Some Vatican officials: SCNT does not involve an embryo

[Faye]

Stem cell rift among Vatican experts - use of embryo cells - Brief Article
John L. Jr. Allen

A new method of stem cell research, heralded here in recent weeks as a way to avoid ethical objections from the Catholic church, has generated an open rift among Vatican experts who deal with bioethical questions.....

The Catholic ethical view could prove critical as new treatments using stem cells develop and are proposed for use in Catholic-sponsored facilities around the world.

The debate here centers on whether the new method, known as "somatic cell nuclear transfer," involves creation of an embryo capable of becoming a human being.......

Some Vatican officials lean to the conclusion that the new method does not involve an embryo, while others are unconvinced......

"somatic cell nuclear transfer," the alternative endorsed by the Italian commission, involves injecting a nucleus from an adult cell into a donor's unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed. The resulting fusion is then multiplied in a laboratory and used to derive new stem cells. So far the method has been used only with animals.

The seven Catholic members of the commission, including one cardinal -- Cardinal Ersilio Tonini of Ravenna, Italy -- joined in the recommendation to move forward with the nuclear transfer method. Initial Vatican reaction was warm. Italian theologian Gino Concetti, in-house moral expert for L'Osservatore Romano, praised the proposal as "substantially positive" in an article published Dec. 30.

"It is certainly not possible to say that stem cells, before they arrive at the formation of the embryo, should be considered in the same way as the embryo," Concetti wrote. "In this way the via italiana of therapeutic cloning differs substantially from other nations that allow the possibility of producing embryos as sources from which stem cells are to be derived."

Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an Australian who teaches at Rome's Alfonsiana Academy for moral theology, told NCR that Catholic scientists who support somatic cell nuclear transfer make a similar argument.

"They say that it is not an embryo because it is not the result of the fusion of a sperm and an egg cell," he said. "Their view is that it's very different than what results from sexual intercourse."

Johnstone told NCR that the eventual position of the Catholic church is likely to hinge on this technical question of the cell's capacity to become a human being.

"If it were empirically established that this entity would not, if implanted, develop and flourish as a human embryo does, then in principle the answer from the church could be yes, ( to the use of SCNT )" Johnstone said.

From: National Catholic Reporter

"I do not believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei

[Wise Young]

Faye, this is a very significant development. Wise.

[Jeff]

I agree. If the Catholic Church were to support SCNT I bet a lot of churches would follow suit... opening the door for President Bush to allow funding.

~See you at the SCIWire-used-to-be-paralyzed Reunion ~

[Wise Young]

The Church has drawn the line at fertilization. Since SCNT does not involve fertilization, it would seem to be clearly outside of the territory that the Church has forbidden.

Those who oppose SCNT are of course influenced by the fact that SCNT was used to create Dolly the sheep. A cloned egg has the potential to grow into an adult. According to Pope John Paul's 1995 Encyclical, a potential human being should be treated like a human being. But, the real issue is where one draws the line. One can say that an egg or a sperm is a potential human. Where do you draw the line?

Wise.

[vienna]

Where one should draw the line it's a matter of subjective judgment. Personally, I'd say a 4-5 days old blastocycts is not a baby. Is it a potential baby? Yes! ESC lines retreived from SCNT are feasible when it comes to avoiding immune rejection problem as it would come from donor's DNA. But, why stick w/SCNT knowing that there are other scientific questions to be answered such as what mechanism made it possible creating only one ESC line from 242 eggs recently in Korea?

Why not look into Parthenogenesis as parthenotes are easier to control/manage, would not come from fertilization, a parthenote injected into a woman's womb would not grow as a normal baby, and since it would carry a double set of the same genes (from a single parent)immune rejection problem would be cut in a half. Not too many ESC lines would be needed to cover most of U.S.
population.

JMO...

[Wise Young]

lel, I am really impressed. Parthenote... I bet that 99.9% of America don't know what that is, nor the Catholic church. Wise.

[Christopher Paddon]

"Parthenote" - I certainly don't know what it is

The morality of killing something which may or may not be capable of becoming a human being must be measured against the morality of letting millions of people, who are already human beings, suffer more or longer than necessary. The fact that technology may be abused is not a good enough reason to ban it either - most people using the technology will be using it for good and we have to try to police the others. Sometimes, not always, religions see things as either good or bad but life is more complicated than that

[vienna]

Originally posted by Chris2

"Parthenote" - I certainly don't know what it is

Parthenote - a medical term for the so-called embryo created in parthenogenesis when the unfertilized egg is chemiclly tricked/fooled into begining cell divison as it has been fertilized.

Obviously both in SCNT, and Parthenogenesis there is an unfertilized egg involved, and where there is an egg, according to catholic church, there is a potential human being.

IMO, legally the fine/ethical line should be drawn at the intention. For what intention is an embryo created? For medical research purpose, or for creating a baby? Again, like I said in my previous post, people tend to draw that fine line based on their personal judgment.

When people make a case pro or against smth, they tend to use ready arguments, blend them up. In our case they have facts available for use when they argue against SCNT. How many animals have been cloned so far? A lot! How many animals have been born as a result of parthenogenesis? One only! Is a clonned egg a potential human baby? Yes! Is a parthenote (a double set of a single parent's chromosome) a potential human baby? No!

Folks, don't get me wrong! I'm not trying to make a case against SCNT. I'm pro every possible avenue that would lead us to a possible cure. I have been, I am, and I will advocate all of them. But IMO, Parthenogenesis is the shortest, and the safest route!

The future of Stem Cell therapy will be determined by politics and by the remaining scientific questions. For the above reasons, Parthenogenesis, I believe, is not a very much politically, and ethically argued case. Scientifically, animal studies have shown that parthenotes are easy to grow, and ESC derived from parthenogenesis have met the pluripotency/teratoma test (the presence of the three layers ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm responsible for creating the buddy tissues, organs)


Again, JMO!

[This message was edited by lel42 on 06-02-04 at 08:
59 AM.]