On November 4th, 2008 the people of the United States of America elected Barack Hussein Obama to be the next president of the United States. During his tenure our nation will see several changes as he enacts laws to support his political ideology. Many of these new laws will undoubtedly result in the further devaluing of human life as he further paves the way—eliminating the need for parental consent for abortions and supporting federally funded embryonic stem cell research. In a prepared Press release Obama noted: “I stand in full support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act as I did when this bill was introduced and sent to the President’s desk in the 109th Congress. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I am frustrated by the opposition this bill has gener-ated and saddened that we are preventing the advancement of important science that could potentially impact mil-lions of suffering Americans” (http://obama.senate.gov/press/070411-obama_renews_su/).
Politicians, the mainstream media, and even influential men and women in Hollywood have waged a suc-cessful campaign to promote only embryonic stem cell research, often playing a trump card of “compassion” in an effort to isolate those who would object. Anyone not supporting embryonic stem cell research is painted as standing in the way of easing the pain and suffering of “millions.” These talking heads completely overlook or spin a web of lies regarding the peer-reviewed benefit of adult stem cell therapy. For instance, in 2004, New York Times science author Gina Kolata wrote regarding adult stem cells: “There are no ethical issues in studying these cells, but the problem is in putting them to work to treat diseases. So far, no one has succeeded” (emp. added). At the time she penned that statement, I had documented 61 peer-reviewed studies that successfully treated disorders using adult stem cells (See Harrub et al., 2004; See also “The Stem Cell Cover-Up,” Fumento, 2004). Whether Kolata’s statement came from poor research or ignorance is yet to be determined. But nevertheless the damage was done.
In discussing the obvious bias from the mainstream media, Michael Fumento correctly observed, “Yet when an ESC (embryonic stem cells—BH) so much as hiccups, it makes international news, while tremendous breakthroughs with ASCs (adult stem cells—BH) are as a rule ignored. Welcome to what’s been called “ ‘stem-cell wars,’ ” a deliberate effort to downplay the proven value of ASCs to attract more attention to the potential of ESCs. It is a war that is being fought partly over ethics, but mostly over money” (Fumento, 2004).
On May 8, 2008, there was a selective hearing in the House on stem cell research. The controversy sur-rounds the efficacy of adult stem cells and whether or not embryonic stem cells are needed (or should be federally funded). In the 1990’s, many scientists were under the impression that embryonic stem cells had greater potential. These special cells were deemed “pluripotent” indicating that these cells have the ability to become almost any cell in the body. These special cells can become healthy heart tissue or nervous tissue which could potentially be used to treat congestive heart failure or various brain disorders respectively. In reality, we know today that those em-bryonic stem cells are totally unnecessary.
Seven years before the selective hearing in the House, Rodney Rietze and his colleagues had already dem-onstrated that pluripotent stem cells could be harvested from an adult (see Rietze et al., 2001). While the main-stream media continue to promote the “potential” benefit of embryonic stem cells, they sadly remain tight lipped about what is already being accomplished by adult stem cells. As Wesley Smith observed “It has been repeated so often that it is now a mantra: ‘Embryonic stem cells offer the most promise for finding cures’ for degenerative dis-eases and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injury. But saying something ten thousand times doesn’t make it true” (Smith, 2006, “The Great Stem Cell Cover Up”).
The real controversy is not which stem cells are beneficial to mankind, as scientist have proven time and again that adult stem cells are superior in treating clinical conditions. The real controversy surrounds where the stem cells are collected and the means by which they are obtained. Currently stem cells are collected from four different sources: adult tissue, umbilical cords, aborted fetuses, and leftover embryos stored from in vitro fertiliza-tion procedures. Two of these categories involve the destruction of a life form (aborted fetuses and leftover em-bryos from in vitro), two do not. Ask yourself this simple question: If we can obtain consent and harvest pluripotent stem cells from adult tissue, then why proceed with the controversial method that destroys life? Christians should have no problem whatsoever with scientists harvesting stem cells for use in research or in procedures intended to help cure certain diseases (such as diabetes) when those stem cells are derived from either the umbilical-cord blood of a newborn or adult bone marrow and/or brain tissue. Harvesting such cells does not kill an already-living human being. Sadly however, many scientists are obdurate regarding the use of embryonic stem cells.
