Well expressed.

My favorite line: Google Chrome said,  “Aw, snap.  The information you are looking for does not appear to exist.”  It then asked, “Did you mean ‘adult stem cell cures?’”  and offered 13,700,000 results.

Another great article!

Awesomeness.

Embryonic stem cells do indeed have the ability to develop into many kinds of human cell via uncontrollable mutation. You know what other type of cells have the ability to mutate and divide in the human body uncontrollably? Cancer cells. The injection of embryonic stem cells has been shown to cause cancerous tumors in at least one case, while leading to no succesful treatments.

Speaking of which, have you made any progress on donating your umbilical stem cells? I’d like to do that too once my baby is born, but I know we wouldn’t be able to afford just paying that money out of pocket.  Can you just make a “free” donation (if that makes sense)?

Laura, yes—we freely donated through Cardinal Glennon in St. Louis. Here is the information: http://www.cardinalglennon.com/Pages/Saint Louis Cord Blood Bank.aspx

They will help you sort out the details. It includes a fairly long medical survey, but that’s nothing, compared to the benefits we can provide to those in need.

Thanks for this. I get exhausted talking over embryonic stem cell research with people who refuse to believe it’s ineffective. Rather than looking at it as the Catholic Church undermining anything, I rather see the blatant fact that the Church is supporting an ethically sound, clinically proven way to improve the lives of sick people. I mean, if that undermines evil too, awesome. But mostly it’s just supporting good science.

@Laura
Both Duke and MD Anderson have programs that allow you to donate your baby’s umbilical cord blood.  I used Duke’s program and it was quite easy.  They screen you (over the phone) to make sure you qualify.  They send you a box that you take with you to the hospital.  Your doctor has to take a 15 minute online training course to make sure everything is done properly.  And that’s it.  After your baby is born and the umbilical cord blood boxed up you get your hospital or husband or someone to drop it off for overnight delivery via UPS or FedEx.

Ha, Simcha, love it!

Laura @ Show Me a Day - check out Cryobanks’ “Cord for Life” program: http://www.cordforlife.com/public-donation.html

They send you a collection kit free of charge, with postage paid for sending it back. (We’ve tried to donate our kids’ cord blood twice… both times it didn’t work, due to accidentally leaving the kit out in the car overnight in subzero temperatures [1st birth] and a birth 4 weeks early when we hadn’t yet received the kit [second birth].)

Thank you for this!  People get their pants in a bunch claiming the Catholic Church is so anti-science and anti-this and that.  I would argue they research things MUCH more than the average person.  Which is part of the reason (that the whole Authority given by Christ thing) I trust their judgement.  Because it’s always spot on.

Great post, Simcha!

Laura,

Yes, donating umbilical cord blood is free, banking it for yourself is expensive. If you are early enough in your pregnancy you can request a free donation kit. Google cord blood donation for your state.

The church has always been notoriously bad at being anti-science (notorious, though, only amongst those who have actually studied the history of science—those who prefer to regurgitate the lies taught to them by generations of public schooling and the mass media are, unfortunately, completely ignorant of the many contributions made by the church to the advancement of science and mathematics).

Mike McCants - I’d say it’s a huge failure when you look at the considerable breakthroughs achieved by adult stem cell research. Why aren’t we investing in stem cell research that actually HAS proven to be effective versus what has, so far, proven to be an utter failure (and has severe ethical consequences)?

‘You assert that you alone get to decide what is “evil”.’

As opposed to… you? By what authority do you get to decide what is evil? Why should scientists be impressed by your opinion?

“...Undermining evil?  It’s kind of . . . what we do.”

Perfect!

Ha, ha! Excellent, witty, and sound - as usual.

I think I may know Horace J. Schmiddlapp…

Ha, Horace…I used to yell at the radio when I had a radio.  Now I yell at the computer.

Many people don’t understand that the Roman Catholic Church has a completely different attitude toward science than the fundamentalist Protestant Churches. RCC education is very science-friendly.

