Stem Cells: A Month Later, An Update

So, to update. More of my thoughts have been published by the CBC via their weekly e-newsletter. Check out part 1 and part 2 via the CBC.

But there’s more already! The NIH (National Institutes of Health – the organization behind the regulation and funding of U.S. federal scientific research) has published draft guidelines for ongoing stem cell research. This is their response to Obama’s commission back in March. These are only draft guidelines, so we’ve yet to see how the final draft will look, but…

Here they are.

I’m happy. All things considered, there appear to be significantly strong guides and boundaries for exactly what sort of stem cells may be used in therapeutic experiments.

Big Idea #1

Most importantly: Embryos created solely for the purpose of being destroyed in research is still out-of-bounds (this is the work of the “Dickey Wicker” if any of you are familiar with the unfortunate name, but not the actual work of the amendment).

Now, there will be backlash on this. There already is. Stanford researchers, Colorado representatives and Hollywood actors all hate this. This is a major disappointment for them. Simply proof that they are not willing to reach across divides and find ethically defensible means of doing therapeutic research with stem cells (adult, cord blood, induced pluripotent stem cells).

And we can expect the complaining to continue. Jennifer Lahl, national director of the CBC, mentioned to me yesterday at lunch that the pool made available by these guidelines still leaves researchers vying and competing for precious raw material to experiment on. That’s why they want to create them on their own (through human cloning – also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer – SCNT).

All the complaining, in the midst of getting a bunch more government money, just heightens my disgust that they want to take life into their own hands.

Big Idea #2
And that’s the not-surprising bad news. There is now more federal funding available for embryo-destructive research, and more lines of stem cells available to destroy. But! the silver lining: In order for researchers to obtain these embryos they need permission based on informed consent from the parents of the embryo.

I remember, these embryos are the leftovers from fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization (IVF). So, think of the 2nd through 8th octuplets. In a normal (whatever that means) IVF treatment, only one embryo is implanted and brought to pregnancy. The other embryos (created just to “make sure” that the customer gets the goods she’s purchasing) are not ever implanted. They just get frozen, and some are thawed for research. Others die in the thawing process.

(This should highlight some serious problems with IVF. It’s not as easy as, “they help infertile couples have babies” – there are very small members of the human community involved here, and their existence demands our respect.)

But now, the parents (the patrons of the fertility treatment) will have a say as to how their non-implanted embryos – their CHILDREN – will spend the rest of their lives.

The positive side of silver lining: Instead of the doctors and researchers and their wallets and budgets deciding the fate of the child, the choice is in the hands of parents.
The negative side of silver lining: The fate of the child – the choice for their life or death – the vocation of their existence! – is in the hands of the parents!

And so now, this should be worrisome to you, dear reader. We’re hardly even talking about the NIH guidelines anymore, but I’ll end with this. The stem cell debate may have more to do with issues of the family than we previously ever thought. Scientific and moral and political and cultural things may be more connected and interdependent than we thought.

But remember, these are just draft guidelines – we’ll see what’s in the final. Will Marty McFly get his way? (Oprah’s Doc says no.)

Science’s STEMpede: A few more thoughts on human embryonic stem cell research

This week and next, the Center for Bioethics and Culture is running a two-part essay of mine that summarizes some of my recent thoughts on the politics, science and ethics (or lack thereof) of stem cell research in America.

Check out Part 1 here, on Utility vs. Moral Reality… sign up for the newsletter too! It’s a weekly dose of thoughtfulness about the most recent in bioethics.

Part 2 will be a closer look at the crossroads of science and ethics… and some considerations of the “false choice” or false dichotomy that we’re presented. In particular, I’m sadly skeptical that we’ve solved any such dichotomy. I’ll be arguing that while no dichotomy need exist, the language of politics (even when it specifically calls out “false choices”) is unfortunately incapable of uniting these two in a meaningful way, and I wonder if it can ever do anything else but triumph one or the other.

