An end of summer Q & A update—Part I
stem cells Buried under all the uproar over proposed healthcare reform legislation, there has been some significant news this summer regarding stem cell research. To begin, let’s recall some of the basics of this issue.
What are stem cells?
Maureen Condic, Senior Fellow with the Westchester Institute, concisely responds to that question in a recent article in Ethics and Medics:
A stem cell is any cell that exists in a relatively immature state, and is able to divide to produce one cell that replaces itself and one that will go on to become a more specialized cell type. Because stem cells replace themselves every time they divide, they are considered self-renewing, or “immortal.”
There are three broad classes of stem cells: embryonic, adult, and reprogrammed. Human embryonic stem cells are obtained by the destruction of human embryos that are between three and six days old. At this early stage, cells of the embryo are still very primitive and are pluripotent; i.e., they are able to produce all of the cell types found in the mature human body.
In contrast, any stem cell that is found in a specific type of tissue (whether in an older embryo, a fetus, or a more mature individual) is considered an adult stem cell. Adult stem cells are thought to be more limited, making only the types of cells appropriate to the tissue in which they reside. Thus, they are seen as merely “multipotent.”
Finally, recent studies have shown that adult body, or “somatic,” cells can be reprogrammed to a state very similar to a human embryonic stem cell. These induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs, are not identical to embryonic stem cells, but they are functional equivalents.
Why is stem cell research important?
It is hoped that stem cell research will unearth scientific clues that will one day lead to remarkable breakthroughs in dealing with diseases treatable by tissue replacement therapies.
Does the Catholic Church oppose stem cell research?
The Catholic Church has enthusiastically supported the better part of stem cell research, especially adult stem cell research and new techniques such as cell reprogramming. We cannot, however, support research which involves the creation and destruction of human embryos.
What is happening with adult stem cell research?
Scientists in this specialized area of stem cell research continue to be fully engaged in their work and well funded, even though adult stem cell research gets much less media attention. Do No Harm, the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics keeps a running tally on reported applications of adult stem cells that produce therapeutic benefit for human patients. Experts are currently at work on updating that list, but estimate that approximately 80 different diseases have now been shown to be treatable in some degree by adult stem cells.
Are scientists still trying to clone human embryos?
Some scientists continue to be irreversibly committed to using cloning techniques to create human embryos which, after about six days of development, would then be destroyed to cull embryonic stem cells from them. These stem cells would be genetically matched to the donor who was the source of the cloning; tissues derived from the cloned cells could then potentially be used to treat the donor.
This prospect, of course, has proven to be easier said than done. To date, only three research teams are known to have successfully cloned human embryos, but no team was able to derive stem cells from the clones. Technical hurdles remain which make human cloning extremely difficult, inefficient, and expensive. One lingering hurdle is the dearth of available human eggs for such experiments. Given the paucity of women willing to undergo the dangerous procedure of ovarian stimulation for the retrieval of their eggs, at least one British team of researchers attempted a repulsive variation of human cloning using bovine eggs, the resulting product of which has been termed a ‘cybrid’.
Next week, in part II of this column on stem cell news, I’ll explain how the dearth of available human eggs for stem cell research has led to a cash-for-eggs scheme in New York, and I’ll discuss recent breakthroughs in ethically acceptable areas of research.
***
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
True Friendship -- None of that Sissy stuff
Are you tired of those sissy 'friendship' poems that always sound good, But never actually come close to reality?
Well, here is a series of promises that actually speak of true friendship.
You will see no cute little smiley faces on this card -- Just the stone cold truth of our great friendship.
1.... When you are sad -- I will help you get drunk and plot revenge against the sorry bastard who made you sad.
2.. When you are blue -- I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.
3.... When you smile -- I will know you are thinking of something that I would probably want to be involved in.
4.. When you are scared -- I will rag on you about it every chance I get until you're NOT.
5.. When you are worried -- I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be until you quit whining..
6.. When you are confused -- I will try to use only little words.
7.. When you are sick -- Stay the hell away from me until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have...
8.. When you fall -- I will laugh at your clumsy ass, but I'll help you up.
9.. This is my oath.... I pledge it to the end. 'Why?' you may ask; because you are my friend.
Friendship is like wetting your pants, everyone can see it, but only you can feel the true warmth.
Well, here is a series of promises that actually speak of true friendship.
You will see no cute little smiley faces on this card -- Just the stone cold truth of our great friendship.
1.... When you are sad -- I will help you get drunk and plot revenge against the sorry bastard who made you sad.
2.. When you are blue -- I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.
3.... When you smile -- I will know you are thinking of something that I would probably want to be involved in.
4.. When you are scared -- I will rag on you about it every chance I get until you're NOT.
5.. When you are worried -- I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be until you quit whining..
6.. When you are confused -- I will try to use only little words.
7.. When you are sick -- Stay the hell away from me until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have...
8.. When you fall -- I will laugh at your clumsy ass, but I'll help you up.
9.. This is my oath.... I pledge it to the end. 'Why?' you may ask; because you are my friend.
Friendship is like wetting your pants, everyone can see it, but only you can feel the true warmth.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Is Assassination Ever Justified?
The recent disclosure that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was developing a program to track down and kill individual Al Qaeda leaders has re-awakened legal and ethical questions about assassination as a tool of national policy. The program had been kept hidden from Congress until this spring, when it was uncovered and cancelled by the current C.I.A. director, Leon Panetta. In a succession of executive orders, Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan had proscribed assassination as a policy of the U.S. government.
