Opposition to the chopping up embryos act
South Dakota Group Announces Opposition to Proposed Ballot Initiative That Would Allow Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Proposed measure would create giant loop hole in existing statewide cloning ban
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 12, 2009
Sioux Falls, SD – On Thursday, The Coalition for Cures Not Cloning, joined by Dr. Mick Vanden Bosch, current state legislator Manny Steele (R), former state legislator Mary Glenski (D), and other organizations, announced their opposition to an effort which, if approved, would allow cloning on the 2010 ballot. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, South Dakota ’s current codified law is one of the nation’s strictest cloning bans in the country. Currently, adult stem cell research is allowed by state law, embryonic stem cell research and cloning are prohibited. The initiated measure would overturn the ban on embryonic stem cell research and allow cloning.
Family Policy Council Action President Chris Hupke states “the proposed measure would drive a Texas-sized loop hole in South Dakota ’s current cloning ban that was passed in 2004. Make no mistake, this measure uses sleight of hand to rewrite the definition of cloning.” Former legislator Mary Glenski adds, “I voted for the current cloning ban in the state legislature as part of an overwhelming bi-partisan majority with only one legislator voting against it.” Current legislator Manny Steele also states, “this measure does not strengthen the current cloning ban, it weakens the ban. I urge citizens to refuse to sign the petition to get the measure on the statewide ballot.”
The proposed initiated measure would result in research dollars being diverted from current adult stem cell research that is yielding results and curing patients. Embryonic stem cell research has yielded no cures, and in countries where it has been tried has yielded no positive results.
Ophthalmologist Dr. Mick Vanden Bosch argues, “as a board certified physician, I can tell you that regardless of what others say, this initiated measure allows what is medically defined as cloning. As a doctor, I want to invest in responsible science that works and has developed cures for over seventy three diseases. If this measure passes, research dollars currently in effective research could be redirected to areas that have not yielded any positive results in countries where they have been tried. I don’t want my patients to not have access to cures they need because research dollars have been re-directed to unproductive areas.”
The initiated measure must collect 16,776 signatures to be placed on the 2010 General Election ballot by April 6, 2010 . According to the South Dakota Secretary of State, once on the ballot, there is a thirty six percent success rate in passing initiated measures.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
The doctor in the press release is saying that adult stem cell research is yielding results already and embryonic stem cell research is not.
I trust a doctor when it comes to discussing medical research.
“I trust a doctor when it comes to discussing medical research.”
Good for you. So when you are presented with evidence that the vast majority of doctors support embryonic stem cell research, you will no doubt change your opinion. Or are we only interested in picking and choosing the lab coat we believe in when it jives with our politics?
Bone marrow transplants have been performed for 40 years. Experiments with ES cells have only been occurring since ‘98. Currently, there are two clinical trials ongoing (the first two approved) examining ES cells as potential treatments in humans. Claiming that therapies with adult stem cells are great, but ES cells won’t cure anything is disingenuous.
What are the molecular differences between an adult stem cell and an embryonic stem cell? How do these differences translate into it being ethical to use one and not the other?
If the proposed measure would alter the accepted scientific definition of cloning, perhaps it would be helpful to describe exactly how. And is it scientific definitions and consensus that we will consistently accept now?
Thanks for covering this story.
To answer “denature”:
The “vast majority” of doctors don’t support embryonic stem cell research. But it is true that doctors are more trusted than the average politician 
Disingenuous? Do you think they haven’t been trying in other countries? The discovery of iPS cells is newer than embryonic and being used today in treatments that work.
As for the DRAFT language, as I haven’t seen any final wording on this, cloning is redefined. SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer, or “nuclear transplantation” – how Dolly the sheep was created- is crossed out.
A clone is a clone no matter how or why he or she was created. A human embryo, even a cloned one or a frozen one, has a complete set of human chromosomes and is a human being at the very beginning of the life continuum (a 4 yr. old is not the same as a 40 yr. old but they’re both still human, right?). An iPS cell is not a human being. That’s why ES Cell research is unethical and iPS cell research is ethical.
Simple science.
Excellent points, much better than typical Anonymous postings. Would you by any chance be personally involved in the issue at hand? You are obviously well versed in it.
A poll by HCD Research found 83% of doctors support research using embryonic stem cells. The AMA passed a resolution supporting research on embryonic stem cells and therapeutic cloning.
