hu Mice?

I wonder how many people are aware of the existence of chimeras? A chimera is a combination human/animal. The name comes from Greek mythology. The Greek version was a combination of a lion, a goat, and a serpent. Modern day chimeras combine humans with other species.

For example, the "hu mouse" is a mouse with a human immune system. It's created when human fetal tissue -- spleen, liver, thymus, lymph node -- is transplanted into a mouse. This isn't science fiction, the first hu mice were created in 1988. A company called Stem Cells, Inc., of Palo Alto, CA, has created hundreds of mice with human brain cells.

Where will they draw the line?

Of course, amendment 2 clearly prohibits this kind of experimentation, doesn't it? Well, no it doesn't. The only thing it prohibits is implanting a cloned embryo in a uterus for the purpose of creating a human fetus or a human being. (sec 6(2)). Clearly a hu mouse, or a hu chicken, or a hu chimpanzee is not a human being.

Amendment 2 also requires that stem cell researchers provide an annual report to the Secretary of State on their activities. Of course, the report "shall not contain private or confidential medical, scientific, or other information." (sec 4). Section 6 (10) lists the items that are considered "private or confidential", which is basically everything except the lab's address and phone number.

But, isn't there an "institutional review board" to keep an eye on the researchers? Yes, there is. It would be made up of their fellow experimenters. The amendment ensures that state and local government will have no oversight over the industry.

This is the same industry that gave us Korea's Hwang Woo Suk, who falsified the results of his experiments and California's Advanced Cell Technology, who recently reported that they had developed a means for extracting embryonic stem cells without killing the embryo. The report sent their stock price from less than 50 cents to nearly $2.00 in one day. They later admitted that all the embryos involved had actually died.

No one is opposed to ethical stem cell research. No one is opposed to finding treatments and cures. Everyone should be opposed to any industry having the kind of constitutional protection that amendment 2 will provide to the Stowerses and their friends. There are too many ethical and moral questions that haven't been answered. If amendment 2 becomes part of our state constitution, they never will be.

A Plea for Common Sense

There has been much rhetoric on both sides of the amendment 2 issue. Proponents claim that embryonic stem cell research holds the key to cures for everything from athlete's foot to cancer. Oponents cite the fact that ESCR has never cured anything. Proponents claim that embryos aren't human beings. Oponents believe that life begins at conception.

Proponents of amendment 2 say it bans cloning. Oponents say it does just the opposite. While the amendment does prohibit cloning, it offers a definition of cloning that is different from the one normally accepted by the medical profession.
Most medical journals define SSCT as cloning. The amendment defines cloning as implanting an embryo in the womb.

Proponents call oponents religious crackpots and oponents call proponents mad scientists. In many cases there has been much more heat than light.

Suppose, for just a moment, we stand back and look at the big picture. What is the current situation and what will the situation be if amendment 2 passes of fails?

Current situation. Both adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research are legal in the state of Missouri. ESCR receives no funds from Missouri taxpayers and limited funding from the federal government. The only research elegible for federal funds must be conducted on existing stem cell lines. Adult stem cell research is eligible for government funding.

Eggs are obtained from "left overs" harvested for in vitro fertilization by IVF clinics. Donors, unless they are hopeful mothers providing eggs for their own fertilization, are paid. Both types of stem cell research are subject to state and federal regulations, as are all other types of medical experimentation.

If amendment 2 fails. Nothing will change. Things will remain as they are. Research will continue.

If amendment 2 passes. The right to conduct ESCR will become part of our state constitution. Research will continue, but without government supervision. In fact, the amendment specifically removes all state control over this research and opens the door for state funding. Oversight of the industry would be done by an "institutional review board", with the state legislature specifically excluded. Guarantees are built into the amendment for egg harvesting and somatic stem cell transfer.

As mentioned, proponents of amendment 2 claim that ESCR has great potential, but because it's so new, and because government funding has been restricted, there is no way to know its full potential for good. That might be true.