President George W. Bush, in “an intelligence finding,” without formally rescinding the earlier prohibitions, authorized “lethal covert actions” against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda operatives. Previously, the government had been using pilotless aircraft to target terrorist camps. The new plan involved deploying teams of assassins to kill individual senior terrorists, requiring the assassins to strike “at two feet instead of 10,000 feet,” according to an intelligence official quoted by The Washington Post. The anticipated benefit of assassination over drone attacks is a potential decrease in “collateral” civilian casualties.
The new program, according to some analysts, violated the spirit, if not the letter, of executive orders issued by previous presidents. Those executive orders came in the wake of a series of government reports on U.S. intelligence activities in the 1970s that detailed abuses of power. Among the matters investigated were attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Fidel Castro of Cuba and the brothers Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Nhu of Vietnam.
Just War Analysis. The new disclosures have prompted a debate about how government-sponsored assassination should be viewed in light of the Catholic moral tradition on just war theory. Traditional just war theory was inclined to prohibit assassination of political and military leaders on two grounds. The first was that to “decapitate” the enemy might make negotiation of peace more difficult and lead to protracted fighting as a result of chaos or competition for command in the enemy ranks. The other was that civilian political leaders were technically “innocents”—that is, they were not bearing arms and directly threatening the other side. Armed personnel were permitted to attack only other armed personnel.
The emergence of global terror networks intent on mass terror raised new questions. Are terrorists, who are not members of a national army, but are carrying out lethal attacks often under civilian cover, open to direct attack as if they were armed military? Is the fight against terrorism best carried out as “a war against terror” or as an international police action?
David L. Perry, a former ethics professor at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., addressed the matter in a 1995 issue of The Journal of Conflict Studies: “Just as it is not a crime to kill the enemy during wartime, so too should it not be regarded as a crime or a morally reprehensible act when a nation, acting in concert with its obligation to protect its own citizens from harm, seeks out and destroys terrorists outside its borders who have committed, or are planning to commit atrocities on its territory or against its citizens.” Yet “the assassin in effect acts as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner combined; the target is precluded from being represented by counsel before an impartial court,” added Perry.
Gerard F. Powers of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana, distinguished among targets of assassination. “You’re not talking about killing political leaders. You’re talking about killing Al Qaeda leaders. You’re talking about killing terrorists,” he said. “If terrorism is treated primarily as a crime, then the targeted killings would probably be problematic, unless they occurred in the effort to arrest. And all the normal rules of police work apply,” Powers added.
“But to the extent that terrorism can be seen as an act of war, then the targeted killings of known terrorists who are actively engaged in terrorism, or actively planning terrorist acts, then the terrorist becomes more like a combatant in war,” he explained. “And the same criteria that would apply to war would apply to the killings of terrorists.” In the case of Al Qaeda, Powers said, there “are elements akin to war” and “others more akin to crime. That’s where the issues become blurred.”
President George W. Bush, in “an intelligence finding,” without formally rescinding the earlier prohibitions, authorized “lethal covert actions” against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda operatives. Previously, the government had been using pilotless aircraft to target terrorist camps. The new plan involved deploying teams of assassins to kill individual senior terrorists, requiring the assassins to strike “at two feet instead of 10,000 feet,” according to an intelligence official quoted by The Washington Post. The anticipated benefit of assassination over drone attacks is a potential decrease in “collateral” civilian casualties.
The new program, according to some analysts, violated the spirit, if not the letter, of executive orders issued by previous presidents. Those executive orders came in the wake of a series of government reports on U.S. intelligence activities in the 1970s that detailed abuses of power. Among the matters investigated were attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Fidel Castro of Cuba and the brothers Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Nhu of Vietnam.
Just War Analysis. The new disclosures have prompted a debate about how government-sponsored assassination should be viewed in light of the Catholic moral tradition on just war theory. Traditional just war theory was inclined to prohibit assassination of political and military leaders on two grounds. The first was that to “decapitate” the enemy might make negotiation of peace more difficult and lead to protracted fighting as a result of chaos or competition for command in the enemy ranks. The other was that civilian political leaders were technically “innocents”—that is, they were not bearing arms and directly threatening the other side. Armed personnel were permitted to attack only other armed personnel.
The emergence of global terror networks intent on mass terror raised new questions. Are terrorists, who are not members of a national army, but are carrying out lethal attacks often under civilian cover, open to direct attack as if they were armed military? Is the fight against terrorism best carried out as “a war against terror” or as an international police action?
David L. Perry, a former ethics professor at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., addressed the matter in a 1995 issue of The Journal of Conflict Studies: “Just as it is not a crime to kill the enemy during wartime, so too should it not be regarded as a crime or a morally reprehensible act when a nation, acting in concert with its obligation to protect its own citizens from harm, seeks out and destroys terrorists outside its borders who have committed, or are planning to commit atrocities on its territory or against its citizens.” Yet “the assassin in effect acts as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner combined; the target is precluded from being represented by counsel before an impartial court,” added Perry.
Gerard F. Powers of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, in Indiana, distinguished among targets of assassination. “You’re not talking about killing political leaders. You’re talking about killing Al Qaeda leaders. You’re talking about killing terrorists,” he said. “If terrorism is treated primarily as a crime, then the targeted killings would probably be problematic, unless they occurred in the effort to arrest. And all the normal rules of police work apply,” Powers added.
“But to the extent that terrorism can be seen as an act of war, then the targeted killings of known terrorists who are actively engaged in terrorism, or actively planning terrorist acts, then the terrorist becomes more like a combatant in war,” he explained. “And the same criteria that would apply to war would apply to the killings of terrorists.” In the case of Al Qaeda, Powers said, there “are elements akin to war” and “others more akin to crime. That’s where the issues become blurred.”
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
