AN ALTERNATIVE STEM-CELL OPINION

JACKSON -- There have been a number of letters, columns and Speak Out comments regarding embryonic stem-cell research. I would like to add an alternative and perhaps minority opinion, given the results of recent polls reported in the news media.

While the human egg cell, or ovum, and the human sperm cell are human cells with intact cellular metabolism in and of themselves, they are incapable of developing into a human being. Nobody thinks of a muscle cell or bone cell as a potential human being unless cloning is involved, which is another issue. A postmenopausal woman is not concerned with pregnancy no matter how fertile her partner may be. Farmers plant the products of pollination, the seed, into the ground, not pollen. Cattlemen will not breed a cow unless she is in heat.

The medical dictionary I bought when I started medical school in 1983 gives one definition of conception as "The act of conceiving or becoming pregnant; the fertilization of the oocyte (ovum) by a spermatozoon." So when a woman conceives, she is pregnant and, I presume, with a human being, although that may change in the future. At the time of conception, that new human being has her full genetic component from which all of her characteristics will derive under the influence of her environment and upbringing. All she needs is time, protection and support so that she may fully develop.

Granted, early on this human being does not look like much: a "glob of cells," as commonly described these days. However, she is undergoing tremendous cell division, differentiation and growth, which is what makes her so valuable to stem-cell researchers. By two weeks after conception, she has to tell her mother she exists and not to menstruate. She does so by a hormone called beta-HCG, the marker of the pregnancy test and her first signal to the world. By the eighth week after conception, despite the fact she is only an inch long, she has formed all her major organs and organ systems and is no longer desirable for stem-cell research.

Others have used biblical accounts, common-law statutes, quickening and debates as to when ensoulment occurred to suggest a human being prior to birth was somehow less than a full human being. Those generations didn't have the benefit of our ever-growing knowledge of embryology, genetics and fetology. Most mothers now have ultrasounds that visualize that human even prior to the first kick, and surgery has even been done on humans in the womb.

Early development in the womb is complex, and many embryos will not survive. So too the fate of embryos frozen in labs throughout the world. However, just because these human beings are likely destined for an early and regrettable death doesn't mean they may be further exploited. Timothy McVeigh had an early and certain death. There was no clamor for using his organs and tissues for the benefit of humanity. Dr. Jack Kevorkian didn't find many takers for the organs he was willing to provide for the many who needed them.

Have we already forgotten the horrors of the previous century? Remember what happens to humans who are felt by the majority or those in power to be unworthy of full human rights such as African-Americans in the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and the horrific human experiments undertaken in Nazi concentration camps. These experiments were supposed to help humanity also. In fact, whenever you read an article or an editorial promoting embryonic stem-cell research, substitute the words "African-American" or "Jew" or some other group whenever you see the word "embryo" and see how it reads.

Pope John Paul II and the Roman Catholic Church have voiced strong objections to embryonic stem-cell research as a grave violation of the rights and dignity of this very vulnerable group of human beings. Proponents of this horrific research have dragged up the Galileo affair as evidence the Catholic church is antagonistic to free scientific thought and learning, seeks to violate academic freedom and to otherwise send the world back to the Dark Ages. Ignored is the fact that the Catholic church has sponsored and encouraged scholarly activity throughout the centuries.

Although Galileo was a great scientist and we are indebted to his discoveries, the modern scientific method was new in his day, and the use of it was not always perfect. Instead of sticking to objective data and scientific theory. Galileo strayed into theology and philosophy and attempted to use the scientific method to prove false passages of Holy Scripture. This put him at odds with other scientists and theologians of his day. The Catholic church now notes, with the passage of time, that the treatment of Galileo was wrong.

In the end, it may have been fortuitous that the Catholic church did not embrace Galileo's theory, because it had two errors. Galileo believed the sun to be immobile and the center of the universe. Even the father of modern science was not infallible in his area of expertise. In dealing with science and religion, perhaps these few words of advice may be of help: "Test everything. Retain what is good. Refrain from every kind of evil."

Dr. Theodore J. Grieshop of Jackson, Mo., is a physician specializing in infectious diseases.