C. Ward Kischer, PhD, human embryology professor emeritus, and Fr. Joseph Howard, M. Div., of American Life League, have issued the following statement regarding their analysis of an Altered Nuclear Transfer-Oocyte-Assisted Reprogramming (ANT-OAR) process proposed by Dr. William Hurlbut. This process, by which an experimental protocol would generate presumed pluripotent cells, but presumably not human embryos for research, raises many serious moral concerns and should be especially troubling for Catholics in the field of science. Dr. Kischer and Fr. Howard address the moral concerns of the proposal and reiterate the teachings of the Catholic Church when dealing with such delicate matters involving the gift of human life.
American Life League and Altered Nuclear Transfer-Oocyte-Assisted Reprogramming
Because of the perceived medical benefits from the use of human embryonic stem cells, there is great pressure today to pursue this line of medical experimentation. The principal moral impediment to the pursuit of this line of inquiry results from the fact that the only source of human embryonic stem cells always results in the destruction of living human embryos. We at American Life League have reviewed the proposal of Dr. William Hurlbut, Altered Nuclear Transfer-Oocyte-Assisted Reprogramming (ANT-OAR). This proposal has elicited great interest especially among those objecting to the destruction of human embryos as the killing of human beings. While there are no ethical quandaries in conducting this research using non-human diploid cells and human gametes, such is not the case for using human diploid cells and human gametes.
A number of serious moral issues emerge which must be addressed in light of the teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. In a recent publication, Dr. Hurlbut has stated that the technique of somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) holds out a wider range of scientific and medical promise for the production of human embryonic stem cells than other methodologies. It must be noted that the term SCNT means simply the cloning of an organism whether human or non-human. If the originator of such a proposal sees that cloning is an essential feature of this technology, then the morality of the act of human cloning must be taken into consideration. The teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter is very clear.
Donum Vitae 1, 4: If the embryos are living, whether viable or not, they must be respected just like any other human person; experimentation on embryos which is not directly therapeutic is illicit.
Donum Vitae 1, 4: To use human embryos or fetuses as the object or instrument of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity. Human beings have a right to the same respect that is due to the child already born and to every human person.
Donum Vitae 1, 5: It is therefore not in conformity with the moral law deliberately to expose to death human embryos obtained in vitro.
Donum Vitae 1, 5: It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable biological material
Donum Vitae 1, 6: Also, attempts or hypotheses for obtaining human beings without any connection with sexuality through twin fission, cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union.
Donum Vitae 1, 6: Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. The manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his or her integrity and identity. Therefore, in no way can they be justified on the grounds of possible beneficial consequences for future humanity. Every person must be respected for himself; in this consists the dignity and right of every human being from his or her beginning.
Dr. C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D., states that, It appears that within an experimental protocol of ANT-OAR, through cloning, not all in the progeny of blastomeres may become genetically modified and therefore would likely be totipotent. Such a totipotent blastomere would indeed be equivalent to a human zygote who is a human embryo. If it is argued that the purposeful mutilation of the nucleus aimed at preventing the embryo from growing and reproducing has as its result the coming to be of a being that is not an embryo, what must be understood is the purposeful intention of the experimenter: clearly, to induce this deformation of the human embryo. It can only be judged that the demise of the human embryo is the direct result of the willful intent of the researcher, which constitutes an action with no therapeutic benefit to the human embryo.
We recall the words of Pope John Paul II in 1982 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: I condemn, in the most explicit and formal way, experimental manipulations of the human embryo, since the human being, from conception to death, cannot be exploited for any purpose whatsoever.
The Declaration on Procured Abortion in 1974 taught that even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare risk murder. Likewise, we can say in regard to an ANT-OAR proposal that if there were a doubt as to whether or not an experimental protocol generates a living human embryo, one is absolutely obliged to refrain from taking such actions which result in the mutilation and destruction of such human beings. David Prentice, Ph. D., a cell biologist, reminds us that, This procedure createseven if brieflya severely disabled living human embryo that has had its developmental program sabotaged.
CONCLUSION: There must be absolute certainty that no human embryo could exist before any research involving human diploid cells and human gametes can go forward as regards to this experimental protocol.
Source: American Life League Press Release
Comment: I'm interested in opinions from those who are well read or have experience in this field.
Related: Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming
I studied the Hurlbut proposal fairly extensively when it first came out with the help of my friend, Bryan Cross. I gave him suggestions on an article he wrote criticizing it. If I can get the URL, I will try to remember to post it. It was on his web site. Bryan spoke with Dr. Hurlbut before Hurlbut went to the ethics committee, but apparently he was unable to change his mind.
It is my understanding that in the very earliest stages, these ANT beings are developmentally indistinguishable from first-stage zygotes, but that because they have been changed genetically, they will in fact not develop the outer "shell" of cells that later becomes the placenta. Hence, they will die very early.
This certainly qualifies in my mind as raising a serious question: Are these not then tantamount to embryos that die at a particular point in their development, rather than non-embryos? As the post points out, even if we think that an embryo may be involved, we should err on the side of life. I do not think Hurlbut is taking this "err on the side of life" concept into account, as he has convinced himself that these beings are _morally_ equivalent to a form of cancer (called a teratoma) that begins by implanting as an embryo but then "goes wild" and develops into cancer. (And would not even that be an embryo _until_ it turned into cancer?)
Note that Hurlbut does not claim that ANT beings _are_ teratomata, just that neither is a true embryo. Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review wrote stating again and again on Tech Central Station that ANT beings _are_ teratomata. I e-mailed him again and again pointing out that even Hurlbut is only making an _analogy_ for moral argument purposes, but he didn't respond or correct the error.
(Indeed, if ANT beings were teratomata, it would be madness to introduce them or their cells into human bodies for therapeutic reasons, as one would be introducing cancer!)
Bryan Cross concludes that ANT beings are morally like embryos that have been genetically damaged so they will never develop (for example) heads--that they will develop up to a point and then die at the point when they would usually develop a head and brain. The death in the case of ANT just happens much earlier--after only days instead of weeks (as it would in the case of a head). This seems convincing to me.
I am therefore morally opposed to the ANT process.
So, ANT is different than SCNT because with ANT we are intentionally disabling this new tiny baby to sentence it to a premature death. That way, we don't have the moral dilemma of having to argue about whether or not it's wrong to kill a cloned human being ourselves, as with SCNT. What incredibly skewed, and shrewd, thinking on the part of those who want to call evil good and good evil. How sad, that my "pro-life" government representatives are 100% commmitted to this process of creating disabled embryos.
For the record, I don't oppose this simply because I believe I have to as a faithful Catholic, because many scholars are saying that's the only position that agrees with Catholic teaching. I'm Baptist, very very Baptist. ANYONE who truly believes in the sanctity of human life and is thinking this issue through is aghast at the very thought of what ANT in reality encompasses.