Here are some of the writings that I’ve been forming these thoughts from:

Use, Abuse, Personhood

This Is Happening Friends

The Masters are Finally Free!

And So It Begins (Thoughts on the Executive Order and Memo)

All Too Familiar: That Hideous Strength and the Abolition of Man

I’m really thankful for the CBC’s unceasing dedication to being a thoughtful, unitive force among such divisive issues. Thanks Jennifer!

Stem Cells: And So It Begins

I’ve been eager to see what actually came of Obama’s executive order and memo. I’d like to round off my previous three posts about this stuff with some more general comments.

(BTW – this guy’s actually talking about nature of the embryo, which is way cool! He also gets into IVF issues – which is too much to chew for now.)

I shall start thusly: I do not like false dichotomies. I believe they are dangerous to humanity. (E.g. faith vs. reason, public vs. private, sacred vs. secular, etc.)

“It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher.” – Albert Einstein, “Physics and Reality” (1936) [Okay, it's slightly out of context... look it up.]

Summaries of Today’s Executive Action
Order: “Yay stem cell research; we need more of it; remove limits [i.e. restrictions of federal funds and limited number of researchable embryonic stem cell lines] on “scientific inquiry” for the “benefit of humankind; human embryonic stem cell research (hESCR) is AOK within the law; guidance left to National Institutes of Health (NIH) to figure out – due in 120 days; Bush’s restrictions/limits officially revoked.”

Memo: “America relies on science and its progress to help form policy; the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy has 120 days to figure out how to “guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch” and share that with the Prez.”

Thoughts About the Order
I’ve said my piece before, but I want to reiterate the need for understanding what an embryo is. Greg Koukl wittingly points out that the answer to the question “Can I kill it?” depends on another bit of information… “WHAT is it?”

This order will change some things. Granted, it’s not entirely clear what the NIH will come out with in four months, but it seems safe to predict that:

Federal funds (lots more than the hundreds of millions already provided) will be doled out to researchers working on human embryos. Think about this figure: a piece of $10 billion over two years… granted to the NIH as part of the stimulus package.

Frozen embryo lines (that were created at fertility clinics or elsewhere after August 9, 2001) will now be available to scientists to “study” (when EVER did “studying” imply destruction? Only evil circumstances.)

Now, for the cloning comment today.
Obama brought up cloning (proving that stem cell issues at least beg the cloning question), admitting his belief that in it’s reproductive form, it is dangerous and wrong. But please note that cloning already exists. It’s called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). If “new lines of embryos are created” it will be by this process, which takes a bodily cell from an adult human, and injects it into the nucleus of a human egg, tricking the egg to think the somatic cell is sperm. At that point the egg is fertilized – you’ve got a clone. It’s an embryonic clone, but it’s still a clone.

Now, it’s good to know the Prez doesn’t like reproductive cloning, but he didn’t mention therapeutic cloning (SCNT for the purposes of making more embryos to study and break to pieces for their pluripotent cells). And he doesn’t seem to have a problem with that.

But what would the difference be? It brings us back to THE NATURE OF THE EMBRYO… again. If human life starts at fertilization (nod to the National Academy of Sciences), you’ve got a human clone whether it’s for therapeutic research (the clone is born to die) or for reproduction (the clone is born to live). Now, I am entirely against cloning, but certainly a live clone is better than a dead clone, right? And either way – whether therapeutic or reproductive, there is an issue with commodifying human life. The reproductive clone is a commodity: it is a synthesized, purchased human life. The therapeutic clone is also a commodity as well: it is also a synthesized, purchased human life. The difference lay only in the use. One’s purpose for living is satisfying an infertile couple with a child, the other’s fate is disassembly and then injection into the spine or heart or brain of an afflicted consumer.

So, Prez, do you hate therapeutic cloning just as much. Please say yes.

