinson's Disease with material derived from
this research, the results were disastrous. The patients were made much worse.

    But what if embryos are not really necessary for stem cell research? Suppose the production
of stem cells could be stimulated in adults? This is in fact what has happened. A medical
researcher in Massachusetts, Dr. Thomas R. Theodore, has discovered and developed a substance
that does just that - stimulates the production of stem cells in adults. Dr. Theodore has taken out a
patent on this discovery, and he began to publish his work in the technical journals. What do you
think was the reaction of the medical community? Were they glad to disassociate themselves from
the infamous killing of babies? Quite the contrary. They landed on Dr. Theodore like a ton of
bricks. On a trumped up charge (mail fraud), and a farce of a trial, which will be probably studied
in law schools in years to come, Dr Theodore was sentenced by a federal court in Boston to ten
years in jail, and fined a million and a half dollars. He has lost his home, but most importantly his
research work has been stopped, and his fate is intended as a warning to anyone who will dare
take it up. The medical community has always been an integral part of the abortion industry.

Bro Thomas Mary Sennott
tmsennott@att.net
July 20, 2002

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Stem Cell Research: Saving Life Without Destroying It
(Advocates of human embryo destruction say they must destroy life to save it.
But one 16-year-old cancer survivor says it's not true. )
By Candi Cushman (Associate Editor of CITIZEN MAGAZINE)

He was only 11 years old when the diagnosis came: an advanced case of myloid
leukemia. It was the worst kind of leukemia, doctors said -- the form of bone
marrow cancer most resistant to chemotherapy. For the next three years,
Nathan Salley, a slender, bright-eyed boy with a shock of sandy blonde hair,
endured round after round of painful spinal taps, radiation and chemotherapy
that seemingly had no effect -- except to leave Nathan exhausted and
nauseated. No longer able to attend his Christian school in Arvada, Colo., he
began taking home courses.

"Friends were supportive, but the cancer treatment was awful," recalled
Nathan. "I lost my hair and appetite, but I tried hard to do as many things
as I could. . . . Soccer teammates put my number on their jerseys for the
remainder of the season." Then, in July 1999, hope arrived in an unexpected
place -- an umbilical cord from Spain. Donated by a mother who gave birth to
a baby boy, the cord carried a treasure trove of healthy stem cells that
exactly matched Nathan's.

At age 14, he became the center of a cutting edge science experiment -- and
of political debate -- as one of the oldest children to ever receive stem
cells from an umbilical cord.

Scientists recently discovered that stem cells, unlike most human cells which
only perform certain functions, can produce different types of tissue, thus
giving them the exciting potential to cure disease and restore damaged organs.

Though President Bush has limited funding to research on embryos already
destroyed by in-vitro fertilization clinics, maverick scientists are pushing
ahead.

But that potential has produced a frenzy of ethically questionable
experiments -- human cloning, the destruction of human embryos and fetal
tissue research -- that help scientists get at those coveted stem cells.

Though President Bush limited funding to research on embryos already
destroyed by in-vitro fertilization clinics, maverick scientists are pushing
ahead. On Nov. 26, a private firm called Advanced Cell Technology riveted the
nation by announcing it had cloned a human embryo. Why? Researchers wanted
embryo stem cells. Calling it "therapeutic cloning," the company's president,
Michael West, said he just wanted to "save people's lives who are sick." In
other words, he's making expendable humans to be destroyed for other lives
deemed more valuable.

The government currently takes a hands off approach toward human cloning and
embryo destruction -- it doesn't fund it; but it doesn't ban it either.

This October, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.,
proposed amendments to the appropriations bill that would fund research on
new embryos created "in excess of clinical need." Conflict broke out in
Congress as pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kan., countered with amendments
that banned human cloning and the creation of human embryos for research.
Worried that friction wouldn't bode well after Sept. 11, senators agreed to
put off the debate until February or March.

Brownback, angered by the human cloning announcement in November, sought a
six-month ban on human cloning last week but liberals thwarted the effort.
They also want more federal funding of embryonic stem cell research than
President Bush has said he will allow.

"We must not say to millions of sick or injured human beings 'go ahead and
die and stay paralyzed because we believe . . . a clump of cells is more
important than you are,' " said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY. What he didn't say
is that scientists already are using stem cells found in adult bodies and in
umbilical cords to create new tissue and treat thousands of sick individuals.

As one of those individuals, Nathan underwent a groundbreaking procedure in
which his own blood marrow cells were destroyed and replaced with healthy
stem cells from the donated cord. What makes Nathan's case unique is that, as
an older child, he needed more stem cells than are in the umbilical cord. So
before transplanting them into Nathan' s body, scientists treated the cord
cells with growth vitamins, in essence, making healthy cells multiply in a
sick person's body.

Amazingly, the cells created a new bone marrow devoid of disease, and two
years later Nathan's leukemia is in complete remission. Now 16, he is once
again an honor roll student and soccer player at Faith Christian Academy in
Arvada. Nathan testified about his recovery during a congressional hearing on
stem cell research last July. "As a result of this groundbreaking procedure,
I am proof that the medical community does not need to destroy life to save
it," he told lawmakers, speaking softly as his parents sat behind him holding
hands and fighting back tears.

Scientific evidence backs his assertion. Once touted as the new 21st century
cure-all, embryonic stem cell experiments are losing ground to alternative
cell therapies that don't destroy life. Just in the last three months, cells
found in adult bodies, in umbilical cords and placenta have been used to
treat cancer, grow new eye corneas and repair heart damage.

"Apparently our traditional views need to be reevaluated," admitted Eric
Olson, a molecular biologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center who supports embryonic research. Even the secular press, which last
year was loudly lauding embryo experimentation, took note.

"Until now, researchers thought that stem cells from embryos offer the best
hope for rebuilding damaged organs," reported NBC Nightly News' Robert
Bazell. "But this latest research shows that the embryos, which are
politically controversial, may not be necessary."

Some of the nondestructive cell procedures generating the most excitement
include:

Heart therapy
With more than 7 million Americans suffering heart attacks each year, heart
disease is the nation's leading killer. So it is of no small significance
that non-embryonic cells show great promise in repairing heart damage.

In Japan, researchers have used individuals' own bone marrow cells to
increase blood flow in previously untreatable coronary arteries, according to
studies presented at the American Heart Association's meeting in mid
November. And a Fort Lauderdale-based company called Bioheart, Inc. repaired
heart damage in 10 European patients by taking muscle cells from their thighs
and transplanting them in their hearts.

Called "tissue regeneration," the procedure already is used to grow new skin,
bone and eye tissue, but this marked the first time it was used to treat an
organ as complex as the heart. The success created a buzz among heart
specialists, some deeming it the biggest breakthrough since heart
transplants.

"We don't have many good options [for treating heart attacks], said Dr.
Donald D. Glower, a professor of surgery at Duke University's medical center.
"This is one of the more promising avenues. It could eventually become a
very, very powerful tool."

The Brain
Challenging claims that only embryonic cells can create brain cells,
researchers at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia say they have
converted stem cells from human bone marrow into neurons (brain cells), and a
neuroscientist in California announced that cadaver brains also supply
valuable neurons. That means adult stem cells could have the potential to
treat Parkinson's and other neurological diseases, including multiple
sclerosis.

Animal experiments also show promise: At the University of South Florida in
Tampa, scientists injected umbilical cord stem cells into rats that had
suffered strokes. Amazingly, the cells blended with surrounding brain tissue
and formed healthy neural cells.

Molecular biologist Freda Miller of McGill University in Montreal, Canada,
published a study in September showing that adult stem cells found in skin
can develop into brain cells. Furthermore, skin cells are easier to harvest
than embryonic cells, reported Miller.

"The dogma used to be that if you were a stem cell in [adult] bone marrow,
you could only make blood cells, or if you were a stem cell in skin, you
could only make skin," said Rondal Worton, head of Canada's Stem Cell
Network. "There's now enough lab work to say the dogma was wrong."

Ironically, one of the main arguments made by embryonic research supporters
is that experiments should continue until scientists know which cells
therapies work best. While arguing for embryo research two years ago, the
federally funded National Bioethics Advisory Commission declared that "the
derivation of stem cells from embryos â¦is justifiable only if no less morally
problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research." Now Dr.
David Prentice, co-founder of Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for
Research Ethics, wants the government to keep its word.

"I have somewhere around 300 published papers documenting over the last three
years the success of adult stem cells," Prentice said, who teaches life
science at Indiana State University in Terre Haute. "Adult stem cells can
change into other tissue, they are already treating patients and they are
showing much more success in animals. But there are probably less than 50
studies on embryo stem cells and even those studies don't show what they
want."

Take, for instance, the glowing media reports last spring that embryonic
cells injected in diabetic mice produced insulin. "But what actually happened
was that they made 1/50th the amount of insulin [they needed] and the
diabetic mice still died," clarified Prentice.

Not reported in the media was the fact that, one year before, Florida
researchers had successfully used adult pancreatic stem cells in diabetic
mice. Roughly 10 days later, the mice no longer needed insulin shots, said
Prentice.

After Nathan Salley took his turn speaking at the congressional hearing,
embryonic research advocates trotted out their biggest guns -- high profile
celebrities like Mary Tyler Moore, who chairs the Juvenile Diabetes
Foundation, and Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's. Fox told
lawmakers that "stem cell research offers the chance of a medical miracle"
and has the potential to "literally save millions of lives."

But a closer look at the evidence sheds doubt on that claim. Consider what
happened when embryo brain cells harvested from fetuses were injected into
the brains of Parkinson's patients. A few of the patients experienced a small
degree of improvement, reported The New England Journal of Medicine last May.
But the others developed more severe symptoms than before, including constant
jerky motions.

"While the experiment did not specifically involve stem cells, the results
served as a reminder that any cells, once implanted, can have not only
unwanted but irreversible side effects," concluded Stephen S. Hall, a New
York Times contributing writer and author of Invisible Frontiers, a book
about biotechnology.

Another favorite argument of embryonic research advocates is that embryo
cells are more flexible than adult stem cells. But there is a dark side to
that advantage -- in addition to being more flexible, they are also less
controllable and have more potential to form tumors.

American citizens didn't hear about that danger when the media reported that
scientists in Israel made embryo stem cells produce insulin. "The popular
press said, 'Oh, now we are going to cure diabetes,'" said Prentice. "But
when I read the scientific paper, they only got 1 percent of the cells to
make insulin, the rest was a mix of a few muscle cells, nerve cells and even
cells still growing -- which means that if you inject diabetics patients
with this you are going to give them a tumor, not cure them."

Admittedly, adult stem cell benefits also need more testing to be certain,
Prentice said. But the media has repeatedly embellished the advantages of
embryonic experiments while understating the success of alternative research.

Back in Colorado, Nathan Salley just wants his life to return to normal --
no more tiring trips to Washington, no more media interviews and, most
importantly, no more sickness. With his leukemia in remission, he wants to be
an ordinary teenager -- one who is no longer defined by a disease or a
political debate, but instead anonymously enjoying high school soccer games
and pizza parties.

And if scientific research continues in the right direction -- toward
nondestructive stem cell therapy already proven to work -- perhaps hundreds
of other children like Nathan also can have that hope, a hope for life that
doesn't come at the expense of human dignity.

"I am not a doctor, a scientist or a theologian," Nathan told Congress. "But,
speaking as one cancer survivor who benefited from cord cell treatment, it
does not seem right to me to terminate living human embryos based on mere
speculation that they could lead to cures -- when obvious alternatives have
not been exhausted."

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: Stem Cell Research: Saving Life Without Destroying It
Source: Citizen Magazine; December Issue

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

Women's Thyroid Stem Cells eyed as alternative resource

by Michael Lasalandra (BOSTON HERALD - Dec. 14, 2001)

Boston - Researchers at New England Medical Center say they have found evidence of fetal stem cells

in the thyroids of adult women and say the findings could offer another source of the cells that may be able to be used as sources of replacement parts or new tissues.

"We want people to consider that in the stem cell debate there may be another interpretation," said

Dr. Diana Bianchi, chief of the NEMC/Floating Hospital department of genetics.

In 1996, researchers found fetal stem cells floating around in the blood of women who previously

had been pregnant. The cells were left over from their babies.

In a new paper, to be published tomorrow in the LANCET, Bianchi reported finding evidence of fetal stem cells in the thyroids of adult women who had once been pregnant. In 16 of the 29 women studied, fetal cells were found in the thyroid containing the Y chromosome, indicating they were from their

babies. In one of the women, researchers found fully differentiated male thyroid cells attached to the

rest of the thyroid.

In essence, "one part of her thyroid was male and one part was female," Bianchi said.

The finding could indicate that the stem cells made a new thyroid.

     "Just because fetal stem cells are in the blood doesn't mean they are capable of doing anything,"
she said. "Now, we see cells making a thyroid." She said the finding could mean that scientists may
not have to rely on embryos as sources of stem cells. "Our study offers hope for finding those
valuable cells in adult women, thus advancing research without ethical complications," she said.

Japanese Successfully Use Cord Blood Stem Cells on Leukemia

Tokyo, Japan -- The number of cord blood transplants in Japan to treat
illnesses such as leukemia reached 500 on Tuesday, according to the
Japanese Cord Blood Bank Network, which handles such procedures.

Cord blood transfusions use stem cells from blood of placentas and
umbilical cords donated by women who have given birth. Cord blood contains
many of the blood-forming stem cells capable of producing all the
components of blood and bone marrow.

The burden on the donor is small compared with bone marrow transplants as
the blood is collected and preserved after a woman gives birth, the
network said.

As the number of cells is small, there are aspects unsuitable for adults,
and about 80% of the transplants are conducted on children, it said.

Cord blood transplants were initially conducted among relatives, but as it
is possible to preserve the blood by freezing it, transplants have been
conducted on people unrelated by blood since February 1997, the network
said.

Cord blood from a total of about 6,300 people is being preserved at nine
cord blood banks nationwide, according to the network.

The network said it aims to preserve cord blood from 20,000 people by
2004, to be able to treat more than 85% of children needing such
transplants.

On Tuesday, two transplants were conducted in Tochigi Prefecture, eastern
Japan, and in Okayama Prefecture, western Japan, the network said.

"The number of transplants is increasing smoothly," said Hidehiko Saito,
head of the network. "But insurance does not apply to about 3.5 million
yen in costs needed on average other than for the transplants and we would
like that to be incorporated into medical insurance."

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Japanese Successfully Use Cord Blood Stem Cells on Leukemia
Source:   Japan Economic Newswire; November 5, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
STEM CELL LOOPHOLE

According to a Chicago Tribune report, "The Bush
administration has approved the first federally funded project using
stem cells obtained from fetuses aborted up to eight weeks after
conception, expanding the scientific promise of stem cell research and
complicating the ethics debate that surrounds it." The Tribune notes
that different rules apply to embryos and fetuses -- technical
distinctions based on the gestational age of the preborn child. "Bush's
policy barred the use of federal grants for research on stem cells taken
from embryos after Aug. 9, 2001. Bush said the decision was based on his
moral opposition to destroying additional embryos for research purposes.
But that restriction does not apply to research on stem cells obtained
from fetuses, according to officials at the National Institutes of
Health. Such work falls under less-restrictive Clinton-era rules, which
Bush never revised."

Source: American Life League "Communique" (communique@all.org)

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

Italians Report Finding Alternative Stem Cell Research Method

New Study shows Dangers of Embryonic Stem Cell

British Study Says Adult Stem Cells Can Change to Kidney Cells

Stem Cell Research Truths: The debate continues
By Patrick Lee & Robert P. George

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: The following is the latest in a series of op-ed
debates between the authors and Ronald Bailey, a pro-embryonic stem cell
research writer for Reason Magazine. Mr. Lee is associate professor of
philosophy at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. Mr. George is the
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.]

In attempting to justify the destruction of embryonic human beings to
harvest their stem cells, Ronald Bailey has, on the one hand, conceded
that you and I were once embryos, and, on the other hand, insisted that
human embryos are not distinct organisms at all. Thus, Bailey has managed
to back himself into the absurd position of suggesting that human beings
at more mature stages of development once existed as embryos but were,
during the embryonic stage, something other than distinct organisms (and
yet has also admitted that we are essentially physical organisms).

The truth, of course, is that you and I came into existence precisely at
the point at which the distinct human organism that is now you or I came
into existence. It is true to say that each of us was once an embryo,
because the distinct, self-integrating, human, physical organism that is
now you or me is identical to, or continuous with, the distinct,
self-integrating, human organism that was, at earlier stages of
development, an adolescent, a child, an infant, a fetus, and, at the dawn
of his or her life, an embryo. If the embryo were in fact something other
than a distinct, self-integrating organism if it were, like sperm cells,
ova, or somatic cells, merely part of another human being then it would
not be correct to say that you or I were once embryos, any more than it
would be correct to say that you or I were once sperm cells, or ova, or
(in the case of someone who was brought into being by cloning) somatic
cells. So Bailey is right to concede that we were once embryos and utterly
wrong to insist that embryos are not distinct organisms.

Bailey's denial of the fact that embryos are distinct organisms is meant
to support his claim that when we were embryos we were not "people." We
have made two points about this claim. First, Bailey's argument for it
turns out to be philosophical rather than scientific. It therefore does
nothing to fulfill his original promise to establish as a matter of
scientific fact that human embryos are not human beings. Second, the claim
is philosophically untenable. Either it mistakenly identifies the human
person with something other than the human organism, or it denies that we
are intrinsically worthwhile because of what we are, as opposed to our
properties, states, talents, etc. (and thus deserve the title, "persons").

In our exchanges with Bailey, we have defended the following set of
propositions:

(1) What we are is a human, physical organism.

(2) We are intrinsically worthwhile because of what we are, not just
because of characteristics we acquire at some point in our life.

(3) Therefore, all human, physical organisms are intrinsically worthwhile
(and hence are "people").

Not only did we present arguments to support (1) and (2), but Bailey has
at different times expressly admitted both of those premises. When Bailey
in his last article claims that, "we know for sure that people all have
human brains," that simply begs the question. If you once were a human
embryo (as Bailey rightly concedes) then you once existed at a time before
you had a brain, just as you existed before you had permanent teeth (or
any teeth for that matter), and just as you existed before you had lungs.
And if you are intrinsically valuable because of what you are (which
Bailey has also conceded), then an entity which has intrinsic value (and
so is a "person") exists at all times that you exist.

The only colorable ground for saying that a human organism needs a brain
to be a "person" is to claim that one must have an immediately exercisable
capacity for consciousness. When we set forth reasons for rejecting any
such claim, Bailey replied that we erroneously accused him "of defining
human beings in terms of their being conscious or having mental
functions." But if this is not how Bailey defines human beings, then why
does he think that a human organism must have a brain in order to be a
person? If a whole human being is a person, and does not need to have an
immediately exercisable capacity for consciousness to be a person, then
why are those human individuals at developmental stages prior to complete
brain development not people? (Of course, the embryo possesses from the
start the epigenetic primordia for brain development and is, indeed,
actively developing a brain, just as he or she is developing all the other
bodily organs he or she will possess at maturity.)

The only alternative is to hold that the embryo or fetus must have a brain
in order to be a distinct organism at all, that prior to the appearance of
the brain (at eight weeks when a complete brain has developed, or at three
weeks when the primitive streak appears, which is plainly its primordium,
or before that, when the cells appear which also constitute the primordium
of the brain?) the embryo is (somehow) not really a distinct organism. Is
this Bailey's position? If so, it is plainly false. What could the embryo
possibly be? He or she (for the sex is determined from the beginning) is
clearly not a part of the mother, nor a part of the father, nor a stray
cell, nor a mere clump of cells, for this highly organized being is
growing in a definite self-directed manner, toward the more mature stage
of a human organism.

Not being able to maintain consistently that we once were human organisms
but were not people (since at different points he has conceded each
premise of the argument that refutes it), Bailey falls back on his denial
that the human embryo is distinct a denial that is manifestly inconsistent
with his concession that we once were human embryos.

