The National Institutes of Health issued guidelines for stem-cell research last Wednesday. The guidelines permit federal funding for research on stem cells derived from human embryos. This avenue, the argument goes, offers the potential for major medical breakthroughs. How should we think about this?

The research involves taking stem cells from a human embryo when it is only a week old. The expectation is that scientists will learn to manipulate these versatile cells to produce the specialized tissue needed to treat diseases like Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, burns, heart disease, cancer, etc. The new guidelines are:

1. Stem cells will be taken from frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded after treating infertile couples.

2. The cells will be obtained by private companies rather than by the researchers who receive government funds, in an effort to skirt Congressional prohibitions on funding research in which embryos are destroyed or discarded.

3. There will be multiple scientific and ethical reviews. This is done by the NIH, which will establish a new review panel of scientists and ethicists to evaluate grant applications for embryonic stem-cell research. No award grants will be made therefore until late in 2001.

The point is that these regulations have major safeguards built into them and they do answer many of the criticisms leveled in the past against stem cell research. But are they sufficient?

One critical point in all of this is that extracting stem-cells from the embryo results in the destruction of the embryo, which, according to Scripture, is a life (see Psalm 139:16). For example, because of this the National Conference of Catholic Bishops have called these guidelines "immoral."

Finally, many are arguing that stem-cell research should only be conducted on stem cells derived from adult tissue. Adult stem cells have shown the potential to repair damaged tissues in some studies. So, even though the embryonic stem cells are more versatile, use of adult stem cells avoids the critical ethical issue that we are dealing with a life. Our culture cannot ignore that reality. Profound ethical considerations accompany the use of embryonic stem cells. It has the potential of being a real slippery slope!! The culture needs to take its time and think through all of the ethical questions related to embryonic stem cell research using federal funds. Perhaps it is wiser to not do it at all!!

See The Chronicle of Higher Education, Today's News, 24 August 2000

Back to top

THE TERROR OF UNINTENDED RESULTS

Professor Vivette Glover of Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital in Britain, is calling for anesthesia to be used during abortions of unborn children between 17 and 24 weeks in utero because they may feel pain!! She said, "Given that there is a possibility [that the unborn child can feel pain] we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt." What does this fact say to us? First it says that the fetus is a human being, with all of the characteristics of being a human. Second, it points to the barbarity of abortion. We must insure that there is no pain for the baby as we kill it!! Third, it becomes an antiseptic for the culture. We no longer need to feel guilty about the procedure. The child no longer feels pain!!! So now we can kill it in good conscience. How horrific!! How barbaric!!

The Supreme Court decision this summer preserving the right of the Boy Scouts to establish the criteria for its Scoutmasters and Assistant Scoutmasters, including whether they are homosexual or not is having massive consequences for the Boy Scouts. In short, corporate and governmental support for the organization has slipped markedly. Chicago, San Francisco, and San Jose have told local Scout troops that they can no longer use parks, schools, and other municipal sites. Companies like Chase Manhattan Bank and Textron, Inc. have withdrawn hundreds of thousands of dollars in support to local and national scouting groups. Dozens of United Ways throughout the country have cut off funding. And Connecticut, in what may become a test case, has banned contributions to the Scouts by state employees through a state-run charity. The Scouts are suing to restore this right to state employees to donate to the Scouts. The Boy Scout is a cherished national symbol that is now being challenged by a culture that has embraced same-sex benefits and marriages in some cases, diversity training and nondiscrimination policies. And it seems as if the latter is winning out. For this postmodern culture, the Scouts' refusal to admit gays is un-American. The tables now have been turned!! It is quite incredible that one of the most significant symbols of America the Boy Scout uniform is now being touted as un-American. That which was once unthinkable, becomes debatable and over time becomes acceptable. That is what is happening as America accommodates itself to the gay lifestyle and legitimizing the gay culture.

See New York Times (29 August 2000).

Back to top

THE REAL THREAT TO AN ISRAELI PEACE

The most significant threat to Israel today is probably not only the PLO but the spiritual leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Sheik Ahmed Yassin. When he speaks, he sketches a future of unremitting warfare until Israel is wiped from the map. At 64, Sheik Yassin--the title is one given in Islam to a man revered for his piety--is emaciated by paralysis he suffered in a teenage accident on a Gaza beach. He dresses in the all-white of an Islamic holy man and speaks in such a tiny voice that even aides have to lean close to hear what he says.

Sheik Yassin and Hamas could remain the wild card of regional politics because of their hatred for Israel. In 1987, he said, "I believe completely that Israel will vanish, and that we Palestinians will recover the lands and homes that were stolen from us in 1948." Furthermore, from inferences in the Koran, he argues," the year 2027 will see the end of the state of Israel."

To date, Arafat has chosen not to have any final showdown with Hamas. But Arafat is in a very precarious position: "He can't move forward and he can't move back. He's reached the logical conclusion of his policy of negotiating with the Israelis, and he's reached a dead end, unless he makes concessions that would be fatal for him." Sheik Yassin refuses any negotiation with Israel because he will not give Israel the right to exist on lands that he says were "taken from the Palestinians."

So, the point is that Sheik Yassin represents an uncompromising position. He will not negotiate and he only would accept the extinction of Israel. There is no middle ground and there is no compromise. Neither Arafat nor any other leader has prepared the Palestinian people for a middle ground or compromise. The only alternative is war or the destruction of Israel. Keep your eyes on the Middle East!!

Back to top