Scientifically, it has been proven that adult stem cells can treat disorders—without the tissue rejection prob-lems associated with embryonic stem cells. And yet, individuals appear determined to present a different picture to you, your colleagues, and society in general. For instance, in the July 28, 2006, issue of Science authors Shane Smith, William Neaves, and Steven Teitelbaum wrote a commentary letter stating “By promoting the falsehood that adult stem cell treatments are already in general use for 65 diseases and injuries, Prentice and those who repeat his claim mislead laypeople and cruelly deceive patients” (p. 439). They tried to back this up by claiming that the FDA has only approved treatment in nine conditions. However, what Smith et al., fail to realize is that medical research conducted outside of the U.S. does not need FDA approval. Also, Smith el al., remained eerily silent on the suc-cesses of embryonic stem cells. The record stands for itself.
On June 20, 2008, William Beckman wrote an article titled “Media Cover Up Adult Stem Cell Research Success With Misleading Terms”. In the article he references a study that was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that led to headlines declaring, “U.S. doctors kill skin cancer with cloned T-cells.” Beckman goes on to point out: “However, since reporting of this stem cell research success never used the phrase “adult stem cells”—even though original cells were taken directly from the patient—confusion is very likely to occur for many readers, whether that confusion was intended or not.” I am asking you as our elected official to cut through the confusion and tell the public the truth.
Let me strongly encourage you to arm yourselves with the facts, not just emotions or opinions. Wesley Smith observed, “Based on published science, there are 72 maladies for which human patients have re-ceived some benefit (which is not the same as being “cured”) from adult stem cell or umbilical cord blood interven-tions. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells have yet to demonstrate any human therapeutic use” (Wesley Smith 2006). David Prentice, William Saunders and Michael Fragoso have published an updated list of adult stem cell success stories that ups that number to 73 different conditions (2007).
Christians obviously cannot afford to be so tranquil in resolving the issue of when life begins. Our actions (or lack thereof) will stand in judgment one day. The inspired Word of God is crystal clear on such matters. Begin-ning as early as Genesis chapter 4:1, we read: “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived.” Some forty times the Scriptures make reference to women conceiving. It is no accident that the inspired writers mention this extraordinary moment—for it is only at that instant that their chromosomes join to form the full complement of chromosomes that is capable of producing human life. James observed: “The body apart from the spirit (pneuma) is dead” (2:26). But the opposite of that statement also must be true; if the body is living, then the spirit must be pre-sent. Additionally, Jeremiah the prophet stated that the word of the Lord came unto him saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you.” (1:5). The prophet Isaiah confirmed it this way: “The Lord has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.” (Isaiah 49:1,5). Jehovah not only viewed Isaiah as a person prior to his birth, but even called him by name. It thus becomes obvious from an examination of this text that God does not consider life as beginning at birth, but rather at conception.
As to whether or not science should pursue embryonic stem cell research, I would point out: (1) that it is completely unnecessary, and; (2) that there are some things that science is inapt to answer. This is one such item. I encourage you to remember in Whose image we were made, and that ending human life is not solely about the ad-vancement of science—it’s also about the value of human life.
References
Beckman, William (2008), “Media Cover Up Adult Stem Cell Research Success With Misleading Terms,” Free Republic [online].
Fumento, Michael (2004), “The Stem Cell Cover-Up,” Insight on the News, [online].
Harrub, Brad et al., (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” [online].
Prentice, David, William L. Saunders, and Michael Fragoso (2007), “Adult Stem Cell Success Stories—2007 Update”, [online].
Rietze, Rodney L. et al., (2001), “Purification of a Pluripotent Neural Stem Cell from the Adult Mouse Brain,” Nature, 412:736-738.
Smith, Shane et al., (2006), “Adult Stem Cell Treatments for Diseases?” Science, 313:439.
Smith, Wesley (2006), “The Great Stem Cell Coverup,” Discovery Institute, Bioethics [online].