The origin of Bailey's errors appears to be his supposition that the
pro-life argument is that human embryos are distinct human beings merely
because each has a distinct genetic code. If this were the pro-life
argument, then the facts of cloning and twinning would refute it. But, as
we have pointed out, it isn't. Everyone knows that there are various
things that, though not human beings, have a distinct and fully human
genetic makeup a culture in a petri dish waiting to be tested for strep
infection, or a beating heart on ice awaiting transplantation, for
example. (Contrary to what Bailey implies at the end of his most recent
article, such facts are scarcely "recent scientific discoveries.") The
fact is that having a distinct genetic make-up is sufficient to prove in
most cases that the developing embryo is not a part of the mother or the
father. That still is true for identical twins or for an embryo who might
generate an identical twin from his or her cells. But it is obviously not
sufficient to show, nor does anyone think that it is sufficient to show,
that these embryos are whole human beings. What does show decisively that
embryos are whole human organisms (and distinct from identical twin
siblings, if they have any, or from donors, if they are clones) is the
self-integration and self-direction of maturation and growth that these
embryos actively maintain; they do not function as parts of larger
organisms, but each functions as a whole organism of the human species,
directing his or her own integral organic functioning.

Bailey has never faced up to our original reply to his argument that human
embryos are no different in value and worth from any of our somatic cells
because somatic cells are like embryos in possessing a full genetic code.
We pointed out that this argument ignores the massive difference between
human embryos and somatic cells: Human embryos are, and somatic cells are
not, whole organisms actively developing themselves (unless prevented from
doing so) to maturation.

Bailey has fallen back on arguing that human embryos are not distinct
organisms because the fact of twinning and the possibility of cloning
disprove any great discontinuity between any of our somatic cells and
human embryos, or between the totipotent cells within an embryo before he
or she twins, and a human embryo. He argues that, "what we see is a series
of proper environments needed for human DNA to begin the process of
embryonic development." So, "there is a series of proper environments
needed for human DNA to begin the process of embryonic development." What
Bailey actually asks us to believe is that each of our cells, even while
it is part of us and functions as part of the whole organism that we are,
is the same kind of thing, with the same kind of potentiality, as a whole
human embryo, who is directing its own integral organic functioning and
actively developing himself or herself to maturity. If that were so, then
each of our cells already would be a whole organism, only waiting for the
proper environment to begin maturation. But that is absurd.

The human embryo and each somatic cell are similar in this one respect:
each has the entire human genetic code or information which could in the
right circumstances guide the self-development of a whole human organism
to maturity. But the discontinuity is undeniable: the human embryo, but
not the somatic cell, is actively making use of that genetic information
for its own self-directed maturation. So, to the argument indicated above,
numbered (1) through (3) we can add:

(4) Biology (and, in particular, the subfield of human embryology) shows
that distinct, whole human organisms come to be when there is generated a
distinct organism actively developing its forces and elements toward its
own more mature stages of development. (This occurs usually with the
fusion of the spermatazoon and the oocyte. With monozygotic twins, a
second distinct organism comes to be with the extrinsic division of the
first embryo that was generated by fertilization. Finally, in cloning, a
new organism comes to be with the fusion and activation of the chromosomes
of a somatic cell with an enucleated ovum.)

Incidentally, Bailey entirely missed the point of our argument concerning
infant mortality. It is simply this: The high infant-mortality rates that
characterized societies for most of human history provide no legitimate
ground for denying the status of infants as human beings. By precisely the
same token, high rates of early miscarriage do nothing to disprove the
humanity of embryonic human beings.

Bailey's argument in the last paragraph of his most recent salvo is simply
confused. It is obvious, he contends, that unimplanted embryos are not
people because no one tries to rescue them. Yet some people do try to
rescue them, and, as a matter of fact, that is what we are trying to do
just now. Moreover, let us remind Bailey that the question we are debating
is precisely how we should treat unimplanted embryos. It proves nothing to
argue that a class of human individuals are not persons because others
fail to treat them as persons, and to argue this precisely in a debate
where one's opponents are in fact urging their readers to treat them as
persons. The analogy cannot be avoided: It is like arguing against
abolitionists that slaves are not persons because others fail to treat
them as persons.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: Stem Cell Research Truths: The debate continues
Source:   National Review; September 10, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
The Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001

The Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001 - Pro-life
Congressman Chris Smith's (R-NJ) proposal will authorize $30
million for ethical, adult stem cell research and sets up a
stem cell bank at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
This bank will collect umbilical cord and placenta blood,
which will generate a source for stem cells. This would
avoid the ethical dilemma of using stem cells from aborted
babies. To learn more about this legislation, go to Chris
Smith's web site at: http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/.

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:22:41 -0700
From: "SueW" <gswidemark@home.com>
To: "Cinlife_mailing list" <cinlife@cin.org>
Subject: Stem cell research

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Congressman Chris Smith Shows the Personal Side of Stem Cell Research

Washington, DC -- There is a lot at stake in the debate over embryonic
stem cell research. The president faces tremendous cross-pressures on this
issue. And it's not just politics; it's personal.

Mark and Luke Borden, 9-month-old twins, are two of the human faces of the
stem cell debate. They were adopted when they were frozen embryos.

Their biological parents gave the unborn children to Lucinda and John
Borden, who had tried unsuccessfully for years to have children.

"Adoption is respect for life," says Lucinda Borden. "And putting these
children up for adoption is a much better way to respect that life than
donating them for research and killing them off."

The Bordens have become the poster family for pro-life organizations
trying to cut off federal funding for research on stem cells derived from
cryogenically frozen embryos.

"We need to look at these cryogenic tanks as frozen orphanages rather than
some kind of material that scientists can manipulate for whatever reason
they would like to," says Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.

For a picture of Mark and Luke Borden, email infonet@prolifeinfo.org

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject:   Congressman Chris Smith Shows the Personal Side of Stem Cell Research
Source:   ABC News; July 9, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Christian Medical Association Delivers Embryo Stem Cell Research Petitions to Bush

Washington, DC -- -- The Christian Medical Association today delivered to
President Bush a petition signed by over 600 medical leaders across the
country, urging the President to uphold the ban on federal funding of
lethal embryonic stem cell research.

CMA Executive Director David Stevens, MD explained, "As President Bush has
made clear, this is not a political issue; it is a moral issue. We know
the President is dedicated to leading our nation in building a culture of
life. This petition urges him to begin building that foundation with a
clear call to conscience in protecting the lives of the most vulnerable
members of human society. We also urge the president to take this
opportunity to provide real hope for patients-by directing federal funding
toward ethical avenues of adult stem cell research."

The CMA petition noted, "The undersigned individuals are part of a
national movement of doctors, researchers, medical school deans and
professors, ethicists and other scientists who support the protection of
human life from fertilization to natural death. We urge you to insure
such protection for living human beings from destructive human embryonic
stem cell research."

Unlike embryonic stem cells, ethically obtained adult stem cells offer
proven promise for therapeutic applications. The petition observed,
"That's why it is crucial that you offer patients true hope -- by
directing federal research dollars toward ethical adult stem cell research
while upholding longstanding ethical injunctions against lethal human
experimentation."

The petitioners also linked the contention of the National Institutes of
Health that "an embryo merits respect as human life -- but not the level
accorded to persons" with the infamous 1857 Supreme Court ruling that Dred
Scott, a black slave, "had no rights which the United States government
was bound to recognize".

The petitioners called on President Bush to emulate President Abraham
Lincoln's opposition to the Dred Scott rationale:

"Employing remarkable political courage and moral fortitude, President
Lincoln upheld our highest principles of government and humanity. Mr.
President, you have a similar opportunity to lead the nation, through
statesmanship, in 'such a time as this.' This is the time to draw a line
in the sand -- whatever the political risks -- for this is where the
battle for life begins. If we fail to protect life in its earliest, most
vulnerable stages, then we surely make vulnerable every human life."

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Christian Medical Association Delivers ESCR Petitions to Bush
Source:   Christian Medical Association; August 1, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Mona Charen on Stem Cell Research

Let's use the bodies of condemned criminals for medical research! We could
donate the eyes and heart of a Timothy McVeigh-type to some worthy medical
experiment, and the lungs and livers of other murderers for similar
purposes. Well, after all, the bodies are only going to be buried anyway,
at least this way some good will come of them.

Why do you squirm? Probably for the same reason that no one stood in line
to receive "fresh" organs from Dr. Jack Kevorkian when he offered them.

We flinch from using the organs from condemned people for several reasons,
but the most important is our well-grounded fear that using the organs of
executed criminals might introduce temptations to the administration
capital punishment that would be immoral. If the state takes someone's
life, it should be for one reason only -- to exact punishment for a
heinous crime. Imagine if judges and juries were also considering how many
lives could be saved by making available fresh hearts, lungs, kidneys and
so on?

And yet, in the debate over stem cell research, we are constantly reminded
that these embryos are going to be "discarded" anyway. Well, that only
shows how much work we have to do in sensitizing people to the sanctity of
life.

Human embryos should never be "discarded." There are other options, like
reducing the numbers of embryos that are created in the first place, or
embryo adoption. But this is a secondary question. The heart of the matter
is this: Is an embryo an entity that deserves special respect?

Newsweek magazine's cover story on the matter emphatically answers that
question in the negative. Over a picture of a fuzzy ball of cells the
cover proclaims "There's Hope for Alzheimer's, Heart Disease, Parkinson's
and Diabetes. But Will Bush Cut Off the Money?" Inside, one researcher
thunders, "Anyone who would ban research on embryonic stem cells will be
responsible for the harm done to real, alive, postnatal, sentient human
beings who might be helped by this research."

Emphasis on might. It may be that the miracle cures confidently predicted
for Parkinsons, diabetes and such will come to pass, but some caution is
certainly in order. Recall that just a few years ago, medical and media
circles were abuzz with hopes for the implantation of fetal brain cells
into patients with Parkinson's. Then too, as Neil Munro reminds us in the
National Journal, The Washington Post urged a president named Bush to lift
federal bans on such research since it offered "the best hope for progress
on curing such diseases as Parkinson's."

The federal ban was not lifted, but some scientists went ahead with the
procedure anyway. The results were noted (very quietly) just a couple of
months ago. The New York Times reported that the experimental treatment
was a failure, and that some patients suffered side effects described as
"absolutely devastating ... tragic, catastrophic."

While results from stem cells may be better, one never hears a scientist
asked: What is the marginal benefit of embryonic stem cells versus those
found in umbilical cord blood, or those found in adults? Are we five
years, or three, or one year away from achieving the same results with
less morally comprised tissue?

To extract a stem cell from an embryo is to kill it. Now, Utah Sen. Orrin
Hatch argues that an embryo in a fertility clinic freezer does not have
the same status as a baby in a mother's womb.

A thought experiment: Suppose a burglar with a grudge against a couple
went to her fertility clinic and methodically smashed the vials containing
their frozen embryos. Would their damages be only the value of the broken
glass?

It is difficult for people with limited imaginations to see an embryo as a
human being. They don't look like us. But that is the stupendous miracle
of life. Each of us begins as a dot of information smaller than the period
at the end of this sentence. We are dust -- and yet with the magic of DNA
and with time, we become people. And those little clumps of cells, which
even Newsweek agrees are "a world of potential," cannot ethically be
sacrificed -- no matter what the hoped-for gain.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: Mona Charen on Stem Cell Research
Source:   Pro-Life Infonet; July 7, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Stemming the Tide of Misinformation on Stem Cell Research
by Susan E. Wills

Chances are you've never heard of Melissa Holley. She's an American
teenager whose spinal cord was severed in an auto accident last year,
leaving her paraplegic. Today Melissa "has recovered significant motor
function in her legs" and regained bladder control, following an injection
of immune cells from her own blood into the damaged area of her spinal
cord. She's not walking (yet), but the new treatment developed by
Proneuron Biotechnologies in Israel marks a startling new advance in
restoring function lost by a severe spinal cord injury.

That Melissa's astonishing progress was not front page news may be due to
the fact that we're in the middle of a highly politicized debate over
federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. With few
exceptions, the national media have chosen sides with profunding forces.
Reporters and columnists have all but ignored astounding research
developments involving cells obtained without injury to the donor--from,
e.g., adult human tissue, umbilical cord blood, placentas, and even the
brains of cadavers. At the same time they have trumpeted even modest
advances using embryonic stem cells-as if cures were suddenly at hand for
"incurable" conditions like diabetes, paralysis, Parkinson's and
Alzheimer's--and downplayed the negative scientific and ethical aspects of
using these cells.

Examples of this media bias were detailed in May by the Statistical
Assessment Service (STATS), a non-partisan, non-profit research
organization devoted to the accurate use of scientific and social research
in public policy debate. One example STATS cited was a report that mouse
embryonic stem cells had been programmed to secrete insulin, supposedly
pointing to a cure for diabetes (Science, April 2001). This received wide
and enthusiastic media coverage. But no mention was made of a much more
signigicant development MORE THAN A YEAR EARLIER, in which ADULT mouse
pancreatic stem cells successfully REVERSED diabetes in the mice (Nature
Medicine, March 2000). And journalists neglected to mention that the mice
receiving the embryonic stem cells still DIED from diabetes (a point which
diabetics might find relevant). Nor has there been coverage of further
developments here and abroad where ductal tissue from adult HUMAN pancreas
has produced insulin-secreting islet buds in culture.

Unless you read science journals, you would not know that amazing advances
in research using non-embryonic stem cells are occurring rapidly. A few
examples: Human patients were successbully treated for heart disease using
stem cells from their own arm muscles (The Lancet, January 2001);
umbilical cords "offer a vast new source of repair material for fixing
brains damaged by strokes or other ills" (Associated Press report); stem
cells from the adult bone marrow of rats and mice created new heart muscle
cells and blood vessels; UCLA researchers created human bone, cartilage
and muscle tissues from human fat stem cells; at the Salk Institute, brain
stem cells taken as long as 20 hours after death, from cadavers up to 72
years of age, were induced to proliferate; and, adult bone marrow stem
cells can form almost any cell type--liver, nerve, brain, and so on.
(Science, June 2001).

Such discoveries mean that real cures for debilitating conditions are
possible in the foreseeable future. But with few exceptions, the national
media have been loathe to admit that embryos are anything more than
disposable tissue. Maybe they fear that the precarious edifice of abortion
rights could topple, and that the great god, Science, may be restrained by
"conventional" and "outdated" morality. The new morality, underlying many
editorials, can be reduced to one commandment: the end justifies the
means. History offers endless examples of what happens when groups of
humans are treated as "less than humans," as objects for others' use and
destruction.

The path we should walk is clear. We must resist efforts to kill. We must
resist the justification of killing human embryos through appeals to the
"greater good" of patients or society. And we should support important
legislation like the "Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001,"
sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith, allocating $30 million for stem cell
research from non-embryonic sources and creating a "cell donor bank" to
serve researchers nationwide. Over 24,000 people have signed a petition to
President Bush on this issue, organized by the Coalition of Americans for
Research Ethics (at www.stemcellresearch.org). In fact, why not sign up
today? And let the White House know what you think.

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Susan Wills is assistant director for program
development, for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.]
From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Stemming the Tide of Misinformation on Stem Cell Research
Source:   National Conference of Catholic Bishops; July 5, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
I'm Pro-Life and Oppose Embryonic Stem Cell Research
By J.C. Willke, M.D.

Much has been said and written about "stem cell" research.
Unfortunately, a number of biologic inaccuracies continue to be
promulgated and, as a result, have colored decision making for many
people. The first thing to distinguish is the fact that ethically we can
experiment on human tissue, but we should not experiment on human beings.
Accordingly, it is perfectly ethical to proceed with any and all type of
stem cell research as long as this is human tissue, but it is completely
unethical to do embryonic stem cell research, which of its very nature
necessitates the killing of a living human embryo to obtain that stem
cell.

To understand this we must first review early developmental biology.
Human life begins at the union of sperm and ovum. During that first day,
this is properly termed a "fertilized egg." However, this single-celled
human body divides, divides, and divides again, so that nearing the end of
the first week this embryo, now called a "blastocyst," numbers several
hundred cells. To obtain an embryonic stem cell, the researcher must cut
open this embryo, thereby killing him or her and extracting stem cells.

After the first day, a number of names apply to various developmental
stages of the same living human, fertilized egg or zygote (a single cell),
a blastocyst (many cells), embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, etc.
During the first week, this tiny new human floats freely down his or her
mother's tube, dividing and sub-dividing as the journey is made. At about
one week of life, he or she plants within the nutrient lining of the
woman's uterus. In about three more days, having sent roots into the wall
of the uterus, this new human sends a chemical hormonal message into the
mother's blood stream and this stops her menstrual period. Four days
later, the embryonic heart begins to beat and three weeks after that,
brain waves are measurable. The biologic fact is that from day one,
inside and then outside of the uterus, this is one continuous,
uninterrupted period of growth and development. It is impossible to draw
a line in time and to say that before this time, this was not a living
human, and after this, it is. This is, in fact, a living human at the
first cell stage and remains so until the old man dies. Accordingly,
killing this living human embryo at day four or five, at week four or five
or at year four or five is, in fact, killing a living human.

At the first cell stage, you were everything you are today. You were
already male or female. You were alive, not dead. You were certainly
human as you had 46 human chromosomes (you were not a carrot or a rabbit);
and most importantly, you were complete. For nothing has been added to
the single cell whom you once were, from then until today, nothing except
food and oxygen. You were all there then, and to terminate your life at
any stage of that can be called nothing other than killing.

Note that Senator Mack in his Wall Street Journal column repeats the
biologic error seen almost everywhere. He speaks constantly of stem cells
from "fertilized eggs." That stage lasts only one day. You cannot take a
stem cell from a fertilized egg which itself is only one cell. Rather
what he is advocating is killing a human embryo and extracting stem cells
from the inside of that new living human. He attempts to distinguish
between "a frozen fertilized egg" and a fetus. Actually the only
difference is location, size, age and degree of development as the one is
just a bit younger than the other.

I can understand why a pro-abortion Senator Jeffords or Chafee would favor
destructive embryonic stem cell research, for they are strongly
pro-abortion and have demonstrated many times their support for killing
babies in the womb. What I don't understand is pro-life Senator Orin
Hatch, who
"insisted" that a frozen embryo was not the equivalent of an embryo or a
fetus in the womb. I've known Senator Hatch well for 20 years. He's
pro-life, but on this he has his facts dead wrong, and it's a tragedy that
he would lend his undoubted prestige to destructive stem cell research by
repeating an obvious biologic falsehood.

To say that these tiny humans will be "discarded" and not used and
therefore should be "used" is a fallacious argument. Why then don't we
use the tissues of a criminal who has been legally executed? Why did we
universally condemn the Nazi doctors who used Jewish subjects because they
were going to be killed anyway? Why is it that we cannot cannibalize a
person's body who was killed in an accident? It's because we have
respected the human body, an absolute necessity in a civilized nation.

But are there other options? Certainly, there are. There have been
marvelous and well-publicized advances in the last year. We now have
scientific data showing that stem cells can be obtained from fat. They
can be obtained from cord blood. They can be obtained from neural tissue,
from bone marrow, muscle, placental, and skin cells. We have reports of
bone marrow stem cells being changed into liver cells. We have a report
of skin cells being changed into heart cells. We have a report of cord
blood promising to possibly create neural cells.

Almost every month we receive reports of new advances in this field. One
of the latest is from Congressman Ron Lewis (R-KY), in a letter to HHS
Secretary Tommy Thompson. He urges him to consider a "tobacco based adult
stem cell alternative to embryonic stem cell research." He notes the
leadership of plant protein assisted stem cell research, which has
identified the genes in proteins that cause self-renewal of adult stem
cells. He points to the fact that certain plant proteins found in tobacco
can stimulate such changes. And much more. This is yet the latest
revelation. Rest assured there is much more to come.

There is a possibility, perhaps a probability that adult stem cells may
function more efficiently and more safely than embryonic stem cells.
Adult stem cells are increasingly being shown to have a similar and
perhaps an identical capacity to become cells of other types. They can be
taken from the patient himself, then re-injected, thus eliminating the
problem of immune rejection, which is a real problem in using tissues from
another human, even from an embryonic human. There is no question but
that there is probably an immense potential of use for stem cells. But
this increasingly is being shown to not be exclusive for embryonic stem
cells. In fact, adult stem cells may prove to be superior because they
don't suffer the problem of rejection.

As for public opinion polls, as usual the wording of the question leads
the answer. When the poll speaks of "fertilized eggs" and doesn't mention
the destruction of human embryos, you get one kind of an answer. In
comparison, a recent poll by International Communications Research of over
1,000 adults was worded more objectively. Its question was as follows:
"Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person's tissues and
organs develop. Congress is considering whether to provide federal funding
for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos
would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these
cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for such
experiments?" The results were: Support - 24%, Opposed - 70%, Don't Know
and Refused - 6%. Further, only 18% supported "all stem cell research"
while 67% supported "only adult stem cell research."