However it might be a little early to write off embryonic cell research as already having been proven a failure. Wikipedia says the first bone marrow transplants were performed on humans in 1959, and they failed in four out of the five patients. So they’ve been working on adult stem cell research for more than fifty years. The first line of embryonic stem cells was created in 1998. Scientific research doesn’t necessarily result in successful therapy within the first decade or so.

Just got the great news that on the Feast of All Saint’s Day a good friend, Catholic dad of a big family, was declared ‘cancer-free’ after a treatment of ADULT stem cells!  Another success story that doesn’t get any air play….

Hey, thanks so much for all the info!
I’m excited to talk to my hubby about this.  I’ve always been too queasy (or pregnant!) to donate blood and this would be such an amazing, unique gift to give.

@ mike McCants >
“Undermining evil?  It’s kind of . . . what we do.”
You assert that you alone get to decide what is “evil”.
.
Evil is obvious when you know what is good.
If you can’t see that killing embryos/babies for scientific gain (or anything for that matter) is bad and evil then you need to seek out that which is good so that your eyes may be opened.

Silly Mike McCants, Simcha didn’t decide on her own that killing embryos is evil.  Do you first read the articles upon which you offer such profound opinions, or is this a Pavlovian thing you’ve got goin’ on?

Anywho, this is a great article, Simcha, and I’m excited to see the Vatican backing this kind of research.  I think this line of action is something we need to start doing:  advertising, funding directly, anything and everything that subverts evil and demonstrates the real, practical power of good.

So well said. I am a medical scientist and you are spot-on.

What fries me about the whole embryonic vs. adult stem cell thing in the US is that there is little funding for adult stem cell research in the US. Why? Because drug companies & government funding control medical grants in the US. Adult stem cell research promotes the government’s agenda and doesn’t result in patentable drugs; hence no funding. As a sufferer from a disease (MS) that would be helped by adult stem cells, this really fries me.

Also worth noting, of course, is that even if embryonic stem cells had resulted in many cures, it would still be objectively evil.

It looks like the GOAL of embryonic stem cell research supporters just want population control. They don’t care if it cures.  If it does NOT cure, the better it serves their purpose.

Fantastic news. Once again proof that Catholicism is not anti-science (a concept I have a had a hard time hammering into some anti-theists friends of mine), but merely says “Wait a minute, let’s think this over for a while first.”

Yikes, she’s using Google to validate her ideas? Can a (catholic) biologist interject? Adult stem cells, like those found in bone marrow and other sites, are multipotent, meaning they can only develop into a few select tissues. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning that the cells can develop into every tissue type you can name. That is the scientific advantage of embryonic over adult stem cells, and if you’re a biologist trying to engineer replacement tissues or organs, embryonic stem cells are going to be your first option.

Back in 2008 researchers successfully reprogrammed adult cells back to the embryonic, pluripotent state in mice. This seemed promising, but it’s now come to light that these cells, while similar to embryonic cells, are not exactly the same and may not have the same potential for disease. And published work in ‘reprogramming’ cells has only been done in mice, we don’t know how successful or possible it is for humans.

I hope for a point where we can sidestep the ethical issues of embryonic cells and ‘reprogramming’ is successful, but we’re still many years away from that. I hope the Vatican’s involvement in this company makes a breakthrough in this promising area of science. Until then, embryonic stem cells show the most promise, regardless of your personal views.

The author of this article has certainly succeeded in hitting all the points that please the staunchly Pro Life crowd, but she is all rhetoric and no substance. Instead of taking a news story and using her editorial position to enlighten her audience she’s succeeded in only inflaming them. What a shame, seems the NCRegister is more interested in page views than an informed dialogue.

Now, let’s all stay calm and objective. From a scientific point of view, I would tend to agree with James (you cannot say whether there might not be “usable” results of embryonic stem cell research in the future; science sometimes takes a long time).

But of course destroying embryos is evil, so embryonic stemm cell research simply is no option from a catholic point of view. For me that is the most important point. After that comes the bad side effect that embryonic stem cell research draws money/effort/good scientists/media coverage from ethically sound research.

