Stem cells: Rally distorted scientific, ballot information

By Robert A. Hrabik

My family and I attended the Aug., 17 Christians Against Human Cloning rally at Notre Dame Regional High School in Cape Girardeau. The reason we attended was to hear firsthand what was being said by the opposition to Missouri's Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, Amendment 2. We have a son who was injured in a vehicle accident two years ago who could potentially benefit from embryonic or early stem-cell research, yet progress in this important medical arena has been stifled. We wanted to know why.

The program for the rally included a few somewhat local and nationally known figures, specifically Dr. Michael Wulfers, Dr. Rick Scarborough, Dr. Alan Keyes and David Limbaugh. It promised to be an interesting evening. Indeed it was. It moved me to tears -- not for the grace in God or the miracle in Jesus, but for the potentially millions of people who would be denied a chance for a better life if those in the audience took to heart the rhetoric and distortion of facts presented by the speakers.

Dr. Wulfers spoke early in the program with a talk titled "Is It Human Cloning?" His argument was that somatic-cell nuclear transfer (or SCNT, a promising technique to develop early stem-cell lines for research) is simply a technical term for cloning, one that can produce human beings. He went into minimal detail describing the process, but artfully biased what SCNT is capable of producing. Wulfers gave the audience the impression that a SCNT-derived cell (with no mention of fertilization) can either be made into a human being or be implanted into a woman for development. This is absolutely false.

The truth is that in the process of SCNT, DNA is taken from a body cell of a person suffering from a disease or injury and is injected into an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed. The egg is then stimulated to divide and produce stem cells, which potentially can be grown into any organ or tissue. It is not possible to produce a human being using this method, because fertilization does not take place and, therefore, several essential genes are not turned on to develop an embryo into a human fetus. Even if a SCNT-derived egg was transplanted into a woman, it would not develop and would simply be passed as a woman cycles. The act of placing a fertilized egg in a woman that may have been derived using SCNT is strictly forbidden by Amendment 2.

In another unforgivable distortion of facts, Wulfers conveniently skimmed through a list of diseases and injuries that have been "cured" by adult stem cells. It was convenient in the fact that Wulfers said he didn't have enough time to show the entire list, but this list has shown up time and time again by opponents of Amendment 2. The list includes some nearly 70 so-called cures made possible by adult stem-cell research.

On this list in the past have been cures for Parkinson's disease and spinal-cord injuries. These claims are absolutely false. Wulfers zipped through the list so fast one couldn't read all he had listed, but the truth is that only a handful of adult stem-cell treatments have been approved by the FDA, and nearly all of them are to treat blood-related diseases.

Wulfers went on to say, and other speakers following him reiterated, that early stem-cell research offered no cures. This was another convenient distortion, because while it is true that no cures have been attributed to early stem cells, it is because research in this area is new compared to the 50 or so years adult stem cells have been researched. It would be like saying that there were no cures for polio before testing the vaccine. Indeed, there are no cures from early stem cells because the "vaccine" hasn't been allowed to be developed and tested.

Finally, Wulfers provided a list of what Amendment 2 would allow. One of those items stated that "tax dollars would go to early stem-cell research." This is also not true. Amendment 2 does not call for any public funds to further early stem-cell research. If public funds would go to early stem-cell research, it would have to be first debated in the Missouri Legislature.

The next three speakers provided little meaningful thought in their rhetoric opposing Amendment 2 and early stem-cell research. Dr. Scarborough and Dr. Keyes in particular shouted into the microphone in thunderous and booming voices about the evils of this kind of research and human cloning. Scarborough centered his attack on the potential for great wealth to those who, I guess, come up with these cures or somehow clone humans. Dr. Keyes went a bit farther calling people in opposition to their plight against Amendment 2 as "enemies," and he compared early stem-cell research to World War II experiments in which the Nazis attempted to genetically create stronger people for their war effort, and he pronounced that we will "enslave human life through scientific knowledge and technology."

Keyes went on to say that Amendment 2 is simply trying to fool people, that there is no scientific debate and that early stem-cell research is just cloning.

Limbaugh threw in his two cents' worth calling early stem cells in dishes "abortion." The speakers used all the catchphrases to brainwash the audience -- cloning, money, Nazis, abortion -- while skirting the truth about the amendment, about the processes to produce stem-cell lines and about the good, honest intentions of most scientists who as fellow human beings only want to improve the livelihoods of disease- and injury-stricken people.

Shame on all of you, you men of God, who preach from the pulpit that truth triumphs and then cynically distort the good intentions of men because of your fear of the unknown.

In retrospect, the rally wasn't really about stem-cell research. What this debate is really about is defining when life begins. The agenda is actually being promulgated by devoutly religious (mostly Christian) people who think they have heard the divinely inspired word of God and know when life begins.

Is early stem-cell research involving unfertilized eggs really abortion? If a human cell has no chance of ever becoming a human being, then is it immoral to use such cells to help people recover from diseases and injuries? If a petri dish of unfertilized cells and a human fetus were about to fall off the edge of a cliff to certain death, which would you save?

This is the debate we need. We need real intellectuals debating this issue in a forum in which the public can view and decide for themselves if unfertilized cells without a nucleus is human life, and where peers in the medical profession can debate cloning processes and call out people who distort the facts for their own agenda.

Robert A. Hrabik resides in Oak Ridge.