Makings of a Pro-life Rift?
In the January issue of Crisis, Joan Frawley Desmond does a superb job of summarizing a complex issue which is now confronting the pro-life movement. It appears already to be causing some hard feelings among usually like-minded pro-life folks. What’s the issue? It is over a technology which its proponents believe will be able to provide the same type of stem-cells currently only available by destroying embryos to gain them. These stem cells are referred to as pluripotent, which means that they have the ability to become any cell in the human body. They differ from a zygote (a conceptus or the successfully fertilized egg), which is called a totipotent cell, because it has all that is required (which they refer to as epigenetic primordia) to become a human being. Pluripotent cells do not have all of the epigenetic primorida necessary to become a human being. And here is the crux of the issue.
The proponents of this methods, which Desmond refers to as the Pro-Life Dream Team of scientists, doctors, moral theologians, and medical ethicists, are convinced that a cell which lacks the epigenetic primordia to become a fetus, cannot be considered a zygote. In fact, 35 of them signed a statement that said this proposed technology should proceed on animal cells to see if it works and to remove any doubts that an embryo is not formed. The other side, which includes many of the faculty at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at the Catholic University of America, as well as doctors and theologians from other institutions, reject this contention. They say that the proponents are taking a mechanistic approach to the issue and fail to recognize the possibility that the entity that is formed may in fact be a disabled zygote which has been deformed such that all it can now do is produce pluripotent cells. Here is the rub. The opponents are not necessarily sure that it is possible to resolve this uncertainty based solely on the physical evidence.
The technology used here is a type of Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT) technique, which is the technique used in cloning. This technique is called Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming (OAR). The Oocyte is an egg, which provides a very powerful reprogramming environment. It has the ability to reprogram the nucleus of an adult specialized cell in order for it to become a zygote. This technique does differ from cloning. In cloning, the nucleus is extracted from a somatic cell, usually a nasal cell, and is inserted into a denuded oocyte. In ANT/OAR the somatic nucleus is altered such that a protein that is always found to be present in totipotent cells (zygotes) is prevented from being produced. Here is the proponents thinking then. The nucleus taken from a nasal cell is not a zygote. The altered nucleus is not a zygote. The nucleus when it is inserted into the denuded oocyte does not have the epigenetic primordia necessary to become an embryo. Therefore, what is produced is not a zygote.
The proponents say not so fast. David Schindler, the dean of students at the JPII Institute is the most prolific spokesperson on the opposing side. [As way of disclosure and also perhaps revealing my interest: Dr. Schindler was one of my dissertation readers; one of the signatories of the statement from the proponents is my current boss and for whom I am helping draft a response to Dr. Schindler’s position]. Schindler is adamant that the mechanistic perspective ignores that “being†precedes “act†and that malfunction which prevents act does not deny being. In other words, there is a philosophical issue here that needs to be discussed, though the way he presents his point may suggest that he may have already reached his conclusion on this. Further, Schindler says that one needs to look at the presupposition of utilitarian ethics which ignore the special significance of the human body’s sexual/reproductive organs. In other words, harvesting human eggs to go into stem cell production, while not as grave as destroying human embryos, is still a major faux pas.
Unfortunately, the tone of the discussion already seems to have become rather heated and some personalities on both sides seem to have little patience for the opposing perspective. I do believe that both sides have important points that need to be hashed out. Schindler is right that a philosophical investigation needs to accompany the physical studies. The proponents are right in pushing forward with animal studies to gain the data needed to discern the possibilities. This is an important discussion to have and I have hopes that it can be fruitful in helping to discern the moral liceity of this proposal. Whatever the results, I hope that the discussion will not drive a wedge in the larger movement between those who support the technology and those who do not. The Crisis article is not yet available on-line, but I recommend reading it for a good, quick overview of the issue. However, Communio provides links to many other articles on this issue.
.jpg)
Wow, I look forward to reading through the Communio links after this fine introduction to the debate. Thanks!
Comment by American Papist — January 16, 2006 @ 1:07 PM
Thanks for posting this – I now believe I understand what my position on this should be, whereas before reading the communio article, “A Response to the Joint Statement …” …I really wasn’t sure. Very helpful!
Comment by monica — January 16, 2006 @ 7:26 PM
David, this is similar to a point I made waaaay back concerning this issue. Basically I asked what if adult stem cells could be “de-differentiated” back into pluripotent cells. This is the same principle (basically) that you outlined well above.
I think I know where I would lie on this one, but I’d like to see the philosophical points of the issue first.
Comment by wondertwin — January 17, 2006 @ 11:01 AM
[...] The first four come from Schindler (however, the first argument is also put forth by the other two articles as well). The first argument is the assertion that the proponents are being, mechanistic in presuming that the epigenetic state defines the being, or ontology, of a cell, as I mentioned in my previous post. The contention is that the status of the entity created by the insertion of the reprogrammed somatic nucleus into the oocyte may very well be a deformed embryo rather than simply a pluripotent stem cell. In other words, the ontological status of this entity, which comes about by a process which mimics conception, cannot be determined by the empirical evidence which would result from any experimentation. This procedure would then be no different from other ANT proposals which simply limit the ability of the embryo to develop. A second argument prescinds from the first but focuses on the fact that OAR presupposes that we can exhaust the knowledge of the beginnings of human life through scientific inquiry and thus by using this knowledge OAR supposes that it can control life’s origins. However, the mystery of the human person cannot be exhausted in this manner. We do not and cannot exhaustively know or control the beginning of human life, thus OAR is fundamentally unjustifiable. The third issue is formulated primarily in a question that should be answered. One big difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells for stem cell research is that the former have reached their finality naturally while the latter is an attempt to artificially force the cells into a particular finality in vitro. The question is does the complete failure of progress in workable treatments with embryonic stem cells suggest a fundamental but unobservable difference between them that is perhaps unreachable through empirical means. Schindler stresses that this is not an appeal to ignorance but rather an admonition to caution. Finally, he asks whether the apparent tacit capitulation to the use of the oocyte as a tool for production and harvesting of parts is consistent with the Church’s theology of the body because the oocyte is bound so intimately to the body and its reproductive organs. Given these issues which have not seemingly been addressed, Schindler asks if the proponents have not been too hasty in publicly advocating this proposal by appearing to short-circuit the discussion. [...]
Pingback by COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » A Summary of the ANT/OAR Critique — January 17, 2006 @ 7:54 PM
[...] From what I have heard from several of the signatories to the statement described in my first post, it is clear that some of them have no patience for the criticisms I summarized in my last post. In general, some of these proponents appear to believe that the answer is obvious and the case closed. However, others, while fairly sure of their position, recognize the criticisms as an important step in a dialogue which must take place as the moral liceity of this proposed procedure is investigated and hopefully, a consensus is reached. Here is how some of the latter appear to be headed in addressing the current concerns. [...]
Pingback by COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » ANT/OAR: Response to Criticisms — January 18, 2006 @ 8:19 PM
[...] A couple of months back we posted on a debate among pro-life theologians, scientists and ethicists involving an attempt to produce stem cells as from an embryo, but without creating an embryo. The technique is called ANT/OAR for Altered Nuclear Transfer/Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming. You can visit the above link for more background but in essence this method would use a variation of the technique used in cloning in which the nucleus is removed from an egg (oocyte) and replaced by the nucleus from a somatic cell. [...]
Pingback by COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » When is it a Human Life? — March 20, 2006 @ 11:19 AM