Great article!  Loved the closing salvo: “The Church then yawned collectively at the superstitious myths promulgated by the scientific community and got back to work trying to save actual lives.”

“Embryonic cells are believed to have certain advantages over adult stem cells because they have the ability to develop into any kind of human cell.”—quoted above from the L.A. Times

As is typical of Catholics interpreting science, Schmiddlapp misrepresented a statement so that it would mean what he wanted it to mean.
The statement does mean that embryonic stem cells might have the ability to develop into any kind of human cell. The statement is saying that embryonic stem cells ARE able to develop into any human cell, more likely than adult stem cells, which are more limited in what cells they can become.  The science are facts, not morals, and certainly not Catholic.

Oh, so you noticed that I forgot to block you!  but as long as you’re still here . . .I dunno, the whole article seems suspect to me—I mean, since when is “Schmiddlapp” a Catholic name?  I smell a rat.

Simcha Fisher does a poor job of supporting her claims here - where are these stats coming from and where are her sources?  Also, she comes off as ignorant and ethnocentric in her use of the word “savages”.  This article is weak and abrasive.

Savages? Ethnocentric? Really? Get a life Fem.

Come on, The Jerk, be fair.  I believe F. EM was referring to my abrasive habit of providing links to sources, which, you have to admit, is extremely ethnocentric of me.  It’s also very pineapple, and I apologize for my gargantuan turpentine of sultry marinade.  (Oh, is it NOT “throwing random words around with no regard for their meaning” day?  My mistake!)

@James:  I like biologists, but I’m not crazy about their tendency to assume that everything that’s not a scholarly work is worthless.  I wasn’t using Google to validate my ideas, I was using Google as a punchline.  The intention of my article was to share a bit of good news while providing some comic relief to Catholics who hear nothing, day in and day out, besides how revoltingly backward we are.  That’s not inflammatory, that’s balm on an undeserved wound. 

.

If you, on the other hand, have any weight in the scientific community, I hope that, as a Catholic, you use your position to enlighten your peers about why the Church opposes embryonic stem cell research.  As several commenters pointed out, even if ESCR proved an instant and magical cure, the Church would still oppose it because it destroys human life.

No, no, it is “throwing random words around with no regard for their meaning” day. If I may:

Simcha, how to reply when your answer is stupid? Your decision to use English reeks of smelly ethnocentrism and rotten elderberries. Also, to emphasize my delightful contrast and impenetrable force against underwritten Catholicism, I’m going to write with vehement unspouted reality . . . REALITY!

I, among and as representative of the self-proclaimed kings of “Science 2”, righteously aiming our gun-wielding-butts at Catholicism, declare posthence that nothing is as voluptuously lachrymose as a Catholic standing face-to-elderberry-face with the rattatata facts.

Inebriatedly yours,
Heywood

I meant that the sources used weren’t very strong. Using .org or .com sites devoted to supporting the topic (bone marrow transplant and umbilical stem cells) is not strong. Schmiddlapp is quoted but not cited at all.

It is abrasive to use phrases such as “Geez, get out of the dark ages, people” or “President Barack “Kill ‘Em All and Let the Flying Spaghetti Monster Sort ‘Em Out” Obama”. Even worse are Fisher’s defensive and sarcastic responses to comments. 

Ethnocentric refers to one group of people believing their culture is superior to another. “Savage” is very offensive to indigenous groups and is ethnocentric language.

I am pro-life.  I DO NOT support embryonic research. However, articles like this hurt our cause. People, both for and against this research, are reading these articles.  Be sure that your words are strong and mature before representing those of us trying so desperately to end this sad reality.

Finally, SOMEONE’S been paying attention!

“Undermining evil?  It’s kind of . . . what we do.”

Woot!  Winner!  Love it, Simcha.  As usual, thanks for talking sense.

F. EM, my apologies for not citing the quotes from Schmiddlapp.  My quotations were from memory, but I looked him up and was delighted to see that he’s been very busy in the last few years, and now has an online presence.  For more info, see:  http://schmiddlapp4prez.blogspot.com/

.