All in all, this is just the beginning of a four-month to four-year to God-knows-how-long drama over the lives and fate of the youngest and most vulnerable of our human community: the embryo.

Thoughts About the Memo
Now this is quite possibly more far-reaching than the Order today, simply because it’s about a reformulation of “scientific integrity” in politics. I’m a little iffy about this, and will obviously need to know more, and of course it depends on what shape the executive recommendations end up taking. Suffice it for now to say, there was NO MENTION of ethics in the Memo (though plllenty of musings in the press and the Prez’s comments about today’s actions).

I’m all for restoring integrity to science. But matters of integrity are ethical matters. I hope some of the guidelines help to foster more open dialogue and better communication and connecting and integrating of ethics with science. But the Barack himself railed against a “false choice” between science and morality… as his REASON for lifting the restrictions. No, it’s not one or the other, but the Bush restrictions came much closer to “neutral” than Obama’s “emancipation” – he’s already chosen a side: science.

I’m reeeeeeally hoping that the President’s Council on Bioethics remains in tact. They should be working intimately with the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the NIH. Lord have mercy.

Issues I’m Still Researching and Still Thinking About
There are are few unknowns for me still (I am, after all – GASP! – cognitively limited, which I am joyfully struggling to accept). Some you, my dear reader, might be able to correct, which I invite, and some I think require closer philosophical consideration:

Will new lines of embryos now be created (i.e., for the sole purpose of being destroyed in research/therapy)? Did the lift allow for that?

How authoritative and far-reaching will the NIH guidelines be? What is their potential to enact ethical restrictions/limits?

There’s a lot of “the embryos will be destroyed anyway” talk; is this really a legitimate justification for then destroying them?

When Obama and his cabinet (and the media and bloggers and such) refer to “political influence” do they also mean “ethical influence”? This is a nagging question about the nature and efficacy of politics to allow different disciplines to engage (e.g., ethics and science).

A litany of other questions and issues about integrating ethics and science and policy and philosophy and theology and blogging and neck-beards (my latest craze).

Ultimately, my position on how to conduct stem cell public policy will depend on (in a sort of supplementary way) the answers to these questions, as well as my grounding belief on the matter: that “caring for each other and easing human suffering” (Obama’s words) demands that no human should ever be abused as a means to such care or ease of suffering. If embryos count as human life, then we need to care for them and ease their suffering.

The Wonderful Paradox of It All
And paradoxically, I’ve dedicated my life to One who did just such a thing. He certainly was abused as a means to great ends. And was so voluntarily, by His own design.

Stem Cells: This is Happening Friends

Apparently, on Monday, Obama will undo a legitimate good deed done by Bush. Read all about it.

Bush made some big mistakes. The stem cell funding/research restriction was not one of them. Note: The restrictions weren’t even a ban (as pointed out by Jennifer Lahl at this link); federal and private funds were still doled out; it essentially amounted to a moratorium on created further lines – more human lives, who would be alive for the sole purpose of serving other ends. Sounds a lot like the abolition of man to me.

The word is “Embryonic stem cells offer promising results.” But so far, even with years of research, that’s it: a promise. I am tired of promises. Science sure is investing a lot of faith in these small humans. They’re even better politicians and PR people than they are scientists.

I wonder if the cure for Parkinson’s was known to be available simply by dismembering infants for their magical cells, if that would garner as much support as embryonic stem cell research. Of course, we’ve never gotten to clinical trials for that, so that’d be ridiculous to assume. Pardon me.

Again, the issue is not consequences. Whatever spinal injury, Parkinsons, diabetes, etc. patients who might benefit from embryonic stem cells will live, but not without blood on their hands.

The issue is the nature of the embryo – that thing you’re dicing up in a Petri dish.

Oh, and, please excuse me, I simply forgot that we’ve got federal dollars to spare.

Lord help us.

Stem Cells: Use, Abuse and Personhood

This article is a pretty concise intro to the stem cell issue we face. But it mostly leaves out an important factor in this debate: the status of the embryo.

