UDM professors debate embryonic stem-cell research

Six UDM professors discussed and debated the merits, science and ethics of embryonic stem-cell research in an honors program symposium Feb. 17.
The panelists included Dr. Michael Witkowski, Professor Kathryn Gross, Dr. Prasad Venugopala, Dr. Greg Grabowski, Professor David Nantias and Dr. Martin Leever.
In November 2008, Michigan voters approved Proposition 2, clearing the way for controversial embryonic stem-cell research. Proponents argued that the research could lead to cures for such diseases as Parkinson's. Opponents objected to the use of aborted fetuses and fertilized eggs and worried that the proposal could open the door to cloning.
Dr. Michael Witkowski, a sociology and criminal justice professor, began the discussion with a heartfelt story of his treatment for cancer. In May 2004, he was diagnosed with level-three colon cancer and was treated for it in Ann Arbor.
When going for treatment, he met infants and young children who were also diagnosed with cancer. Afterwards, he became aware of the subject of embryonic stem-cell research.
"If stem-cell research or any method of life extension could be made available to these youngsters to cure them, I thought, then we must do it," Witkowski said.
Although Dr. Prasad Venugopala, from the physics department, agreed with Witkowski, he offered a very different point of view.
Instead of looking at the moral or ethical issue of embryonic stem-cell research, people should be concerned with the science, he said. According to Venugopala, the opposing sides differ on what and who should be in control of these embryos.
Venugopala focused on how private corporations are using science for money instead of using it to benefit society.
He also believes that human life - and life in general - is not unique.
Venugopala said humans were created out of mud and, therefore, are no different than it. If humans are mud, "then there is no problem working on embryos as there is no problem working on mud," he said.
The roar of laughter from not only the audience but also the other panelists temporarily lightened the mood. But soon the discussion turned back to the serious debate amongst friendly co-workers.
The final supporter of embryonic stem-cell research was Professor David Nantais of the religious studies program. Nantais was upset with how the media portrayed this issue. He said the media did not give all the facts.
"The public only hears a few pebbles from the mountain of facts on each side," Nantais said.
Those opposing embryonic stem-cell research, according to Nantais, create "polarized discussions." They focus too much on the "pro-life point of view," forcing an ethical debate instead one about scientific benefits, he said.
Nantais saw fault with both sides: those against the research who mask the science behind it, and supporters who offer "trumped up promises" of the potential benefits.
Nantais proposed that instead of allowing already frozen embryos to be discarded, scientists should use them to help find cures or treatments for diseases.
"Science often involves a slow methodical process that cannot meet imposed deadlines for cures," he said.
In opposition to the previous statements, Dr. Kathryn Gross of the education department asked why tax dollars are invested into research that she said has not proven successful or shown potential for success.
Gross said that people should not focus attention on embryonic stem-cell research but instead on adult stem-cell research. She said that through adult stem-cell research scientists have found cures and treatments for 73 diseases.
"Human life is extremely valuable," more valuable than money, Gross said. Embryonic stem-cell research is "killing to line the pockets of lobbyists, drug companies and researchers," she said.
Dr. Greg Grabowski of the biology department described himself as a practicing Catholic and proud scientist. He agreed with Gross on promoting adult stem-cell research for several reasons.
Although his personal beliefs come from religion, they have been "developed and evolved from a scientific basis," he said. Not only is adult stem-cell research more acceptable to religious beliefs, it is also safer and more effective than embryonic stem-cell research, he added.
The adult stem cells have already matured and are more developed than cells extracted from embryos, he said. The embryonic stem cells can potentially become any type of cell in the body but can only work if "the correct genes are activated, in the correct sequence and for the proper amount of time," Grabowski said.
If the treatment using the embryonic stem cells fails, then it will damage the tissue even further, he said. According to Grabowski, it is more logical to begin research with animals not human beings.
Beyond the scientific reasons, Dr. Martin Leever of the philosophy department discussed the philosophical reasons why embryonic stem-cell research is, in his view, not only unethical but also illogical.
Leever referred to Aristotle's idea that every person moves from potentiality to actuality "as an embryo develops into an adult."
A substance does not change its components even though it grows or changes shape, he said. Although an "embryo turns into a fetus then an infant," it is still the "same kind of being," said Leever.
Leever also cited St. Thomas Aquinas's idea of "Natural Law." He said that since every human being is created in God's likeness and "that there are strict basic goods, such as life, which must never be deliberately violated," no human has the right to take another's life for any reason.
Although the symposium ended, the debate will obviously continue. Those on both sides of the issue will be examining the aftermath of Proposition 2 for years to come.