Jason E. Summers
November 22, 2011
I am sympathetic to the moral issues and conflicted as well, but in the linked article Robin compares bone marrow transplants to embryonic stem cells and says adult stem cells are already part of standard care. Perhaps in some disorders but it is like comparing a typewriter to an iPod.Â <br><br>I appreciate that the Vatican is throwing some money into adult stem cell research and I do hope it goes into solutions and research not propaganda. It would be nice to find options and a cure or relief from epilepsy and many other disorders that can only be treated by dangerous surgery or a lifetime of medication.<br><br>If my doctor made me choose between brain surgery and embryonic stem cells, I honestly can't tell you how I would choose.Â <br><br>I think if the church wants to fund labs that are the hands and feet of Jesus in the Scientific world to find treatments that are clearly on the morally acceptable side then the money is better spent getting the work done than trying to brow beat others into doing it for them, or judging those who don't in the public arena. JMHO
This is a good example of two things: money is free speech and the scientific method.<br><br>With the scientific method, everyone starts with a hypothesis. That hypothesis is always tainted by prior experience and possibly even money. But science will be science regardless of the starting point. If the research institute was reputable before getting they money, it most likely will be reputable after getting the money.
Thanks Mara and Stephen for your comments.Â <br><br>An important thing to note about the level of funding the Catholic Church is providing is that, spread over a series of years as it is, it is very small compared to existing research budgets for both adult and embryonic stem cells. Thus, it's unlikely to have a serious impact on research at all (for example, enabling a single graduate student to do research for a year costs roughly $100,000, so they could perhaps support three students over the course of the funding). NIH already provides many hundreds of times more funding for adult stem-cell research in the U.S. each year.<br><br>Conferences, such as they are supporting as their first event, are very important and can be a high-leverage investment in research because scientists need to share information and discuss findings in order to make progress. In this sense, the choice not to invest directly in research is a good strategic move. But even then there is much temptation for the church to use such venues as a political tool.Â I would argue that a far more strategic and high-leverage use of funding would be to support education ofÂ parishioners in the vocationalÂ embodimentÂ of their religious convictions.<br><br>js
Mara,<br><br>I believe Robin only compared bone-marrow transplants to use of adult stem cell. As the CEO of the company the Vatican is partnering with, her point seems to be to make the claim that "since adult stem cells are already used in treatments, why are we funding research on embryonic stem cells?" That's not a scientific statement, it's essentially a common-sense argument.<br><br>js
From what I have read online recently, it would appear that North American labs are not specifically creating embryos for research purposes but are using ones donated from fertility clinics that would have been destroyed otherwise, not unlike organ donation. There also seem to be some lines of stem cells that have been propagated for years from single donor embryos which is the amazing thing about these stem cells.Â <br><br>I think it is important that when you say the church should "support education of parishioners in theÂ vocationalÂ embodimentÂ of their religious convictions" you are not just using a carefully crafted moral inductive to support an absolute polarization of primal absolutes but supporting accurate scientific informative dialogue about the positives and negatives of both processes and outcomes.<br><br>Furthermore, the point of funding embryonic stem cell research was/is that bone marrow does not rebuild brain cells where embryonic stem cells appear to have this potential in rebuilding nerve cells and myelin damage and correcting much that can now not be fixed.Â <br><br>JMHO<br><br><br>
Mara,<br><br>Your statements in the first and third paragraph are correct. Of course, others argue induced pluripotent stem cells offer similar advantages.<br><br>But that is not my point. I am not taking a particular position on whether or not research using embryonic stem cells is ethical. Â <br><br>Rather, I mean just what I say: churches are notÂ competentÂ to adjudicate scientific questions. Scientific questions are properly considered by institutions of science. Christian influence in those considerations should not be from churches, but from Christians in those fields thinking Christianly about the work of their vocations. Therefore, the dialog over appropriate directions for scientific research should primarily be within the scientific community, informed by the ethical understandings of those participants, with government ensuring that the actions of the scientific community do not violate public justice. Churches may indeed clarify and articulate moral and ethical positions, but the implementation of these in various fields (science, politics, etc.), should not be carried out by churches.<br><br>If I were using a "carefully crafted moral inductive to support an absolute polarization of primal absolutes," I would be, in essence, arguing just the opposite.<br><br>Perhaps the source of the confusion is a difference in ethical framework. You argue for an "accurate scientific informative dialogue about the positives and negatives of both processes and outcomes." Certainly that is a reasonable approach for the scientific community. But ethical questions cannot be reduced to aÂ purelyÂ forward-looking teleological approach in which ends justify means. Christian ethics cares very much about the virtue or character demonstrated and cultivated by actions. The interplay of these two considerations (together with rules/deontology) must be at work in making ethical determinations and the institutional embodiments of them may differ: virtues and rules being considered and cultivated primarily in religious education, ends and cost-benefit analysis operating primarily within vocational institutions.<br><br>js
I think there was some confusion. It sounded to me as if you were saying that you felt the church would have more effect pushing its biased agenda against stem cells from the pulpit and you were supporting that approach. My issue with that is that science pushed from the pulpit ceases to be good science and risks being poor theology as well.<br><br>Luckily, as a patient, I don't have to make a decision on this today. I think pastors and preachers who want to make vocal assertions against scientific research based on the teleological arguments that risk people's lives, should maybe go through their houses and churches first and remove all the things made with child labour. ;-) Then they can start throwing stones at the houses of scientific inquiry.
Add your comment to join the discussion!