Stem cell research seems to be getting dealt some swift blows of late. I have no qualms about adult stem cell research, but I am opposed to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). An article published back in July by the New York Post exclaimed in its title “The Great Stem-Cell-Research Scam.” The article goes on to explain that researchers have known for some time that ESCR is a dead-end road. It is plagued with problems that are extremely difficult to overcome. This is particularly important now that adult stem cells have been shown to have the same plasticity as ESC’s and don’t come with anywhere near the same amount of problems. The article contends that the reason so much is still being spent on this form of research is that it brings in the big bucks for select groups and companies. What really intrigued me in this article was the manner in which this research was being pushed. The author intimated that it is being sold as medical vs. pro-life politics or as our President so wonderfully stated on 3/9/2009 in his speech concerning federal funding of ESCR—“a false choice between sound science and moral values.” In other words, science vs. religion.

A more recent story in The New York Times reported that a new stem cell drug failed two different late-stage clinical trials. The drug was based on mesenchymal stem cells. These are produced from the bone marrow of adults and are different from the “typical” adult stem cells—induced pluripotent stem cells—which are derived from skin cells. The drug did no better or marginally better than the placebo used in the study. It really makes me wonder how genuine some who so heralded Mr. Obama’s statements that we must make “scientific decisions based on facts, not on ideology”…and “to restore scientific integrity to government decision making”…as well as “ensuring scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.” It is beginning to seem that it is based more on politics than fact. There have been no successful clinical trials in the U.S. using embryonic stem cells (or adult stem cells at this point). Lots of stories have come from over seas, but many of these are proving to be over-rated, false, or frauds. The fact has come out time and time again that ESCR is a dead-end and the only promising stem cell research is now from adult stem cells. This was even stated by Dr. Oz on the Oprah Winfrey Show (HERE). The fact is if we are going to be spending millions and/or billions of dollars to fund this research it should be going to the more soundly scientific adult stem cell research and not to ESCR being kept on life support by federal funding.

What do you think, should embryonic stem cell research be abandoned to more vigorously pursue adult stem cell research? Why or why not?

President Obama's Speech (video)

I published a post on June 11 about the possibility that the state of New York was going to begin allowing payment to be rendered to a women that allowed a research agency to harvest her eggs for the purpose of stem cell research. At the time I could not find any independent verification of the story other than the Christian News Wire. After returning today from being out-of-town and out-of touch for an entire week, I was overwhelmed by the number of news agencies reporting that this was in fact the case. Ironically, the affirmative decision on this matter was reached on June 11, 2009—the date that I published my post.

Among the plethora of news agencies now reporting this is the New York Dailey News, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the U.S. News & World Report. This move does not really surprise me all that much, as I stated in the previous post on this topic. This still makes me wonder about something. Is this going to now begin a flood of women into the state of New York only to donate their eggs in order to receive the compensation of up to $10,000.00? Likewise, is this going to set a precedent that those who, for example, donate a kidney to someone to also receive compensation for their “time, discomfort and expenses associated with donating” said organ for said purpose? I must also admit my ignorance at one point here; I have read many times that donating eggs is risky to the women doing so, but I have not read exactly how it is dangerous to the woman’s health—any help on this? Perhaps I am having trouble seeing how this is hazardous to the woman since there has not been any cry about this at fertility clinics. Don’t they harvest womens’ eggs in order to fertilize them before placing them back into the woman?

What do you think about this move by the state of New York—is it good, bad, or somewhere in between?

...may be the new motto for New York ESC researchers.

The Christian News Wire released a story last week about New York possibly allowing payment to be made to women who are willing to donate eggs for scientific research. I did not make this post earlier because I was unable to verify this story with any other news agency. I still have had no success on finding this story reported by any major news agency and so I want to make it clear that I am not reporting this as fact. But there is something to be gained from the possibility of this story, particularly since many states have not allowed agencies to pay women to harvest their eggs.

What I cannot understand is what reason a person that supports ESCR would give for opposing compensation to women who donate eggs? I don’t think I am misrepresenting the majority since compensation for eggs has not been allowed at this point in time. It has been discussed in the past, but always opposed.

I think the answer to this question is important. Because if the reason to oppose this is because it is unethical, what makes it unethical? It certainly cannot be the fact that eggs are being removed from the woman’s ovaries because fertility clinics harvest eggs in order to carry out in vitro fertilization do they not? Is it simply that they are paying them for their eggs? But what truly makes this a lot different from being compensated for donating blood?

What makes the most sense to me (from a supportive perspective of ESCR) is that this falls in-line with being compensated for organs. As far as I know, it is illegal to be compensated following the harvest of an organ. In other words, you cannot be paid a set amount for your organ like we pay a set amount for milk at the grocery store. This is because people would begin to “donate” organs that would negatively affect their health simply to receive the generous compensation. This seems to be the major opposition to paying women for the eggs; that there is certain health risks to a woman who undergoes the procedure who may choose not to undergo if compensation was not involved.

