I am sure that I share the views of most people that most scientific research that is directed toward the benefit of all humanity is a good thing. Having been responsible in the past for advancing the Church’s view on the role of scientific research for the benefit of the human family, I know that the Church is of this view.

But I grown increasingly concerned about how some components of the media, with powerful influence on the public mind, can influence many thoughtful and moral members of the public in another direction.

I am grateful to several contributors of MOJ who have addressed the recent developments in Congress directed toward opening more avenues of embryonic stem cell research for the advancement of medical science. Advancing medical science is a good thing, unless it results in the destruction of human life. And that is precisely what embryonic stem cell research does if the stem cells are human. It does not matter if the source is from natural fertilization, in vitro fertilization, or cloning—the product is the same: a new human life. It is not because the Church says so, it is because objective medical science, upon which the Church relies, says so. Put candidly, one influential media organ that will soon be quoted believes otherwise and asserts that such views are simply those of “religious conservatives.” Perhaps its editorial staff would profit from sitting in on some first year medical school courses or reading the assigned textbooks for a full understanding that the perspectives it dismisses as those of “religious conservatives” are, in fact, the views of mainstream medical science.

The media can and does have a powerful influence in the outcome of this ongoing debate. In fact, influential media organs have had a disproportional influence on the public understanding about the debate on using human embryos (regardless of their origin: natural fertilization; in vitro fertilization; cloning) to extract stem cells for research purposes. But the fact of the matter is that this procedure always ends in the destruction of nascent human life. As this public debate continues, it is vital—for us and our salvation as well as the salvation of new members of the human life—to acknowledge the undue influence of the media in directing the course of this important debate.

For example, on November 15, 2004, the New York Times had an editorial entitled “End Run Toward a U.N. Cloning Ban”, commenting on the ongoing work of the Legal Affairs Committee at the UN in which this paper commented on the pressing need for medical research that would “harvest” stem cells from cloned human embryos. As the editorial stated:

The Bush administration is once again trying to stampede the United Nations into approving a ban on cloning embryos for research or therapeutic purposes. There is deep irony in this ill-advised campaign. The administration has thus far been unable to force a ban on therapeutic cloning through a divided Congress, where even some prominent Republicans favor the research, so now it is pinning its hopes on the U.N., an organization it routinely reviles in other contexts.

Virtually all member countries of the U.N. oppose cloning a human embryo and then implanting it in a womb to make a baby. Such “reproductive cloning” is extremely risky, and many countries have strong moral objections as well. But when it comes to cloning an embryo to extract stem cells in the laboratory for research or potential therapies, the international community is as badly split as the American electorate.

The

United States

, the

Vatican

and a slew of developing countries have endorsed a resolution put forth by

Costa Rica

that would outlaw all cloning, whether for reproductive, therapeutic or research purposes. That is an extreme measure that seeks to snuff out all research on microscopic entities that religious conservatives consider potential babies but scientists consider mere clusters of cells in a laboratory dish.

Britain

,

Japan

and other nations have backed a Belgian proposal that would ban reproductive cloning but leave the fate of therapeutic cloning up to individual countries.

Meanwhile, the Muslim countries have urged further postponement of a decision because the issue is too divisive. Although this page, consistent with its support of therapeutic cloning in this country, has previously endorsed the Belgian approach, we have come to think the Muslim nations have the right idea. There is no need for the United Nations to meddle in an ideologically driven issue on which consensus is impossible.

A few months later, the New York Times had another editorial on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. On  May 26, 2005, in its editorial entitled “The President’s Stem Cell Theology, the Times asserted:

President Bush seems determined to thwart any loosening of the restrictions he has imposed on federal financing of embryonic stem cell research, despite rising sentiment in Congress and the nation at large for greater federal support of this fast-emerging field. His actions are based on strong religious beliefs on the part of some conservative Christians, and presumably the president himself. Such convictions deserve respect, but it is wrong to impose them on this pluralistic nation.

Mr. Bush threatened this week to veto a modest research-expansion bill that was approved by the House and is likely to be passed by the Senate. The reason, he said, is that the measure would “take us across a critical ethical line” by encouraging the destruction of embryos from which the stem cells are extracted. Never mind that this particular ethical line looms large only for a narrow segment of the population. It is not deemed all that critical by most Americans or by most religious perspectives. Rather, the president’s intransigence provided powerful proof of the dangers of letting one group’s religious views dictate national policy.

The president’s policy is based on the belief that all embryos, even the days-old, microscopic form used to derive stem cells in a laboratory dish, should be treated as emerging human life and protected from harm. This seems an extreme way to view tiny laboratory entities that are no larger than the period at the end of this sentence and are routinely flushed from the body by Mother Nature when created naturally.

These blastocysts, as they are called, bear none of the attributes we associate with humanity and, sitting outside the womb [Araujo here: except for the small fact that everyone of us reading this contribution was a blastocyst in his or her early life], have no chance of developing into babies [Araujo here again: well, I believe that I was a baby—perhaps you were, too]. Some people consider them clumps of cells no different than other biological research materials. Others would grant them special respect but still make them available for worthy research. But Mr. Bush is imposing his different moral code on both, thereby slowing research that most consider potentially beneficial.