I realize that it ends in .com, but it is a step up from his old website, which ended in .tuchus

Another medical scientist here. I’m impressed by your opinion, Simcha.

Hilarious, well-written, and enlightening.  Great job.  :)

@F.EM, I’ll have to bookmark your comment and send it to my kids when they complain that I have no sense of humor. Finally I’ve met someone more literal-minded than me… :-)

i love this blog.  great article :-)

I guess its not anti-science - I mean except ya know, like evolution, the age of the earth, creation myth, ya know, and like galileo…

@John Stack: Are you interested in hearing the Church’s actual position on those topics (and what really happened with Galileo), or are you just stopping by to make spitting noises?  I can give you some information, but if it will just disappear into the void, I don’t have time.  Please let me know.  Thanks.

Great article Simcha - sorry I’m late to the blog here, but it’s a great take on what the Church does best.

And yes, John Stack, if the Church is anti-science then perhaps you could provide evidence that Galileo could prove the Earth spun and went around the Sun. Surely you know these requirements for a heliocentric solar system were not proven until the arrival of Faucoult’s pendulum and discovery of stellar aberration/parallax ... some 100 years after Galileo’s death.

As for evolution, creation myths, and the age of the Earth (look up Blessed Nicholas Steno) swing by the Catholic Lab sometime. I’m doing a series on palaeontology and pre-history just now.

Funny. today there is an article about the canonization of Kateri Tekakwitha. Her miracle? A boy recovered from a terminal illness. They prayed to kateri - he got better. The medical establishment sees there was no medical reason - so…amazingly Kateri was prayed to! That must be it! if it can’t be explained currently scientifically, it MUST be a CATHOLIC MIRACLE and it MUST be Kateri! Can NOT possibly be anything else. The pope deems it so! Ever heard of ‘correlation but not causation’? Its the difference between inductive and deductive logic more or less. How about i say that some pagans were next door mixing up a brew and saying incantations - without the family’s knowledge - that caused the boy to survive? ts at least as plausible as the Kateri miracle!

Hi, John - I’m not entirely clear on what your point is.  Are you saying that you have no idea what caused the kid to recover, but you know for sure that it wasn’t a saint, because nyah nyah nyah? 

.

When Catholics canonize a saint, we are making a statement about the state of someone’s soul.  We’re essentially having a party to celebrate the joy in heaven.  Okay, so like all the cool kids these days, you don’t believe in souls or heaven.  But what would motivate you to crash our party?  Why would you care what we think about something you don’t believe in?  I just don’t get it.

Oh, I didn’t even notice that you’re the same guy who did a drive-by sneering about Galileo, etc.  You must have missed my question the first time around, so I’ll repeat it:  Are you interested in hearing the Church’s actual position on those topics (and what really happened with Galileo), or are you just stopping by to make spitting noises?  I can give you some information, but if it will just disappear into the void, I don’t have time.  Please let me know.  Thanks.

.

I’m still quite busy, but again, if you are interested in hearing some actual information, I’d be happy to supply it.

@John: would you please just be quiet. With every keystroke you are revealing your utter ignorance of what the Church actually teaches.

Simcha, really? to become a saint, there needs to be a verifiable MIRACLE. Kid was sick. People prayed to Kateri. Kid got better. Kateri gets pass to sainthood. If there is anything just in the scientific process that could ever possibly back that one up, I’ve got to hear it. Its the same answer about ID. People are WAYYYY too complex for evolution, it must be something magical ...oh here we have something magical! Jesus Christ and the Christians! We can’t explain it any way to anyone’s true satisfaction, it MUST be the Christian God!!

Oh Carl - with every keystroke you show an utter contempt for logic and anything scientific or anthing that isn’t Catholic ideology. Good job. No wonder your head is stuck so far in the sand. Why don’t you go out onight and do some drive by death by stonig of unmarried women who have had sex…

Actually, Catholic theology is dependent on logic and reason. Faith and reason compliment one another. It is the atheist world view that is illogical and delusional.

Again, John, all you seem to be doing is propagating misinformation about the Church.  It is one thing to by misinformed, it is quite another to knowingly misrepresent.