The debate is not like our debate though. The British are not concerned about using embryonic stem cells (ESC) for research; they have been doing that since 2002. The debate for them is now about funding, why? They are worried that America will surpass their advances in the field of stem cell research since President Obama lifted the ban on federal funding of ESCR. The Telegraph, a British news agency, released a story yesterday cataloging all of the advances they have made in stem cell research. In the article, it is interesting to note that many of their best advances came not from using ESC, but from using iPS (adult stem cells) and bone marrow stem cells. I would encourage you to read the entire story. You can read it here.

My original post:
It seems that the information continues to mount that adult stem cells (induced pluripotent stem cells, iPS) are a far better option than embryonic stem cells. Forbes.com released a story explaining that adult stem cells avoid many of the problems scientists have faced with embryonic stem cells. To read the full story, click here.

Now Forbes has joined the growing tide of mainstream media reporting that adult stem cells are the future in stem cell research. I posted a few weeks back about Dr. Oz on the Oprah Winfrey show. He and Michael J. Fox were guests on Oprah’s show and it was on this show that he made the statement, “The stem cell debate is dead.” You can read that post here.

Add to the list of News Agencies reporting this story Reuters, NBC's Miami affliate, and the Wall Street Journal. Read these stories here, here, and here.

It appears to be that way. USA Today ran a story yesterday that announced Al Gore would be donating $20 million dollars (seems awfully small in the face of all the recent stimulus spending) to fund research on induced pluripontent stem cells (iPS). These stem cells are one of the alternatives to embryonic stem cell research and one that holds a lot of promise.

It is these stem cells to which Dr. Oz referred to recently on the Oprah Winfrey show. I wrote a post on this and linked to the video clip of Oprah’s show where Dr. Oz makes these statements. What I find interesting is that a political liberal such as Al Gore would break step with the rest of the Democrats and publicly fund an alternative to embryonic stem cell research. It is even more interesting that the White House has not publicly addressed whether federal funding is available for iPS research. Does anyone else know if this has been clarified? Because I haven't heard anything about it.

This is my third post on embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR). You may want to read Part 1 and Part 2 if you have not already. In this post, I will answer the rest of the questions I brought up in my original post, which I did not answer in my last post

(3) What is the best solution to the vast number of unused frozen embryos?

There are an estimated 500,000 embryos stored in cryobanks, which are no longer needed for many different reasons. The three possible solutions that have been offered to resolve this problem are to destroy (abort) the embryos, donate them to other couples wanting to have children, or donate them to “science.” There are pros and cons to each of these possible solutions.

The parents of these embryos often cannot simply “destroy” the embryos. They frequently make a statement along the lines that they see their current children and cannot help but to think of what those embryos could become. However, these same parents at times do not feel comfortable with giving these embryos up for adoption. They fear the unforeseen consequences of them someday meeting an unknown relative or that they may be brought up in a bad home. Furthermore, the process for adopting an embryo is more difficult than adopting a child and often costs thousands of dollars. The third option is even cloudier because no one has really defined what “donating to science” entails.

Everyday there seems to be another story in the news about President Obama and ESCR. It would appear that the government is pushing to use these “existing” embryos in cryobanks for current ESCR. The problem here, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be a coherent policy about ESCR and what is or is not allowed. A recent post on Stand to Reason shows just how confusing the White House’s policies are concerning this issue. This brings me to the fourth question I raised…

(4) Is it ethical to use “embryos” for scientific purposes (whether from extra embryos or those purposely created for such purposes)?

This question is really about the status of embryos, regardless of whether they are extra embryos or embryos created for scientific research. If these embryos are human, then it is certainly unethical to allow unfounded scientific research to be conducted on them. Particularly, since we do not allow unfounded scientific research on adult humans. Even when we allow scientific research to be conducted on adult humans there are safeguards, regulations, permission must be obtained from the participant, etc. Furthering this problem of scientific research on embryos is the whole option of adopting embryos. If embryos are not human nor persons, then why have an adoption process? It makes no sense to have one position (adoption) that treats these embryos as persons and, at the same time, have another stance (science) that denies that these embryos are persons but are only cells. This debate over the status leads to the fifth and final question I raised…

(5) Are we killing a human when we destroy an embryo?

I think we are killing a human when we destroy an embryo. Partly because of my position that I believe we receive our souls at conception, but more so because I do not believe that a human’s position in reference to the birth canal determines our humanity. We are human whether born or unborn. I also think the Scriptures are clear that we are important and valuable in God’s eyes from the moment of conception (Psalm 139:13, Jeremiah 1:5).