Perhaps you’d care to explain the mechanism by which adult stem cells are some miracle treatment, but embryonic stem cells don’t work. Or is it rhetoric over logic? Of all those miracle treatments from adult stem cells, which do not involve a bone marrow transplant and have had clinical trials conducted in the U.S.? What adult stem cells naturally show totipotency? If I can’t make an insulin producing cell from a bone marrow cell without causing cancer then the promise of adult stem cells doesn’t measure up to ES cells.
Animal studies have shown remarkable results with ES cells. As for other countries, what clinical trials have failed? What clinical trials have been conducted? Pfizer is backing a British group to treat macular degeneration. The other clinical trial in the U.S. is for treating spinal injuries. Promise has also been shown with heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and cancer treatment among others.
iPS cells? Talk about disingenuous. First you can tell me how you support this technology given that it wouldn’t exist in the absence of research done on embryonic stem cells. Then you can let me know what hospital I can walk into where they will give me treatment using iPS cells. iPS technology is not mature. And the epigenetics resemble the original cell rather than what you’d see in an ES cell. This complicates any potential therapeutic use.
As for the definition of cloning, I can’t really comment if the final wording isn’t available. But human cloning and cellular cloning are generally accepted by the scientific community as different things.
A clone is a clone? You seem to tacitly accept the potential of cloning a human. But an embryo deserves our protection, but a skin cell does not? It’s equal potential. What if ES cells can be harvested without destroying the embryo (published proof of concept)? There is no scientific consensus that union of sperm and egg = human being. I’ll spare the details here, but feel free to consult my previous post.
http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/10095#comments
I could add examples from the animal world where females give birth to young absent a male contribution. And you’ve defined people missing a chromosome as not being human. And you’ve artificially defined the continuum at the zygote stage rather than at sperm and egg. Show me a diagram of the life cycle without them. And you’ve failed to provide a molecular difference between adult stem cells and ES cells.
If people were really concerned about embryos dieing they would outlaw the practice of in vitro fertilization. Typically more embryos are produced than needed and the extras are kept frozen in liquid nitrogen. Eventually they are no longer wanted and are removed from their state of suspended animation, thawed out and allowed to die.
Nick, there are certainly people that have no conflict with banning embryonic cell research AND in vitro fertilization. To borrow a phrase, I’m just saying…
Given the number of children that need an adoptive family, one might reasonably ask, is in vitro fertilization really necessary, or is it merely something that science allows us to do?
Why not just take a couple of the cells from the embryo to do research on. That way you aren’t destroying the embryo and still have the embryonic stem cells to do research on.
Then you can discard the remainder of the embryo like you were going to do anyways. Both sides are happy.
William, while I don’t have any data to back me up, I’d be willing to bet that many more embryos are destroyed through the process of in vitro fertilization than through embryonic stem call research. But, I don’t see any outrage against that procedure. This group should be campaigning against both, unless of course they don’t care about moral consistency.
Nick, intellectually and morally, you and I are on the same side of this issue. Fine lines are constructed by thos unwilling to apply intellectual honesty and vigor to their principles.
At the same time, education and understanding in the pursuit of wisdom is a process. The rapid advances of science has outpaced our ability to grasp the implications of all science has allowed us to do. I understand the need to have time to the moral understanding catch up.
That could take awhile, Troy. We still have folks among us who haven’t grasped the moral ramifications of evolution or an earth older than 6000 years. It would be tragic to postpone the science of healing until these people’s ethos came into sync with 21st century reality, don’t you think? For example, how long did it take the Church to “forgive” Galileo?
Recall that there are those of us to whom the term “pro-life” extends far beyond complete chromosomes sets, zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses.
Bill,
Evolution and the age of the earth are matters of science. Science is by definition amoral (neither moral or immoral). Science can impact Philosophy and Theology but it has no impact on morality.
Morality (concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct) places restrictions on both the pursuit and application of science.
The codification in law of morality already restricts the sale of organs. The codification in law of morality restricts how medical/pharma tests are done. The codification in law of morality limits what testing can be done on children.
Love of reason and science doesn’t mean science can be pursued without regard to morality.
For example, once we understood that we are part of an ecosystem as opposed to isolated individuals and cultures in specific micro geographies, our ethics changed commensurate with that understanding. Do you need more examples, Troy?
Not vice versa and your example is an attempt to subject morality to science which is b.s. Science is amoral. Scientific pursuit can be moral or immoral. Morality judges science. You are smarter than that Bill.
