Mapping the Stem Cell Contoversy

The University of Minnesota has an informative graphic, the World Stem Cell Map, that provides a graphic representation of worldwide policies with respect to the use of human embryonic stem cells. Also on this page are links to a series of other Global Maps of Human Technological Development.

The UnWASHed and the Unchurched

An update from The Barna Group (a religious polling organization) suggests that as many as 34% of American adults are "unchurched." Lest we get too excited, they point out that only 24% of these folks are atheist or agnostic, (but, hey, that's still more than 8% of the population, which is consistent with previous polls).

Even among those professing some degree of religioius belief, the majority apparently reject such disturbing notions as biblical literacy and an interventionist deity.

They are only half as likely to firmly believe that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches (25% agree with that notion); are less likely to possess a biblical view of God (only 46% see Him as the “perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the universe” who still rules His creation today); and are less likely to believe that the most important purpose of life is to “love God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul” (63% agree).

Barna also finds that:

Surprisingly, “downscale” individuals (i.e., no college degree, below average household income) also are much more likely than their “upscale” counterparts (i.e., college graduates with above-average household income levels) to stay away from local churches.

One has to wonder if there are ways to reach out to the Unchurched and the UnWASHed by offering more options to form Humanist communities, and by making Humanism more accessible to those lacking advanced degrees in science or philosophy.

The Culture of Life

Now that the U.S. Congress and our president have seen fit to circumvent the U.S. Constitution in order to exercise their will in private matter, a federal court prepares today to hear the latest appeal in the Terri Schiavo case (Federal Court to Hear Schiavo Case Today). One has to wonder why those most likely to believe that a better life awaits her are fighting so vigorously to prolong such a meaningless existence here on Earth.

While there may be legitimate controversy over Ms. Schiavo's supposed advance directive, and even if there were a modicum of hope that she might one day regain consciousness and some cognitive function, it is hard to imagine that this case warrants the attention of all three branches of our federal government. Perhaps Mr. Bush should be true to his ideals of vesting power in individuals to make personal decisions, and allow the appropriate courts - in this case, Florida's state courts - to intervene when necessary to resolve a family dispute.

On the Ash Heap of Science

The 19 March 2005 New York Times features the story "A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the Volcano," describing how some Imax Theaters have succumbed to pressure from proponents of "intelligent design" or creationism in refusing to show films with "evolutionary overtones."

People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.

Science museums - often the last refuge of rational thought in cities battling the forces of ignorance and zealotry - would do better to invite the controversy, even at the risk of losing funding. If such a fundamental principal of the biological sciences cannot be discussed in public, what difference if the museums close their doors?

Religious fanatics have exploited the public's ignorance of science for too long. Humanists and other thinking people must find ways to improve and strengthen science education, at all levels, if the U.S. is to maintain its leadership in science and technology.

Perhaps we should ask our pharmaceutical companies to put a disclaimer on each bottle of pills or vial of vaccine saying "warning: research, development and testing of this product was based on principals of evolutionary biology." Or create a directory of physicians who value prayer more than biological science. Or post a notice at each gas pump noting that "the fuel you are purchasing was discovered by exploiting our knowledge of the Earth's geology over its billions of years in existence."

Confusion on Stem Cells

Two letters in today's New York Times highlight the lack of clarity on certain issues in contemporary bioethics. In the first, David Bennett rightly takes Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to task for his attempt to enact legislation prohibiting so-called "therapeutic cloning." While the Governor supports the use of stem cells derived from existing human embryos (e.g. those discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics), he opposes the creation of embryos for research purpose, esepcially when the technology of somatic cell nuclear transfer ("therapauetic cloning") is used to do so. As noted by Mr. Bennett:

The word "cloning" has clouded this issue.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that the religious right has been permitted to conflate these three distinct, yet related, questions: 1) the use of human embryonic stem cells (i.e. the destruction of human embryos for research or therapeutic purposes), 2) the in vitro creation of an embryo using somatic cell nuclear transfer ("therapeutic cloning"), and 3) human reproductive cloning.

But, ignoring the inherent inconsistency in permitting the destruction of an embryo in one context but not in another, there remains one legitimate reason why a ban on the creation of cloned embryos might warrant greater protection. A cloned embryo, whether created for research or therapeutic purposes, is but a single step removed from the creation of a cloned human. That is, the implantation of a cloned embryo into a woman's uterus would result in the birth of a cloned human - with unclear consequences for its (the child's) developmental potential, health, and longevity.

Do such "slippery arguments" carry any weight? Probably, but only because we recognize that no prohibition of human reproductive cloning will ever be universally enforceable, and the birth of a human clone is virtually inevitable once the technology to create such an embryo is developed. Of course, that technology will be developed whether or not Mr. Romney permits it in Massachusetts.

The second letter writer, Christine Flowers, says:

Whether one believes that the embryo deserves all of the rights of full personhood or that it is simply the essence of humanity in its earliest form, we have an obligation to refrain from treating it as nothing more than an object of experimentation.

To be sure, human embryos are deserving of greater consideration than we might give inanimate objects; however, they are certainly not entitled to any more respect than we show the sentient beings we routinely utilize in research, and as food. The "special status" of human embryos would suggest only that they should not be used capriciously - nothing more, nothing less.

Welcome to WASH Perspectives

The Washington Area Secular Humanists is a non-profit, educational organization with seven chapters in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Our purpose is to promote scientific literacy and critical thinking, to provide a forum for Humanists and others to explore Humanist principles and how they relate to all aspects of human experience, and to study the significance of Humanism throughout history. Secular Humanists are distinguished by an emphasis on scientific methods of knowing, separation of church and state, and a commitment to the pursuit of Humanist goals outside religious frameworks.

This represents our first foray into the blogsphere. We hope our readers will find our perspectives on the issues of the day enlightening and challenging. We welcome your comments and feedback, and invite you to visit our web site at www.wash.org to learn more about our organization.