Finally, can embryonic stem cells be said positively to be able to cure
diseases that stem cells from other ethical sources would be unable to?
No one can make that statement. Let us by all means pursue aggressive
research with stem cells but there are some bridges that we, in a
civilized society, should not cross. We should not deliberately kill one
living human to possibly benefit another. Use stem cells? Yes, but don't
kill to get them.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: Dr. Willke on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Source:   Life Issues Institute; June 27, 2001

Dr. Willke on Frist and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Cincinnati, OH -- Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee has announced his
support of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. During his
statement he proposed a series of restrictions as a type of compromise to
decide this critical life or death issue.

"Senator Frist may be a physician," said Dr. Willke, president of Life
Issues Institute, "But he's making a bad medical decision that would
result in the deaths of many tiny unborn babies. You can't have it both
ways. You can't profess to be pro-life and support experimentation on
these tiny children that will result in their deaths. As physicians we
first pledge to do no harm. Senator Frist's decision flies in the face of
a doctor's primary responsibility."

Getting little attention during this heated debate are the many promising
advancements science is making with stem cells from adult tissue, which
question the very need for this highly controversial embryonic research.
These positive results with adult cells do not require the death of unborn
children.

Let us not forget that German scientists excused their experimentation on
condemned Jews by saying that they were going to die anyway. The same
rational is being used by those who would kill tiny human embryos on the
altar of science.

During the presidential campaign, candidate George Bush pledged not to
fund this inhumane research. Now we are waiting for President George Bush
to keep his word.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Dr. Willke on Frist and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Source:   Life Issues Institute; July 19, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Father Frank Pavone Examines Stem Cell Research

Confused about Stem Cell Research?
by Fr. Frank Pavone; National Director, Priests for Life

If you are like most of the public, you are somewhat confused about all
the debate on "stem cell research." What is a "stem cell"? Why would the
Church be against research? Why is the whole matter such a controversy in
the first place?

A "stem cell" is a cell which is capable of growing into any type of cell
in the body. Such cells may be helpful in treating disease. The problem,
however, is that in one method of obtaining these cells, human lives, in
their earliest stages, are being destroyed in the process.

This is not a debate about whether or not we should do research to assist
the perennial fight against disease. The Church does not oppose research.
But the task of research, the efforts to cure disease, and the ability to
manipulate nature has certain moral parameters. Consider some history.

The prosecution in the World War II War Crimes Trials pointed to a key
source of the deterioration of ethics which resulted in the Nazi killing
program. That book was "The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of
Value," by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche. Hoche was a doctor of medicine.
He writes,

"A child was sick with a rare and scientifically interesting brain disease
and was almost certain to die within 24 hours. If that child would die in
the hospital, I would have the opportunity by autopsy to find out the
reason for the sicknessIt would have been easy to give the child an
injection of morphine to hurry his death by a few hours. I did not because
my personal desire for scientific research was not an important enough
good to overcome the obligation of medical ethics. It would have been a
different question, however, if to decide as mentioned in the present case
would have resulted in the saving of many lives. The question would have
had to be answered yes because of the higher good."

This philosophy, that we can kill to advance medical progress, led to
numerous experiments on innocent people. In the portion of the war crime
trials dealing with the medical experiments, the prosecution stated, "The
defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and other
atrocities committed in the name of medical science." Experiments
mentioned in the official US Government publication summarizing the
Medical Case include "High Altitude experiments," "Freezing experiments,"
and "Mustard gas experiments." In one example, the subject's legs had to
be deliberately crippled to obtain the medical data.

Some say that the embryos destroyed in today's research aren't human. That
simply contradicts scientific fact. The widely used medical textbook The
Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore,
Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that "The intricate processes by
which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous .... This cell
[the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A
zygote is the beginning of a new human being ...." At page 18 this theme
is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in
original] ...."

Ultimately, however, the debate here goes beyond the fate of the embryos
themselves. It involves the very meaning of human life, and whether some
humans may be destroyed for the sake of others.

And the world has gone down that painful road before.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Father Frank Pavone Examines Stem Cell Research
Source:   Priests for Life; July 16, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Newsweek Criticized on Stem Cell Research Coverage

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: National Review writers John J. Miller and Ramesh
Ponnuru authored the following column critiquing Newsweek's recent cover
story and slanted coverage of the embryonic stem cell research debate.]

The cover of the latest issue of Newsweek is pretty remarkable. No, we're
not referring to the line above the logo "Behind 'Scary Movie 2'"
although we do wonder who exactly wants to go there. What's remarkable is
that the cover more or less announces the bias of the cover story.

>From top to bottom, the cover text reads: "The Stem Cell Wars: Embryo
Research vs. Pro-Life Politics: There's Hope for Alzheimer's, Heart
Disease, Parkinson's and Diabetes. But Will Bush Cut Off the Money?" Why
didn't the magazine just go all the way? "Science vs. Pro-Life Fanatics:
Will Bush Condemn Millions of People to Lingering, Painful Deaths?"

The image on the cover is of a three-day-old human embryo. Most people
will look at that image and think, "That doesn't look like a human being
at all." (This reaction, while understandable, is irrational: In fact, the
embryo looks exactly the way a human being looks three days after
conception.) It's perfectly fair and reasonable for Newsweek to use the
image. We would note only that it is unimaginable that Newsweek would use
an image that loaded in the opposite direction. A story on abortion would
be much more likely to be illustrated with a coat-hanger than a sonogram
of a five-month-old fetus. (Let alone a dismembered fetus.)

The stories inside the magazine are exactly what you'd expect, given the
cover and Newsweek's general proclivities. The lead story, by Sharon
Begley, is the longest. It summarizes the science well and, as far as we
can tell, fairly. Proponents of stem-cell research get to make their case
at length. Opponents are quoted too: They get exactly two words (eleven
letters) in. And that quote is immediately rebutted, unlike any of the
pro-research quotes. Here's how the piece concludes: Not funding stem-cell
research would amount to "squelching what is, more than anything, a quest
for knowledge. We simply don't know how embryonic cells might help people
who are suffering and dying today. By banning the research, we uphold the
most extreme view of the sanctity of life, but at a price: foreclosing the
possibility of doing all we can to improve the lot of the living."

Set aside that bit about extremism. Any research, including research on
humans that most people would find objectionable, can legitimately be
described as "a quest for knowledge." And the reference to "the living"
skates right by the actual subject of the dispute-whether the embryos are
in fact living human beings. (They're not dead, and they're not
inanimate.)

Next come three pages on the politics of the research from Evan Thomas and
uh oh Eleanor Clift. Subhead: "The president is trapped between religion
and science over stem cells." Here's a flavor of what the article is like:
"Pure politics helps explain why the White House has long been expected to
ban federal funding for research on stem cells extracted from human
embryos. . . . And yet Bush is clearly discovering that the politics and
ethics of stem-cell research are more complicated than a simple 'no' from
the federal government. By a 3-1 margin, the public wants to go forward
with research that has the potential to provide magical [!!] cures for a
host of neurological and other diseases." The article concludes with some
helpful suggestions on how President Bush can betray stem-cell opponents
without suffering too much political damage.

Finally, a note of fairness: The magazine's religion correspondent,
Kenneth Woodward, has a short piece on the ethics of stem-cell research
that doesn't have a conclusion to pound us over the head with.

But for a fair treatment of the issues around embryonic stem-cell
research, ignore Newsweek altogether and get a copy of Neil Munro's piece
in the latest National Journal.

It's no surprise that many pro-life Republicans have folded on this issue,
given the intense pressure from the media and their own confusion. All the
more credit to Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, and J. C. Watts for standing firm.
The three House leaders released a strong joint statement yesterday on the
subject. Among their remarks: "The federal government cannot morally look
the other way with respect to the destruction of human embryos, then
accept and pay for extracted stem cells. . . . We can find cures with
life-affirming, not life-destroying, methods that are becoming more
promising with each day."

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: Newsweek Criticized on Stem Cell Research Coverage
Source: National Review; June 3, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
NRLC Speaks Out Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Charlotte, NC -- The National Right To Life Committee opposes federal government funding of
stem cell research involving the killing of unborn children even though some Republicans in
Congress have compromised their pro-life position by advocating it.

President Bush is expected to make a decision sometime next month.

Dr. Wanda Franz, president of the National Right To Life Committee, said Thursday at a press
conference opening the NLRC's Charlotte convention the research involves the killing of human
beings.

"Our position is that we oppose any kind of procedures that involve the killing of a human
being who has been formed. Every one of us began that way and we go through that stage of life
and it's part of our stage of life. Any benefits that systematically destroy a developing human
person are wrong," Franz said.

Franz said the committee is not opposed to "work and research that further scientific goals as
long as life is protected. But when we have these methods in which these stem cells are being
harvested from living human people, we oppose that."

Franz said the NRLC believes there are alternatives to stem cell research, including harvesting
stem cells from adult bone marrow, umbilical cords and placentas.

"We should be working toward these kinds of approaches that do not have moral problems
associated with them that take the lives of human beings," said Franz.

"It may be that we are going to find out in the future that these approaches are the best ones
because using your own cells from your own body, especially adult cells, is going to turn out
to be more of an effective approach. We think this should be the direction we should be going
in. We don't believe that denying researchers the opportunity to kill people is going to
prevent life-saving technologies from being developed," said Franz.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who normally votes pro-life, recently sent a ten-page letter to
President Bush, saying he has "rarely, if ever, observed such genuine excitement for the
prospects of future progress than is presented by embryonic stem cell research."

Hatch and other pro-life Republicans -- Trent Lott (R-MS), Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Strom
Thurmond (R-SC) -- said they want Bush to "lead the way for this vital research."

The Bush administration has not yet announced its policy on federal funding for stem cell
research involving human embryos, although Bush has said he opposes it. He is under tremendous
pressure from all sides, and no matter what he decides, he will be roundly blasted for making
the "wrong" decision.

Staunch pro-life advocates like National Right to Life say life is life, at the moment of
conception, and that is that.

But Hatch and others say the ultimate "pro-life" position is one that allows for research into
life-saving treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes.

Congress has passed a law banning federal funding for research that involves the destruction of
human embryos. The Clinton administration found a loophole, however, and decided to allow
federal funding for stem-cell research, as long as the cells were "harvested" by private
groups.

When President Bush took office, he suspended the Clinton interpretation of the law, and he is
now in the process of deciding whether federal funds should be used for any research involving
stem cells from human embryos.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   NRLC Speaks Out Against Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Source:   Cybercast News Service; June 29, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Christian Life Resources on Stem Cell Research

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: The following is a press release from Christian
Life Resources on embryonic stem cell research. The Rev. Robert
Fleischmann serves as the national director of the pro-life organization,
which is active in the WELS Lutheran Church.]

The issue of embryonic stem cell research is receiving considerable of
attention lately. The current debate and legislative initiatives on both
the federal and state level focus on three related topics in this arena:
1) embryonic stem cell research; 2) use of embryonic stem cell lines; and
3) the strong desire to find cures. Following is our perspective on these
critical issues.

It is a teaching of Scripture that life begins at conception (Psalm 51:5).
It is also a teaching of Scripture that, apart from Gods expressed
command, we are not to take human life (Exodus 20:13). Scripture teaches
that a consideration should be shown for troubled consciences (1
Corinthians 10:27ff). Finally, the Christian community is to be concerned
about the welfare of others and improving their conditions on earth
(Matthew 10, Matthew 25, Luke 10) . These four teachings compel us to
view aforementioned issues as follows.

Because life begins at conception, human embryos are human beings and not
merely human tissue. Embryonic stem cells can be extracted only by means
of terminating the life of a human being in the embryonic stage. For that
reason, regardless of the good that can or may come from embryonic stem
cells, it is still the wrongful taking of human life and it cannot be
condoned. For that reason we are opposed to both the funding of the
procedure and the procedure itself.

Even with banning embryonic stem cell harvesting, we have existing stem
cell lines with which to contend. For the large portion of society that
accepts life as beginning at conception, this presents a conscience
problem for them to condone continued testing or even to personally
benefit from the results.

It is, therefore, prudent not to fund further research on existing
embryonic stem cell lines. It seems a waste of resources to expend large
amounts of time and money on research that could, for conscience reasons,
not benefit all the people.

What, therefore, remains is the recognition and aggressive pursuit of
acceptable alternatives for this type of research. Two forms of such
promising research is work done with adult stem cells and umbilical cord
stem cell. Neither form of research involves the taking of human lives.
Both forms of research have been recognized as having great potential for
helping human beings.

Embryonic stem cell research has met many obstacles, including repeated
failures, legislative deadlocks and, most importantly, violations of Gods
Word. For the sake of those who are asking for help, we urge lawmakers to
select the path that is both effective and acceptable in the eyes of the
Christian community. We ask that they initiate legislation that provides
increased funding for aggressive research that does not terminate human
life. Stem cell research has the potential for great things. Lets not
compromise this progress by intentionally sacrificing human lives in the
process.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Christian Life Resources on Stem Cell Research
Source:   Christian Life Resources; July 4, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
AMA Backs Down on Stem Cell Research

Washington, DC -- --As evidence mounted last year that stem cells from
human embryos could be tweaked in ways that might cure disease, the
American Heart Association decided to spend some of its own money to see
whether the cells could ease heart disease.

Then came a flood of protest letters, including one from the Roman
Catholic archbishop of St. Louis. In Missouri, an entire fund-raising
committee resigned, dropping its plans for a gala ball. Donors who opposed
abortion said they could not support the destruction of human embryos.

So now, just as President Bush is deciding whether to invest federal money
in embryo cell research, the nation's second-largest patient advocacy
group has gone silent. In fact, its board voted last October not to fund
the very research that it had endorsed only four months earlier as full of
promise.

The American Heart Assn.'s reversal shows just how uncertain the political
waters have become as Bush readies his decision on the research, which is
expected in July. Bush, in his limited public comments so far, has given
every indication that he will oppose federal funding for the research.

The American Heart Assn. stands as an example Bush can cite -- as a
patient advocacy group that will not advocate for the research. "This
raises the question whether this makes it easier for Bush to oppose embryo
cell research, because he can say the American people are unhappy with
it," said Alexander Capron, a professor of law and medicine at USC.

Several other disease advocacy groups are unhappy that the heart
association will not ask its force of more than 4 million volunteers to
lobby the White House to support federal funding.

Sean Tipton, spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine,
said "The heart association is influential in this town, and we sure wish
they would join us in the efforts to mobilize their people for [embryo
cell] research."

"It's a legitimate decision for them to make, but it's based on
fund-raising and not on science," said Douglas Melton, a diabetes
researcher and chairman of Harvard University's department of molecular
and cellular biology. "As a scientist, I can say their decision is
shocking."

Groups devoted to juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson's
disease and other ailments are leading a campaign to persuade Bush to
support the research. Like the heart association, the American Cancer
Society --the nation's largest patients' group by donations -- has not
joined the coalition.

Officially, the national board of the American Heart Assn. supports
federal funding for the research, but the group is not lobbying Bush for
it, and it declines to spend any of its $133-million annual research
budget on embryo experiments. The route to its nuanced position was
circuitous and contained a few surprises.

Research using embryos became an issue in November 1998, when a University
of Wisconsin researcher first isolated and cultured a special type of
cell, known as a stem cell, that arises in embryos several days after
sperm meets egg. As the embryo grows, its stem cells give rise to every
other type of cell, tissue and organ in the body.

The discovery of embryonic stem cells immediately raised hopes that
doctors could one day learn to grow them into replacement tissues for
patients--new brain cells for Parkinson's patients, pancreas cells for
diabetics and nerve cells for people with spinal cord injuries. Many
researchers looked to fertility clinics as a source of embryos, as
fertility patients often create more embryos than they need when trying to
conceive children.

In the spring of 1999, the heart association formed a task force to
consider whether to fund stem cell research. As part of its work, the task
force surveyed not only the science but also the opinion of heart
association leaders. It polled the 15 regional affiliates, the 13
scientific councils and various other committees that oversee the group's
management and programs.

The reports that came back generally cheered supporters of embryo cell
research.

Scientists in the surveys thought the heart association should fund stem
cell research. The regional leaders were split by geography. Those in the
Northeast were fully supportive of association funding, while those in the
heartland thought the group might pay a penalty in donations and
volunteerism.

"We thought there would be some objections to the research, but we hoped
that it would not be severe," said David Livingston, an executive vice
president of the heart association.

Last June, the task force presented its report to the 43-member national
board of directors, which voted to fund embryo experiments, once ethical
guidelines were completed and approved. But the task force had
miscalculated. It had surveyed the association at a time when stem cell
research was not widely debated or understood.

Shortly after the June vote, Pope John Paul II said that medical
techniques that destroy embryos are "not morally acceptable, even when
their proposed goal is good in itself." Senators began debating the
research, showing that people held widely divergent views. Pro-life
organizations began opposing the research if it involved killing unborn
children and began promoting a plethora of alternatives.

Regional affiliates of the association began reporting that volunteers
were threatening to quit. Corporate donors, wary of controversy, suggested
that they might also pull out, Livingston said. Among the protest letters
was one from Archbishop Justin Rigali, who leads the Archdiocese of St.
Louis.

"I think that we became more educated about the differing views and how
strongly those views were held," Livingston said.

Reconsidering public opinion, officials made a new damage assessment:
Funding stem cell research would cut donations by $9 million to $15
million in the first year and by $45 million to $50 million the next. The
association raised $485 million last year.

Officials worried that by funding the speculative work on embryo cells
they might lose money slated for other important research.

Moreover, officials worried that its volunteers would no longer be able to
speak at certain churches and hospitals, delivering the message of how to
prevent heart disease and stroke. And the group's political goals, such as
boosting federal health research funding and requiring defibrillators in
public buildings, might also be jeopardized.

"We just couldn't let one area of research have an adverse impact on the
overall mission of the heart association," said Dr. Rose Marie Robertson,
a Nashville cardiologist and president of the association.

The association has agreed to fund research using various types of stem
cells that come from adults. These cells show great promise.

Looking to Bush's decision, Livingston, the heart association executive,
said he did not see much room for compromise between supporters and
opponents of the research. "It's hard to say there are going to be all
winners. Some are going to be unhappy, regardless of how it comes out."

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   AMA Backs Down on Stem Cell Research
Source:   Los Angeles Times; June 21, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
A Post-Modern Cell: When life begins.
By Wesley J. Smith

I oppose federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR). As I have
argued repeatedly on NRO and in many other venues, federally funding ESCR
is wrong because it would give the imprimatur of the people of the United
States to treating human life as a mere natural resource, a crop, ripe for
the harvest As I see it, once human embryos are viewed as being akin to a
corn field, such stark utilitarianism will spread like a cancer to other
areas of human medical concern.

I have also noted that we are not faced with the stark choice of either
destroying embryos for their cells or turning our backs on medical
advances. Happily, it appears that alternative sources of stem cells offer
at least equivalent potential to embryonic cells. Yes, embryonic stem
cells may be more flexible, that is, easy to turn into any human tissue,
but at least one published study has found that stem cells from bone
marrow may provide equivalent potential for transformation. Yes, embryonic
stem cells seem more active, but that may actually make them less
desirable for use in human medical therapy since this aspect of their
biology may be impossible to control and could lead to embryonic stem cell
therapy causing tumors. Moreover, alternatives are already healing some
human illnesses. For example, stem cells from umbilical cord blood have
restored the immune systems of children whose cancer had previously
destroyed their abilities to fight infection and disease. Indeed, it is a
political triumph that opponents of ESCR have been able to transform the
paradigm of the debate from one in which adult/alternative stem cells were
damned with very faint praise to the point where a just published National
Institutes of Health study proclaims their awesome potential.

Unfortunately, these crucial issues, which should be the bases of deciding
whether or not to federally fund ESCR, have been all but subsumed in the
politics of abortion. This is truly disheartening. ESCR has absolutely
nothing to do with abortion. Whatever one thinks of Roe v. Wade, the
reason the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to abortion was to
prevent women from being forced by law to use their bodies to gestate and
give birth. But stem-cell research does not involve a pregnant woman being
required by law to do anything. Thus the issue should be irrelevant. That
is one reason why the United Methodist Church, which institutionally
supports abortion rights, has just issued a proclamation urging President
Bush's to continue the current suspension of federal funding for ESCR.