My last post brought up the issue of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) and some questions to which Christians must find an answer. As a Pastor, I always ask myself, “What does the Bible say?” There are some, though, that would say the Bible does not address issues like these, that the authors of the Bible could not have possibly envisioned issues such as ESCR. I will agree that one cannot find a treatise on ESCR in the letters of Paul, Peter, or any other biblical author. However, I think that there are principles contained in Scripture that are timeless in their application to our lives.

Following I will restate the questions I listed in my previous post and include my thoughts as to how we might answer them biblically:

(1) Are frozen embryos dead or alive? This question is of some importance. If the frozen embryo is in fact dead and not alive, we cannot argue that we are mistreating a living thing. Our argument would have to change to something along the lines that we are not treating the dead with respect (if you think the dead should be treated with respect). However, I think too many people answer this question too quickly in the affirmative, that a frozen embryo is alive, because there is a problem with this position. Would we consider a human adult who is frozen as being alive?

The scientific and medical answer is that when any living thing is cryogenically frozen, as the embryos are, that it is not alive while frozen. This is because there is no cellular growth or reproduction. It is as though the “clock” for that embryo has been paused. The problem the medical community is having is that cells often rupture from ice crystals that form from the freezing process. Therefore, the cells die before they are even “thawed out.” The second problem is that they have not exactly figured out how to properly thaw and revive an organism. So the short answer is that embryos are considered to be dead while frozen (often referred to as cryonic suspension). There is a short, but rather detailed article about cryogenics here.

(2) Are we “torturing a person” when we freeze an embryo? You will remember that this question arose because I hold the position that we receive our souls at conception. So the question was really wondering if the soul remained with the embryo while frozen. However, my intuition (as well as science) is that an embryo is not alive but is dead. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that when we die, our souls depart from our bodies. The apostle Paul wrote, “Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord… We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it (2 Corinthians 5:6, 8-9, NIV).”

There is also an understanding that the body and soul do not die together or are inseparable. Jesus stated, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10:28, NIV).” From this statement, it is clear that we as humans can kill one another’s bodies, but not each other’s souls. There is also an understanding in Scripture that the soul can depart from the body and then later return to the body (Jesus’ died, was buried, and was resurrected; Lazarus resurrected [John 11:43-44]; Jairus’ daughter resurrected [Luke 8:53-56]; etc.). Particularly note of Luke 8:55 which states, “Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up.” So it becomes completely evident to me that we are not “torturing” these souls contained in a frozen embryo because I believe they die when frozen and so the soul departs. If you, however, believe that we receive our souls at birth or some point later in embryonic development, then this question is probably a moot point for you.

These are just some of my thoughts about how to biblically answer these questions. I am do not claim that I have got these things figured out. I would love to hear some different thoughts or perspectives on how to answer these questions. What I do think is important, though, is that we are working through these things as Christians and not ignoring “the problem” and hoping it will be resolved without us having to be involved. I will be making some follow-up posts because I didn’t address all the questions that I listed in my initial post.

President Obama’s recent repeal of Bush’s ban on embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) has brought out a major discussion point about a problem that is gaining momentum in the public eye. That problem is what do we do with cryogenically frozen embryos? There are more articles everyday that are addressing the issue that there is currently hundreds of thousands (the latest estimate I have seen is 500,000) of frozen embryos sitting in cryobanks. The three options for people who have frozen embryos is to have them destroyed, allow another couple to “adopt” their embryo(s), or to donate them to “science” (i.e., ESCR). These issues are not as cut and dry as we would like them to be. People are struggling to answer the question of what to do with their unused frozen embryos as well as what do we do with those of people who have died or fallen off the grid.

A few months ago I was asked about cryogenically frozen embryos by a deacon in my church (who is also an OB/GYN). He specifically asked the question, “Do you think we are torturing embryos when we freeze them?” Now I must preface this with the understanding that this question was asked following the question about what I thought happens to babies who are still born, die at birth, or are aborted—did I think they were granted salvation or were they sent to hell (which is a completely different matter I am not going to address in this post)? Part of my answer included my belief that we receive our souls at conception. This is why the follow up about torturing embryos—because I believe they have a soul.

I think as Christians we cannot hastily jump to a conclusion about this issue. The nation as a whole is struggling with this topic and if we act like we have got it nailed, they will view our answer with skepticism. But here are some of my thoughts and some questions to which we must look for some answers: (1) Are frozen embryos dead or alive? (2) Are we “torturing a person” when we freeze an embryo? (3) What is the best solution to the vast number of unused frozen embryos? (4) Is it ethical to use “embryos” for scientific purposes (whether from extra embryos or those purposely created for such purposes)? (5) Are we killing a human when we destroy an embryo? There are numerous other questions about this issue, but these are a few that are fast arising to the forefront. I will share my thoughts in a post later this week about how I have answered some of these questions.