Utilitarian Reasons
It so happens that adult stem cell therapy is already in human trials (and has been for YEARS), is safe for the patient, has produced amazing results, and doesn’t involve the creation or destruction of an embryo. It so happens. These are good consequences. From a utilitarian perspective, we say “yay, adult stem cell research!”

And it just might so happen that embryonic stem cell therapy is completely unsafe for patients. The very trait for which they are sought after (pluripotency) is the trait that is so destructive to patients (dangerously fast, varied and unpredictable growth). All this with ZERO data from human clinical trials (no, not a reason to start, either). The great hope of the embryonic stem cell is not based on scientific data – but scientific belief (it’s not even knowledge, since it’s hardly proven as true, let alone justified). Hence, these would be bad consequences. From a utilitarian perspective, we say “boo, embryonic stem cell research!”

Deontology, Virtue, Divine Command Reasons
So far, the discussion has been about consequences – or, the net utility that we can predict as the outcome of a given action (or a given kind of stem cell therapy).

I’m suggesting a closer consideration of not just consequences of actions, but the subjects and objects – the MORAL AGENTS – of such actions. The agents: scientists, unique fertilized embryos, non-embryonic stem cells, and patients (and of course, bloggers, politicians and celebrities… ascending order of credibility right? Guffaw.)

Of the agents, there are personal and impersonal kinds. Scientists and patients are unquestionably persons. Non-embryonic stem cells are unquestionably impersonal. The debate revolves around the personal status of the embryo (though I also call into question that of bloggers, politicians and celebrities…).

To be a person, I’d argue, grounds for the inviolable right to life and choice (IMPORTANT: “choice” only insofar as it doesn’t inhibit another’s right).

This is a moral rule (deontology) – one practiced by virtuous people (virtue theory), and commanded by God (divine command): do not abuse or kill persons.

The Point
The utility of consequences (a utilitarian value) should only count when all other things are equal. This, I think is the best way to take other important ethical theories into consideration. And in this situation, things are most certainly not equal: adult stem cell research has great consequences, and uses non-persons – embryonic stem cell research data is up in the air, but let’s say it is the greatest thing since sliced bread… it very well could be abusing and killing persons.

I’m arguing a weak point here (weak in the sense that I’m not even full-out arguing that embryos ARE persons). I do this to get all the scientists, patients, bloggers, politicians and celebrities to simply agree with this premise: fertilized eggs (embryos) COULD be persons.

THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE AT THE VERY CENTER OF THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL DEBATE. I’m confused why it’s not.

Consider, if you’ve read this far, dear reader: You’re in the woods on opening day of deer hunting season. You hear a rustle 20 feet ahead, peer through dense thicket at what you think is a deer. But, you’re only 50% sure. You see, you know there are other hunters in the woods, dear reader; you saw them all get out of their pick-up trucks in the woods’ parking lot. Do you shoot the “deer”? Unless you’re Dick Cheney, certainly not! After all, it could be a human that you’re peering at. Now what if you were 90% sure? There’s still a chance that it’s a human. Are you willing to risk it? I don’t think a properly functioning, virtuous person could conscionably do so.

Now, I don’t have much doubt about the status of the embryo. Picking a stage of development as a passage of an organism from non-personhood into personhood is way too arbitrary (and there are many different theories about what stage is enough for the organism to be considered a human person). The safest place is conception. Fertilization of sperm and egg. A unique, genetically distinct organism. Pre-embryo.

But! If there is any doubt about whether the embryo is a person – and there most certainly is – why do we favor discussion about consequences? The PRIORITY should be the question of personhood. If a person, then the answer should be simple: if a person is being abused or killed or both, the action is wrong. If not a person, then, and only then, let us weigh the consequences.