Of course, logic and politics rarely inhabit the same space. The reality
is that abortion touches almost every important issue this country has
faces. It was at the heart of the impeachment imbroglio. It impacts
foreign policy. It is certainly the crucial lynchpin in the appointment
and confirmation of federal judges. It is thus hardly surprising that
abortion politics has become symbiotically intertwined with the decision
whether to federally fund embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

The immersion of abortion into the politics of ESCR has not proved
beneficial to the pro-life movement. Whatever one thinks of their cause,
it is clear that the power and momentum of the movement -- which remains
vital despite media and legislative hostility -- is founded upon the
fervent belief that human life begins at the point of conception and that
all humans possess a right to life from that point through natural death.
But now, several pro-life senators have abandoned this foundational
principle. Senators Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) and Gordon Smith (R., Ore.),
recently opined that life begins in a mother's womb, not a Petri dish or
refrigerator.

When I first heard the Hatch/Smith argument, I almost laughed out loud.
While such sentiments might reflect the senators' deeply held metaphysical
concepts, they surely are not biologically sound. After all, a blastocyst
(a one-week gestational embryo) is a blastocyst, is blastocyst. If we were
somehow able to take a one that had been fertilized within it's mother's
body and place it next to a lab-fertilized blastocyst, there would be no
biological difference between them. Both would reflect the same state of
human life, as it exists after one week of embryonic development.

I am laughing no longer. I have appeared recently on several talk-radio
shows to express my opposition to federal funding of ESCR. I certainly
expected a good give and take from those who support ESCR about the
empirical and ethical issues involved in the debate. What I was not
expecting was for listeners who fervently claimed they oppose abortion to
declare, in their next breath, support for federal funding because, as one
caller put it, "the soul does not enter the body unless it is in the
mother's womb." Another caller expressed an even more surprising view. "I
oppose abortion but God would not have permitted these embryos to be made
unless he wanted them used for medical research." In other words, these
callers believe that destroying an embryo at one week in woman's womb is
the moral equivalent of murder. But take the same embryo and destroy it in
a Petri dish and they proclaim themselves -- and God -- unconcerned.

How does one argue with such perspectives? In such a milieu, biological
facts are meaningless. The pros and cons of the different types of cell
research are irrelevant. The potential for alternatives to ESCR to provide
medical breakthroughs don't matter. The very real potential that embryonic
research leads directly to cloning -- even the biotech industry says so --
makes not a dent.

I am not sure what to make of all of this. But it seems to me that
whatever side one is on in the great stem-cell debate, we should all be
concerned that when prominent United States senators proclaim with a
straight face that human life does not begin in a Petri dish but only in a
womb and the argument works, post modernism has triumphed. If we don't
like the scientific facts, we simply create our own narratives. In such a
milieu, anything is justifiable.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: Wesley Smith on When Life *Really* Begins
Source:   National Review; July 19, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Wesley Smith Debunks Stem Cell Research Myths

Should the government fund medical research that relies on the use of
"stem cells" extracted from human embryos? This difficult moral decision
would be a lot easier if the media weren't failing to tell the public the
whole story.

Embryo-stem-cell research promises to produce medical miracles in a host
of areas. But other research avenues - including the use of cells that
don't come from human embryos - are also promising, perhaps more so.
Unfortunately, journalists and editors haven't reported this news fully or
fairly.

The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a non-partisan research
organization devoted to the accurate use of scientific research in
public-policy debates, has documented how journalists have fallen down on
the job on this issue.

In its recent report "Stemming the News Flow?" STATS decried a "striking"
selectivity in coverage: The media often play up embryonic-stem-cell
breakthroughs while giving short shrift to equivalent (or even more
promising) adult-stem-cell successes.

* In separate experiments, scientists researched the ability of embryonic
and adult mouse pancreatic stem cells to regenerate the body's ability to
make insulin. Both types of cells boosted insulin production in diabetic
mice. The embryonic success made a big splash with prominent coverage in
all major media outlets. Yet the same media organs were strangely silent
about the research involving adult cells.

Stranger still, the adult-cell experiment was far more successful - it
raised insulin levels much more. Indeed, those diabetic mice lived, while
the mice treated with embryonic cells all died. Why did the media
celebrate the less successful experiment and ignore the more successful
one?

* Another barely reported story is that alternative-source stem cells are
already healing human illnesses.

In Los Angeles, the transplantation of stem cells harvested from
umbilical-cord blood has saved the lives of three young boys born with
defective immune systems.

Rather than receiving bone marrow transplants, the three boys underwent
stem cell therapy. The experimental procedure worked. Two years
post-surgery, their doctors at UCLA Medical Center pronounced the boys
cured.

Last year, Israeli scientists implanted Melissa Holley's white blood cells
into her spinal cord to treat the paraplegia caused when her spinal cord
was severed in an auto accident. Melissa, who is 18, has since regained
control over her bladder and recovered significant motor function in her
limbs - she can now move her legs and toes, although she cannot yet walk.

This is exactly the kind of therapy that embryonic-stem-cell proponents
promise - years down the road. Yet Melissa's breakthrough was met with
collective yawns in the press with the exception of Canada's The Globe and
Mail.

Non-embryonic stem cells may be as common as beach sand. They have been
successfully extracted from umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat, cadaver
brains, bone marrow, and tissues of the spleen, pancreas, and other
organs. Even more astounding, the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep
successfully created cow heart tissue using stem cells from cow skin. And
just this week, Singapore scientists announced that they have transformed
bone-marrow cells into heart muscle.

Research with these cells also has a distinct moral advantage: It doesn't
require the destruction of a human embryo. You don't have to be pro-life
to be more comfortable with that.

So why does the more ethically problematic research get such better press?
Well, it sure looks like bias, conscious or not: Most reporters and
editors call themselves pro-choice on abortion. And many see support of
embryonic-stem-cell research as consistent with (or even supportive of)
this point of view.

But abortion is actually quite beside the point in this debate - there is
no pregnant woman being asked to gestate a child she does not want. Thus,
one can both support abortion rights and oppose embryonic research without
any inconsistency.

In the end, this debate turns on two questions. The tougher one is: Is
such research immoral, since it destroys human life and transforms it into
a mere commodity? The second: Can we reap equivalent medical benefits
using alternative sources?

The answer to that seems to be "yes." If the press were doing its job,
giving an honest answer to the "hard" question would be far less painful.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Wesley Smith Debunks Stem Cell Research Myths
Source:   Pro-Life Infonet; June 24, 2001

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Attorney and consumer advocate Wesley J. Smith is
the author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in
America." You can purchase his books online in the books section of
http://www.roevwade.org]

Wesley Smith on the "Stem Cell Senators"

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: The following article is Wesley Smith, a consumer advocate & attorney.
Smith is most recently the author of Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in
America, published by Encounter Books.]

In the debate over whether the federal government should fund embryonic stem-cell research
(ESCR), our country is being offered a true Faustian bargain. In return for a hoped-for
potential - it is no more than that - of deriving desperately desired medical breakthroughs in
the treatment of such afflictions as Parkinson's disease, paraplegia, and diabetes, we are
being asked to give the nation's imprimatur to reducing human life into a mere natural resource
to be exploited and commodified.

Given the stakes, our lawmakers owe it to their country to take the time to thoroughly
understand the issue before speaking in public and taking sides. Unfortunately, Senators Orrin
Hatch's and Trent Lott's recent statements in favor of embryonic research exhibited stunning
ignorance regarding the subject about which they opined. Making matters worse, the press
quickly leaped upon the statements of these pro-life senators as proof that embryonic research
is moral, ethical, and scientifically justified, when the reverse is actually true.

Senator Hatch's attempt to explain his pro ESCR funding position to Chris Matthews on Hardball
on June 20, demonstrated that he doesn't know an embryo from a stem cell. Take the following
statements:

"After a long period of study and prayer, I found that pluripotent cells are not full human
beings but can be very, very beneficial as used by science to help with all kinds of
maladies…."

"It is appropriate to use pluripotent cells but inappropriate to use totipotent cells because a
pluripotent cell cannot be made into a full human being. A totipotent cell can actually be
replicated into a human being through even cloning." (Totipotent cells are the first to appear
after fertilization and can actually develop into a completely new embryo - as occurs during
identical twinning. Pluripotent [stem] cells appear a bit later. They are "undifferentiated
cells" that can develop into any body part - which is why researchers wish to study them.)

"Life begins in the mother's womb, not in a refrigerator."

In stating that the feds should fund the study of pluripotent cells but not totipotent cells,
Senator Hatch confused several essential points. First, pluripotent cells and totipotent cells
are not the same thing as the embryo itself. Rather, these cells are constituent parts of the
embryonic whole just as vital organs are parts of born persons. Second, while the pluripotent
cell itself may not have the potential to develop into a full human being, the embryo from
which it is extracted does have that potential if implanted in a woman's womb. Third, taking
the pluripotent cell destroys the embryo just as taking the heart would kill a born human
being. This is what makes embryonic stem-cell research morally objectionable.

Fourth, Senator Hatch's statement that life does not begin in a refrigerator but in a mother's
womb is bizarre. Wherever it happens, fertilization certainly produces a new member of the
human species. Indeed, federal law explicitly prohibits federal funding of experiments that
destroy embryos outside the womb precisely because individual human life begins at
fertilization. (In order to open the door to federal funding of ESCR, President Clinton
interpreted his way around this legal impediment to permit funding of stem-cell research only
after the destruction of the embryos already has occurred.) Whatever one thinks of Hatch's
premise, it is certainly not biology.

Senator Lott seemed to have had the same professor as Hatch on the June 24 Meet the Press. Host
Tim Russert asked Lott what the president should do about federal funding of embryonic
stem-cell research. The Mississippi senator leaned toward supporting federal funding on the
basis that there is potential for medical advances from experimenting with "cells before they
become embryos."

No, Senator Lott, you have it backwards. Stem cells are not mere unorganized protoplasm that
somehow develops in the future into the organic whole we call the embryo. Rather, stem cells
are extracted from existing, living embryos that are generally a week old and already are made
up of dozens or even hundreds of cells.

In the defense of the senators, these are very complex biological issues. But the reasons why
the federal government should not fund embryonic stem-cell research are not all that
complicated.

The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), which recommended permitting federal funding
of ESCR, also stated that using embryos in excess of need in IVF treatments "is justifiable
only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research."
Happily, since the NBAC recommendation, research breakthroughs using adult stem cells and
alternatives such as stem cells found in umbilical cord blood, have been breathtaking. Here is
a just a partial list by the type of maladies that ESCR advocates hope to ameliorate, but for
which, alternative sources of therapy already demonstrate awesome potential:

Diabetes: Three recent breakthroughs have occurred in the fight against diabetes. First, in
procedures akin to an organ transplant, cadaver pancreatic islet cell transfers have helped
people afflicted with Type 1 diabetes to the point where they don't have to take insulin. (They
do, however, have to take anti-tissue rejection medication.) Second, in mouse experiments,
adult pancreatic stem cells restored full insulin production in diabetic mice as a consequence
of which the treated mice lived. Finally, when diabetic mice were treated with embryonic stem
cells they produced approximately 2% of the insulin required for life. All of these mice died.
Thus it appears likely that adult stem cells and alternative surgical therapies offer greater
potential for relieving diabetes than do embryonic stem cell therapy.
Nerve Damage: Proponents of embryonic stem cells offer the hope that these cells might someday
help heal damaged nerves, perhaps offering a cure for paraplegia or quadriplegia many years in
the future. Yet, little noted by the media, white-blood-cell therapy has already produced
astonishing results in an 18-year-old woman whose spinal cord was severed in an automobile
accident. Amazingly, after having the cells implanted in her spinal cord, the woman regained
control over her bladder and can now move her toes and legs, although not yet walk.

Immune System Defects: In Los Angeles, the transplantation of stem cells harvested from
umbilical-cord blood has saved the lives of three young boys born with defective immune
systems. Rather than receiving bone marrow transplants, the three boys underwent stem-cell
therapy. The experimental procedure worked. Two years post-surgery, their doctors at UCLA
Medical Center pronounced the boys cured.

Neurological Disease: Scientists have discovered that stem cells found in umbilical-cord blood
can be reprogrammed to act as healthy brain cells. At the University of South Florida (Tampa),
rats that had been genetically engineered to suffer strokes were injected with these cells. The
cells integrated seamlessly into the surrounding brain tissue where they matured into the type
of cell appropriate for that area of the brain. Meanwhile, scientists have learned that new
neurons (brain cells) are produced in adults, overthrowing previous scientific dogma, and
offering a potential source for stem cell harvesting. And, in another astonishing turn, it
turns out that even cadaver brains can also supply brain stem cells. The ability to open,
isolate and harness these cells - whether from umbilical cord blood or living or cadaver brains
- offers great hope for future treatments of Parkinson's disease, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease),
multiple sclerosis, and other nerve/brain maladies without having to destroy embryos in the
process.

Senators Hatch and Lott's assumed that ESCR had already demonstrated that it could eventually
lead to miracle cures. Quite the contrary. While adult/alternative cell therapies are already
treating cartilage defects in children, systemic lupus, and helping restore vision to patients
who were legally blind - just to name a few - embryonic stem-cell research has no equivalent
record of success even in animal studies. Indeed, embryonic/fetal cells have never ameliorated
one human malady.

ESCR Could be a Gateway to Cloning
Promoters of federally funding ESCR promise that initial research would come from embryos
currently stored in in-vitro-fertilization clinic storage tanks. These embryos, they point out,
are likely to be destroyed anyway so why not use them for scientific benefit?

While this is a potent argument that appeals to the pragmatic streak in the American character,
it is actually a bit of the old "bait and switch." Yes, initial research would use IVF embryos
currently in excess of need for impregnating women. But should ESCR prove potentially
beneficial in clinical use, some in the biotech community claim that IVF sources would be
insufficient to meet clinical need. At that point, cloning would be required. Thus these
companies vigorously oppose congressional attempts to outlaw human cloning in the United
States. Indeed, according to recent Congressional Committee testimony by the Biotechnology
Industry Organization, cloning of embryos "are a critical and necessary step in the production
of sufficient quantities of vigorous replacement cells for the clinical treatment of patients."

Senators Hatch and Lott support the proposed ban on human cloning. Yet both seem completely
unaware that their sympathy for the federal funding of ESCR, if successful, could lead to the
very cloning procedures that both, to their credit, find abhorrent. Indeed, the Stem Cell
Senators may find that their pragmatism-over-principle approach comes back to haunt them.

Embryonic stem-cell research takes us onto a path that would transform our perception of human
life into a malleable, marketable natural resource - akin to a cattle herd or copper mine - to
be exploited for the benefit of the born and breathing. Unlike Hatch and Lott, President Bush
recognizes the danger, which was why he declared his opposition to federally funded ESCR during
the campaign. He now faces fierce and intense pressure to reverse this stand - aided and
abetted by the Stem Cell Senators. This is a profound test of his moral leadership. Let us hope
that the president's knees do not buckle.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Wesley Smith on the "Stem Cell Senators"
Source:   National Review; June 29, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
The Truth About Stem Cells

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: The following is an interview with Dr. David
Prentice conducted by Kathryn Jean Lopez of the newsweekly National
Review. David Prentice is a professor of life sciences at Indiana State
University and an adjunct professor of medical & molecular genetics at the
Indiana University School of Medicine. Dr. Prentice also services as an ad
hoc science adviser to pro-life Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS).]

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What impact do you think the Nobel laureates' letter
to President Bush urging him to feed federal funds to human-embryo
stem-cell research has had and will have?

David Prentice: I think the letter will have primarily PR value in the
media. It perpetuates a number of misconceptions and misleading statements
regarding stem-cell research, particularly embryonic as opposed to adult
stem-cell research, and will serve to continue to cloud the issue. I
believe President Bush and his staff are well aware of the truth about
embryonic versus adult stem-cell research.

Lopez: Ultimately -- ideally, practically -- who should be making these
decisions anyway? Most reasonable people will read the newspaper and see
that Francis Crick -- and conservatives will see Milton Friedman -- signed
this letter and will think, well, they must be right?

Prentice: An informed citizenry working with an informed legislative
branch and an informed executive branch gives the best answer.
Unfortunately, many in the public will read about this letter, recognize
some high-profile "icons" or simply that there are a lot of "smart people"
who've signed on, and think that they know all about this scientific
research. Knowledgeable people do not always perpetuate the truth.
President Bush and Congress obviously have the final say on how our
federal research dollars will be spent. The hope is that all who are
participating in this debate are fully informed about the facts and are
not swayed by celebrities who are unfortunately ill-informed or
deliberately misled, but rather weigh both the scientific and the ethical
evidence.

Lopez: There is a lot of misinformation and deception going on in the
press accounts of the "stem-cell debate," isn't there?

Prentice: This is probably the worst problem in this whole debate, the
perpetuation (innocent or not) of misleading statements which obscure many
of the real facts. The Nobel Laureate letter itself is a prime example of
the "mixmaster" treatment of the facts. What is usually lacking from press
reports are a few key "adjectives" that clarify the situation -- defining
whether the cells discussed are human or animal cells, and especially
whether they are "embryonic" or "adult" stem cells.

For example, the letter sent to President Bush says that
"insulin-secreting cells have normalized blood glucose in diabetic mice."
These experiments were done with ADULT stem cells from mice, NOT embryonic
stem cells. In fact, there are as yet no reports of anyone being able to
produce insulin-secreting cells from human embryonic stem cells, but human
ADULT stem cells that secrete insulin HAVE been isolated.

The letter promulgates the claim (made repeatedly in NIH documents) that
adult stem cells do not have the same potential as embryonic stem cells,
which in theory can form any tissue. But studies done with adult stem
cells (studies which mirror the ones done with embryonic stem cells) DO
show that adult stem cells have the capacity to form essentially any
tissue.

The most misleading term which continues to be used is "pluripotent."
Literally, this means able to form most (but not all) tissues. This term
continues to be used incorrectly, primarily to imply that human embryonic
stem cells can form all human tissues except "trophoblast" tissue -- this
is an essential outer layer of cells in the early embryo which allows it
to implant into the uterine wall and nourishes early development. The
trophoblast is also the part of the embryo removed in its destruction to
harvest the inner embryonic stem cells. The phrase "human pluripotent stem
cells" has been used to counter the question of whether human embryonic
stem cells in culture could actually reform a human embryo, implying that
this is not possible. Yet in testimony before the Senate, then-Director of
the NIH, Harold Varmus, said that this possibility was uncertain, and that
in fact it would be unethical to attempt such an experiment to determine
whether this was possible. Enter the term pluripotent -- if the embryonic
stem cells cannot form trophoblast, they cannot form an embryo. Mouse
embryonic stem cells cannot form trophoblast tissue. BUT, as stated in
Thomson's original paper in 1998, human embryonic stem cells CAN form
trophoblast in culture.

Lopez: There are other ways to get stem cells, besides embryos, aren't
there? Are they just as good?

Prentice: There are several excellent alternatives to embryos, and they
are actually better potential sources of stem cells for numerous reasons.
The best sources are from our own organs termed "adult stem cells" or
"tissue stem cells." Another excellent source is cord blood; the small
amount of blood left in an umbilical cord after it is detached from a
newborn is rich in stem cells. In the last two years, we've gone from
thinking that we had very few stem cells in our bodies, to recognizing
that many (perhaps most) organs maintain a reservoir of these cells.

We've known for some time that bone-marrow stem cells can make more blood,
but now we know that these adult stem cells can also make bone, muscle,
cartilage, heart tissue, liver, and even brain. Interestingly enough, we
now know that our brain contains stem cells which can be stimulated to
make more neurons, or to take up different job descriptions as muscle or
blood. Bone marrow and cord blood are already successfully being used
clinically, while clinical use of embryonic stem cells is years away.
Current clinical applications of adult stem cells include treatments for
cancer, arthritis, lupus, and making new corneas, to name a few.

One distinct advantage of using our own adult stem cells is that there
will be no transplant rejection, since it is our own tissue. Use of human
embryonic stem cells will require lifelong use of drugs to prevent
rejection of the tissue. Or, the patient will have to be cloned (a second
ethical issue!), and that embryo (the patient's twin) sacrificed to obtain
the embryonic stem cells for the tissue (essentially creating a human
being whose only purpose is to be "harvested").

