The Vatican on Your Side

The embryonic stem cell research is as contentious as debates get.
And for good reasons.

For people who argue that life begins at conception, there is nothing to persuade their thought process otherwise. And why should it?  The same is true for ardent proponents of the flip-side.

So when the Vatican [Catholic Church], an entity that opposes embryonic stem cell research, decides to pump $1 million into biopharmaceutical company NeoStem, [a New York adult stem cell firm], this probably ought to raise more eyebrows than it already had. Perhaps [and this is my overly optimistic outlook on life] the contentious debate is on the cusp of finding a quasi-middle ground instead of the entrenched ideological and  philosophical biases we all bring to the table on this subject.

Father Tomasz Trafny, the head of the Vatican's science and theology may [or may not] represent a cross section of anti-stem cell research who despite their staunch ethical beliefs, are still conscientious of the benefits of such research assuming it is undertaken without “killing” innocent lives. The quagmire around the world has rested on the definition of “life”, and I don’t foresee that changing anytime soon. This proposition for adult stem cells inadvertently designed to appease both sides of the aisle may be somewhat tricky. Why? I can bet that opponents will remind you that any endorsement will likely open the door of further encroachment on embryos.

For years, the argument has hovered around the identity of the single-celled zygote formed at the moment of conception, and the extent to which a society is willing to push the envelope in the interest of saving “other” lives. A prime example: US politicians spend eternity pulling punches over whose ideology should hold serve, and every four years, becomes just another campaign talking point.

There are countless examples of restoring sights to blind people, and restoring spinal cord function [among others] by insertion of human embryonic stem cells. Then there are the potential applications in treating heart disease, brain damage, deafness, diabetes, leukemia, and an obvious long list. No one denies those groundbreaking researches. What people have a may have a hard time dealing with is the notion that the only solution to the success stories above is through embryos [whether at conception or near birth].Thus far, the argument boil down to a “life swap”, - save a life at conception or save a life already roaming the planet,- take your pick.

That is probably the reason why the NeoStem approach derived from adult human cells rather than human embryos might change the dynamic of the conversation into a less contentious one. Keyword here is “might.”

Stem cell research cuts across medical, religious, ethical, economic and political lines, but maybe the latest Vatican move eliminates both the seemingly simplistic and deeply ideological stance, into honest conversations on where to draw the line. Or should there be a line?