Performative Speech Acts and Do-Overs and Bibles and Such

How to Do Things With Words

Guys, I’m sorry. I just can’t help it. It’s too interesting to a philosophy and linguistics double major. The following is a speech act – specifically, a “performative utterance.” That is, upon complete and accurate speaking of these words, in the appropriate context (as defined by the Constitution and American democratic tradition, in this case), the speaker not only has said something, but some act has been performed. Like me making a bet, “$10 on Timely Rider,” or me and Lani saying “I do” on March 31, 2007; or like God saying “Let there be light.”; or like…

Performing on Tuesday... or maybe not...

“I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

J.L. Austin (PIPE!)

J.L. Austin was the first to take up performative utterances as a topic in philosophy of language. His student John Searle followed him. I took Searle’s class on Philosophy of Language when I was in school. A performative is an illocutionary act that bears to “truth value” – that is, it can’t be true or false. Rather, Austin and Searle offer that the sentence is either “felicitous” or “infelicitous” (“happy” or “unhappy”). A performative is only happy when it’s fulfilled.

John R. Searle

There are plenty of articles about the transposition of “faithfully.” Here are the articles (well, just a few of them).

AJC
NYT
Guardian
Steven Pinker

Pinker’s is the most interesting since he’s a cognitive scientist and linguist, and he explains the syntax of the problem (Roberts initially administered what is commonly thought to be more grammatically correct, that is, he did it without “splitting the verb” “will execute” with “faithfully”; but the Constitution does commit that grammatical error of splitting the verb…).

I’m not all that bothered about an inaugural do-over. I think it’s good that they “made sure.” And I think we go too far to say (as some have in fact said) that the oath doesn’t even matter, and that, regardless of the oath (or accuracy thereof), the prez-elect is officially prez at 12:00 p.m. during the inauguration. But then why even bother with the words? Well, because the oath and promise means something, and that’s one of the necessary conditions for being president (I don’t think it’s a sufficient condition, since it depends on other things as well).

But now, regarding the absence of a Bible…

It’s a little weird that he would flub while performing his oath WITH the Bible, but then arrange for an official do-over WITHOUT the Bible. Not to mention that the flub had to do with the word “faithfully.”

This explanation, cited in the Guardian, from US Constitution Online, isn’t sufficient I don’t think. In fact it kinda bothers me:

“There is no constitutional requirement that the oath be sworn on a Bible. There is also no prohibition. So, a Bible can be used, but so could anything, including the Koran, the Talmud, or a copy of Sports Illustrated. The point is not where the president’s hand rests when he or she takes the oath, but that the oath be recited, and then carried out.”

On the one hand, I agree that the important thing is the oath is taken and witnessed, but surely the physical presence and physical contact with the Holy (read: authoritative standard) Bible provides a reference for holding the person making the oath accountable. Does it bother anyone else? Do tell. I’m starting to sound like a Fundie conspiracy theorist. There are two questions here though: what ARE the necessary conditions? (touching a Bible doesn’t seem to be regarded as a necessary condition) and what SHOULD the necessary conditions be? And more specifically, do those necessary conditions for becoming president include inaugural traditions like using a Bible or having a Federal Justice administer?

Maybe boring to most. Interesting to me. But it could be historically and culturally important (and potentially indicative of a growing secularism) – if for no other reason that this would be the first time in our history that a president took an OFFICIAL oath of office without the Bible. A precedent, if you will. And maybe this has a lot to do with vocation, or literally, “vocare” – calling. No doubt, Obama’s vocation is tied to this oath. And given the traditional (albeit religious) sense of vocation – something that is God-given, spoken by the Divine, Personal Logos – what might that mean for the official version of the oath? Hmm.

Nevertheless, here’s to a felicitous presidency. Lord help him.

