I found this in the Houston Chronicle today. Man will once
again be challenged to do what is right! The path will be
treacherous but the potential benefits enormous. I believe
reasoned dialogue and action will prevail and much good will
come of this. It is clear that many will be troubled
 myself included) and our faith in man may be stretched to
the limits but our democratic process of seeking the truth,
I believe, will prevail.

Bob Martone

From the Houston Chronicle Editorials January 20, 2000
Jan. 19, 2000, 2:12PM

Science raising more moral questions
By GEORGE F. WILL

LINCOLN, Neb. -- The offices of L. Dennis Smith, president
of the University of Nebraska, and Mike Johanns, the state's
Republican governor, are less than three miles apart. Their
offices are closer than their positions concerning a
controversy that, thanks to rapidly evolving biological
science, may soon be transcended.

But when it is, we may be nostalgic for the comparative
simplicity of today's moral dilemma about the use, in
research and medical therapy, of cells derived from fetuses
made available by elective abortions. Smith favors this.
Johanns does not.

All cells in a human body contain the individual's full
DNA -- the genetic code. But as the body grows from
conception on, a cellular division of labor begins. Cells
begin to differentiate, extinguishing, so to speak, all the
DNA other than that pertinent to each cell's particular
function -- as blood, bone, muscle, etc. However,
undifferentiated cells -- the early progenitors or ancestors
of all other cells in the subsequent body -- are
well-described as "biological jacks-of-all-trades." They can
differentiate to form many types of cells. The scientific
prognosis is that undifferentiated cells will one day be
used to treat a variety of diseases (e.g. Parkinson's,
Alzheimer's, HIV-induced dementia) and injuries (e.g.
stroke, spinal cord injuries) by producing new tissue.

The bioethical problem is that the lifesaving and
life-enhancing potential of cell research can be furthered
by cells harvested in ways that many consider destructive of
respect for life -- ways that treat some human lives as mere
means for serving the ends of other lives. The controversy
over fetal cell research parallels in many ways the
controversy over research using cells derived from surplus
embryos produced by fertility clinics.

In an act of astonishing civic obtuseness, the University of
Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha established a relationship
with an abortionist to supply aborted fetuses as sources of
cells. The center even gave the abortionist an honorific
association with the center, which he advertised on his Web
site.

This came to the attention of the Nebraska right-to-life
movement. One of the movement's sympathizers, Gov. Johanns,
wants to end research using cells obtained that way.

President Smith casts the controversy as one of academic
freedom: "We can't teach or do research based on what an
interest group wants us to do." He says, "A public
university serves all of the people and should strive to be
beneficial to mankind."

However, surely a state institution has an obligation of
statesmanship, a duty to display decent respect for the
deeply held convictions and deeply felt aversions of a
substantial portion of the taxpaying public. Catholics
certainly, but by no means exclusively, reject utilitarian
arguments for research that is dependent on the methodical
creation of, or the deliberate interruption of, human life.
It is a biological fact, not a theological postulate, that
such life is a continuum from conception to death of an
entity with a distinct genetic individuality.

Johanns favors fetal cell research, but believes a
sufficient supply of cells can be obtained from sources
(e.g., spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, placental blood)
that do not abrade community sensibilities. The medical
center now says it will try to acquire all cells from
sources other than elective abortions.

Smith, a developmental biologist who would like a biology
course to be a prerequisite for recipients of his
university's baccalaureate degrees, believes that soon
science will bypass this controversy. En route, it will
produce many others.

In 10 to 15 years, Smith surmises, scientists will be able
to take a cell from an individual's skin, dedifferentiate
it, and manipulate it into a source for various living
tissues. In fact, last month researchers at the Baylor
College of Medicine in Houston reported that
undifferentiated cells from muscles of adult mice have a
"remarkable capacity" to be transformed into blood cells.

This report is part of a rapidly growing body of evidence
that some animal cells can differentiate into tissue types
other than their tissue of origin. Dr. Margaret Goodell of
the Baylor College says perhaps muscle and other cells "can
be turned into heart, brain, nerve, skin or other cell
types."

Smith assumes, plausibly, that mature human cells soon will
have, with an assist from science, this capacity. Certainly
what seems remarkable in one decade becomes routine in the
next.

A disquieting era of genetic manipulation is coming, one
that may revolutionize human capacities and notions of
health. If we treat moral scruples impatiently, as
inherently retrograde in a scientifically advancing
civilization, we will not be in moral trim when -- soon --
our very humanity depends on our being in trim.
---------------------------------------------------
Will is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, based
in Washington, D.C.


Bob Martone
[log in to unmask]
http://www.kingwoodcable.com/martone/




Bob Martone
[log in to unmask]
http://www.kingwoodcable.com/martone/