The Stem Cell Epistles

Letters to My Students about Bioethics, Embryos, Stem Cells, and Fertility Treatments

Buratovich

• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781621897880
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Human embryos, it has been said, have no muscles, nerves, digestive system, feet, hands, face, or brain; they have nothing to distinguish them as a human being, and if one of them died, no one would mourn as they would for one of us. Consequently, early human embryos are being dismembered in laboratories around the world to produce embryonic stem cells, which, we are told, are the tools that will lead to the next quantum leap in medicine. Should Christians support such small sacrifices for something that might potentially relieve the suffering of millions, or should we vigorously oppose it?Developmental biologist and professor of biochemistry Michael Buratovich was asked such a question (among others) by his students. This book contains his measured answers and provides support from the scientific literature to substantiate his claims. He shows that embryonic stem cells are unnecessary, since the renaissance in regenerative medicine is occurring largely without them. Furthermore, he sets forth the scientific and historic case that the embryo is the youngest and most vulnerable member of humanity, and that ones such as these are precisely those whom the Christian church worked to protect in the past--and should champion in the present.

Letter #1

Why Should I Care?

Dear Dr. Buratovich,

We have talked about stem cells in class and I must say that the whole thing has me befuddled. What’s the big deal? Why should I care? The papers keep running articles about stem cell this and stem cell that, but I have to admit that I just can’t get motivated enough to read them and I usually give them a miss. I must admit that I am finding it more than a little difficult to get worked into a lather about the whole thing.

You said that you wanted to hear from us, so here’s my earful with a question. My question is this: what is it about embryonic stem cell research that should make me sit up and listen?

Kara B.

Dear Kara,

Why should you care about embryonic stem cell research? If you read the papers, it is clear that embryonic stem cell research discussions make people rather angry. For example, Rick Weiss, the science editor at the Washington Post, implied that opponents of embryonic stem cell research are “religious fundamentalists,” akin to the Taliban.1 If that’s not strong enough for you, try University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan, who labeled opponents of human cloning as a “bizarre alliance of antiabortion religious zealots and technophobic neoconservatives along with a smattering of scientifically befuddled antibiotech progressives . . .” Caplan further charged that such people are far more concerned about “cloned embryos in dishes” than “kids who can’t walk and grandmothers who can’t hold a fork or breathe.”2

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research can also dish out their share of harsh language. Consider the words of science writer Michael Fumento, who wrote this regarding embryonic stem cell research: “Rightly or wrongly, use of embryonic cells invokes visions of Dr. Josef Mengele and a terrifying slippery slope towards playing around with human life.”3

Why are these folks so upset at people who disagree with them? I think it comes down to one thing: human life. Human life is something we all care about deeply. This is the one reason why people get worked up about embryonic stem cell research.

Here’s the big reason why Christians should care about it. God is the source of life. Only He gives it and only He takes it away. Consider the words of Scripture. In the creation narrative, God breathes life into His creatures and then places a tree of life in the midst of the garden in Eden (Gen 1:30; 2:7, 9). To the Israelites, He said, “I put to death and I bring to life” (Deut 32:39). Nehemiah said that God gives “life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you” (Neh 9:6). Job lamented that “in his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind” (Job 12:10). The prophet Isaiah wrote, “This is what God the LORD says—he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it” (Isa 42:5). The prophet Ezekiel preached to the dry bones, and the Spirit of the Lord brought them to life (Ezek 37). The prophet Daniel said that God “holds in his hand your life and all your ways” (Dan 5:23).

The New Testament continues this theme. John’s Gospel says this about Jesus: “In Him was life, and that life was the light of men” (John 1:4). Believing in Jesus is the difference between having life and not having it (John 3:36). Jesus is called the “Bread of Life” who came down from heaven (John 6:33). Jesus came that “they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). Knowing the only true God, Jesus, is the source of life that never ends (John 17:3). God is the author of life (Acts 3:15) and gives life to all men (Acts 17:25). Eternal life is the gift of God (Rom 6:23). Those who believe in Jesus have their names written in the “book of life” (Phil 4:3; Rev 20:12). Since the Bible portrays God as the ultimate source of life, if our public policies involve the taking of life or the failure to properly care for life with the resources at our disposal, then our policies are not God-honoring.