Morality judges acts and outcomes. Period. Philosophy and Theology provide frameworks for forming morality. Science and mathematics provide frameworks for informing morality.
For example, if one kills a horse (fact that occurred), one can not discern the morality of the act. If it was killed to feed a hungry family trapped in a barn covered with snow, the act is moral. If it was killed because it was mortally wounded, the act is moral. If was killed just because one had a gun and wanted to see it happen, the act is immoral.
Or a scientist who learns about anthrax to find vaccines or cures is acting morally. One who learns about anthrax to kill a U.S. Senator is acting immorally.
Or your ecosystem argument. Biological, environmental, and even social science can inform us on what is moral but not determine morality. But even then, science isn’t the end-all determinant. If science determines that burning biofuels harms the ecosystem, morality might still determine that burning biofuels is justified if banning it would result in billions to starve and die.
In answer to William, I’m just an average, busy mom with above average family – just an average mom.
And in answer to denature:
The AMA resolution means what? Not sure where I read this (I’m sure you can look it up and I’m sure the article had something to do with health care reform, which is another subject entirely) but the AMA represents less than 1/3 of doctors and half of those are retired.
Embryonic stem cells are not as controllable. Treatments with ES cells would require anti-rejection drugs.
What ES cell clinical trials have failed? Name one and I can tell you it’s failed or is not yet complete. Just as important is that they are all unethical. You don’t take one human life in hopes of saving another.
We don’t know for a fact that iPS technology would not have been discovered without ESCR. We do know for a FACT that iPS cells are here and are working. We also know that we can use iPS cells without ethical problems.
“rhetoric over logic” – are you kidding? iPS cells were discovered in 2007, I believe. They were produced by inserting genes into adult skin cells. The virus they used to deliver those genes could cause cancer, but now they are using non-viral methods of delivery to cut the cancer risk. Don’t ask me by how much – I’d need to look that up.
You want specifics? There are numerous studies going on – too numerous for me to know all of them, but i do know there are a lot of things happening with auto-immune disorders at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Then also, the Iacocca Foundation “Join Lee” campaign, is supporting research at Massachusetts General Hospital with FDA approved human trials to reverse Type I (Juvinile) Diabetes. There are a lot of others that I don’t know, but all you need to do is read the right things and you can learn a lot
An embryo does deserve our protection. A skin cell has different potential, not the same.
Can a skin cell learn to brush her teeth? kiss you? tell you that you need to get off of the computer? No, and it can never learn those things. An embryo, even frozen and cloned ones, with the right nutrition, can do all of those things and more. All that embryo needs to do is grow.
Molecular structure? Look it up.
I have certainly not defined people missing a chromosome, or with an additional one, as not human – they have a complete set for them. Not every human is the same.
In humans, an embryo is defined as the developing organism from fertilization (and I don’t think it matters how the egg is fertilized) to the end of the eighth week.
Final wording of the legislation has not yet been filed, but I check this blog now and then, and the draft was posted in September, I think.
By the way, in answer to other comments about IVF, I don’t approve of it – especially when most infertility problems can be resolved naturally through NaProTechnology. The “leftover” embryos are not unwanted.
I hope I covered it all.
Yes, science provides the context for making ethical judgments. No context no ethics. You’re just splitting hairs, Troy (or worse, denying your Buddha nature). (wink)
The whole thing is kinda silly. How many lives are actually saved if the measure were to pass?
You can’t say that ES cells won’t work because clinical trials haven’t been completed, but then claim that iPS cells are working when they haven’t been used in any therapeutic clinical trials. You choose to ignore cell and animal studies for ES cells, but choose to laud them in the case of iPS cells. The position is completely illogical and unscientific.
Your refusal to explain why ES cells won’t work but iPS cells will is telling. The whole point of iPS cells is to get them to mimic the properties of ES cells. If ES cells can’t be used as therapy, the same will be true of iPS cells. There is no way around the fact that ES technology is more mature than iPS technology. Saying otherwise is a lie. They wouldn’t even know how to culture iPS cells if ES cell research hadn’t occurred previously.
Not only would iPS cell technology not exist in the absence of embryonic stem cell research, but overcoming any future technological hurdles with iPS cells is going to require comparisons to ES cells. You can’t compare the epigenetic profile of iPS cells to ES cells if research on ES cells is not allowed. You can’t compare gene expression profiles if you have nothing to compare to. You can’t gain basic insight into how nuclear reprogramming works without research into ES cells. Researchers would likely find working with iPS cells more convenient. But you can’t pretend that the path to get there exists in the absence of embryonic stem cell research.
