Embryonic Stem Cell Regulations

Last Friday, the National Institutes of Health issued new regulations governing embryonic stem cell research. They are better than many expected and the anticipated outcry from Catholic circles has not materialized.

In fact, most of the criticism of the guidelines is coming from the research community. "I am really, really startled. This seems to be a political calculus when what we want in this country is a scientific research calculus," Susan Solomon, chief executive of the Stem Cell Foundation told the Washington Post. This is as succinct a statement of the new creed of scientism as you can find. Scientism, unlike science, seeks to answer philosophic questions that are not answerable by scientific methods: There is no repeatable lab experiment that will yield a moral judgment. Scientism either denies the questions exist, or asserts a base utilitarianism or, still worse, holds to a biological reductionism that is as dogmatic and illiberal as Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. In his new book "The Future of Liberalism" Alan Wolfe shows why liberals, as well as Catholics, should be wary of scientism.


Cardinal Rigali issued a statement in his capacity as head of the USCCB Pro-Life Committee and it was balanced. He correctly noted that the new guidelines use federal money to destroy embryonic life for the first time and that the Catholic Church opposes this vehemently. Rigali also praised the limits set by the regulations: "

It is noteworthy that, despite calls for an even broader policy by some in Congress and the research community, the draft guidelines do not allow federally funded stem cell research using embryos specially created for research purposes by in vitro fertilization or cloning." The Cardinal called on Catholics to lobby Congress to defeat efforts to overturn this limiting regulation. He might also have noted that the consent clause in the new regulations is actually stricter than that in the Bush policy.

Robby George, the Princeton University Professor who can often be seen carrying water for the Republican Party, admitted that he was surprised by the limits contained within the regulations, specifically those that prevent the use of cloned embryos. He warned that the NIH can reverse itself on the limits imposed at anytime, and called for vigilance. Still, he allowed that the results were partly the work of Obama’s pro-life supporters lobbying the administration. Professor George is scheduled to debate the issue with Pepperdine law professor Doug Kmiec at an event sponsored by the Catholic University Law School on May 28.

So, what is the bottom line? The Church, if not all of her members, believes that embryonic stem cell research is wrong. This is a decidedly minority view, and no one should be surprised when politicians follow the majority view. After all, funding for embryonic stem cell research was not on the ballot last year: John McCain was pledged to the same policy. But, on the all-important issue of setting guidelines for the research, it appears that the ethicists have so far trumped the more extreme claims of scientism. We should remain vigilant as Cardinal Rigali instructs and we must continue to educate the culture about why we believe human life, even when it comes in the form of a few cells, is sacrosanct and inviolable. A human embryo is not an acorn. It will not grow up to be an oak tree. It is as human as you or me, just very small and very vulnerable.


Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
9 years 5 months ago
Your use of the diminutive to describe Doctor Robert George is insulting. Also, it is time to get a new line. Everyone who disagrees with you is seen as "carrying water for the Republican Party." Doctor George carries water for Christ and His Church. If it so happens that the Republican Party is more often in agreement with the policies of Christ and His Church than the Democratic Party; so be it. Face it, your party is the abortion party.
9 years 5 months ago
The Obama/Biden campaign platform stated that only embryos left over from IVF that would otherwise be discarded would be permitted to be used for ESCR with permission of the parents. If scientists are surprised that embyros are being treated like the organ donations, it is only because they paid no attention during the campaign. If the Catholic Church is having problems with this, it should be looking at having the government regulate IVF so that it does not result in the production of excess embryos (and the implantation of unnatural numbers of embryos, for another matter). It should also be grateful that the souls that have been in suspended animation for so long will finally be moving on.
9 years 5 months ago
Dr. George, who worked with John DiIulio on an exploratory committee for Governor Casey's possible presidential campaign, can hardly be considered to do more to carry water for Republicans than you for Democrats. Each of you clearly thinks there's a party for which Catholics should generally vote but is willing to challenge that party's assumptions (although in my view, neither does so enough).


The latest from america

The tête-à-tête between Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi in Manhattan was like a documentary about a once-popular rock band. (Rod Morata/Michael Priest Photography)
Speaking in a deep blue stronghold, the Democratic leader of the House calls for “civility” and cautiously hopes that she will again wield the speaker’s gavel in January.
Brandon SanchezOctober 16, 2018
The lecture provoked no hostile reaction from the students who heard it. But a media firestorm erupted.
John J. ConleyOctober 16, 2018
Though the current synod appears to lack the sort of drama and high-stakes debates of the previous two, the role of conscience appears to be a common thread.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 16, 2018
When Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists on the Olympic podium, their act drew widespread criticism. Now Colin Kaepernick is the face of Nike.
Michael McKinleyOctober 16, 2018