Another advantage of adult stem cells might be considered from a
manufacturing viewpoint: A 2-step manufacturing process is more direct and
has much less likelihood of a problem than a 10-step process. Adult stem
cells have shown success at forming many specific tissues so far,
certainly more than human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory. And as
one researcher noted regarding human embryonic stem cells: "We thought
from the first that problems would arise using hPSCs [human pluripotent
stem cells] to make replacement tissues," indicating that the early stage
cells are both difficult and slow to grow. "More important, there's a risk
of tumors. If you're not very careful when coaxing these early cells to
differentiate -- to form nerve cells and the like -- you risk
contaminating the newly differentiated cells with the stem cells. Injected
into the body, [embryonic] stem cells can produce tumors." No such
problems exist with adult stem cells.

Lopez: To what extent are we exploring those options?

Prentice: Several scientists are investigating uses of adult stem cells to
form new tissues or repair damaged/diseased tissue, such as for diabetes,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and stroke. As mentioned before, others are
already using bone marrow and cord blood, as well as corneal tissue, for
clinical applications. But the number of researchers in this area is still
small, as is the amount of grant dollars needed to fund the research. And
sadly, embryonic stem cells have been held up as the panacea for disease
and a fountain of youth, despite the advantages of adult stem cells both
scientifically and ethically. Given that adult stem cells have shown
themselves to be scientifically more successful than embryonic stem cells,
and ethically palatable, much more needs to be heard and said about adult
stem cells, and much more funding needs to go to adult stem-cell research.

Lopez: Do members of Congress understand this debate? Are you confident
that people in the administration do -- especially to offset HHS secretary
Tommy Thompson, who is personally for research on human embryos for this
purpose.

Prentice: Some members of Congress have made it a point to be well
informed in the real facts of this issue, particularly Sen. Sam Brownback.
Many, however, have received blended or deceptive information, and have
been misled as to the capabilities of adult stem cells and the scientific
disadvantages of embryonic stem cells.

Lopez: What should pro-life groups be doing to get the real story
out-about alternative sources? And, simply, what their argument against
this research is, so it isn't simply caricatured in the press?

Prentice: First INFORM YOURSELF WITH THE FACTS on the alternatives, as
well as the facts (rather than the hype) about embryonic stem cells. Do No
Harm, the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, has a wealth of
articles about the alternatives on their website, plus links to other
sources. Then tell your family, friends, neighbors, any groups to which
you belong, and especially your Senators and your Representative. Impress
on them that there is more to the story than is usually told, and urge
them to check out the real difference in results between embryonic and
adult stem cells, the promises versus the reality. And INSIST that the
media tell the full story, complete with all of the adjectives and the
evidence.

Human embryonic stem-cell research is illegal, immoral, and unnecessary.

It is ILLEGAL regarding use of federal funds because Congress has stated
that no funds should be used for research which involves the creation or
destruction of human embryos for research purposes, and human embryos are
destroyed in the process of deriving human embryonic stem cells.

It is IMMORAL, because human beings are killed in the process.
Scientifically there is no disputing that we are a human being even at the
one-cell stage. It has never been acceptable to sacrifice one set of human
lives for the potential benefit of others (and they are only potential
benefits at this point.) Human embryonic stem cell research assigns
different values to different human beings, designating some as people and
some as property.

It is totally UNNECESSARY. Ethical alternatives exist such as adult stem
cells which have already shown much more promise than embryonic cells,
these results for adult stem cells are fully detailed in the scientific
literature, and that adult stem cells are already being used clinically,
making good on the potential that embryonic stem cells only promise.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   The Truth About Stem Cells
Source:   National Review; February 26, 2001

*       *       *       *       *       *       *
Open Letter to Bush Shows Alternative to Stem Cell Research

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC   20500

Dear Mr. President:

   Even prior to your inauguration you became aware and involved in the
ongoing controversy regarding the use of certain stem cells for research.
The passion of both opponents and proponents of embryonic or fetal stem
cells for research has been aired and written about in media for years.
   There are those who believe stem cell research is necessary to find
cures for diseases which currently can cause the death of millions of
citizens. Conversely, there are equally compassionate voices who believe
no one should negate a single life (or millions) to save lives. It is
doubtful that a solution could easily be found that would satisfy
everyone.
   However, Mr. President, we believe there is an effective and non-
controversial way to help fund stem cell research, which could provide
significant life-saving potential for patients in need of transplantation.
   At present, there are approximately 4,000,000 babies born annually in
the United States. Ninety-nine percent of all the stem cell rich
umbilical cords are thrown away as hospital "bio-waste material". We
believe this is a medical tragedy since the stem cells in discarded cord
blood have the potential for saving a life.
   The only reason any parent would allow their newborn's cord blood to
be discarded rather than help save a life, is they are unaware of the
medical importance of the stem cells in each cord. There is no question
when we heighten the awareness of both expectant parents and their medical
caregivers they will not opt to see any umbilical cords discarded.
   We have already accomplished this in more than 25,000 instances. We
have shown expectant parents and their medical caregivers the alternatives
available for the use of newborns' umbilical cord blood. They can:

   a. Cryopreserve cord blood stem cells exclusively for their family's
use.
   b. Donate them to a public (allogeneic) bank who try to find matches
between donors and unrelated patients in need of a transplant.
   c. Donate them to researchers who desperately need them to find cures
for currently untreatable diseases.

   Regardless of which of the above alternatives are selected there
should not be a single voice in opposition!
   The stem cells in every one of these umbilical cords come from babies
brought to full term who have been nurtured by their mother during the
entire gestation period. No person who believes in protecting life could
object to providing newborn babies and possibly other members of their
family a longer, healthier and therefore, happier life! Moreover, this
will be accomplished without negating a single life!
   Every private cell banking firm will see increased clientele once
expectant parents are made aware of the fact that the cryopreserved cells
are a perfect match for their newborn baby for their entire lifetime.
Moreover, this is a one in four or better chance to match a sibling if
needed for a transplant. This information must be made known, especially
since 59% of all pregnant women already have one or more children.
Medical experts, as well as the New England Journal of Medicine, know
sibling transplants can have an excellent chance for engraftment which is
needed for success. Moreover, there would also be less graft vs. host
disease complications and post transplant rejection. Since the family
would own the cryopreserved stem cells they could be available immediately
if needed in the future. In the case of our company and some other
private cell banks, there is no cost for retrieval, where finding a match
from some public banks could cost up to $15,000.
   Despite this, the public banks would also see a tremendous increase in
donations since informed parents (who opt not to store for their family)
would rather see their newborn's cord blood save a life than being "thrown
away".
   The scientific community could receive an abundance of publicly
donated stem cells from parents who are interested in finding cures for
diseases that might well have ended the life of someone in their family.
What wonderful memorial tributes there would be if a newborn baby's cord
blood stem cells helped cure a disease that took the life of a loved one.
   We believe that every single opposition group or individual would
enthusiastically join in this new national medical "save all stem cells"
program.
   The only "loser" will be the hospital trash bins since millions of
discarded umbilical cords will now become the source for needed
life-saving stem cells.
   Mr. President, if you were to use your voice and the prestige of your
office with its ability to attract the nation's media it could help find a
solution to this problem and provide future medical benefits for many.
Simultaneously, it could significantly increase the number of donated stem
cells available for research. This in turn could help reduce millions of
dollars of the government's expenditures for necessary research.
   If this information were made available to your Secretary of Health
and Human Services, The Surgeon General, and the Congress, we believe it
could have a profound positive medical impact for millions of families.

Respectfully,
CRYO-CELL International, Inc.

Daniel D. Richard
Founder and Chief Executive Officer

Wanda D. Dearth
President, Chief Operating Officer

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: Open Letter to Bush Shows Alternative to Stem Cell Research
Source: Cryo-Cell International

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Study Says Fat May be Stem Cell Alternative to Fetal Tissue

Los Angeles, CA -- A team of scientists says it has grown everything from
human muscle to bone from stem cells taken from fat - a breakthrough that
could eliminate the controversial use of fetal tissue from unborn children
or abortions.

Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles and the
University of Pittsburgh isolated the stem cells - immature cells that can
be coaxed into maturing into specific types of tissue - from ordinary fat
removed by liposuction. They then grew the cells into bone, cartilage,
muscle and fat.

Stem cells have been taken previously from bone marrow, brain tissue and
aborted children and frozen embryos -- a practice opposed by many pro-life
groups. The use of fat as a source could end such controversy.

The study was published Monday in the journal Tissue Engineering.

Researchers predict the first practical use of laboratory-engineered
tissue could come within five years. Eventually, scientists hope to use a
patient's own fat to supply the tissue required to treat disease or repair
injuries.

``We hope one day to be able to remove diseased tissue or organs, harvest
stem cells and replace the lost tissues on the same day during the same
operation,'' said Dr. Marc Hedrick of UCLA. ``There is potential for
regenerating a lot of different tissues, perhaps some day solid organs,
glands, nerves or brain tissue.''

Dr. J. William Futrell, a plastic surgeon at the University of Pittsburgh
and a member of the research team, said it is too soon to say how the
quality of stem cells from fat will compare to those from embryonic cells.

However, the fact that fat cells are so abundant could make them a ready
source of material for a biotech industry interested in engineering new
human tissues. "Fat is something that is universal,'' Futrell said.

Dr. Mary Hendrix, head of the department of anatomy and cell biology at
the University of Iowa, said the study adds to the growing evidence that
adult stem cells can be as easily manipulated as embryonic cells. ``This
is a very exciting discovery, because it's adding to our knowledge base of
the potential of adult cells to provide a stem cell population,'' said
Hendrix, who was not involved with the research.

The benefits could be twofold. The fat removed from a patient's beer gut,
for example, could be used to repair that person's bum knee.

The discovery comes at a time when President Bush has signaled he may
block federal funding for studies that use embryonic or fetal cells. He
wants scientists to focus on adult stem cells, which until now have been
more difficult to harvest.

Christian Medical Association Executive Director David Stevens, MD
observed, "This pivotal discovery is one of a series of studies all
pointing to the incredible promise of adult stem cell research.Unlike
destructive research on embryonic stem cells, which has demonstrated no
such promise, adult stem cell research holds tremendous potential to
assist our patients with serious diseases.The scientific evidence suggests
that we can achieve our desire to cure diabetes, Alzheimer's and a host of
other diseases by following the moral path of adult stem cell research.It
is time for the NIH to direct funding to these ethical research projects
rather than to those involving the destruction of human lives.When we
arrive at our destination, we will be glad to find we have not paid the
price of progress with our most precious ethical principles."

On March 8, the Christian Medical Association and others filed a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Health
and Human Services (HHS) agency and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) to compel enforcement of a long-standing statutory ban on federal
funding of research involving the destruction of human embryos.

There are drawbacks to harvesting stem cells from a patient's own body.

In severely ill patients who need large amounts of tissue replaced,
doctors may not be able to grow sufficient stem cells quickly enough,
according to the National Institutes of Health's guidelines on human stem
cell research.

And in any disorders caused by genetic defect, the genetic error could be
present in the cultured stem cells, making them inappropriate for
transplantation.

From:The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:Study Says Fat May be Stem Cell Alternative to Fetal Tissue
Source: Associated Press, CMA; April 10, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Placenta May Be Life-Affirming Alternative Source for Stem Cells

Trenton, NJ -- A biotech company said last week it has developed
technology for extracting large quantities of stem cells from placentas,
offering a rich new source of tissue that could be a life affirming
alternative to obtaining stem cells by killing unborn children.

Anthrogenesis Corp. of Hanover in Morris County says its method could
prove superior to current sources of stem cells. However, much more
research is needed, according to company officials and other experts.

"This is one of the three or four, out of 10 or 12 technologies [under
study], that I think are viable soon," said James A. Heywood, executive
director of the ALS Therapy Development Foundation, which researches
treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, the paralyzing
neurodegenerative disorder known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

In several months, it will begin studying potential treatments using stem
cells from Anthrogenesis. But Heywood said it's unclear whether those will
be the best type of stem cells for nerve disorders.

Stem cells now used in lab research and experimental treatments come from
bone marrow, umbilical cords of newborn babies, aborted unborn children,
or from killing extra human embryos for infertile couples -- the latter
two have drawn strong opposition from the pro-life community.

"Our ability to harvest large quantities of stem cells from a
non-controversial source . . . can have a significant effect, propelling
the pace of research forward" and reducing costs, said John Haines,
president and chief executive officer.

The placenta, an organ containing many blood vessels, connects the
umbilical cord of an unborn child with the uterine wall, allowing
nutrients to pass from mother to baby. Normally it is discarded after
birth.

Scientists at Anthrogenesis said they have developed technology to remove
all the blood from the placenta, then essentially keep it on life support
by placing it in nutrients under special conditions for up to a few days.
They then can extract stem cells from the tissue in quantities roughly 10
times what could be taken from an umbilical cord, for example.

Researchers are "having a hard time getting enough of those cells without
violating some federal regulation or offending someone," said Dr. Robert
Peter Gale, a bone marrow transplant expert and senior investigator at the
Center for Advanced Studies in Leukemia in Los Angeles. "If their
statements are correct, then I think it is terribly important."

So far, Anthrogenesis researchers have been able to coax those stem cells
to multiply and develop into nerve, blood, skin, and muscle cells; now
they are trying to make bone and cartilage.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject: Placenta May Be Life-Affirming Alternative Source for Stem Cells
Source:   Associated Press; April 12, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Umbilical Cords Could Repair Brains as Alternative to Stem Cell Research

San Francisco, CA -- Umbilical cords discarded after birth may offer a
vast new source of repair material for fixing brains damaged by strokes
and other ills, free of the ethical concerns surrounding the use of fetal
tissue, researchers said Sunday.

In animal experiments, at least, cells from umbilical cords appear to
greatly speed recovery after strokes. They work with a simple infusion
into the blood stream without the need for direct implantation into the
brain.

Although many details need to be worked out, Dr. Paul R. Sanberg of the
University of South Florida said he hopes to try the approach on stroke
victims within the next year or two.

Sanberg described the research at a meeting in San Francisco of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was financed by
the state of Florida and Cryo-Cell International Inc. of Clearwater, Fla.

Many experts believe that primitive tissue called stem cells will someday
be routinely used to make human spare parts. They might replace tissue
damaged by many different diseases, especially such brain ailments as
strokes and Alzheimer's disease. These generic cells can be nudged to
develop into all sorts of specialized tissue to repopulate every part of
the body from head to toe.

One source of stem cells is aborted unborn children or fertility clinics'
discarded embryos. However, this is especially contentious since pro-life
groups oppose fetal and embryonic stem cell research, and federally funded
scientists cannot use stem cells from these sources.

Sanberg said his research suggests that umbilical cords could be an
excellent source of stem cells without the ethical headaches of fetal
tissue. He noted that 4 million babies are born in the United States each
year, and 99 percent of their cord blood is tossed away.

He said one or two cords could probably provide enough stem cells to treat
one human stroke victim, if the current approach proves useful. The cells
could be frozen for use when needed.

In experiments so far, his team removed stem cells from cords and then
used retinoic acid and growth hormones to transform them into immature
nerve cells. They then injected 3 million of these cells into the
bloodstreams of rats that had suffered strokes.

In experiments on about 60 rats, the team found that after one month,
those given the cells had recovered about 80 percent from their strokes,
compared with about 20 percent in untreated rats.

Sanberg said the treatment works best when given within 24 hours of a
stroke but still helps up to a week later. Just how the new cells rewire
the damaged parts of the brain is unclear, although the cells can take on
the form of distinctly different types of brain tissue, and they also
appear to prompt damaged cells to repair themselves.

``They are attracted to the stroke part of the brain more than the normal
brain,'' he said. ``Some signal is being sent that attracts them.''

Sanberg cautioned that many questions remain, such as whether the cells
should be given in several doses, how many should be infused, and whether
the treatment will require suppression of the immune system, since the
body might otherwise reject the foreign tissue.

``This is very exciting,'' said Dr. Sandra Chapman of the University of
Texas at Dallas. ``The potential of this will be an exponential
improvement in our chance of treating all sorts of brain disorders.''

Research was conducted by Paul R. Sanberg, Ph.D., D.Sc., Director of the
USF Center for Aging and Brain Repair.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Umbilical Cords Could Repair Brains as Alternative to Stem Cell Research
Source:   Associated Press; February 20, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *

Italians Report Finding Alternative Stem Cell Research Method

Milan, Italy -- Scientists in Italy said on Tuesday they had shown that
certain cells from the brains of adult rats can be used to generate
muscular tissue, a discovery that could have implications for transplant
therapy and provide an alternative to killing unborn children to obtain
stem cells.

The discovery concerns stem cells, the body's ``master cells'' responsible
for reproducing other types of cells.

The breakthrough comes at a time of controversy in the scientific world
about the use of stem cells from embryos, which have great potential for
transplant therapy because at an early stage they can be used to recreate
any kind of cell.

If the research on rats translates to humans, it could allow doctors to
use adult stem cells, skirting the ethical dilemma about using human
embryos.

Luigi Vescovi, co-director of the San Raffaele hospital's Stem Cell
Research Institute in Milan, said new research had proven what he called
the ``transdifferentiation capacity of somatic adult stem cells.''

``It's a process by which a cell from a given tissue can give rise to a
cell form of a different tissue, possibly even of a different embryonic
origin,'' he told Reuters after presenting a paper to be published in
science journal Nature Neuroscience.

However, the research is apparently not new, according to Diane Irving,
Ph.D., a former professor of biology at Georgetown University and former
biochemist with the National Cancer Institute.

"There have already been successful studies done -- even in human patients
-- where adult stem cells from a patient were implanted and they became
cell types that usually come from a different germ layer," Irving
explained.

Previously it was thought adult stem cells did not have the same capacity
to produce cells in different parts of the body.

"The use of adult stem cells from the same patient are better because of
no immunosuppresant side effects, and therefore no such harsh drugs for
the patients," Irving pointed out. "I have also argued that adult stem
cells are better because they are closer to the stage of differentiation
than embryonic or fetal cells -- therefore they do not have as long a
"distance" to travel differentiation-wise as the younger cells.
Therefore there is far less of a chance for genetic errors to be
accumulated in the implanted cells and less side effects for the patient
to deal with."

Pro-life researchers, like Irving, say taking cells from embryos involves
destroying a human life. The embryos used in current research are usually
those left over from test-tube fertility treatment.

``The main therapeutic potential...is in the power of using healthy cells
from one healthy part of the body to replace cells damaged or destroyed by
an illness in another part of the body,'' the Institute said in a
statement.

``With adult stem cells there would also be the possibility of
auto-transplantation, eliminating all the problems of immunological
compatibility and rejection,'' it said.

Vescovi said the most obvious possibility for therapeutic development was
in the area of muscular dystrophy. For example, doctors could eventually
use brain stem cells to generate new muscular tissue for use elsewhere in
the body.

However Vescovi emphasised the research was still at a very early stage
and it had not yet been proven that what held true for rats would
translate to humans.

Irving agreed. "The practical application of these adult stem cell studies
-- as well as the embryonic and fetal stem cell studies -- are not going
to be ready any time soon."

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt / Sally Winn <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Italians Report Finding Alternative Stem Cell Research Method
Source:   Reuters; September 19, 2000

*     *     *     *     *     *
The embryo-cell battleground
By U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback

[Moderator's Note: Sam Brownback is a pro-life U.S. Senator from Kansas
who has taken the lead in advocating the pro-life position in the Senate
concerning stem cell research.]

Last week, the federal government declared for the first time in our
history that it is acceptable for medical researchers to kill one human
being to help save another.

The National Institutes of Health's (NIH) final guidelines on embryonic
stem-cell research, as announced by President Clinton, would encourage
private researchers to kill living human embryos to obtain stem cells for
government-funded research. Proponents of these guidelines claim that such
research may be helpful in treating and curing a variety of diseases.

Like all Americans, I am continually amazed by the advances that modern
medicine and technology continue to achieve in treating and curing the
diseases that plague our society. And, like most of my colleagues in the
Congress, I am very committed to encouraging and supporting public and
private research aimed at curing and treating these diseases.

Ultimately, what lies at the heart of this debate is our view of the human
embryo. The central question in this debate is simple: Is the human embryo
a person or a piece of property? If unborn persons are living beings, they
have dignity and worth, and they deserve protection under the law from
harm and destruction. If, however, unborn persons are a piece of property,
then they can be destroyed with the consent of their owner.

I believe the choice is clear. Killing an innocent human being is always
wrong - whether or not those in authority give consent, and whether or not
someone stands to benefit. But human embryo research is not only immoral,
it is also illegal, and ultimately, unnecessary. Here's why:

Destructive embryo research is illegal. Congress outlawed federal funding
for harmful embryo research in 1996 and has maintained that prohibition.
The ban is broad-based and specific; funds cannot be used for "research in
which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly
subjected to risk of injury or death." The intent of Congress is clear -
if a research project requires the destruction of human embryos, then it
is illegal to use federal funds for that project.