On the other hand, there is also no way to know what harm it might cause. There is at least anectdotal evidence that these cells cause cancer. Since we don't know the truth, does it really make sense to make the right to conduct this research part of the state's constitution? There are no safeguards built into amendment 2 to prevent future abuse. Even if ESCR proves to be terribly harmful, the amendment makes it impossible for the state legislature to do anything to stop it.

There have been two recent cases, one widely publicized, one less so, where ESC researchers have falsified their results. In one, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk of South Korea falsified the results of his research claiming to have produced eleven stem cell lines that were genetically identical to patients with disease or spinal cord injury. Quoting US News & World Report, "Peer-reviewed research really rests on one fundamental principle, and that's that the people who do it are really honest about their results." Under amendment 2, peer review would be the ONLY control over ESCR.

The second and more recent case involved an American company. Advanced Cell Technology of Alameda, CA announced on August 23, that they had discovered a means of extracting stem cells without destroying the embryo. This "breakthrough" received national publicity. Unfortunately for ACT, it turns out that all of the embryos involved in the experiment died. This revelation received much less press coverage. (It's worth noting that prior to ACT's announcement, their stock was trading for less than 50 cents per share. Following the announcement, it rose to nearly $2.00 per share. After the deception was discovered, the stock returned to just over 50 cents. It's currently in the 80 to 90 cent range.)



Most Missourians question the moral and ethical implications of creating human life for the purpose of destroying it. That alone should cause them to vote "no". But for those who don't share that view, they should ask themselves the following questions:

Does unproven research, research that is already legal in Missouri, deserve constitutional protection?

Do we want this research to be conducted by an industry with a history of "exagerating" their results, with no government control?

The preamble to the amendment, which voters won't see on election day, lists 45 sections of the state constitution that might be changed, repealed, or modified by this amendment. What are these sections? How might they be affected?

Missouri is known as the Show-me State. Have we been shown that this amendment is needed, or even desirable? Is it good law?

Who stands to gain and who stands to lose if amendment 2 becomes law?

Why have supporters spent nearly $30 million to promote this amendment? Why have one husband and wife contributed the vast majority of that $30 million? What's in it for them?

If we can't answer these questions, regardless of our opinion concerning the beginning of life and human experimentation, then common sense says we should vote "No".

For more information, see What's Wrong with Amendment 2?

A Wedding Homily

______ and ______, now comes the part where you’re wondering how long is he going to talk. We want to get to the good part. I hope he’s not going to go on too long. It’s ok. I wasn’t born with this collar on. I’ve been there. I know.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I wanted to say to you two today. Wedding homilies are hard. ______, it’s like when you take a picture. You want everything to be just right. It may be a once-in-a-lifetime shot and you want to be sure that you give it your best.

You want to have the camera in just the right spot. You want the light to be just right. You want the aperture and the shutter speed to be perfect. Every picture is different. You don’t want to blow it. That’s how I feel about wedding homilies. Every couple is different and I don’t want to blow it.

Then it dawned on me yesterday morning in the shower that it really doesn’t matter what I want to say. It’s what God wants to say to you today that’s important.

It says in the wedding rites book that I’m supposed to speak to you about the mystery of Christian marriage, the dignity of wedded love, the grace of the sacrament and the responsibilities of married people. You told me what you wanted to hear today when you picked out your readings.

In the first reading, Tobias wakes Sarah up, presumably in the middle of the night and tells her to get up, they’re going to pray for the Lord’s grace and protection, which is what you’re doing here today. Tobias praised and blessed God. He recalls how God created Eve to be Adam’s companion and says “I do not take my sister for any lustful motive; I do it in singleness of heart. Be kind enough to have pity on her and me and bring us to old age together.”

What a beautiful thought. “Bring us to old age together.” ______ and ______, that’s the prayer we all make for you today. We pray that God will give you his grace and protection, which is why we celebrate the sacrament of Holy Matrimony here in God’s house. Through the sacrament you receive that grace and protection. Trust me. You’re going to need it.