On the Picking Up and Dusting Off of America…

First of all, I know I’ve been extremely critical of Obama, and that the criticism has been quite focused. I don’t apologize for that. But yesterday, his Inauguration meant something great to our country, and to be honest, I did experience a strong sentiment of hope. The sort of hope an abolitionist would have had in the midst of an America dedicated to slavery: that at some point in the future, all American human persons would be free and considered equally worthy. Well, if not entirely or perfectly, we’ve seen major progress and change (toward virtuous and loving ends) since that time. And I’m really stoked that we peacefully transitioned our executive leadership to a black president. That’s pretty freaking wonderful.

And at some point down the line, I hope that every human person in our country reveres the intrinsic value and worth of every human life in our human community. I intend to continue yelling about this issue.

To that end…

Might I suggest a revision that might help foster a more communal mindset? One that turns the modern American mind outward, out of ourselves, and connects us with others?

“Starting today, we must pick ourselves [nope, EACH OTHER] up, dust ourselves [nope, EACH OTHER] off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”

An Update: The BarackBerry [not my pun, thankfully]

UPDATE to my previous post: “The BlackBerry Prez.“: Saw this today. Bummer for Barack. No doubt, there’s more to rant on, but I’ll let a little out with this… our President is forced (by nature of his occupation, of course) to multi-task like crazy. Should he also be checking email, texting and poking his 1,092,595 friends (a mixed metaphor I realize poking is for facebook) during boring cabinet meetings?

I also find it discouraging that, for all the reasons it’d be bad for #44 to have a “BarackBerry,” this NYT article doesn’t even consider the problems associated with any old schmoe having an iPhone or other PDA, hand-held, etc. We are more and more a culture of puny attention-span… our knowledge goes no further than Google’s top hits and Wikipedia’s wisdom, and our virtue no deeper than Tyra Banks’ True Beauty (a new TV shoe that I haven’t watched, I’m embarrassed to know about, and is effing flawed because it is searching for the most “inner-beautiful” beautiful person – there are no uglies, my friends…). So effed.

Here’s to single-tasking, my new and only life-pursuit… among others. Doh.

I’m sure I didn’t coin the phrase itself, but I’m considering a disciplined, full conversion to the cult of single-task. Might be a lonely cult. We’d wear dockers with big, white sneakers and watch the sky! Anybody so crazy as to suggest doing one thing at a time is positively a weirdo cult member.

Barack, it’s not so bad. We can be friends, and actually talk face(book) to face(book)! Aye.

The BlackBerry Prez.

Well, I’m just not sure what to make of this.

“[Obama], like President Bush before him, is being advised for security reasons and his own legal protection to refrain from sending e-mail during his presidency.”

What do you all think? I’ll listen first on this one, then comment.

Closer to the Earth: Food and Agriculture

I have spent very little of my time on this earth near, around, or on a farm. No regrets about my place up until now, but I’ve been thinking about being a little closer to the earth… whatever it takes to destroy the tyranny of the clock over my life.

I have a dilemma.

Nicholas Kristof (NYT Op-Ed) quoted food and agricultural writer Michael Pollan today:

“Even if you don’t think agriculture is a high priority, given all the other problems we face, we’re not going to make progress on the issues Obama campaigned on — health care, climate change and energy independence — unless we reform agriculture.”

I’d heard of Pollan on NPR several months ago. Now The Omnivore’s Dilemma is on my X-mas list. Given my inexperience and lack of knowledge about agriculture and “the answers” to health care, climate change and energy “in”dependence, I’m not going to offer any criticism of the quote above, but I’m thinking about this, and swimming upstream to agriculture isn’t such a bad idea.

Sexy Berry. Actually, he's pretty old and quite the monogamyte. Respect!

Wendell Berry has plenty to say about farming and food as well. He’s a Kentucky Aristotelian who raised tobacco, lives on a farm, supports localism (not the surfing kind of localism that Santa Cruz suffers from), doesn’t own a computer and scribbles/types pithy commentary in wonderful essays such as those found in Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community – maybe more to come on Berry in the near future. I’ve so enjoyed his sharply loving sarcasm and criticism.