Although the Department of Health and Human Services recently issued a
legal opinion attempting to justify human embryo research, that opinion
stands in stark opposition to the stated will of Congress. The deliberate
killing of a human embryo is an essential component of the contemplated
federal research; without the destruction of the embryo, the proposed
research would be impossible. NIH's determination to pursue human embryo
research shows contempt for, and defiance of, the legislative will of the
U.S. Congress.

Destructive embryo research is immoral. The NIH guidelines will not only
result in the deliberate destruction of human embryos, but it will also
actually create incentives for such destruction. Further, forcing taxpayer
funding of such research subjects all taxpayers to unwilling complicity in
a practice that many find abhorrent.

Destructive embryo research is unnecessary. Other legitimate areas of
research show great promise without the moral and ethical difficulties
inherent in embryonic stem-cell research.

For example, the Aug. 15 Washington Post reported that "adult bone marrow
cells can be coaxed into becoming what appear to be nerve cells, and might
provide a nearly limitless supply of replacement neurons for patients with
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and spinal cord injuries." Two
months before, the Associated Press reported that "stem cells from the
adult brain can be nurtured into heart, liver, muscle and other tissues.
The finding may eliminate the ethical dilemma blocking stem-cell studies
that use human fetal tissues." Clearly, we must continue to fight to help
cure disease and to alleviate suffering. But why not use adult stem cells,
which do not require the destruction of human life?

We can and must find ways to help our fellow human beings triumph over
life-destroying diseases. But we cannot do that by destroying lives
ourselves. We cannot secure a good life by ending the lives of others.
There are other paths available - let us take them.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *
Family Research Council on Stem Cell Research Guidelines
Source:   FRC Press Release; August 23, 2000

NIH Plays 'Survivor' With its New Guidelines for Stem Cell Research

Washington -- In spite of scientific advancements in the use of stem cells
from adults and ethical quandaries about experimentation on embryonic
humans, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are poised to use taxpayer
dollars for research on embryonic stem cells. "There is no evidence that
embryonic human beings must lose their lives in order to save ours," said
William Saunders, Senior Fellow in Human Life Studies, at Family Research
Council (FRC). "Experiments conducted on stem cells taken from
deliberately destroyed embryonic humans is always unethical and always
unnecessary."

On Wednesday, the NIH announced that it has finalized its guidelines on
embryonic stem cell research. The guidelines specify the agency's ethical
and scientific criteria for awarding federal grants for these experiments.

"These experiments are unnecessary since research proves that comparable,
or better, results can be obtained from adult stem cells," Saunders said.
"For example, a person who uses his own adult stem cells would not have to
face tissue rejection, whereas incompatibility is always a potential
problem when using embryonic tissue." According to the recent issue of
Stem Cell Report, two new stem cell studies in the United States and
United Kingdom have independently claimed that human adult bone marrow
stem cells can generate liver and other tissues. About these findings,
Dr. Markus Grompe, Professor at Oregon Health Science University, says,
"This would suggest that maybe you don't need any type of fetal stem cell
at all-that our adult bodies continue to have stem cells that can do this
stuff."

"An embryo has 'the stuff' of life: a complete set of DNA," Saunders said.
"Too often, we think of an embryo as a thing that can be donated or thrown
away, the way someone donates unwanted clothes to charity or throws them
in the trash. Yet a human embryo is a living human being-a being with a
human destiny and a purpose.

"CBS may have finished the final episode of its summer hit, 'Survivor,'
but the NIH is making the game go on. By funding unethical and
unnecessary embryonic research, the NIH is extinguishing the torch of the
smallest in our tribe."

In October of 1999, FRC issued a briefing paper, "Victimization as
Research: Human Embryonic Stem Cell Experimentation, " on this subject,
and it is available to the media by calling the FRC press office.

Communique - a pro-life news update
From: Judie Brown
October 13, 2000
Vol. 10, #39

special edition

STEM CELL RESEARCH: With the burgeoning effort to destroy human embryos
through the harvesting of stem cells, it is urgently important to revisit the
fact that a single cell human embryo is a human being, a person who is
deserving of respect. The principles set forth in the following Vatican
document issued by The Pontifical Academy for Life are the same whether one is
discussing human embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization or
contraception. Any process that destroys these people or has the possibility
of destroying these people is illicit.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *
Judie Brown President American Life League Inc.

PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE: Declaration on the production and the scientific
and therapeutic use of human embryonic stem cells

[Excerpts follow. For the entire document, see
http://www.all.org/communique/cq001013.htm]

The first section will very briefly set out the most recent scientific data on
stem cells and the biotechnological data on their production and use. The
second section will draw attention to the more relevant ethical problems
raised by these new discoveries and their applications.

Although some aspects need to be studied more thoroughly, a commonly accepted
definition of "stem cell" describes it as a cell with two characteristics:

1. The property of an unlimited self-maintenance - that is, the ability to
reproduce itself over a long period of time without becoming differentiated;
and

2. The capability to produce non-permanent progenitor cells, with limited
capacity for proliferation, from which derive a variety of lineages of highly
differentiated cells (neural cells, muscle cells, blood cells, etc.).

For about thirty years stem cells have provided a vast field of research in
adult tissue, in embryonic tissue and in in vitro cultures of embryonic stem
cells of experimental animals. But public attention has recently increased
with a new milestone that has been reached: the production of human embryonic
stem cells...

There were high hopes that the application of this knowledge would lead to new
and safer ways of treating serious diseases, something which had been sought
for years. But the impact was greatest in the political world. In the United
States in particular, in response to the long-standing opposition of Congress
to the use of federal funds for research in which human embryos were
destroyed, there came strong pressure from the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), among others, to obtain funds for at least using stem cells produced by
private groups; there came also recommendations from the National Bioethics
Advisory Committee (NBAC), established by the Federal Government to study the
problem, that public money should be given not only for research on embryonic
stem cells but also for producing them. Indeed, persistent efforts are being
made to rescind definitively the present legal ban on the use of federal funds
for research on human embryos.

Similar pressures are being brought to bear also in England, Japan and
Australia...

The first ethical problem, which is fundamental, can be formulated thus: Is it
morally licit to produce and/or use living human embryos for the preparation
of ES cells? The answer is negative, for the following reasons:

1. On the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo
is - from the moment of the union of the gametes - a human subject with a well
defined identity, which from that point begins its own coordinated, continuous
and gradual development, such that at no later stage can it be considered as a
simple mass of cells.

2. From this it follows that as a "human individual" it has the right to its
own life; and therefore every intervention which is not in favour of the
embryo is an act which violates that right. Moral theology has always taught
that in the case of "jus certum tertii" the system of probabilism does not
apply.

3. Therefore, the ablation of the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst,
which critically and irremediably damages the human embryo, curtailing its
development, is a gravely immoral act and consequently is gravely illicit.

4. No end believed to be good, such as the use of stem cells for the
preparation of other differentiated cells to be used in what look to be
promising therapeutic procedures, can justify an intervention of this kind. A
good end does not make right an action which in itself is wrong...

The second ethical problem can be formulated thus: Is it morally licit to
engage in so-called "therapeutic cloning" by producing cloned human embryos
and then destroying them in order to produce ES cells?

The answer is negative, for the following reason: Every type of therapeutic
cloning, which implies producing human embryos and then destroying them in
order to obtain stem cells, is illicit; for there is present the ethical
problem examined above, which can only be answered in the negative.

The third ethical problem can be formulated thus: Is it morally licit to use
ES 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.

In conclusion, it is not hard to see the seriousness and gravity of the
ethical problem posed by the desire to extend to the field of human research
the production and/or use of human embryos, even from a humanitarian
perspective.

COMMENTARY ON: A resume of the declaration of the production and the
scientific and therapeutic use of human embryonic stem cells

By Father Denis O'Brien, M.M. Spiritual Director American Life League

Divine Wisdom says (Proverbs 8:15): "By Me kings reign and lawgivers decree
just things. But the type of Divine Wisdom is the eternal law. (St. Thomas
Aquinas, C.T., Q.93 Art 3 Pt. 1-11).

Probabilism: The moral system, according to which in a doubt of conscience
about the morality of a particular course of conduct, a person may lawfully
follow the opinion for liberty, provided it is truly probable, even though the
opinion for law is definitely more probable. The defenders of this system
apply their fundamental principle: "A doubtful law does not bind" (Lex dubia
non obligat) to both divine and human laws, whether the doubt concerns the
existence or the cessation of the law. However, they admit the exceptions to
the use of reflex principles. Moreover, they require a person reasonably to
seek certainty regarding the moral problem before seeking indirect certainty
through the use of reflex principles. The outstanding exponents of this system
emphasize that the opinion for liberty must be truly and solidly probable, for
if it is only slightly probable it has no value against the opinion for law.
Thus, probabilism is clearly distinguished from laxism. Jesuit theologians are
the best-known exponents of probabilism. (New Catholic Catechism, 11, pp.
814-15).

Probabilism "does not apply to cases in which there is no probability on
either side-that is, to cases of negative doubt." (Moral Theology, McHugh &
Callan; Vol. 1, No. 708 a.)

"Certainly, it is sometimes permissible to tolerate moral evil-when it is the
lesser evil and when one does so in order that one might avoid a greater evil,
or so that one might promote a greater good. It is never permissible, however,
to do evil so that good might result, not even for the most serious reasons.
That is, one should never willingly choose to do an act that by its very
nature violates the moral order, for such acts are unworthy of Man for this
very reason. This is so even if one has acted with the intent to defend and
advance some good either for individuals or for families or for society."
(Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, No. 14.)

Christ's peace to you! JB

From: Judie Brown September 18, 2000 Vol. 10, #36

STEM CELL RESEARCH MUST BE STOPPED

The U. S. Congress is currently taking up the question of funding the inhumane
practice of destroying embryonic babies in order to acquire stem cells. It is
important to have a clearly defined position complete with documentation when
making contact with members of Congress, the media and others. No man or woman
in public life should be allowed to skirt the question of when a human being
begins, regardless of that person's professed "pro-life" or alternative
position. The following is provided for your use in the battle ahead. It is
lengthy, but it is necessary; defense of life demands the best we can provide.

classic deceptions currently propagated as "facts"

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: "For some, an embryo is a fully realized human life. But
the view here is that a microscopic ball of cells a week or two old is not. In
addition, under the new set of rules, researchers can use only stem cells
taken from embryos that were going to be discarded anyway, such as those left
over after women complete treatment at in vitro fertilization clinics. None of
these cells would become fetuses or children anyway. Not even all pro-lifers
believe there is no difference between an embryo suspended in liquid nitrogen
that will never be implanted inside a womb and what they consider an unborn
child who is already in the womb." (Reading: "Embryo Research is
Life-Affirming," Chicago Sun-Times, 8/28/00, http://www.suntimes.com/)

INTERNATIONAL BIOETHICIST AND U.N. CONSULTANT DARRYL MACER: Proponent of
abortion, eugenics and more, Macer was recently interviewed by The Lancet and
when asked "Do you believe in capital punishment, said "No, one person has no
right to kill a human, except perhaps if it will directly save innocent lives
at that time." (Reading: The Lancet, 9/2/00, p. 866,
http://www.thelancet.com/newlancet/sub/issues/vol356no9232/body.lfeline866.htm
l, available by subscription only; background information on Macer's various
positions can be found at http://zobell.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/)

SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER: Senator Arlen Specter, commenting on Senate hearings:
"My hope is that we might move legislation to lift the ban at a very early
stage. Many people have the idea that using human embryos destroys lives. We
have to disabuse them of this notion." (Reading: "Congress Urged to Make Stem
Cell Research Easier," Reuters, 1/12/99)

BIOETHICIST R. M. HARE: "The potential of a human embryo for developing into a
person does not confer on it any right to protection. For it has no brain at
all. Consequently, that which would stand to benefit by the development of
this potential does not yet exist...." (Reading: R. M. Hare, "Essays on
bioethics," Clarendon Press, 1993, p. 85; About Hare:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/authors/r.m.hare.html#life)

personhood: the facts

TOPIC #1: Should all living human embryos be legally protected as the living
persons they are from conception/fertilization, or should we, the American
public, allow them to be destroyed for the sake of alleged "cures" for other
persons or for obtaining pure scientific knowledge?

*    *    *    *    *    *    *
POPE JOHN PAUL II: "The legal norm in particular is called to define the
juridical status of the embryo as a subject of rights, recognizing it as a
biologically irrefutable fact which in itself calls for values that neither
the moral nor the juridical order can ignore. "For the same reason, I consider
it my duty once again to assert these inviolable rights of the human being
from his conception on behalf of all the embryos which are often subjected to
freezing (cryopreservation), in many cases becoming an object of sheer
experimentation or, worse, destined to programmed destruction backed by law.
"Likewise, I confirm that it is gravely illicit, because of the dignity of the
human person and of his having been called to life, to use methods of
procreation which the Instruction 'Donum vitae' has defined as unacceptable to
moral doctrine. "The illicitness of these interventions on the origin of life
and on human embryos has already been stated (cf. 'Donum Vitae,' I, 5; I1),
but it is necessary that the principles on which the same moral reflection is
based be taken up at the legal level. "I therefore appeal to the conscience of
the world's scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the
production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to
be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and
thousands of 'frozen' embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential
rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons. "I also call
on all jurists to work so that States and international institutions will
legally recognize the natural rights of the very origin of human life and will
likewise defend the inalienable rights which these thousands of 'frozen'
embryos have intrinsically acquired from the moment of fertilization.
"Government leaders themselves cannot shrirk this duty, if the value of
democracy, which is rooted in recognizing the inviolable rights of every human
individual, is to be safeguarded at its very origins." (Reading: Pope John
Paul II, "To the Symposium on 'Evangelium Vitae' and Law," 5/24/96,
L'Osservatore Romano, http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp960524.htm)

PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE: "From a biological standpoint, the formation and
the development of the human embryo appears as a continuous, coordinated and
gradual process from the time of fertilization, at which time a new human
organism is constituted, endowed with the intrinsic capacity to develop by
himself into a human adult. The most recent contributions of the biomedical
sciences offer further valuable empirical evidence for substantiating the
individuality and developmental continuity of the embryo. To speak of a
pre-embryo thus is an incorrect interpretation of the biological data. ... The
ethical exigency of respect and care for the life and integrity of the embryo,
demanded by the presence of [a] human being, is motivated by a unitary
conception of man ('Corpore et anima unus') whose personal dignity must be
recognized from the beginning of his physical existence." (Reading: Concluding
document of the Third Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life,
2/14-16/97,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acd;ofe/documents/rc_pa
_acdlife_doc_116021997_final doc_en.html)

MAURIZIO P. FAGGIONI, O.F.M.: "The manipulation of human embryos as well as
the aberrant legislation permitting it are part of the distorted mentality
which presides over many practices of artificial reproduction, in particular,
in vitro fertilization. Such procedures, by violating the unbreakable
connection between the expression of the incarnate love of the spouses and the
transmission of life, obscure the profound meaning of human reproduction.
Therefore it is not licit to produce embryos in vitro and even less to
intentionally produce a surplus, thus making necessary their cryopreservation.
This seems to be the only reasonable response to the question of the freezing
of embryos and it is in this sense that the Holy Father has appealed to
scientists. However, the unnatural way in which these embryos have been
conceived and the unnatural conditions in which they currently exist cannot
allow us to forget that these are created human beings, living gifts of the
Divine Goodness, created in the image of the Son of God himself... "In the
case of frozen embryos we have a powerful example of the inextricable
labyrinths into which scientific knowledge imprisons itself when it is placed
at the service of individual interests rather than the authentic good of
humanity, at the service of desire only and not reason. Faced with the gravity
of these questions, questions of life and death, Christians sense more than
ever the mission entrusted to them by the Lord to proclaim the Gospel of Life,
and so they are-committed, together with all persons of good will, to respond
with solutions to the emerging problems which, if necessary, will be daring,
but which will always respect the value of the human person and his inherent
rights, above all when it is a question of the rights of the weakest and the
least." (Reading: "The Question of Frozen Embryos," Maurizio P. Faggioni,
O.F.M., L'Osservatore Romano, 8/21/96,
http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/frozembr.txt)

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

PROFESSOR DIANNE IRVING: When asked about stem cell research requiring the
human embryonic child's death, Ian Willmut, the scientist who "created Dolly,"
told a reporter "At this stage the human embryo is very small, so small you
cannot see it with your eye. It has no nervous system. It is not aware or
conscious." To which Professor Irving responds: "First we cannot see viruses,
bacteria or radiation with the naked eye either, but that does not mean that
therefore there are no viruses, bacteria or radiation there! Second, we see
here Willmut's erroneous definition of a human 'person' ONLY in terms of
certain kinds of currently expressed actions or functions, rather than in
terms of the nature already possessed, or kind of thing something is. "This
erroneous and academically indefensible definition of 'person' has ruled the
bioethics agenda for too long now without rebuttal, and Willmut is obviously
merely parroting their deconstructions. It is sad that such brilliant
scientists cannot bring themselves to know or admit publicly the objective
scientific facts involved in these issues. Surely the public trust in science
and research is constantly being eroded by such nonsense, since if scientists
will lie about this particular kind of research, what else will they lie about
in order to get their grants and Nobel prizes? "To be logically consistent _
which any rational 'person' such as Willmut would want to be, right? _ then he
would also have to argue that even ADULT human beings with Alzheimer's or
Parkinson's disease, the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the emotionally
disturbed, drug addicts, alcoholics, and even the short-term comatose _ indeed
even all of us while we were sleeping _ would NOT be human 'persons' according
to his absurd bioethics definition, and therefore all of those adult human
beings could also be used in destructive experimental research as well.... "A
human being is always simultaneously a human person, regardless if it is
currently expressing certain functions or if the mature physical organs are
already perfectly formed (indeed, the brain is not completely developed until
a human being is in his early 20s) 'Personhood' can be demonstrated at
fertilization using objective empirical evidence as the starting point for
argumentation (e.g., the production of specifically human proteins and enzymes
immediately at fertilization, etc _ we empirically observe that carrot or frog
proteins and enzymes are NOT PRODUCED _ ever). No argument for delayed
personhood can defend itself empirically or academically ..." (Reading:
Excerpts From Professor Irving's "Gobblyguk" series, #36, 8/30/00; the
complete series of commentaries, which is ongoing, may be published at some
point. Watch Communique for future excerpts.)

scientific fraud: the reality

TOPIC #2: Why is scientific fraud allowed to persist when the scientific facts
are well known?

