The Stem Cell Debate at Dartmouth

By William D. Aubin | Sunday, November 16, 2008

Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. was recently invited to give a lecture entitled “Stem Cells and Cloning: Understanding the Scientific Issues and the Moral Objections” at Aquinas House, in observance of the Feast of St. Luke, the patron saint of medical professionals. Pacholczyk, or Father Tad as he encourages his audience members to call him, is the Director of Education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center. He arrived at this position after receiving degrees in philosophy, biochemistry, molecular cell biology, and chemistry, a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale University, and years of research in molecular biology, bioethics, and dogmatic theology. In a free public lecture lasting more than two hours, Pacholczyk outlined both the scientific and ethical considerations of human embryonic stem cell research and to a lesser extent cloning, giving justifications for the Catholic Church’s positions on these technologies.

After giving an in depth layman’s version of the science involved in stem cell research and a history of both scientific milestones and relevant policy decisions, Pacholczyk corrected what he believed were some of the most pervasive myths about stem cell research. He believes that individuals and organizations within the media and others who engage in expensive advertising campaigns have deliberately misled the American people in an effort to reframe the debate over the use of human embryos for research.

The first myth with which Pacholczyk took issue is that stem cells come only from embryos. In fact, there are several other varieties of stem cells that are available to and frequently used by both physicians and researchers. Adult type stem cells are available from the bodies of adults and in pregnancy related tissue, such as umbilical cords, bone marrow, the fat removed from liposuction, and nasal epithelium. Cadavers too can be a source of stem cells much as they are utilized for organ donation. It is even possible to extract embryonic germ cells from abortions and miscarriages. Most importantly, Pacholczyk pointed out, of all the sources of stem cells, pluripotent embryonic stem cells are the only forms that have produced no human treatments; the others have applications ranging from heart muscle therapy to spinal cord repair.

Pacholczyk also called it a myth that embryonic stem cell research has shown the most promise. He cited the disparity in current therapies, but also rejected the idea that the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, their ability to become any type of cell, made them most promising. On the contrary, their flexibility is actually their “central liability”, he said, and they tend to cause tumors in all tests with rats. On the other hand, scientists have recently developed ways to extract germ cells from the testicles of adult men and to reprogram adult cells so that they behave in the same way as embryonic stem cells. According to Rev. Pacholczyk, these breakthroughs make the whole debate virtually academic.

The other misconception commonly spread in debates on the issue is that the Catholic Church and evangelical groups are against all forms of stem cell research, something that helps celebrity campaigns frame the debate as one of the enlightened supporters of medicine versus a group of backwards Luddites. In reality, the Catholic Church and most Christians are only opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells and embryonic germ cells gleaned from abortions, because both require the intentional destruction of a human embryo or fetus. The use of cells extracted from miscarriages and all other sources is allowed and encouraged.

According to Pacholczyk, the moral rejection of any science that requires the destruction of human life is not some “Catholic Issue” that a group of religious people are trying to impose upon an otherwise pluralistic society; instead, the responsibility for protecting the most defenseless members of the human race is entrusted to all human beings, something that is revealed through Natural Law. It is the Catholic Church’s position that it does not matter when exactly a human embryo is “ensouled”, a theological debate that has lasted for millennia and is often cited by those who maintain that a brain is a requisite for a developing child to be considered a human being.

Rather, human embryos are already distinct, individual “beings that are human”, and should not be “cannibalized for stem cell extraction”. In his conclusion, Pacholczyk compared the issue to the legislation protecting Bald Eagles. In order to protect the species from extinction, the federal government placed an identical penalty on the killing of an adult bird and the destruction of an egg; the latter represented the earliest stage of development of the species, and was just as valuable. Should not human beings be judged with the same or greater care?

The Dartmouth Review understands that this is an issue on which reasonable moral people can disagree, and so Michael S. Gazzaniga ‘61, Ph.D., Director of the Sage Center for the Study of Mind at the University of California, Santa Barbara was asked to explain some of the ethical justifications. He indicated that, “The handling of human tissue has always commanded the respect of the biomedical community and always will.” However, Gazzaniga does not consider an embryo to be in possession of the same moral status as an adult human, while acknowledging that the issue has “deep meaning to millions of people.”

Gazzaniga rejected Pacholczyk’s argument about the efficacy of embryonic stem cells by pointing out that scientist had not had the ability to do research “on the scale needed to learn about all the potential [uses of stem cells], so it ought not to be surprising that there are no treatments available. He refers to the moratorium on federal funds for the creation of new stem cell lines backed by President Bush in 2001. Under the new Obama administration, there is already indication that the ban on funds may be one of the first changes, by means of an executive order.

Asked directly about the differences between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, and why there is such a push to have access to embryonic stem cells when other sources are available, Gazzaniga answered, “Embryonic stem cells are different from adult stem cells in that they are pluripotent which means they can become (replace) any kind of cell in the body. Adult stem cells are usually limited to be the cell type from the type of tissues they arose from.

There is some evidence of some kind of more general plasticity of these cells, but it is limited. Overall there are still many unknowns for both types of cells and it will remain that way until more research is done.”

Asked the basic question underlying this debate and that about abortion, when a human embryo becomes a human being, Gazzaniga called it a “social decision, not unlike the kind a society makes about when to call someone legally blind.” He stated that within the Catholic Church and all major religions, there has been debate and disagreement, but it seems evident to him that “a 14 day old embryo, an entity that does not have a brain does not warrant being called a human with the moral status of a Dartmouth undergraduate.”

Gazzaniga is sharply critical of the potentiality argument, that because a human embryo has the potential to be an adult human it is as valuable; he likened it to equating a Home Depot with 100 newly created homes. Alternatively, he said, it can be thought of as like a personal computer; a person does not bemoan the loss of the hardware of a computer, but rather the data within. An embryo with no brain and no experiences has no information to be lost, and is not on the same level of moral value as a human being.

Both men use their experiences within the biomedical field to solve an issue that, at the end of the day, hinges largely on when an embryo becomes a human being. No matter the countless diseases that researchers eager for funding predict may someday be cured, the fact will remain that no American who believes a human being exists from conception will be able to support the technology. For someone who rejects potentiality as a rhetorical strategy, Gazzaniga gives a lot of weight to the potential benefits of a science that has not yet yielded any therapies, even though research was allowed before Bush’s policy and is still allowed with existing stem cell strains and those created and supported by private donation. The debate should have been rendered moot by the discovery of ways to make pluripotent cells from adult cells by using genetic reprogramming; with Barack Obama’s staunch support, the issue may become more controversial than ever.

The Stem Cell Debate at Dartmouth

Article Tools

Related Articles