Marriage is hard, very hard. Without God’s help, I’d say it’s nearly impossible. Daily prayer and regular reception of Christ’s Body and Blood will build a bond between the two of you that will resist the forces in the world that will try to drive you apart.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your choice for the second reading is the one that just about every couple picks. Love is patient. Love is kind. Love is never jealous. Love is never boastful or conceited. It’s never rude or selfish. It doesn’t take offense and it’s not resentful. That just about says it all.

Every married couple should paste Paul’s words on the bathroom mirror where they can see them the first thing every morning. I promise you that if you make it a point every day to be patient, and kind, not jealous, not boastful or conceited, not rude or selfish and not resentful, you will have a long and happy life together.

Finally, you chose Matthew’s “light of the earth” Gospel. Where almost everybody picks Paul’s treatise on love, not so many pick this particular Gospel. But, I think it may be the most appropriate of all the choices for a couple starting life together.

God has given the two of you a vocation. Your vocation is to be man and wife. It’s a vocation of love, just as all vocations are vocations of love. Your love for one another is representative of the love God has for each of us. You are the light of the world.

Jesus says that you don’t light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket. You set it on a lamp stand where it can give light to the whole house. We’re all called to be light for one another. But so many people today aren’t following God’s commandment to love one another. Maybe that’s why the world seems to be in such darkness.

As I said, marriage is very hard. Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk wrote that the obligations of marriage vows are often just as hard as the vows of religious life. Like consecrated religious, God will give you the grace to keep going through the sacrament you’re about to receive. It raises your love to a spiritual plane. If you accept that grace in the spirit of faith, it becomes an opportunity to grow in holiness. Your entire married life becomes a light for the people around you.

______, you’re being called to love ______ even more than you love yourself. ______, you’re being called to love ______ even more than you love yourself. You’re both going to promise to be true to one another in good times and bad, in sickness and in health. Your going to promise to love and honor each other all the days of your lives.

We Catholics are very sensory people. We meet God through our senses. We’re baptized with water. At certain times we’re anointed with fragrant oil. We eat and drink Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. For some sacraments, we have the laying on of hands. We make the sign of the cross. We sing and ring bells and use incense. Sometimes you hear the expression bells and smells. That’s us. That’s our faith.

What you’re signing up for today is a lifetime of sensory experiences. ______, as a photographer you know all about the beauty of God’s handiwork. When you capture an image on film and print it on paper, you’re creating a reflection of God. As wonderful as that may be, it’s just a faint image compared to the real thing.

Your married life will be the same. It will be a reflection of God’s image. God chose to share Himself with us by becoming one of us. He shared himself completely by giving up his own life so that we could be saved. When you share yourselves, without reservation, without hesitation, without restrictions with one another, you represent God’s love to one another, and to the rest of us. You are the light of the world.

Today you begin a journey. No one knows how it’s going to turn out. Everybody in this church is praying that you’ll never know anything but the best that life has to offer. But we also know that that probably won’t happen. There will be trials. There will be hard days. The two of you know, probably more than most, that things don’t always turn out the way we want them to.

But together, there won’t be anything that you won’t be able to handle. In just a moment, you’re going to say the words that everyone here is waiting to hear. Thank you for asking me to be a part of such a special day in your lives. You’re very special people, from very special families. I pray that your light will shine brightly for a long, long time.

More on Amendment 2

Following is a response I wrote to an editorial in the Drury Mirror, the campus newspaper of Drury University in Springfield, MO.

Brandy,

First, I'm very sorry for your aunt's suffering as a result of her rheumatoid arthritis. It's a terrible disease and we should all pray that a treatment is found soon.

However, there is virtually no chance that a cure will be found using embryonic stem cell research. That's a fallacy that’s being perpetuated by the supporters of amendment 2. It will be decades, if ever, before somatic cell nuclear transfer is even perfected to the point that it can be used for research. Any potential treatments or cures would come decades after that, if ever.

Embryonic stem cell research is legal in the United States and in the state of Missouri. Always has been. Not one single cure, or even treatment has been discovered. Your aunt’s condition is not a result of legal restrictions.