PROFESSOR DIANNE IRVING: Commenting on the 9/8/00 news report that stem cell
researchers skirt federal regulations (Stem-Cell Researchers Skirt Regs,"
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,38629,00.html?tw=wn200009),
scientist/ethicist/philosopher Dianne Irving writes, "Just when are
legislative measures going to be addressed to private research here, and
enforced? Just when are these journalists, politicians, Congressmen, advocacy
groups and scientists going to be held legally responsible for this blatant
scientific fraud? Why aren't these scientists and any other 'experts' required
to take a legally binding oath to tell the obective truth before Congress and
any other legislative bodies and courts, like other experts are required to
do? Why has public policy been allowed to be based on such scientific fraud
for so long? There has been absolutely no accountability required or demanded
all along. Why not, I wonder? This scientific fraud can be applied to many
other seemingly unrelated public health care experiments, and thus eventually
applied to all of us _ around the globe. The implied erroneous bioethics
definition of 'person' is likewise totally academically indefensible, and
already has been applied to all of us. Time to stop reducing this issue to
just 'politics,' 'religion,' and 'scribbling in crayon.' We deserve better.
Will the real scientists please stand up? Wake up and smell the coffee,
America!" (Reading: Professor Irving's position papers on the correct science,
and the conclusion on personhood that necessarily follows from it [that
personhood begins whenever the human being begins _ regardless of the process
used] are located at: http://www.all.org/abac/sitemap.htm)

GEORGE WEIGEL: Responding to such fraudulent claims about the non-personhood
of the human embryo, author/writer/lecturer George Weigel, wrote "Nothing that
is human was ever anything other than human. Nothing that is not human will
ever become human. Logic 101 gets us that far. But those logical truths are
confirmed by biology and genetics, which make it perfectly clear that from the
moment of conception, a distinctive, human identity is formed .... That
personhood is a status 'we confer' was the argument made in the 1920s by
German legal scholar Karl Binding and eminent German psychiatrist Alfred Hoche
to promote the notion that the state had an obligation to rid itself of those
whose lives were 'unworthy of life' _ the radically handicapped, for instance.
The notion of 'life unworthy of life' helped set the cultural ground for the
holocaust. " (Reading: "Stem Cells and the Logic of the Nazis," 9/3/00, LA
Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/20000902/t000082778.html)

GEORGE WILL: Commenting on the "Stenberg v. Carhart" decision, Will accurately
observed: "...Scant scrutiny was required given the logic the court locked
itself into 27 years ago when, in 'Roe v. Wade,' the court, with breathtaking
disregard of elemental embryology, described a fetus as 'potential life."
(George F. Will, "An Act of Judicial Infamy," Washington Post, 6/29/00,
http://washingtonpost.com/wp
dyn/opinion/columns/willgeorge/A16121-2000Jun28.html)

EMBRYOS NOT NECESSARY: The Lancet comments: "calling [embryos] pre-embryos is
sophistry" and "In just a few days a moral issue that ought to trouble even
those with no religious beliefs has been taken over by scientists, by
politicians and by money. The irony is that by the time the matter is resolved
it may no longer be relevant. If stem cells do turn out to be a significant
source of therapeutic agents they could come not from human embryos but from
alternatives such as reprogrammed adult cells." (Reading: "Overexcitement on
Embryo Stem Cells," The Lancet, 8/26/00, p. 693,
http://www.thelancet.com/newlancet/current)

action

ACTION: Communicate to each individual, either elected, seeking election or in
the media, the actual facts in this matter. The position that is most
consistent is that the research, regardless of the source of funding, must be
banned. The reason: no person should be intentionally killed for the sake of
another.

reflection for prayer

Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good
and what is evil. Rather there is profoundly imprinted upon it a principle of
obedience vis-a-vis the objective norm which establishes and conditions the
correspondence of its decisions with the commands and prohibitions which are
the basis of human behavior. -- The Splendor of Truth, Section 60, Pope John
Paul II, 1993

Christ's peace to you! JB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Life League provides this news service because "no lie can come from
the truth." 1 John: 2:21.

Copyright 2000 American Life League, Inc.

Mention of a person or group or a person's or group's publication does not
constitute an endorsement of all the work, publications and/or information of
such person or group.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
Stem Cell Research Alternative Company Speaks at Chris Smith Event

Clearwater, FL -- Pro-life Congressman Christopher Smith conducted a press
conference at the U.S. Capitol announcing a funding bill he was
introducing on the "Ethical Use of Stem Cells" for research. The press
conference was widely covered by the media including Fox TV news, among
others.

Daniel D. Richard, Chief Executive Officer of CRYO-CELL International,
Inc. (Nasdaq: CCEL), one of four invited speakers stated, "We are
extremely qualified to speak to the media because our company is involved
in all facets of the issue being discussed."

Mr. Richard pointed out the core business of CRYO-CELL is the long-term
preservation of umbilical cord blood stem cells for the future medical
benefit of newborn babies or their siblings. Certainly there could be no
ethical stem cell controversy since the U-Cord(TM) blood stored at
CRYO-CELL's state-of- the-art lab is harvested only from babies brought to
full-term. The cord blood is collected without pain or risk to mother or
child since the procedure is done after the cord has been cut.

CRYO-CELL's ethical use of stem cells for research is a result of an
exclusive agreement with the University of South Florida. Dr. Paul
Sanberg, Chair of the Neuroscience Department and the Center for Aging and
Brain Repair, recently reported the results of treating laboratory animals
using U-Cord derived neural stem cells donated through CRYO-CELL by
parents seeking to provide ethical stem cells for research. Dr. Sanberg
reported significant recovery from stroke and traumatic brain injury using
neural cells for transplantation, which had been reprogrammed from the
U-Cord cells donated by CRYO-CELL. These results were presented at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science and two other
prestigious medical associations.

Mr. Richard highlighted a letter CRYO-CELL sent to President Bush that was
also hand delivered to the offices of all members of Congress urging these
public officials to use their "power and prestige" to advise expectant
parents of the alternatives to having their newborn's umbilical cords
discarded as hospital "waste."

Of the 4,000,000 babies born each year in the U.S., 99% of umbilical cords
and the cord blood they contain are discarded, according to Bruce Zafran,
MD, OB/GYN, who chairs the "Save The Stem Cells" program developed by
CRYO-CELL. "Each of the discarded cords contain stem cells which have the
potential to save lives and surely there can be no controversy using them
for research," he stated.

Mr. Richard highlighted that the Vatican had recently announced to the
European press they supported cord blood banking as long as the stem cells
came from babies brought to full-term.

Some of the other salient points made at the press conference by Mr.
Richard were:

* He called on all hospital administrators to mandate that their personnel
advise expectant parents of their alternatives and requested hospitals not
to participate in discarding umbilical cords unless documentation was
provided at pre-registration that the parents had consulted with a private
cell bank, a public allogeneic (third party) bank or a research firm as
part of their decision making process.

* Mr. Richard quoted a letter a retired Major General had written to the
office of the Surgeon General, citing a successful treatment of a sickle
cell anemia patient and asking that all military hospitals advise service
personnel who are expecting a baby of their options to preserve their
baby's cord blood stem cells for the future medical benefit of the newborn
and/or siblings in the family. According to General Brooks he felt that
there is an obligation to inform these couples so we can "serve those who
serve their country."

Finally, Mr. Richard implored the media to join the CRYO-CELL mission to
"Save The Stem Cells" by reporting its importance to every one of their
viewers, readers or listeners, knowing that once they heighten the
awareness of the public, everyone will profit.

* Private banks would see increased enrollments for the use of the donor's
family.

* Public banks will see significant increases in donations for unrelated
parties in need of transplants.

* Researchers and scientists could receive an abundance of non-
controversial cells to develop new therapies to treat diseases which are
currently incurable.

Mr. Richard has gained support from several organizations that have
opposed the use of embryonic stem cells. They can see that stem cells
obtained from babies brought to full-term are non-controversial and that
the CRYO-CELL program of "Saving Stem Cells...Means Saving Lives!"

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Stem Cell Research Alternative Company Speaks at Chris Smith Event
Source:   Cryo-Cell International; June 13, 2001

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *
A researcher based in Cambridge, England, has claimed to have discovered a way
of converting fully developed adult cells into stem cells which could be used
to produce new body tissue. The Times newspaper reported on the work of Dr
Ilham Abuljadayel, who says that she discovered the process by chance. If
verified, the technique which Dr Abuljadayel called retrodifferentiation could
mean that a large number of stem cells from a patient's own blood could be
produced in only a few hours. Professor Adrian Newland of the Royal London
Hospital Medical School said that he had managed to repeat Dr Abuljadayel's
work with similar results, but that more research was needed to eliminate
other possible explanations. He observed: "As it stands, it could be amazing,
or it could be inconsequential." It is hoped that adult stem cells could
provide an ethical alternative to the use of stem cells from embryos and
so-called therapeutic cloning. [The Times, 15 January]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Adult Stem Cell Bank Offers Ethical Alternative

London, England -- A Roman Catholic medical institution in Rome is
launching a placenta and umbilical cord bank, to provide stem cells for
medical purposes -- an ethical alternative to killing unborn children for
medical research.

The initiative is a direct response to recent moves to legalize the use of
human embryos for medical research. Pro-life organizations, including the
Vatican, have come out strongly against the killing of unborn children as
sources of stem cells. They question the ethics of harvesting an
early-stage human being for stem cells, then destroying it.

Scientists believe that stem cells, the building-blocks of muscle, blood
and other tissues, have the potential to grow tissue to replace parts of
the body damaged by injury or by diseases such as leukemia or Alzheimer's.

British lawmakers last month voted in favor of allowing specialists to
harvest embryos up to 14 days old for stem cells, and also to clone
embryos in a laboratory for the same purpose. Some scientists feel cloned
embryos will produce the best tissues, offering a perfect match for the
patient whose genetic material was used in the cloning process.

Opponents say it is unnecessary to use embryos, as new evidence suggests
that "adult" stem cells, from sources such as placentas and umbilical
cords, offer comparable possibilities.

The Catholic University of Rome set a launch date of January 1 for opening
its placenta and umbilical cord bank, although it will take several more
weeks until everything is up and running.

Explaining the project, the director of the university's Institute of
Gynecology, Prof. Salvatore Mancuso, said by telephone from Rome that
mothers who deliver their babies at the department will be invited to
donate the placenta and umbilical cord, which are normally just discarded.
The material will then be "cryo-preserved" (frozen and stored), with the
aim being to accumulate as large a collection as possible and to provide a
future source of stem cells, available at short notice when needed.

"We believe there will be a future increasing use of stem cells for
treating a number of metabolic or genetic diseases. While the scientific
research is progressing we feel it is a good idea [to collect and store
the material]."

The larger the number of samples in stock, the better the probability of
finding a suitable match for a particular recipient, he said. In the
meantime the samples will also be available for use by a network for bone
marrow transplants, or the treatment of leukemia and tumors.

Mancuso said it was hoped other private and public hospitals in the city
and the region would also participate. "We hope that this activity will be
repeated by other institutions in the country and in Europe," he added.

Placenta banks for bone marrow transplantation do exist elsewhere, but
this is thought to be the first where the institution rather than
individuals will cover the costs and where the motivation is primarily an
ethical one. Mancuso said funding would also come from government and
private organizations.

Apart from outright donations, women will also be offered the alternative
of having their babies' umbilical cords and placentas stored for later
possible use by their own family members, in which case they will be asked
to contribute to the costs.

"It is possible that a baby born in January 2001 may need in 15 or 20
years' time his own stem cells for curing some metabolic disease."

By that time, Mancuso said, he was confident stem cell research would have
advanced to a point where this would be possible. "Since the procedure
does not give ethical problems, the Vatican is in favor of this," he
added.

Mancuso said the institute had for years already been using the
"autonomous transplantation of stem cells" in the treatment of advanced
tumors in the ovaries and breasts. Chemotherapy destroys not only tumor
cells but healthy white blood cells, he explained. The patients' own
stored stem cells are then re-introduced, "and in a short time the bone
marrow will be again colonized and the number of blood cells restored."

Archbishop Elio Sgreccia, vice president of the Pontifical Academy for
Life, has expressed the view that not only is the use of adult stem cells
ethical, it is also potentially more effective than the use of embryos.
"Research rewards the use of stem cells extracted from the umbilical cord
and proves that it is not necessary to sacrifice embryos," he told the
newspaper Il Giornale late last year.

Last month's decision in the British parliament drew a strong response
from Sgreccia, who called it a "criminal act, catastrophic for the future
of humanity."

"To legitimize the suppression of human beings, our own children, for the
purpose of experimentation represents a trauma for humanity never seen
before," he said, and dismissed the notion that unborn children younger
than 14 days old were not human beings.

Dr. Michael Jarmulowicz of the UK Guild of Catholic Doctors said Thursday
the organization was in principle supportive of the Rome project. It would
be keen to see something similar set up in Britain, "although obviously
you'd want people who are expert in their fields who will do proper work.
If there are those people, then I'd love them to have access to that sort
of thing."

"It is ethically acceptable, if we can produce the same results [as with
embryonic stem cells] - although we don't know if any of it will work -
but until you've done it you can't say it won't work."

The U.S. publication Science has named research demonstrating the
potential of adult stem cells as the fifth most important scientific
advance of 2000. Studies over the past year, it said, had proven false
earlier assumptions that adult stem cells could not be reprogrammed into
other types of cells.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Adult Stem Cell Bank Offers Ethical Alternative
Source:   Cybercast News Service; January 04, 2001

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE says "no" to stem-cell reseach.
In a prepared statement on the
> subject of destroying embryonic babies by taking their stem cells for
> research and experimentation, the Academy issued a statement which says,
> in part: "On the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living
> human embryo is from the moment of the fusion of the gametes a human
> being with a well defined identity. Consequently, the ablation of the
> internal cell mass of the blastocyst, an act that seriously and
> irreparably damages the human embryo, interrupting its development, is a
> seriously immoral act, and consequently, seriously illicit." Citing a
> series of ethical problems, the statement continues, "Is it morally
> right to use stem cells, and the differentiated cells obtained
> therefrom, when supplied by other researchers or available on the
> market? The response is negative because, apart from sharing 
> explicitly or otherwise in the morally illicit intention of the
> principal agent, in this case close material cooperation also exists in
> the production and manipulation of human embryos by the producer or
> supplier."
> (Reading: "Declaration on Production and Use of Embryonic Cells," EWTN
> News, 8/25/00, http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=6315 - the
> full text of the declaration is on the Vatican web site (in Italian
> only, though an English version should be posted soon)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
BENEFITS OF ETHICAL STEM CELL RESEARCH

WASHINGTON, DC --- "There's no shortage of scientific evidence showing
the promise of ethical research from stem cells taken from adult
tissue," said Father Joseph Howard, executive director of the American
Bioethics Advisory Commission. "And there's also no shortage of
studies which confirm the destructive effects of unethical
experimentation on stem cells taken from embryonic babies." Father
Howard said in the face of such evidence, "it is unfortunate that so
many scientists have allowed scientific fact to deteriorate into
unfounded political opinion."

He cited a number of studies pointing to the benefits of ethical
research on stem cells gleaned from adult bone marrow, umbilical cord
blood or placental blood:

In the world's largest study thus far, a group of prominent
researchers transplanted placental stem cells into 562 patients
suffering from leukemia and a wide variety of other diseases to
achieve beneficial results. (New England Journal of Medicine, Nov. 26,
1998, Vol. 339 No. 22, pp. 1565-1577).

University of Pittsburgh scientists demonstrated that muscle-derived
stem cells can become bone after transplantation. The National
Neurological Institute in Milan demonstrated that neural stem cells
(when transplanted into bone marrow) became a variety of cell types
including myeloid, lymphoid and hematopoietic cells. The National
Academy of Science demonstrated that bone marrow stem cells can become
brain cells.

Father Howard also cited a recent study showing that stem cells
stripped from aborted babies -- when implanted into victims of
Parkinson's disease -- had nightmarish effects.

"If brain can become blood, and blood become brain -- ethically -- why
can't Nobel laureates understand that killing embryonic persons is not
only unethical, but unnecessary," Father Howard said. "It is
disreputable indeed when scientists make political statements in the
face of scientific fact, on behalf of an ideology which sanctions the
killing of embryonic persons."

Source: American Life League Media Office (www.all.org)

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *
Interview With Genetics Prof. David Prentice on Stem Cell Research

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Pro-life Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) recently
introduced the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001. National
Review's Kathryn Lopez discussed the bill with David Prentice, a professor
of life sciences at Indiana State University and an adjunct professor of
medical & molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine.
Dr. Prentice also serves as an ad hoc science adviser to pro-life Senator
Sam Brownback (R-KS).]

Question: What is the Responsible Stem Cell Research Act of 2001?

David Prentice: The bill authorizes $30 million specifically targeted at
supporting adult stem-cell research, which has already shown itself to be
extremely promising for treating numerous degenerative diseases such as
heart disease, stroke, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. Adult stem
cells have been shown in animal models to repair heart damage, provide
therapeutic benefit for stroke, and reverse diabetes. And adult stem cells
have already been used successfully in human patients to relieve lupus,
multiple sclerosis, and arthritis, to name a few. We simply need more
money for research into this ethical and promising avenue. The bill also
sets up a stem-cell bank for collection of umbilical cord blood and
placenta, two very rich sources of adult stem cells.

Question: Is the NIH equipped to run a stem-cell bank? We have seen how
they have bungled other things.

Prentice: There have been questions in the past about NIH's ability to
provide effective oversight of contentious research. But this is not a
contentious area, and they surely have the physical facilities and
personnel capable of handling this project.

Question: The proposed NIH bank would collect umbilical-cord blood and
placenta blood. Are we confident that stem cells from these sources are
the most efficient?

Prentice: We know both sources are rich in stem cells, and there is
evidence these cells have the ability to transform into many other tissue
types. These are two sources that, if not banked by the family or [made
available] for general use, will be lost, sort of like a non-renewable
resource. Other equally promising sources such as bone marrow can be drawn
at any time from a patient or donor, so there's not the urgency for
banking these cells.

Question: Do you have any feel for how much support the bill will get?

Prentice: I haven't heard of any counts on who supports it at this early
stage, but this should be a bill that everyone can support! The research
is not ethically contentious, it harms no human beings, it shows wonderful
promise for treatment of serious diseases that affect millions of
Americans, and cord-blood stem cells have already been used successfully
in clinical trials. The bill is solidly for patients and for medical
research for disease treatments. It puts desperately needed money toward a
successful line of research. I can't think of a sensible reason not to
support it.

Question: There is so much emotion and misinformation framing the debate
over stem-cell research, and such things as cloning. Is it possible, on a
national or even international level, have rational, accurate
conversations about facts and limits? Can Congress? Can Tommy Thompson do
so with the White House?

Prentice: It should be possible, though I know it's hard to put aside the
emotion on both sides of the debate. The perception seems to be that the
reward goes to those who make the most noise or the grandest claims. But
we need to pause, put aside emotion and promises, and take a hard look at
the facts. Science is not the final arbiter; science can only inform our
choices regarding policy and ethics. In the end, the question we must ask
is: What type of society do we want to be, and how do we view humanity?

Question: Does the press mislead the public on these issues (for example,
by not reporting successes with adult stem cells and failures with fetal
and embryonic cells)?

Prentice: The general perception has been that the "hype" goes to
embryonic stem-cell research, even though there's precious little
substance to go along with the promises being made. And [there's the
impression] that adult stem-cell successes get much less coverage, and the
negatives of embryonic little or no coverage. Interestingly, beyond
impression, there was a study done recently by the Statistical Assessment
Service on how balanced the reporting was regarding embryonic vs. adult
stem cells. The study found that the impressions of the unequal coverage
were well founded. There is obviously still a need to dispel the
misleading statements and restore balance and truth to the reporting.

Question: Last month, Christopher Reeve and seven scientists sued the Bush
administration for doing "irreparable harm" for halting federal funding of
embryonic stem-cell research for the time being, a policy that is
currently under review. They accuse the administration of "preventing or
delaying the advent of a cure for paralysis, Parkinson's disease, diabetes
and other debilitating conditions." Is that true? Or is there stem-cell
research still going on in the U.S.?

Prentice: Delaying the funding of two or three projects (the number
submitted) will not make or break any cure, especially in such an
"embryonic" area of research, one which is frankly much farther away from
such cures than adult stem-cell research. And embryonic stem-cell research
will continue as it has been using private funds, likely by those same
investigators, and likely with more funding than adult stem-cell research.

Question: Does this all belong in the private sector, with some important
legal limits?

Prentice: Ideally we wouldn't need embryonic stem-cell research in any
sector. It certainly doesn't need the sanction nor the dollars of the
federal government. In light of the continuing successes with adult stem
cells, even some scientists who are not opposed to human embryonic
stem-cell research have made comments that adult stem cells can function
as well or better than embryonic stem cells, and that it makes it hard to
argue that we should use embryonic cells. Further advances in adult
stem-cell research could make the whole question of embryonic stem cells
moot.

Question: Do you believe that it is possible, politically, to set
reasonable limits on embryonic stem-cell research in the U.S.? And, down
the road, even, on cloning?

Prentice: Realistically, no, not in terms of drawing some arbitrary
half-way line and saying "you can only go this far but no farther." Martin
Teitel, president of the ["pro-choice"] Council for Responsible Genetics,
notes "No bright line exists in ethics for deciding what is helping a
person and what is turning a human being into an experiment, or a
product." I note that the Council for Responsible Genetics has just issued
a call for a ban on embryo manipulation, rejecting genetic manipulation,
research on embryos, cloning, and embryos as items of commerce. This last
point is key their Genetic Bill of Rights notes that the "...
commercialization of life is veiled behind promises to cure disease...".
Sound familiar?

Put another way, how do you tell the difference between a human embryo
produced by in vitro fertilization or a cloned embryo? Or between an
embryo intended for implantation and a live birth and an embryo intended
for research and destruction? You can't. An embryo is an embryo, and we
can't see (or regulate) intent.

