Religious Conservatism and Science

The problems facing American science have not been created by a single politician or party; they reflect a fissure in society which has grown wider as science has edged closer to the roots of life itself. “I have never seen as much tension between science and society,” Alan Leshner, the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told me. “Some of it is religion and some of it is ideology. But science is now encroaching in areas that are too close to core human values. And it makes people afraid.” (Michael Specter, Political Science, The New Yorker, March 13, 2006).

Science and religious conservatism are at it again. There has never been such a hot debate since Galileo’s confrontation with the Roman Catholic Church as there is now on several issues.such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, research on the embryonic stem cells, abortion, human papilloma virus (HPV), among others.

First most prominent confrontation after Galileo occurred in 1925 in the Scopes Monkey Trial. The issue at dispute was the anti-evolution statute of the State of Tennessee. A bill was enacted by Tennessee that made unlawful “to teach any theory that denies the story of divine creation as taught by the Bible and to teach instead that man was descended from a lower order of animals,” (http://www.law.umke.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/sc opes/evolut.htm). The bill is known as Butler’s bill, and was introduced by John Butler.

The defendant was a twenty-four year old general science teacher, John Scopes. The trial attracted world wide attention not only because of the nature of the charge but also because it was a contest of wits between William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic candidate for President, for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow, a professed agnostic and a sharp lawyer, for the defense.

According to Douglas Linder, (http://www.law.umke.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/sc opes/evolut.htm),
“ The confrontation between Bryan and Darrow was reported by the press as a defeat for Bryan. According to one historian, ‘As a man and as a legend, Bryan was destroyed by his testimony that day.’ His performance was described as that of ‘a pitiable, punch drunk warrior.’” The debate on theory of evolution did not end with Scopes trial; it is still continuing. It has become a landmark in the history of religion versus science like the Galileo incident.

Thou Shalt Not Play God

Human cells, tissues, and organs should not be commodities to be bought and sold in a biotech slave market…Some researchers have established in their own minds an arbitrary lesser moral status for human beings in their embryonic stage of development. (Richard Land, Head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, quoted by Ted Peters).

The hottest issue these days in which science and religion are deeply entangled, is the stem cell research, The use of stem cells has a potential for “treating a host of congenital, developmental or degenerative diseases for which there are no cures,” (http://www.sumanasinc.com/scienceinfocus/sif_stemcells.html ).
Human body has many types of stem cells all of which can replicate and self-renew. They can differentiate to produce specific body parts such as muscle cells, skin cells, nerve cells, etc. The stem cells are broadly classified into totipotent (totally potent) stem cells, pluripotent and hematopoietic stem cells. The totipotent cells are capable of forming every type of body cells. “Each totipotent cell could replicate and differentiate and become a human being. All cells within the early embryo are totipotent up until the 16 cell stage or so,” (Ted Peters).

Pluripotent cells can develop into any of the three major tissue types: endoderm (interior gut lining), mesoderm (muscle, bone, blood), and ectoderm (epidermal tissues and nervous system). They can “eventually specialize in any bodily tissue, but they cannot themselves develop into a human being,” (Ted Peters).

Use of stem cells is very promising for the improvement of transplantation therapy and for lengthening a person’s life. According to Ted Peters, “..rejuvenation through transplantation of tissue grown in a laboratory from stem cells would be of enormous value for cardiomyocytes to renew heart muscle to prevent congestive heart failure; replacement of hematopoietic stem cells for producing healthy blood in bone marrow to resist infection by the human immunodeficient virus and to treat AIDS and possibly sickle cell anemia; cultivating endothelial cells to reline blood vessels as treatment for atherosclerosis, angina, and stroke due to arterial insufficiency; rejuvenating islet cells in the pancreas to produce natural insulin to fight diabetes; renewal of neurons in the brain to treat Parkinson’s disease and victims of stroke; fibroblast and keratinocyte cells to heal skin in the treatment of burns; and chondrocytes or cartilage cells to treat osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.” In view of the great potential for healing human diseases and for transplantation and repairing of human body parts, the stem cell research is greatly exciting for the scientists. It is the science of the twenty first century. But there are ethical obstacles too.

Those who seriously object and obstruct the stem cell research do so on moral grounds. They know that the embryo from which the cells are obtained is destroyed in the process. Destruction of an embryo is tantamount to killing a human being. According to Ray Bohlin (The Controversy over Stem Cell Research), “Each embryo is a unique human being with the full potential to develop into an adult. Each of us is a former embryo. We are not former sperm cells or egg cells,” (http://www.leaderu.com/science/stemcellresearch.html).

T here are at least two sources for human stem cells which are somewhat less objectionable compared to harvesting the normal human embryonic cells. One of them is by the isolation of human embryonic stem cells from the left-over embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF). The technique was developed by James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin’s Regional Primate Research Center. According to Ted Peters, “Thomson began with fertilized ova – spare embryos from in vitro fertilization not placed in a uterus – and cultured them to the blastocyst stage, about four to six days. At this point, he removed the outer shell of the blastocyst, separated out the individual cells, and placed them on a feeder tray. The cells divided. They produced themselves. Because these cells are as yet undifferentiated – that is, they are pluripotent and able to make any part of a human body – they are the cells from which other cells stem. Because they replicate themselves indefinitely, Thomson in effect created an immortal line of embryonic stem cells.”

