STEM CELL ADVANCEMENT:  ADULT NOT EMBRYONIC

• In late August, a group of Harvard scientists published research in the journal Nature which demonstrated how they transformed one type of fully developed adult cells into another inside a living animal.  Through a series of painstaking experiments, involving mice, the Harvard biologists pinpointed three critical molecular switches that, when flipped, completely convert a common cell in the pancreas into the more precious insulin-producing ones that diabetics need to survive.  As Rob Stein comments, “[this] raises the tantalizing prospect that patients suffering from not only diabetes but also heart disease, strokes and many other ailments could eventually have some of their cells reprogrammed to cure their afflictions without the need for drugs, transplants or other therapies.”  Even those who support only embryonic stem cell research are amazed at this development.  It is an encouraging and hopeful one.  Years of research remain to demonstrate that this is indeed a viable procedure that can translate into actual cures for disease.  Douglas A. Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, affirms that the goal of the research is “to create cells that are missing or defective in people.”  He goes on that “within five years we could be ready to start human trials.”  Other scientists have already started trying this approach on other cells, including those that could be used to treat spinal cord injuries and neurogenerative disorders such as Lou Gehrig’s disease.  As Stein reports, “The research is the latest development in the explosive field of ‘regenerative medicine,’ which is trying to create replacement tissues and body parts tailored to patients. . . But stem cell research has been plagued by political and ethical debates because the cells can only be obtained by destroying embryos. . . .”  The Harvard research just announced skips that ethical mine field and works on directly transforming adult cells.  As George Q. Daley of the Children’s Hospital in Boston argues, “This experiment proves you don’t have to go all the way back to an embryonic state.  You can use a related cell.  That may be easier to do and more practical to do.”  Another way of viewing this is that research involving human embryos is no longer necessary.  Ethically, we can avoid all the challenges of using and then killing human embryos.  Embryonic stem cells are increasingly becoming irrelevant to research! 

• Second, a reminder on how the Bible views prenatal life.  In 1973 the Supreme Court was right:  There is no consensus in the culture about when life begins.  God’s revelation in the Bible, however, has spoken to this issue.  A thorough examination of His Word reveals that God views life in the womb as of infinite value and in need of protection.  The challenge is that most areas of the culture--law, politics, many theologians and religious leaders--refuse to heed God’s clear teaching on this issue of prenatal life.

A cluster of verses in the Bible clearly establish God’s view of prenatal life:

1. Exodus 21:22-24--Whatever these difficult verses exactly mean, God views life in the womb as of great value.  Whether by accident or by intent, to cause a woman to miscarry demands accountability on the part of the one who caused it.  The Law did not treat the fetus frivolously.
2. Isaiah 49:1, 5--Referring to Messiah, God called Him for his mission from the womb.  Life that is prenatal is precious to God.
3. Jeremiah 1:5 and Luke 1:15--As with Isaiah, God viewed Jeremiah and John the Baptist from the womb as of infinite value.  He even filled John with the Holy Spirit when he was in Elizabeth’s womb.
4. No other passage deals with the question of prenatal life so powerfully and conclusively than Psalm 139.  In this wonderful psalm, David reviews four phenomenal  attributes of God--His omniscience, His omnipresence, His omnipotence and His holiness.  In reviewing God’s omnipotence, David examines God’s power to create life, which he compares to God “weaving” him in his mother’s womb.  God made his “frame,” his skeleton.  Then, in verse 16, he writes, “Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance. . . .”  Undoubtedly, David is referring to the embryo.  If correct, then the divine perspective on life is that it begins at conception.  So awesome is God’s omniscience and His omnipotence, that He knew all about David even when he was an embryo!  This is God’s view of life.

• Third, a few ethical questions that relate to the embryo.

1. Are the fetus and the embryo human beings?

At conception, all aspects of humanness, as defined by DNA, are present.  Genetically, it is quite difficult to argue otherwise.

2. Is the human fetus (embryo) a person?

This is an increasingly pressing question today.  The biological term, “life,” has been exchanged for the legal term, “person.”  This is a critical switch in terms because only “persons” have rights, including the right to life.  Paul and John Feinberg argue in their book, Ethics for a Brave New World, that at conception the DNA strands of the embryo are species-specific.  Furthermore, although the fetus is dependent upon the mother, he or she is an independent individual.  Furthermore, there is substantial identity between the embryo, the viable fetus, the infant, the child, the adult and the elderly person (p. 58 ff.).  The fetus (and the embryo) is a “person.”

See Rob Stein in the Washington Post (27 August 2008) and James P. Eckman, Biblical Ethics, pp. 29-31.

Print