“A skin cell has different potential, not the same.”
Your entire argument with iPS cells is that they do have the same potential.
“Can a skin cell learn to brush her teeth?”
Um, an embryo can’t brush its teeth either. And you already said that an embryo ceases to exist at 9 weeks. A zygote has equal potential. As does a sperm or egg cell. With cloning so does a skin cell.
“All that embryo needs to do is grow.”
If that were true, all embryos would end up viable.
“I have certainly not defined people missing a chromosome, or with an additional one, as not human – they have a complete set for them.”
No, they are missing one, thus they are lacking a complete set.
“How many lives are actually saved if the measure were to pass?”
ZERO. How many would be killed? ESCR always takes a human life.
Adult stem cells are being used in human trials. Did you read what I wrote about auto-immune disorders and Juvinile diabetis? Adult stem cells are being used. And those are just two that I know. There are over 73 diseases currently treated with adult stem cells.
“The whole point of iPS cells is to get them to mimic the properties of ES cells”
And here I thought the whole point to any stem cell research is to treat disease.
The iPS cell has potential to heal. ES cells do not.
An embryo has potential to develop into a 4 yr. old child. A skin cell cannot. A skin cell is not a human.
A complete head of hair for one person is different than a complete head of hair for another. Complete doesn’t mean that the number or size is necessarily equal – only complete. And to compare the number to an average is not wrong.
How many people’s lives have been positively affected by ESCR? Cloning? How many negatively affected?
How many lives have been positively affected by adult stem cell treatment? How many negatively?
That’s all folks.
“How many lives are actually saved if the measure were to pass?”
As reported in the Rapid City Journal, the stem cells to be used are those left from in vitro fertilization procedures that would be discarded otherwise. And will only be used if donated. Regardless of your views, there is no net change in loss of life. Perhaps you should start a petition to ban in vitro fertilization.
“There are over 73 diseases currently treated with adult stem cells.”
No, there are many diseases that are ultimately treated by giving a bone marrow transplant. And generating new blood cells isn’t really the treatment, something like chemotherapy usually is. Give me one of these 73 diseases that isn’t bone marrow and has progressed beyond an experimental treatment. These adult stem cells aren’t pluripotent. Until they can show an adult stem cell with the ability to make a cell type derived from a different embryonic germ layer, they do not have the same potential as ES cells. Your comparison of adult stem cells and ES cells based on treatments isn’t relevant. It’s like telling people not to take the swine flu vaccine because antibiotics are used to treat more diseases.
Your autoimmune example did not involve changing one cell type into another for the purposes of a treatment. That is the value of ES cells. The researchers used chemotherapy to destroy the immune systems of MS patients and used previously harvested bone marrow for a transplant. It’s not relevant to the value of ES cells. Adult stem cells have specific jobs like generating different types of blood cells. ES cells have the ability to give rise to any cell type found in an adult human.
The Mass General trials are using a vaccine in hopes that it will attack the abnormal immune cells in the pancreas. Stem cells are not involved.
“The iPS cell has potential to heal. ES cells do not.”
That makes no sense, and you provided no support for this position.
“A skin cell is not a human.”
Then what is it? To call an embryo a human despite it being named an embryo, but not applying the same standard to a somatic cell or gamete is illogical. You’re making up a standard that is not supported by science. And if we had the technology to generate a human being from a skin cell, would you stick to this standard?
“A complete head of hair for one person is different than a complete head of hair for another. Complete doesn’t mean that the number or size is necessarily equal – only complete.”
This is complete nonsense. A person either has the full complement of chromosomes or not. When a Doc asks for the results of a test for Turner’s syndrome, she’s not told that the patient has a complete set of chromosomes cause it’s close. Why don’t your weasel words here allow a sperm cell or egg cell to be called a human? They have all the genes of an adult human. If you are going to use the standard of first complete set of a chromosome complement as the start of life, you can’t ignore cases in which it doesn’t hold up. This applies to examples of abnormal number of chromosomes and to twins, who not only have the same full head of hair, but become individuals after the embryo is first formed. It also applies to organisms whose life cycles have the haploid phase (like egg and sperm cells) as the predominant phase of life instead of the diploid (like skin cells).
Antibiotics didn’t save significant numbers of lives until research was conducted into how they actually work and potential treatments were explored. That previously, cutting people’s limbs off was an effective method at limiting the spread of infection was not an effective argument that there was no potential in antibiotics.
