Reflection on "Moral Stem Cells" (May 2006)

Recently I read an article by E. Christian Brugger on firstthings.com that focused on David Schindler, dean of the John Paul II Inst. in D.C., and his response to the scientific world's desire to appease those who are against research involving embryonic stem cells by improving what is known as the "Altered Nuclear Transfer - Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming" (ANT-OAR) procedure. What about this procedure will calm down those members of the religious community who believe that using totipotent cells and human embryos for research is essentially the same thing as killing potential human life? Well... it involves taking somatic cells from an adult, transferring them into ooplasts (and in doing so, altering their epigenetic state), and therefore giving them the ability to be pluripotent, but unable to become totipotent (which would have the potential to form human zygotes). ANT-OAR has gained the support of many eminent scientists as well as members of the religious community and many are still developing research techniques with nonhuman cells to further the possibility of ANT-OAR and perfect the actual process. While this research step that has the potential to cure thousands of diseases and the ability to rebuild organs and tissues is viewed as a way to bring the religious and the scientific spheres to a consensus, some still find fault with altered nuclear transfer and are morally adamant against the use of embryonic cells if ANT-OAR proves unsuccessful. Stem cell research has been a subject of heated debate because of its controversial nature. The main arguments to ANT-OAR center on the process, not the end product. Pluripotent cells are clearly different from totipotent cells, but Schindler makes the argument that before a cell undergoes somatic nuclear transfer it is still an embryo at its initial existence and any manipulation of the cell is preventing possible totipotency. Scientists rebuke his claim from a biological standpoint by stating ANT-OAR "aims to create a cell that, from its first moment, exhibits organic properties biologically incompatible with totipotency" and the author of this article strongly agrees with them.

If legislation is to be passed concerning whether or not ANT-OAR should be a legal process, will my moral obligations as a Catholic keep me from supporting the legislation?

I agree with the author of this article and do not believe that a "single-celled entity can at once be a human embryo and yet manifestly not be characterized by an epigenetic state of totipotency." In my opinion, ANT-OAR resolves the issue of "killing human embryos" by ensuring the cells that are being used are truly pluripotent and possess no ability to ever sustain human life. In addition, biological advancements in the medical field that can be achieved through the use of pluripotent cell research is outstanding and could save the lives of an innumerable amount of people. Religion aside... I think religion has been effectively removed and moral obligations toward the sanctity of life that doesn't truly exist is hindering scientist's ability to cure those with life-threatening diseases. It is not an issue of checking my religious beliefs at the door because those cells that become pluripotent as opposed to totipotent have no characteristics of human life. Any policy that addresses further research on stem cell development is sufficiently motivated by adequate secular reasons that compel me to serve as an advocate for such a law.