I won’t deal with your misunderstanding of the science, except to say that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is cloning, as defined by many medical journals. Rather than outlaw cloning, the proposed constitutional amendment would guarantee the right to clone.

I also won’t deal with the issue of when life begins, except to say that you were once an embryo, even before you were implanted in your mother’s uterus. You had 46 chromosomes, had human DNA, and grew into the person you are today.

If we remove the so-called “religious” argument against SCNT, we can focus on the practical implications of the proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution.

The amendment is very cleverly crafted to achieve the results its supporters desire. The amendment appears to prohibit producing human embryos for research. But, it specifically allows embryos created for in vitro fertilization to be used for research. Nothing is said concerning the ratio of embryos that may be used for either purpose. In other words, you may sell the clinic 100 eggs. As long as one egg is used for IVF, the other 99 may be sold to a researcher for experimentation.

If you do the math, you will see that millions of eggs would be required for research. There is nothing in the proposed amendment to prevent abuse of the process. In fact, the amendment states that anything that would inhibit or even discourage SCNT would be unconstitutional.

By the way, the amendment also states that the researchers can’t be required to disclose any “private or confidential patient, medical, or personnel records or matters, intellectual property or work product, whether patentable or not and including but not limited to any scientific or technological innovations, in which an entity or person involved in the research has a proprietary interest, prepublication scientific working papers, research, or data, and any other matter excepted from disclosure under Chapter 810, RSMo, as amended from time to time.”

In other words, there is no limitation on the number of eggs that can be used for SCMT and no way that anyone can require the researchers to disclose what they’re doing.

Human eggs will most definitely become a market. Section 2 (4) of the amendment prohibits the sale of human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research for “valuable consideration”. However, section 6 (17) defines “valuable consideration” and states that “valuable consideration DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CONSIDERATION PAID TO A DONOR OF HUMAN EGGS OR SPERM BY A FERTILIAZTION CLINIC OR SPERM BANK” In other words, IVF clinics and sperm banks will become middlemen, buying human eggs wholesale and selling them “retail” to the researchers. The same section provides a list of items excluded from “valuable consideration”, allowing these “middlemen” to make their profit.

Here’s something that may hit a little closer to home. It’s no secret that many students sell their blood to make a few extra dollars. The going rate for egg donors is in the thousands of dollars, certainly enough to make the average coed at least think about “donating”, or to make someone else “encourage” her to do so. Imagine having your eggs harvested at gunpoint. It could happen.

Since the average woman produces only one or two eggs each month, the clinics use a procedure called ovarian hyperstimulation to increase the supply. From five to twenty percent of women who undergo this procedure suffer severe medical consequences. Many die. These women aren’t blastocysts. They’re not embryos. They’re living, breathing human beings. They may be your sister, or you neighbor, or your best friend; maybe even you. Most will be poor and disadvantaged. Since there aren’t enough women in the United States of child-bearing age to provide the number of eggs needed, many will be from third world countries. The international egg trade will be huge. Tell me again how a vote for amendment 2 is a vote for life.

Finally, regarding the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, you are correct that embryonic cells can be made to form more types of tissue than adult stem cells. However, science is closer to finding a way to induce adult stem cells to act like embryonic cells than it is to finding ANY cures or treatments from embryonic cells.

So, why do we need this constitutional amendment to legalize something that’s already legal? It’s all about the money. The Stowers family of Kansas City, founders of the Stowers Institute, have spent $15 million to promote this initiative. Ask yourself “Why? What’s in it for them?” The answer is obvious. Their $15 million investment will yield billions of dollars in funds, much of it from the taxpayers of the state of Missouri.

Whatever your position on when life begins; whatever your personal medical situation, this is just bad law. It gives constitutional protection to a procedure that has no proven medical value. It guarantees state funding and it makes it impossible for the legislature to regulate their activities. There is no other practice that enjoys this protection in this state, or in any other. I urge you to reconsider your position, for your sake and for the sake of thousands of innocent women who will be put at risk by ovarian hyperstimulation.