The Issue

Religious Roundtable IVF from jessica gerstle on Vimeo.

By Rob Stein
President Obama is planning to sign an executive order on Monday rolling back restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, according to sources close to the issue.
Read the Article from Washington Post

Coming Soon!

Coming Soon!

Coming Soon!

Coming Soon!

Since the era of Galileo there has been a perceived conflict between religion, politics and science. There is debate in the religious community because no single voice can claim to represent all of America’s religious faithful on the subject. The Accidental Advocate film does not pretend to have a solution, but seeks to inform without hype and propaganda. To understand the religious arguments regarding ethical and moral standards, we convened a roundtable: a Catholic priest, imam, Orthodox rabbi and Episcopal priest. A starting place for wider discussions about making the world a better place, our religious roundtable offers a lens into the differences and commonalties between religions.

Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Stem Cell Research

July 17, 2008  |  Go to original article at Pewforum.org

American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

The group has no explicit policy on the issue; rather it states that “one must be guided by one’s own relationship with God and Scripture.”

• David Maraniss, “Editorial: Everything is Relative.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 26, 2001.
• Correspondence with representative from the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

Buddhism

Though Buddhist teachings do not directly address the issue, there are two main tenets – the prohibition against harming or destroying others (ahimsa), and the pursuit of knowledge (prajña) and compassion (karua) – that divide Buddhist scholars and communities. Some Buddhists argue that stem cell research is in accordance with the Buddhist tenet of seeking knowledge and ending human suffering, while others argue that it is a violation of the notion of not harming others.

• ABC Science, “Buddhism at one with stem cell research”
• Damien Keown, “‘No Harm’ Applies to Stem Cell Embryos: One Buddhist’s View” (reprinted by Beliefnet.com)
• Somparn Promta, Philosophy Department and Center for Buddhist Studies, Chulalongkorn University, “Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A View from Theravada Buddhist Morality”

Catholicism

In accordance with their anti-abortion stance, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops supports adult stem cell research but opposes embryonic stem cell research since it creates or destroys human embryos.

• U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Catholic Support for Ethically Acceptable Stem Cell Research”

Episcopal Church

In 2004, the church’s governing body, the General Convention, declared itself in favor of stem cell research as long as the embryos used would have been destroyed otherwise, the embryos were not created solely for research purposes and the embryos were not bought or sold.

• The Archives of the Episcopal Church, The Acts of Convention 1976-2006, “Support Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research“

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

The ELCA does not have an official position on the issue. In 2005, the Churchwide Assembly, the governing body of the church, created a task force to study the issues of genetics and biotechnology and to present a report in 2011.

• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, “A Social Statement on Genetics”

Hinduism

Though Hinduism believes that life begins at conception, the religion has no official position on stem cell research.

• HinduismToday.com, October/November/Decemeber 2004, “On Stem Cell Research“
• The New York Times, “How India Reconciles Hindu Values and Biotech”

Islam

There is no explicit Islamic ruling on the issue of stem cell research. While some Muslim leaders allow for stem cell research on the ground that, according to Islam, an embryo in the early stage of pregnancy does not have a soul, others argue that the termination of an embryo at any stage of pregnancy is morally impermissible.

• Islam 101: “An Islamic Perspective on Stem Cells Research”
• The Christian Science Monitor, “Stem-Cell Science Stirs Debate in Muslim World, Too”

Judaism

All major Jewish denominations – including the Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and Reconstructionist movements – support both embryonic and adult stem cell research as long as it is for medical or therapeutic purposes.

• Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, “Stem Cell Research, Position of the Reform Jewish Movement”
• United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, “Stem Cell Research and Education (2003)”
• Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, “Resolution on Educational and Political Support for Stem Cell Research”
• Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Welcomes U.S. House Passage of Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (2005)

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

In 2005, the group reaffirmed its opposition to embryonic stem cell research, advocating instead for adult stem cell research.

• Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, “Christian Faith and Human Beginnings: Christian Care and Pre-implementation Human Life”

Mormonism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not issued a statement on the issue of stem cell research.

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Newsroom, Public Issues: “Embryonic Stem-cell Research”

National Association of Evangelicals

In 2005, the National Association of Evangelicals issued a statement voicing its opposition to stem cell research.

• National Association of Evangelicals, “Bioethics & Stem Cell Research”

National Council of Churches

After an evaluation in 2006 of the debate surrounding stem cell research, the National Council of Churches’ Human Biotechnologies Policy Development Committee adopted a position stating that “as a result of a lack of clear consensus [among ethicists, academia and scientists], the National Council of Churches neither endorses nor condemns experimentation on human embryos.”

• National Council of Churches, “Fearfully and Wonderfully Made: A Policy on Human Biotechnologies”

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

In 2004, the Presbyterian Church’s governing body, the General Assembly, reaffirmed its position in favor of stem cell research that is intended to “[restore health] to those suffering from serious illness.”

• Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), The Washington Office, “Next Steps: Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research”

Southern Baptist Convention

In 1999, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirmed its “opposition to the destruction of human embryos … [and] support for the development of alternative treatments which do not require human embryos to be killed.”

• Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution On Human Embryonic and Stem Cell Research”

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

In 2006, the association’s policymaking body, the General Assembly, stated its support for stem cell research as long as the research is for medical therapies and not the reproductive cloning of humans.

• Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Social Justice Statements, “Pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act”

United Church of Christ

In 2001, the United Church of Christ ruled in favor of research on embryonic stem cells that would otherwise be discarded from in vitro fertilization.

• United Church of Christ, Resolutions, “Support for Federally Funded Research on Embryonic Stem Cells”

United Methodist Church

In 2004, the United Methodist Church asserted its support for therapeutic cloning in which spare embryonic stem cells resulting from in vitro fertilization are used. The church also maintained its opposition to the use or creation of embryonic stem cells solely for the purpose of research.

• United Methodist Church, Archives, “Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research”

« Back to the report

January 3, 2009 | By by Carl Hulse for the New York Times

WASHINGTON — Thwarted by President Bush in their efforts to expand federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, Democrats are now debating whether to overturn federal restrictions through executive order or by legislation when they assume full control of the government this month.

Both President-elect Barack Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have made repealing Bush administration restrictions announced in 2001 a top priority. But they have yet to determine if Mr. Obama should quickly put his stamp on the issue by way of presidential directive, or if Congress should write a permanent policy into statute.

The debate is not academic. Democrats who oppose abortion say such a legislative fight holds the potential to get the year off to a difficult beginning, even though the outcome is certain given solid majorities in both the House and the Senate for expanded embryonic stem cell research.

read full article

By Andrew Plemmons Pratt | December 4th, 2008

A colony of undifferentiated embryonic stem cells.

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Rick Weiss outlines a framework for a new federal policy that supports funding human embryonic stem cell research over on the CAP website. He writes that within the first week of taking office, President Obama “should call upon the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to devise a plan for dismantling the current, overly restrictive Bush administration policy on the funding of human embryonic stem cell research.” continue

Barack Obama was elected on the slogan “Change you can believe in,” and one of his announced targets is the Bush policies on embryonic stem cell research. As a physician, a spinal cord injured patient, and a citizen concerned about the future of healthcare, I applaud Obama for embracing this issue. Embryonic stem cell research has been held in political purgatory for too long.

What kinds of change can we expect the new president to make? In the short term, Obama can immediately repeal President Bush’s executive order restricting federal funds for embryonic stem cell research to those stem cell lines derived from embryos left over at fertility clinics at the exact time of his edict (9 P.M. on August 9, 2001). But Congress will have to appropriate money and achieving adequate government funding in these perilous economic times will probably be a tough sell for two reasons. The return on this investment through therapies and cures cannot be guaranteed. And convincing  politicians and the public that funding this research is ethically sound will bring out the special interest groups that for decades have stymied any embryo related research.

When Bush effectively pushed the research into the private sector, he argued that he wasn’t against claimed to be against science, just concerned about “crossing any moral boundaries.” His comments were really about the elephant in the room:  the abortion debate masquerading as a discussion about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.

Presidents since Richard Nixon have had to deal with the far-reaching ramifications of Roe v. Wade (1973), especially the basic flashpoint: When does life begin? The justices categorically refused to answer the question until a time when scientists have a more complete understanding of human development. Although they rejected the idea of a legal or scientific conclusion, they noted that for some theologies and philosophies, the answer is more definitive. So opponents of abortion have relentlessly tried to enshrine the idea that life begins at conception and, therefore, an embryo should have all the rights bestowed on any human being.  As a result of their efforts, religious dogma, and pumped up fears about what “brave new world” results could stem from scientific advances, there are significant historical precedents for restricting federal funding for embryonic research going back to the limitations on  in vitro fertilization (IVF) in the late ‘70s that forced the research overseas.

Make no mistake. This has not been a strictly Republican versus Democratic argument. In late1994, President Clinton rejected the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel’s recommendation that federal funds be used for creating embryos to study different diseases and human development. Congress went even further, banning the use of federal funds for any experiment in which a human embryo is destroyed or physically harmed for research purposes. Known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment (1995), the ban passed as a rider attached to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. And Congress has actively renewed that ban each year since its inception.
Such was the state of affairs when, in 1998, using-by necessity-private funds, James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin successfully created the first human embryonic stem cell lines. After the publication of the historic research, NIH director Harold Varmus said he would draft guidelines regulating the use of embryonic cells. He testified at a Senate hearing that “This research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine.”  Again the Dickey-Wicker Amendment stood squarely in the way, . according to Harriet Rabb, the top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Once we questioned the ethics of mixing an egg and sperm in a petri dish to form an embryo and alleviate infertility. Today in vitro fertilization is readily accepted.  Still the mystique of the embryo remains and scientists remain unable to procure federal funding to work with microscopic balls of cells, invisible to the human eye, in order  to study different diseases and safely develop drug therapies . The power of embryonic stem cells to mitigate human suffering is yet to be unlocked?

There are no quick fixes to finding cures for 100 million Americans who suffer from devastating diseases -like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s Stroke, heart disease cancer, macular degeneration-the list goes on.

A repeal of that 2001 order is a welcome first step. The next important hurdle is educating the public and politicians. Clearing up misinformation and misconceptions -especially in the halls of Congress- is vital if science is to move forward. Real change, especially in healthcare, means teaching the people and their political representatives what embryonic stem cell research is about. Real change means revoking the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and articulating a meaningful policy to end the rhetoric that has demonized the issues involved in stem cell research.