Wow. Good exchange Anon and Denature. I wonder how many will muster the concentration to follow your arguments. The bioethics discussion is difficult but important. Your combined efforts here really spell out the key points nicely. Thanks to you both for sticking with it.
“As reported in the Rapid City Journal, the stem cells to be used are those left from in vitro fertilization procedures that would be discarded otherwise.”
Since we are going down this path, I have another idea. There are alot of people laying in hospitals and hospices right now who will be “discarded” soon anyway. Let’s go in and harvest their organs now. How many lives could we save? Maybe 5 or 6 per person laying in the hospital. A heart, lungs, a couple of kidneys, a liver, some arteries…. A plethera of life saving opportunities!
This will also reduce health care costs (objective of Obamacare) and speed up the transfer of wealth from parents to children (lesson the effects of the recession). Oh, yeah, we could donate the bodies to science since we love science more than morality. And another thing, this might postively affect the actuarial health of Social Security and medicare. This just keeps getting better.
Finally, I have a question that is above my pay grade since I’m not a scientist or a doctor. Is there anyway we could “test tube” aborted babies and use them for science and curing disease?
I know this might make some of you squeamish but it is about the science. Just close your eyes. This all might save your life you know some day.
Troy, what’s your proposal as to what should be done with left over IVF cells? And more to the point, do you REALLY think they are people?
Two good questions that are above my pay grade. I’m not evading you but these are questions that I really need to study. To prove I’m not evading, I’ll give you my first reaction (albiet not fully formed or informed).
1) I don’t know. I really don’t. All I know is use as guinea pigs is unacceptable.
2) Yes I believe they are people and should be protected as such from arbitrary and carpricious actions.
Right… like “Pooh” and stuff.
Ok, so how about this scenario, Troy.
I need a new heart. My old one’s going south. I talk to my doc and he says no problem. You can grow yourself a new one. Wow, I say. How? Well first we take one of your cells and then we (blah, blah, blah, a whole bunch of medical technical stuff I don’t understand) and then a new heart starts growing in this (blah, blah, blah…) and when it’s ready we put you on a machine, take your old heart out and put the new one in. It’s much better, because it’s all you. No machines, no foreign tissue to reject, etc… (blah, blah, blah, more sciencey stuff…).
Now, just knowing that much my good sir, do you see an moral/ethical problem with my scenario in principle?
Now Bill, just to make this crystal clear, would we also have to examine your state of conciousness or lack thereof to decifer moral or ethical as well? Just kidding brother Bill!! Sleep well or awake refreshed.
Pooh Fleming,
I’m afraid some of the scary scenarios that Troy speculated on have already, in one form or another, already been applied by societies within our lifetime. Horrors to humanity have been performed to perfect mankind in the name of “science”.
In the example you use, to grow a new heart from your own cells, well it does appear that the most promising option will likely involve adult stem cells that have already proven less likely to involve rejection, particularly if when they come from YOU!
Bill,
Just with those facts, there is nothing immoral with such a medical development. William is right that this is most likely to be accomplished with your own adult cells.
The morality will be is if the source of the heart, the cells to grow it, or the information gained to grow the heart was gained from immoral sources.
William, have a heart, man. (wink)
Troy. Interesting answer. Can you clarify further? (I know… probably not, huh. I have a feeling we’re both in way over our head here.) I’m just trying to explore the ethics here. I have an idea, but I’d like to hear your answer first. What would constitute an “immoral” source?
China is in the news lately. I’ll use them as an example.
Amnesty International has accused them of harvesting organs and performing non-voluntary tests from/on prisoners.
Just as scientists refused to use information gleaned from Hitler’s medical experiments for furthering medicine, these are examples of immoral sources.
Okay then, Troy. Suppose I come to understand that the way I’m going to be able to grow my new heart is by taking some of my cells and allowing the doctors to adjust them in such a way as to make them, for a short while, “totipotent.” That means they will be indistinguishable from the embryonic stem cells that were present a few days after my conception. Suppose I agree to this. Have I done anything “immoral” yet?
I am glad a group is stepping up to oppose cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The doctor in the press release gets this right. We don’t need cloning going on in our state.
Dave Volk and his friends have been spreading misinformation that their effort strengthens the cloning ban. Dave Volk’s group redefines what cloning is and then bans it. That is pretty intellectually dishonest to me.