In the second method, human embryonic germ cells (hEG cells) are taken from fetal gonadal tissue. “These cells, when taken from an aborted fetus, resemble in nearly all respects the pluripotent stem cells,” (Ted Peters). This technique was developed by John Gearhart, a professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University School of medicine.

The left-over embryos from in vitro fertilization are usually discarded or stored in freezers. Presumably, there should be no objection for using them in stem cell research. Similarly the hEG cells which are removed from aborted fetus should not be a subject of ethical controversy. However, there is a fear of abusing the technology for money. Ted Peters noted, “We rightly fear that if such science and its resulting technology proceed this might encourage couples to fertilize ova for the purposes of sale or donation and that it might encourage abortions for harvesting hEG cells.”

The debate on the stem cell research is in its early stage yet; it will continue for quite some time in the future before a clear understanding of the moral implications of stem cell research is better understood by the combatants. Medical science was similarly beset with obstacles on moral grounds in the past also. At early stages of the development of medical science, using medicine to treat sickness was considered against the will of God. If He wills you to be sick, it is against His will to get better by using medicines. According to Franz G. Alexander and Sheldon T. Selesnick (The History of Psychiatry), “I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal,” (Deutronomy 32:39). Cure of disease was therefore an attribute of the Divine, and the purpose of disease, including madness, was to punish man for his sins.”

Thou shalt not play God is thus an old cliché’.

When is an Embryo a Human Being?

This question is real tenuous and is the subject of intense debate. A 14-day old embryo is called the early embryo. When the embryo is 14 days old, it starts developing nervous system. So the early embryo is the watershed at which it can be (is) regarded as a human being. However, there are contenders who do not accept it. This issue was discussed by the Donaldson committee in Britain in 2001. “The central issue addressed by the Donaldson committee was the status of the early embryo. Positions stated before the committee ranged from those taken by the churches and pro-life groups that the early embryo is a human being in the fullest sense from the moment of fertilization and should be accorded the same respect as a fetus or baby, to the position that the early embryo is no more than a collection of undifferentiated cells and so deserves no more respect than any other isolated human cell or tissue…The Donaldson committee …recommended that the 14 day limit on embryo experimentation be maintained and that this should apply both to embryos produced by natural means and by therapeutic cloning,” (Joseph Panno, “Stem Cell Research”). The EU countries however rejected it.

The question becomes more complex in view of the Abortion Act (in Britain) which allows abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. If a pregnancy can be terminated at 24 weeks, why should there be any concern for allowing stem cell research on an embryo of 14 days age? According to Joseph Panno, “..it would be difficult to justify an absolute prohibition on fetuses long after the formation of the primitive streak.” In the United States where abortion is also legal (Roe versus Wade), the argument is reversed by the anti-abortionists. They claim that abortion should be totally banned in view of the reality of early embryo.

Funding Problems

Stem cell research is an expensive undertaking and the individual scientists cannot conduct research with their own limited resources. Federal funding is severely restricted. President Bush ruled in August 2001 that he would not allow federal funds to create new cell lines or to carry out research with them. Scientists were outraged by his decision. “Bush tried to find a politically acceptable compromise, saying that research could continue on those lines which existed as of that day, ‘where the life-and-death decision has already been made.’ This, he said, would allow scientists to ‘explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line,’” (Michael Specter, Political Science).

According to Joseph Panno, “In April 2004, 206 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, in response to public pressure, signed a letter urging President Bush to modify his August 2001 executive order limiting federal fund for ES cell research to preexisting cell lines. The letter called for a new policy whereby federal funds would be made available to create new ES cell lines from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization clinics.” This was rejected by President Bush asserting that federal funds should not be used to “encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.” Now that the Democrats have gained majority in both the house and the senate, the issue of stem cell research is bound to reemerge with increased vigor.

Some states rebelled against President Bush’s ruling and went ahead to allow stem cell research. California was the first one which passed “a ballot measure in 2004 to allocate three billion dollars to create the Institute for Regenerative Medicine,” (Michael Specter). Several other states have also legislated in favor of stem cell research. Some major private organizations have provided new sources of funding. Despite these efforts by the individual states and private organizations, stem cell research is acutely delimited by the federal legislation.

Vocabulary

Some of the technical terms that were left unexplained in the text are described hereunder:

Atherosclerosis: arteriosclerosis characterized by irregularly distributed lipid (any of various substances that are soluble in nonpolsr organic solvents such as chloroform and ether) deposits in the intima (the innermost coat of an organ – as a blood vessel – consisting usually of an endothelial layer backed by connective tissue and elastic tissue) of large and medium sized arteries, causing narrowing of arterial lumens.
Cardiomyocytes: muscle fibers found near the heart.
Endothil: a compound developed to overcome muscle atrophy.
Fibroblast: a type of cell that synthesizes and maintains the extra-cellular matrix of many animal tissues.
Keratinocyte: the major cell type of the epidermis (tough outer protective layer of the skin), making up about 90% of epidermal cells.
Osteoarthritis: degenerative arthritis; a type of arthritis that is caused by the breakdown and eventual loss of the cartilage of one or more joints.