HELIX, Opinion

A Cellular Conundrum: Stem Cells and Religion

Written by Annika C. Laude
Illustrated by Aki Banguis

Being asked what we want to be when we grow up somehow reminds me of embryonic stem cells. Much like a child dreaming and leading to become whatever they want, these cells transform into almost any cell type in the body as needed.1 Stem cells have long contributed to breakthroughs in disease repair and cruelty-free drug testing.2 Though, as promising as their contributions are, embryonic stem cells are grotesquely obtained by killing developing embryos. 

This has led to criticism from the Catholic Church, accusing scientists of “killing life,” given that the Church considers any stage of life valuable, even as early as zygotic conception.3 The controversy surrounding embryonic stem cells is not the first time religious beliefs have clashed with scientific reason; in fact, church officials have denounced many scientists merely because their findings did not correlate with the Church’s beliefs.

For instance, one of the most iconic examples between science and religion’s feud was between Galileo Galilei’s heliocentric findings and the Church’s geocentric claims. Because Galileo insisted that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the opposite, the Church labeled him a heretic and forbade him to teach and defend anything heliocentric.4 To most, this signals a sort of longstanding conservatism within the church, being reluctant to accept new discoveries, especially in exciting, ever-changing fields within science.3

Bible Says

The Church body in the Philippines says that research that uses adult stem cells or umbilical cord blood cells is deemed acceptable. However, much like the rest of the world, they claim that research using embryonic stem cells is deemed unacceptable as scientists are killing embryos to save lives. 

To hear it more clearly, Archbishop Socrates Villegas claims that even the earliest stages of life are considered “complete human beings,” and that cutting off further development is “morally repugnant.”5 This seems to be a recurring rationale within the Church, claiming that such a procedure goes against their beliefs of procreation and that there is a need to “respect life at all times.”6 

However, as strange as it seems, there are actually several passages in the Bible that contradict the learned notion that life and creation of the soul begin at conception.7 One such passage comes from Ecclesiastes 11:5: “The spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child;” it seems as if the Bible says that life begins upon osteogenesis or bone formation. Scientifically speaking, this happens during the sixth or seventh week of embryonic development,8 which begins much later than fertilization. 

Another contradictory passage comes from Genesis 2:7: “Then the Lord God […] breathed into [the first man’s] nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Babies first breathe within 10 seconds after delivery; post-conception.9 Despite having passages detailing that born and unborn children are equally worthy,10 the Bible states nothing about life beginning at conception.7 Merely relying on religious documents like the Bible would otherwise be insufficient in supporting justifiable claims, adding to the complexity of this issue. 

While it may seem tempting to argue that all religion and science are at odds, there have been some religions that do support embryonic stem cell research.

A Matter of Perspective

Particularly, Judaism and Islam have their own stances that differ from the Christian notion of “life at conception.” To  Jewish editor and Bioethics fellow Eric Cohen, life begins 40 days after conception, inviting us to “see the embryos as God sees [humanity]; in the eyes of God, we don’t seem like much.” To the Muslims, academics argue that the ensoulment begins between forty to one hundred-twenty days after conception, giving some leeway to embryonic stem cell research. 

In fact, not all Christians are the same. Two Christian panelists, Presbyterian minister John Davis and United Church of Christ minister Llewellyn Smith, echo the previous viewpoints. Smith additionally endorses blastocyst research in general, as long as it is not done for reproductive purposes such as in vitro fertilization.11 However, these blastocysts could be used as part of embryonic stem cell research, which some other religious bodies endorse.12 

From this, it could reasonably be deduced that communities care about how scientists would use the cells and how much of them they use. From Jewish denominations, the Presbyterian Church, to the Jewish, Hindu, and Islam faith, opinions regarding stem cell research and usage are not absolute—and they shouldn’t be.

The Promise of Stem Cells

Regardless, science doesn’t stop in the face of being unable to reconcile religion and science. Yu et al (2007) notably created induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells out of skin cells by injecting them with DNA-containing viruses which contain genes that reprogram cells to an embryonic state.13 This technique allowed for stem cell creation without embryo destruction, making stem cell harvest even less cumbersome. 

