Why Senator Hatch is Wrong on Stem Cells and Human Life
By C. Ward Kischer

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: Mr. Kischer, Ph.D., is emeritus professor of
human embryology at University of Arizona College of Medicine. This
article appeared in Human Events, in the July 16th issue.]

On the June 28 edition of "Fox News Sunday," in a discussion of stem cell
research, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), referring to a "spare embryo"
obtained from in-vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, said: "It's not a
human life until implanted in the uterus." "Spare embryos" are either
frozen or manipulated in a petri dish. From the scientific evidence Hatch
is wrong. A fish out of water is still a fish.

Hatch is not the only politician unschooled in the science of human
embryology. At a congressional hearing in December 1998, Sen. Tom Harkin
(D.-Iowa) read from a law banning human embryo research: "Embryos are
organisms derived from human diploid cells." "I don't even know what that
is," he said.

It is one thing to admit to one's own ignorance, but quite another for one
to say he has studied a problem in human embryology for two years (as
Hatch has claimed) and still make a patently false statement. The lack of
understanding of human development also has extended to a prominent news
host. Bill O'Reilly of Fox News said on July 3, 2000: "No one knows when
human life begins." He repeated this on March 22, 2001, and, again, the
next day, referred to the fetus as "potential human life." He did not
distinguish between biological life and any other kind of life.

Then on June 26, 2001, in a discussion on stem cell research with the Rev.
Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life, O'Reilly posed the question:
"[I]s an embryo in a [petri] dish a human life"_ Fr. Pavone sought to
invoke science. O'Reilly interrupted and said: "I'm not going to ask a
scientist anything." Such refraction reduces everything to fiat.

The original and gravest canard of modern times was used by Justice Harry
Blackmun, who declared in Roe v. Wade that the beginning of life could not
be determined. Blackmun never mentioned biological life, but invoked
medical, philosophical and theological life.

From Blackmun's deception to Sen. Hatch's declaration, the science of
human embryology is being systematically rewritten according to political
correctness.

Sen. Hatch's contention about when human life begins simply is not based
on scientifically established fact. Those who write laws should be obliged
to secure the relevant facts concerning those laws.

Yet, members of Congress are not the only people in government ignoring or
distorting the basic facts of human embryology. On Dec. 2, 1998, Harold
Varmus, who was then director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
issued a statement that he considered to be support for using the cells of
an early embryo for stem cell research (the same position held by Sen.
Hatch). Varmus declared: "Cells from the very earliest embryo (up to about
the 16 cell stage) are totipotent stem cells" (able to form a whole
organism). "The next stage (sic) . . . called a blastocyst . . . has cells
called the inner cell mass. They are not totipotent . . . but pluripotent"
(these cells will not form a whole organism, but may form tissues or
organs). Later, he states: "human pluripotent stem cells are not embryos
and are, therefore, not covered by the ban on federal funding" for human
embryo research.

This tortuous and convoluted statement contains a multitude of errors and
is word-parsing at its finest. Whether or not the cells are totipotent or
pluripotent, the "spare" embryo is a stage of a whole human being.
Removing cells from the inner cell mass destroys that human being.
Varmus's conclusion essentially arose out of the deliberations,
conclusions and recommendations of the federal government's National
Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), a highly flawed and partisan group,
whose term has now expired.

"Spare embryos," leftovers from IVF procedures, are usually stored in the
early cleavage (division) stages. Some may be stored just prior to the
blastocyst stage. But some political pundits mistakenly call these stages
"blastocysts" and "pluripotent." To date, the evidence tentatively
supports the conclusion that the cells of these "spare embryos" are
"totipotent." In the in-vivo state (in the mother's womb) they appear to
remain "totipotent" well beyond this stage. In the womb, some late
blastocysts are known to divide and form identical twins. The supposition
that they may be "pluripotent" (again, capable of forming only certain
types of tissue, not an entire human being) comes from studies on mice.
But, the evidence is not there, as yet, for humans.

Why are Hatch, Blackmun, Varmus and O'Reilly (and so many others) wrong_

Science is the search for, and the discovery of, the truth. The truth of
human embryology has not been hidden. It has been there all along. The
science of the appearance of the new individual human life begins with the
preparation for fertilization and ends in death (not just birth). Form
changes, but the continuum of life remains. That is because the principles
involved in development are manifest throughout all of life, as
exemplified, for example, in the issue of stem cell research. Virtually
every adult tissue has its stem cells. They are there for the purpose of
renewal of lost cells and tissues and in reconstruction of injured or
damaged tissues or organs. The efficiency of replacement or repair varies
from tissue to tissue.

The life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization
(conception). It is significant to state that every human embryologist,
world wide, knows this (it is not a belief), and it is so stated in
virtually every textbook of human embryology. This was intuitively known
before the invention of the microscope, understood through deductive
reasoning since, and directly observed by IVF procedures several decades
ago.

It is important to understand that all of human development is a
continuum. Under conditions we have come to understand and embrace as
normal, all of human development from conception on is a fait accompli.

But, what about Sen. Hatch's claim that "an embryo in a petri dish is not
a human life"_ Well, does he mean to say it is human death_ Not hardly. It
is still a life process, but one that has been artificially suspended.
This does not alter the integrity of the life process unless the
manipulation is destructive.

The scientific consistency or quality of life is not short circuited by
fertilization in-vitro or development in a petri dish.

The political parsing and distorting of the scientific terms of human
embryology has not been limited to "totipotent" and "pluripotent" stem
cells. Another interesting example is the misuse of the term pregnancy.
Some claim a woman is not pregnant until implantationwhen the new human
life imbeds in her uterus. This misconception is then used to imply that
the human embryo, prior to implantation, is "fair game" for chemical
poisoning (abortifacients), and, in the case for experimentation in stem
cell research, dismemberment. But the opening sentence of Carlson's basic
and universally respected text on human embryology states: "Human
pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm."

The reason this is true is that human development proceeds up to five or
six days within the fallopian tube and uterus before implantation. The
concern of human embryology is the new individual human being, whether it
be in the fallopian tube, uterus or in a petri dish!

What kind of laws should be written concerning issues involving human
embryology_ First, and foremost, they must embrace and recognize this
scientific fact: Conception initiates a new individual human being and the
continuum of life.

Justice Blackmun ignored this indisputable biological truth and applied
so-called "medical, philosophical and religious" considerations to his
judicial reasoning, claiming, falsely, that the biological truth could not
be determined.

The Supreme Court again abrogated the scientific facts in its Webster
decision (majority opinion also written by Blackmun), which affirmed
Blackmun's declaration in Roe. In Webster, an amicus curiae brief signed
by 167 "scientists" and Nobel laureates supported that affirmation.
Amazingly, not a single one of the 167 was a human embryologist!

The court's ongoing corruption of human embryology was most lately found
in the Stenberg v. Carhart decision (on partial-birth abortion) in which
several of the opinions refer to the fetus as "potential human life."

Since Roe v. Wade, the basic scientific facts of human embryology have
become an anathema to politicians who seek to perpetuate abortion on
demand, or provide legal cover for some new assault on human life in its
earliest and most vulnerable stages of development.

Not one human embryologist was a member of the NBAC or of the NIH Human
Embryo Research Panel that was created by Varmus to advise the government
on the ethics of medical research involving embryos. Additionally, in
1999, a group of 73 "scientists" were solicited by NIH for their support
of stem cell research. But not a single one was a human embryologist.

Clausewitz once said: "War is too important to be left to the generals."
It appears that human embryology is too important to be left to the human
embryologists.