Erwin Chargaff, the renowned biochemist whose landmark discoveries about
DNA laid the foundation for Watson, Crick, and many others, expresses it
this way: "Research always runs the risk of getting out of control." He
notes that, "There are some things you just don't do," and calls the
current climate toward making human life (such as human embryos) a
commodity "a kind of capitalist cannibalism." A total ban, such as the
Brownback-Weldon Human-Cloning Prohibition Act, seems to be the only
answer.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Interview With Genetics Prof. David Prentice on Stem Cell Research
Source:   National Review; June 8, 2001

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Are We Becoming Desensitized to Idea of Cloning?

Washington, DC -- It used to be easy to separate reality from myth when it
came to cloning.

However, in light of technological advances, a private group of scientists
in the United Kingdom now says its intends to clone a human by the year
2003, an audacious goal that may increase the public's acceptance of an
idea that not too long ago was limited to moviemaking fiction.

While Hollywood depictions of a genetically engineered military capable of
superhuman feats might seem outlandish and even laughable to those who
advocate cloning for medical reasons, some critics say such a scenario
could one day become reality.

The onset of cloning capabilities has created a desensitized public, said
Daniel McConchie, the director of operations and policy for the Center for
Bioethics and Human Dignity. Continuing down that path will lead to "the
practice becoming even more acceptable" to society, he said.

For instance, McConchie continued, "cloning was a bad word when it came
out. But attaching the word therapeutic, it tones it down, makes it more
acceptable."

In addition to offering the public medical breakthroughs via stem cell
research, scientists could also sway at least some segments of society -
initially, the wealthy, according to most critics - into various levels of
acceptance with cosmetic enticements. The Financial Times, for instance,
recently reported the possibility of gene research leading "people to
alter the human [gene] line ... to make their descendants more beautiful
or intelligent or athletic."

Many are unsettled by the publicized benefits of genetic research for
medical and cosmetic purposes, which could eventually drive society to
blur its lines of ethical and moral considerations. Cloning critics also
argue that a science fiction sounding scenario of a genetically engineered
populace run amok may not be so far-fetched after all.

"It just seems like science fiction," said William Saunders, of the Family
Research Council. "But we're very close to that. If people don't stop and
see what all the terrible things are done in the name of science, then the
human consciousness becomes dulled to this, so I wouldn't say anything is
impossible."

Those who scoff at the idea of, say, taking the cells of a killed soldier
and engineering a replacement more physically equipped to endure the
hardships of war, are not only denying that such technology
"theoretically, could work," Saunders said, but are also ignoring the
historical realities of government's willingness to conduct ethically
questionable experiments.

In late 1993, for example, revelations surfaced that thousands of
government-sanctioned and sponsored human radiation experiments had been
conducted on patients between 1944 and 1974. Some of those who
participated in the tests had not given their consent.

The Pentagon and CIA have fielded accusations for decades that
high-ranking officials engaged in extensive mind-control experiments with
both knowing and unwitting subjects who were administered or fed LSD and
other hallucinogens - all in the name of advancing science and U.S.
military prowess.

U.S. government sanctioned syphilis experiments conducted in Tuskegee,
Alabama in the 1930s and the Nazi atrocities committed against Jewish
concentration camp victims, revealed at the Nuremberg trials in 1945, make
it feasible that science and government could end up pursuing ethically
questionable cloning experiments, all under the pretense of benefiting
humanity, Saunders said.

Meanwhile, many countries race to be first.

Britain may be leading the race toward notoriety; overseas reports
indicate a "private consortium of scientists plans to clone a human being
within the next two years" in the United Kingdom.

Karl John Shields, an assistant editor and research associate at the
Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society agrees it will be
difficult to rein in scientists seeking notoriety and intellectual
challenge. "We ought not to ... do research upon people who cannot give
their own consent," Shields said, summarizing the ethical considerations
he said should be addressed before any human experiments are conducted.
"We ought not to use people as a means to an end."

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Are We Becoming Desensitized to Idea of Cloning?
Source:   Cybercast News Service; February 6, 2001
--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life
info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional
information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Bush Position on Stem Cell Research Reiterated

Washington, DC -- A spokesman for pro-life President-elect George W. Bush
reiterated Bush's pro-life stance on the issue of stem cell research using
stem cells from unborn children.

Press secretary Ari Fleischer, quoting his boss' statements during the
campaign, said Bush ``would oppose federally funded research for
experimentation on embryonic stem cells that require live human embryos to
be discarded or destroyed.''

But Fleischer, questioned by reporters, did not say whether Bush intends
to block the National Institutes of Health, which is now accepting grant
applications for research on embryonic stem cells harvested by private
researchers.

``I think (Bush's) statement speaks for itself. And I'm not going to go
beyond that,'' Fleischer said. "During the campaign president-elect Bush
said that he would oppose using taxpayer funds to support fetal tissue
research from induced abortions," Fleischer told reporters.

Another Bush spokesman, Scott McClelland, later added: ``The
president-elect's position is clear. He opposes federal funds for research
that involves destroying living human embryos. ... As we have previously
indicated, we intend to review all rules and executive orders implemented
by the Clinton administration.''

The future of embryonic stem cell research, which scientists believe can
lead to miracle treatments for Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's
disease, is expected to be a central question in the Senate confirmation
hearings of pro-life Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, Bush's nominee to head
the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH.

Thompson recently dodged the question, telling reporters only: ``I am a
pro-life governor.''

Dr. John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University said things do not look good
for the research. ``Whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Thompson, with the
conservative bent on this, one has reason to be concerned,'' Gearhart
said.

Pro-life advocates say such research is immoral because the extraction of
stem cells from an unborn child kills the baby. They and Bush support
research on cells from adult tissue which, as McClelland said, ``would not
necessitate killing a live human embryo.''

Federal law prohibits the use of government funds to derive embryonic stem
or ``master'' cells. The new NIH guidelines allow private researchers to
extract - and then pass along to federally funded scientists - stem cells
from unborn children.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Bush Position on Stem Cell Research Reiterated
Source:   Associated Press, Reuters; January 4, 2001
--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life
info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional
information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
So What in Heck are Stem Cells?
by Sue Widemark

We hear a lot of about 'stem cells' in the news. The latest article I
read bragged that stem cells could be inserted into de-myelinated
neurons, fixing a non functional nerve.

Stem cells from embryos are undifferentiated cells or in layman's
terms, cells which haven't decided WHAT type of cell they are going to
be yet. They can be collected from older humans as well however it
seems the embryonic ones are easy to differentiate i.e. they are
basically a blank sheet of paper which will turn into any type of cell
the surgeon or scientist wants. Scientists feel these will be a great
help in curing incurable diseases like Parkinson's as well as
repairing organs like the pancreas and the heart.

The niggle in the whole thing is that embryos, human embryos, must be
obtained in order to harvest these stem cells and that might involve
growing a garden of beans, human "beans" for the purpose. Naturally,
the pro life movement as well as the Catholic church is not fond of
the idea.

Perhaps now we all should ask ourselves where we stand. It's likely
that stem cells will not be as helpful as some claim, because if so,
why haven't they experienced a great breakthrough already since stem
cell research is going on as we speak (the hue and cry is over the
funding some want to throw to those scientists. This funding might be
difficult to obtain in the present administration).

But suppose stem cell research was the most promising thing ever and
our financing of it with tax moneys promised us a longer life. Would
we give up our morals and do something which God likely frowns upon
that is, growing human beings only to destroy them in the early stages
as we do, bacteria cultures?

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:09:06 -0700
From: "SueW" <gswidemark@home.com>
To: "Cinlife_mailing list" <cinlife@cin.org>
Subject: So What in Heck are Stem Cells?
Message-ID: <036a01c0985c$b2c768c0$7be70118@phnx1.az.home.com>

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

* * * * * * * * * * *
Stem Cell Research: A Modest Proposal
By Maggie Gallagher

Normally, the news doesn't keep me up nights. But something about this
stem cell controversy is really getting to me.

Is it the ghastly eagerness with which, falsely framing the issue as
either scientific progress or moral scruples, we merrily toss away the
latter? President Bush just met with Pope John Paul II and heaped praise
on his moral courage: "You have urged men and women of good will to take
to their knees before God and to stand, unafraid, before tyrants," said
Bush. "And this has added greatly to the momentum of freedom in our time.
Where there is oppression you speak of human rights; where there is
poverty you speak of justice and hope. Where there is ancient hatred, you
defend and display a tolerance that reaches beyond every boundary of race
and nation and belief."

The 81-year-old pontiff in return asked President Bush to show a little
moral courage of his own. Is America, which aspires to be a shining light
to other countries, really about to entertain the idea of creating human
embryos for research purposes? The pope warned Bush, who last week said he
was still mulling over the question of removing bars to federally funded
stem cell research, against "evils" such as "proposals for the creation
for research purposes of human embryos, destined to destruction in the
process."

Maybe what gets me is the spectacle of normally "pro-life" men suddenly
losing their principles when they get a whiff of personal benefit. "I'm a
hypocrite," as one conservative New Jersey talk radio host cheerfully told
me. It's one thing to have moral scruples about protecting human life when
it's only women who bear the burden. But when it comes to scientific
research that might save MY life, hey! Carve up those eentsy-weentsy
unborn babies -- and here, have some taxpayer dollars to do it!

No. I think what bothers me most about the Brave New World Bush may launch
is not that a human life will be destroyed, but that these human lives
are, collectively, the next generation. These are not just any old humans
we're talking about consuming; they are our young! This offends, at the
deepest level, my core, gut instincts about what life is for. In a good
society, adults sacrifice for the next generation; they don't sacrifice
the next generation to the needs of adults.

What bothers me second most is the pessimism and lack of faith in human
creativity implied by the advocates' argument: Either eat your young or
people will die of MS, Alzheimer's, diabetes. This is always the devil's
bargain, this attempt to make us believe that there is only one way to get
some great thing, and that is to surrender all scruples.

The truth is that in scientific terms, the answer is just not clear. Stem
cells can be derived from multiple sources: umbilical cord blood, 5- to
10-week-old fetuses, adult tissues (fat, brain), embryos and pre-embryos.
These cells have different characteristics, and as the National Institutes
of Health report just released emphasizes, we just don't know "the extent
to which these different cell types will be useful in the development of
cell-based therapies to treat disease."

There's no guarantee that opening floodgates of taxpayer dollars for
embryo research will lead to a cure for anything. It may even divert
scientists' time and attention from more promising strategies. The dismal
record of the government's 30-year war on cancer should make us hesitant
about putting too much faith in government science anyway. Right now,
venture capital is flowing into adult stem cell research at twice the rate
of embryonic stem cell research, according to biotech expert Dr. Scott
Gottlieb.

Any government research in this area is likely to be deeply distorted by
abortion politics, anyway, as Dems rush to fund an end to any lingering
respect for human life in its earliest stages.

Here's one modest proposal: How about funding a new national program to
get parents to donate stem cells from umbilical cords? That way President
Bush could preserve a respect for human life while advancing science. We
can have decency and progress, too. All we have to do is care enough to
find a better way.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Stem Cell Research: A Modest Proposal
Source:   Pro-Life Infonet; July 26, 2001

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Bush Administration's Pro-Life Order Halts Stem Cell Meeting

Washington, DC -- The National Institutes of Health has canceled next
week's inaugural meeting of a committee that was to review the first
applications from scientists seeking federal funds for human embryo cell
research. It did so, agency officials said, after officials of the
Department of Health and Human Services told them to cancel the meeting.

The pro-life order, which was not announced publicly, is the most direct
action yet by President Bush or his appointees in the scientific and
ethical controversy over human embryonic stem cell research. The cells are
controversial because they are retrieved by killing unborn children in
their earliest stages of life.

The NIH had been moving forward with the grant approval process because
the top HHS lawyer in the Clinton administration had deemed such funding
legal. But HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson has ordered a review of that
decision.

"The bottom line is the department felt that it makes the most sense to
hold off until the guideline review that the department is doing is
complete," said HHS spokesman Bill Hall.

Hall said there is no timetable for the completion of that review, but he
expected it to be finished sometime this summer. He said he did not know
whether the decision to halt the NIH meeting was made by Thompson or Bush,
who in recent months has expressed his belief that federal money should
not be used to fund research on cells from human embryos or from aborted
unborn children, another objectionable source of stem cells.

Scientists who had hoped the promising field was finally poised to get
federal support expressed anger and frustration yesterday as word of the
cancellation spread by e-mail and phone. Some complained privately that
the NIH, which apparently did not fight the orders from HHS, had been
"bought" by the Bush administration, which is offering the agency a 13.5
percent increase next fiscal year.

Next Wednesday's meeting was to be the culmination of many months of legal
research, policy planning and the promulgation of new scientific and
ethical guidelines. Under the new guidelines, finalized last August under
the Clinton administration, federal funds cannot be used to destroy human
embryos. But they can be used to study cells that other, privately funded
scientists have retrieved from killing unborn children, as long as proper
permission has been granted by the mother and other "ethics restrictions"
are followed.

The first applications for such research grants -- and the first
documentation from potential embryo-cell distributors assuring that their
cells have been retrieved in accordance with the guidelines -- were to be
reviewed Wednesday by a newly formed committee, the Human Pluripotent Stem
Cell Review Group.

But that all changed when NIH acting director Ruth Kirschstein received
word from HHS last week to cancel the meeting. An NIH employee passed the
word by telephone to the approximately dozen committee members, whose
names the NIH has refused to make public. According to one member reached
yesterday, no explanation was given for the cancellation and no hint was
given as to whether or when the meeting might be rescheduled.

"It's unfortunate," said the member, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity. The committee member said that the group includes a wide range
of scientific, ethical and theological expertise and opinion, and includes
at least one "mainstream Catholic."

Some opponents have argued that certain cells that can be obtained from
numerous other life-affirming alternatives have the same potential as
embryonic stem cells.

Doug Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life
Committee, said he supported the Bush administration's review of the NIH
guidelines. The Clinton administration opinion that it is legal to fund
embryo cell research is "not an opinion, it's an evasion of the law,"
Johnson said.

The law, in this case, is a rider that has been added annually to the
appropriations bill for the NIH that precludes funding of research that
causes the destruction of human embryos. The legal question is whether
that language is violated by funding research that does not itself involve
the destruction of human embryos but depends on their destruction by
others as a source of cells.

The meeting cancellation left many NIH-watchers scrambling to interpret
the political meaning. Tim Leshen, director of public policy for the
American Society for Cell Biology, said it was encouraging that the
administration chose to cancel the meeting rather than sign an executive
order blocking such funding once and for all.

However, Leshen and others said the move may be a hint that the
administration plans to find a legal basis for blocking the funding and
wants to avoid the predicament of having already awarded some grants when
the ax comes down.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Bush Administration's Pro-Life Order Halts Stem Cell Meeting
Source:   Washington Post; April 21, 2001

*    *    *    *    *    *    *
Baby May Save Mother's Life
First Ever Newborn-to-Mother Transplant Gives Mom Best Mother's Day Gift

San Bruno, CA -- A toddler in Florida may be giving her mom the best
mother's day gift ever -- the gift of life.

Doctors at one of the nation's leading cancer transplant centers are
preparing for a first-of-its-kind transplant where they will infuse a
little girl's cord blood stem cells into her mother, who has chronic
myelocytic leukemia (CML). More than 1,500 cord blood transplants have
been performed world-wide, but never before has cord blood been used for
the newborn's mother.

The surgery is important because it involves stem cells obtained from an
umbilical cord -- an important pro-life alternative to obtaining stem
cells from killing unborn children.

The family arranged with Cord Blood Registry(TM) to preserve the stem
cells that remained in their daughter's umbilical cord after she was born
three years ago because of the potential life-saving benefits of the
cells. Stem cells are the building blocks of the blood and immune system
and are used to treat more than 30 types of cancer and blood disorders.

The cells have been in storage at the Registry's laboratory in Tucson,
which is affiliated with the University of Arizona, and now give the
Florida family the best odds for cancer recovery. Using family banked cord
blood has many advantages over stem cells from an unrelated donor -- most
importantly, the survival rate doubles for patients being treated with
related cord blood stem cells. One reason may be because when tissue is
matched for a transplant only 6 major HLA proteins are considered. With a
relative's stem cells, however, many of the minor HLA proteins are likely
to match as well, which may decrease the risk of graft-vs-host disease, an
often fatal reaction to transplant.

To date, thirteen Cord Blood Registry families have used their banked
newborn's cord blood for transplantation and all have successfully
engrafted. Early test results for the pending transplant reveal that the
daughter is a near perfect, 5/6 HLA match for her mother -- promising news
and a potential gift of life this Mother's Day.

From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
Subject:   Baby May Save Mother's Life
Source:   Cbr Systems, Inc; May 10, 2001

*    *    *    *    *    *    *
Stem Cell Research May be Over-Hyped

San Francisco, CA -- Stem cells will cure everything under the sun and
lead to a wondrous new world of medical research and treatment. That's
the hype, anyway. But is it based on good science? Or will stem cell
therapy prove to be the medical version of dot-coms?

As stem cell mania reaches fever pitch, a backlash is emerging among
scientists -- including some medical researchers who fear sensational
stories are setting the public up for disappointment when the expected
miracle treatments don't arrive overnight.

Even one of the field's most enthusiastic and respected backers is
disturbed by the recent publicity, which has ranged from emotional
congressional hearings to media headlines hinting at imminent victory in
the wars against heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease -- you name
it.

"I am a little concerned with how much hype there is," said Ronald D.G.
McKay, who studies neural stem cells and is chief of the laboratory of
molecular biology at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and
Stroke. A number of biotech companies have leaped into the field and hope
to exploit it, but "none of these people are making money . . . In fact,
they're losing money hand over fist," McKay adds. "It's a mistake to
think you can just walk into this area and start making lots of money."

THERAPY OF THE 21ST CENTURY

The excitement is palpable: "I think cell therapy is going to be the
therapy -- the novel therapy of the 21st century," says one advocate, Dr.
Curt Freed of the University of Colorado. "It will have a revolutionary
effect, like antibiotics."

But doubters are coming out of the woodwork. Some are motivated by the
failure of past much-hyped hopes for medicine, such as the implantation of
fetal cells in the brains of patients with Parkinson's disease. Hopes for
major new medical treatments based on stem cells are "very remote" in the
next decade, cautions Paul Billings, who studied stem cells' effects on
mice immune systems back in the 1970s and also co-founded a stem cell
"bank." "The problems are so complex that we're not likely to be able to
tackle them with the stem cell gambit in the foreseeable future," says
Billings, co-founder of GeneSage, a genetic information and services
company in San Francisco. He is a longtime critic of the biotech
industry.

He quickly adds: "I'm not saying we'll never be able do it." As they say,
"never" is a long, long time. Almost all experts interviewed acknowledge
that the excitement over human embryonic stem cells is 100 percent
understandable, given their astounding power to transform into any of the
more than 200 types of human cells.

BEGINNINGS OF STEM CELLS

Embryonic stem cells are formed in the first few days after an egg is
fertilized with sperm. And researchers believe they can manipulate stem
cells to grow into different types of tissue, and use the tissue to treat
various diseases and injuries. President Bush said yesterday that, before
Congress returns in September, he intends to decide whether the government
will finance embryonic stem cell research. The debate is fueled partly by
opposition from right-to-life groups, which say that research is
equivalent to murder, because embryos are destroyed in order to harvest
the cells.

"Stem cells of all different types have certain amounts of promise," says
Dr. Stewart Newman, a developmental biologist at New York Medical College
and board member of the Council for Responsible Genetics in Cambridge,
Mass. The group is a veteran critic of the biotech industry.

The recent disclosure of a study by renowned stem cell investigator John
D. Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University illustrates how any stem
cell-related news can quickly spin out of control. Speaking at a
scientific gathering last month at Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor,
Maine, Gearhart described how he and his colleagues injected human
embryonic stem cells into mice who couldn't move because a virus had
destroyed their spinal nerve cells. [Forwarder's note: according to a
report in the Wall Street Journal (July 25), the cells transplanted by Dr.
Gearhart were not taken from human embryos, but rather from "five-week-old
to nine-week-old human fetuses that had been electively aborted."]

After the injections, the mice began to move again, albeit clumsily. The
implication seemed incredible: The embryonic stem cells might have somehow
transformed themselves into nerve cells that replaced the dead ones,
reviving the mouse spines. A videotape that showed the mice moving about
added drama to the announcement.

There was just one problem: Gearhart's presentation "wasn't peer reviewed"
prior to his presentation, as Johns Hopkins press officer Joanna Downer
acknowledged.

ETHICS OF PEER REVIEW

Peer review is a process whereby an article submitted to a scientific
journal is vetted by experts before the journal editor decides whether to