Consider how the early Christians put these principles into practice. The Greco-Roman culture into which Christianity was born had little regard for human life and even less for the lives of the weak and vulnerable. Infanticide, infant abandonment, abortion, and suicide were commonplace and even encouraged, as was the barbarism of the gladiatorial games.4 The response of Christians to this culture was not accommodation, but outright and active opposition. Christian writers wrote against it, but even more telling is that they rescued and raised abandoned babies, some of whom were deformed.5 The early Christians thought that the more helpless and vulnerable the life, the more deserving it was of compassion and protection.

How does this apply to embryonic stem cell research? Making embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of human embryos. If a human embryo is a human person, then this research requires the deliberate killing of human beings. For the Christian, the destruction of embryos represents the killing of the most vulnerable and helpless in our society. If, however, a human embryo is not a human person, then this research can potentially lead to cures, and stopping this research means that we will slow the development of these cures. If we stop embryonic stem cell research, will people, who might have been cured, die? Maybe, but now you can see why people get angry when it comes to this issue.

It gets worse, though. In this country a woman can have an abortion any time during her pregnancy for any or no reason. What’s to keep scientists from cloning embryos that are then gestated in volunteer women and later aborted for use in clinical trials? This is called fetal farming; New Jersey has legalized such experiments,6 and other states have introduced similar legislation. Some scientists want to even use this technology to create designer babies. A group called “transhumanists” wants to remake the human race in their image. The World Transhumanist Association calls this the “post-human species.”7 Should we be concerned? Absolutely. This is nothing short of killing a vulnerable member of the human race, and playing God too. Paying women to have babies just so we can dismember them to use their cells for our own purposes is simple murder. We should be concerned and appalled.

On the subject of cloning, are we comfortable with scientists making embryos in the laboratory just to destroy them? In this case we do not have a woman’s choice to consider, we only have embryos that are being made just so they can be killed! Should we be concerned?

On the other hand, can stem cell treatments help sick people? The answer is an unqua...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Letter 1: Why Should I Care?
• Letter 2: Making a Baby
• Letter 3: Stem Cells 101
• Letter 4: Embryos and the Early Church
• Letter 4a: What about the Medieval Church?
• Letter 5: The Smallest of Us
• Letter 6: But Too Many of Them Die!
• Letter 7: Twinning, Embryo Fusion, and Personhood
• Letter 8: The Cells of the Embryo are Totipotent
• Letter 9: It’s Just a Clump of Cells
• Letter 10: Fertilization Does Not Always Produce Human Entities
• Letter 11: Embryo Skepticism
• Letter 12: Every Cell in Our Bodies Has the Ability to Be an Embryo
• Letter 13: But the Embryo Does Not Have a Brain!
• Letter 14: The Embryo Is Like an Acorn, Not an Oak Tree
• Letter 15: Human Is as Human Does
• Letter 16: Doesn’t the Embryo Gradually Acquire More and More Rights as It Develops?
• Letter 17: “But They’re Going to Die Anyway!”
• Letter 18: Can We Use “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer” to Make Embryonic Stem Cells?
• Letter 19: Are Cloned Embryos Human Persons or Are They Only Manufactured Artifacts?
• Letter 20: Why Not Reproductive Cloning?
• Letter 21: What about Altered Nuclear Transfer/Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming (ANT/OAR)?
• Letter 22: Can We Really Use Dead Embryos to Make Embryonic Stem Cells?
• Letter 23: Can We Use Embryo Biopsies to Make Embryonic Stem Cells?
• Letter 24: Can We Really Make Embryonic Stem Cells by Putting Genes into Regular Cells?
• Letter 25: Mesenchymal Stem Cell Treatments
• Letter 26: Cord Blood Freezing—Yes or No?
• Letter 26a: Placenta and Umbilical Cord Cells
• Letter 27: Can Stem Cells Help People with Spinal Cord Injuries Walk Again?
• Letter 28: Bone Marrow–Based Stem Cells
• Letter 29: Can Stem Cells Heal an Ailing Heart?
• Letter 30: The Bottom Line
• Bibliography