In May the Vatican announced that it was beginning a cooperative venture in adult stem cell (ASC) research with the international biotech firm NeoStem.  Although the Catholic Church has patronized the sciences for centuries, this is the first contractual foray into stem cell research with a for-profit secular corporation.  NeoStem (listed on the Amex) has pharmaceutical operations in the US and China.  The company is launching a development program in adult stem cell therapies in addition to building adult stem cell collection banks in the U.S. and China to allow people to harvest and store their own stem cells as a type of clinical insurance toward future medical need.  Its Chinese division, its website says, was established in order “to leverage the country’s progressive stem cell environment” (www.neostem.com).  NeoStem’s operations with the Vatican—specifically with the Pontifical Council for Culture (PCC)—will run through the corporation’s non-profit foundation “Stem for Life.”  The firm will bring to the relationship its considerable expertise in clinical ASC research; the PCC—extraordinarily—is bringing one million dollars and the “reach” of the Church’s influence.  The New York Daily News reported on May 25 that the money will come from two foundations, but the Vatican has not revealed their names [1].

This question is very insightful and well formulated. Although I believe that embryo adoption is in principle legitimate and even can be praiseworthy, the problem of unintended harmful consequences is very real.

This is the second part of a two-part series on the U.S. Bishops’ newdocument on reproductive technology, Life-Giving Love in an Age ofTechnology, issued on November 17(www.usccb.org/LifeGivingLove/lifegivinglovedocument.pdf ).  In thefirst essay I discussed the document’s ethical framework for analyzingparticular forms of reproductive assistance.  In this essay I reviewthe document’s ethical teaching on the following forms: using gametedonors, surrogate motherhood, homologous artificial insemination, invitro fertilization, and cloning.  Each consideration is brief.  Ifinterest is expressed, I’d be happy to develop one or another of thearguments in a future blast.

September 8, 2008 is the official date of a new doctrinal document prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and approved by Pope Benedict XVI on bioethical issues.  It is a sequel to the CDF’s February 1987 doctrinal Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origins and on the Dignity of Procreation (Latin title Donum vitae). Dignitas Personae (henceforth DP), formally released for publication on December 12, 2008, is of a doctrinal nature and falls within the category of documents that "participate in the ordinary Magisterium of the successor of Peter" (see Instruction Donum veritatis, no.18), and is to be received by Catholics "with the religious assent of their spirit" (DP, no. 37).

This helpful book could be called  “Catholic Bioethics for Everyone.” Dividing their material into an introduction and seven chapters subdivided into 57 questions, Smith and Kaczor offer a broad view of major life issues in easy-to-understand language. One of their major goals is to help fellow Catholics and others to understand the reasons behind Church teaching on crucial issues concerning human life; they also hope that their presentation of fundamental principles will guide readers in making their own choices on disputed questions on which the Church has not taken a firm stance (pp. xiii-xix).

The recent announcement of the first UK baby created with a new found product guaranteed to be free from breast cancer marks a new turn in human reproduction. While most of the attention has focused on the ability to provide a guarantee for the avoidance of a life-threatening illness, the question surrounding the therapeutic role of medicine has slid by the wayside.  

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/jk_0709.shtml (click here)

Fellow in Ethics Christian Brugger clarifies, in layman terms, what it is to be: To be who we are when we were an embryo.

A collage of headlines covering Monday’s breakthrough in stem cell research, published in the scientific journals, Science and Cell, attempt to state what, to many, is not so obvious.   What we have found are pluripotent stem cells, equal to, but not to be confused with pluripotent embryonic stem cells.