The president drew his line in the sand back in 2001 when he decreed that federal funds could be used only for research on stem cell lines that already existed. His rationale was that the embryos that yielded those lines had already been destroyed but he did not want to encourage any more destruction, even if the embryos came from fertility clinics’ surplus stocks that were ultimately to be discarded. Unfortunately, only about 20 lines have become available under his policy, and most suffer from technical and contamination problems that make them unsuitable for certain kinds of research. Scientists want access to more surplus embryos and the ability to create embryos from scratch in the laboratory, ideally with federal financing.

The bill just passed by the House would ease the problem by allowing federal money to support research on a much wider array of stem cells derived from embryos that would otherwise be discarded. Although that seems an extremely modest step, Mr. Bush countered with a stagy show in which he was surrounded by babies and toddlers born of test-tube embryos that were implanted in women eager to have children. “There is no such thing as a spare embryo,” he said, noting that a Christian program for embryo adoption has already led to 81 births, with more on the way.

The implication was that surplus embryos should be used to produce children, not stem cells, but it seems unlikely that such programs, which have to rely on people who are willing to allow others to give birth to and raise their genetic offspring, can make much of a dent in the stock of 400,000 surplus embryos at fertility clinics. There will be thousands of embryos available for research should Congress find the will to pay for it.

Unfortunately, none of this week’s heated debate focused on the most promising area of stem cell research, research cloning or therapeutic cloning. Mr. Bush is adamantly opposed to such research, which involves creating microscopic embryos to derive stem cells that genetically match a diseased patient, thus facilitating research on particular diseases and ultimately potential cures. There, too, he seeks to impose his morality on a society with pluralistic views.

Most recently, on July 18, 2006 in another editorial entitled “Standing Up for Stem Cell Research”, the Times asserted:

The Senate is poised to vote today on a bill that would greatly expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines that can be used in federally financed medical research. This is actually an extremely modest proposal that would allow the new stem cell lines to be derived only from surplus embryos otherwise slated for destruction at fertility clinics. Passage of this bill, which has already been approved by the House, is the very least the Senate should do to spur advancement of one of the most promising fields of biomedical research. A two-thirds majority of each house will be needed to overcome a likely veto from President Bush.

Under current administration policy, scientists can use federal money for research only on some 22 stem cell lines that already existed when President Bush announced his policy in August 2001. Those lines were extracted from microscopic embryos, no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence, that were inevitably destroyed in the process. Mr. Bush was willing to accept that fait accompli in the interest of advancing science but said he did not want to encourage any further destruction of embryos by financing research on additional lines.

That stance has increasingly hobbled embryonic stem cell research because many of the existing lines are deteriorating, contaminated or suffer from technical problems that limit their usefulness. The new proposal would make thousands of surplus embryos from fertility clinics available for federally funded research, a change that would be welcomed by most Americans but is opposed by a minority of religious conservatives.

Our concern with the bill is how limited its reach would be. It would not allow federal financing of the most promising field of research, known as therapeutic or research cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves the creation of embryos genetically matched to patients with specific diseases so that scientists can extract their stem cells and then study how the diseases develop and how best to treat them. The microscopic entities used in these studies may be called embryos but they have none of the attributes of humanity and, sitting outside the womb, no chance of developing into babies. It is no more immoral to create and destroy embryos for therapeutic purposes than to create and destroy surplus embryos for fertility purposes.

But for now the best hope lies with passage of the bill merely allowing use of surplus fertility clinic embryos. If it passes in the Senate, it seems almost certain to draw a veto from Mr. Bush, his first in six years in office. Then it will be up to the House and the Senate to summon the will to override the veto. If they fail to push through this very limited change in federal policy, voters will need to hold all recalcitrant legislators accountable for slowing research that holds great medical potential.

In all of its well crafted and eloquent efforts, the Times chides opponents to its views as opponents of progress for the betterment of humanity. But, the paper fails to disclose at what cost. This newspaper’s stating that opposing views are those of individuals who hold either narrow religious views or are out of touch with the nature of the entity from which the stem cells are extracted is misplaced and wrong. What the Times refuses to acknowledge is that human life is not only at stake but that it is being sacrificed in the process that endorses and wants promoted. This is a most serious moral consideration that the New York Times has been and remains unwilling to concede. I believe that the kind of Catholic legal theory this site attempts to promote is one of objectivity based on truth that goes beyond the absolute control of the speaker. Moreover, it becomes the duty of such theory to identify the errors of those whose efforts, conscious or otherwise, can lead others into grievous moral error.

In the relatively recent past, previous members of our human family have had to deal with other monopolistic efforts to control the sources of public information in order to direct public consciousness and debate of the issues of the day. I use a remark of Josef Goebbels to illustrate this point but have added, in brackets, my own modest addition to extend the import of his remarks:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State [or whoever controls information] can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State [or whoever controls information] to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

It is a source of personal sadness that such a great organ of information as the New York Times has concentrated its efforts over the past several years to conceal an essential truth of this debate: namely, that the entities that will be destroyed to generate the stem cells it claims are essential for the betterment of humanity will cost countless human lives in the process.

RJA sj