Despite its promising breakthrough, these cells could develop mutations from the virus and cause diseases like cancer, rendering them unprepared for medical use.14 It would not be until almost 16 years later, when Buckberry et al (2023) developed a transient-native treatment (TNT), a technique that resets the epigenome when creating iPS cells to make them closer to embryonic stem cells.15 

In fact, it was even found that TNT cells could differentiate better than standard reprogrammed cells, sparking hope that TNT will advance therapy research.16 If TNT-based stem cell therapy would dominate this field, then perhaps the Church would welcome it.

All in all, despite their opposite natures, religion, and science do not have to clash all the time; one should not reject both when analyzing phenomena and must remember that God reveals Himself in both fields. While science tackles the natural and concrete, religion tackles the spiritual and abstract; allowing one to dominate the other proves harmful. 

While it may seem tempting to use science to explain everything, it still has its limits.17 To add, one must acknowledge the existence of miracles—surprising deviations from natural laws. God works in mysterious ways, and His work can fill in what science has yet to explain. Religion, while seemingly strict, can guide scientists down a moral path to appropriate applications of inventions and discoveries, and science can teach us to appreciate God’s work through nature’s wonders.

To partake or not to partake in embryonic stem cell research? Whatever the answer, I feel that it is objectively beneficial. While human lives are said to be worthy, I still wonder if we have to continue killing those to save others. Thankfully, there have been newly created techniques that can address this issue and hopefully bring this stem cell debacle to an end.

The views and opinions of the writer do not necessarily reflect or state those of the publication’s nor the organization’s. 

References

  1. Brazier Y. 2018 Oct 19. Stem cells: Sources, types, and uses. Murrell D, editor. Medical News Today. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 21]. Available from: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323343
  2. Cafasso J. 2017 Jul 8. Stem cell research: Uses, types & examples. University of Illinois, editor. Healthline. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 21].  Available from: https://www.healthline.com/health/stem-cell-research
  3. Copland PS. 2004. The Roman Catholic Church and embryonic stem cells. Journal of Medical Ethics. 30(6):607–608. [Internet].  doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2002.002600
  4. Leveillee NP. 2011. Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: Science in a religious world. Inquiries Journal. 3(05). [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 21].  Available from: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1675/copernicus-galileo-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world
  5. Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2013 Oct 18. Church: Don’t use human embryos for stem cell cure. INQUIRER.net. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 22].  Available from: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/509411/church-dont-use-human-embryos-for-stem-cell-cure
  6. University of Notre Dame. 2019. Ethics. Center for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 22].  Available from: https://stemcell.nd.edu/ethics/
  7. Pope A. 2023 Jul 6. The Bible doesn’t say life begins at conception. Religion Unplugged. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 23].  Available from: https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/6/30/the-bible-doesnt-say-life-begins-at-conception
  8. Breeland G, Sinkler MA, Menezes RG. 2023 May 1. Embryology, Bone Ossification. PubMed. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 24].  Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539718
  9. MedlinePlus. 2016. Changes in the newborn at birth. MedlinePlus. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 22].  Available from: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002395.htm
  10. Vallance D. 2005 May. Stem cell research: A biblical perspective. Believer’s Magazine. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 23].  Available from: https://www.believersmagazine.com/bm.php?i=20050503
  11. Powell A. 2007 Mar 22. Stem cells, through a religious lens. Harvard Gazette. [Internet].  [cited 2023 Nov 24].  Available from: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/03/stem-cells-through-a-religious-lens/
  12. Liu J. 2008 Jul 17. Religious groups’ official positions on stem cell research. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 24].  Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2008/07/17/religious-groups-official-positions-on-stem-cell-research/
  13. Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K, Antosiewicz-Bourget J, Frane JL, Tian S, Nie J, Jonsdottir GA, Ruotti V, Stewart R, et al. 2007. Induced pluripotent stem cell lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells. Science. 318(5858):1917–1920. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 24]. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151526
  14. Vestal C. 2008 Jul 17. The Science behind Stem Cell Research. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 24].  Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2008/07/17/the-science-behind-stem-cell-research/
  15. Buckberry S, Liu X, Poppe D, Tan JP, Sun G, Chen J, Nguyen TV, de Mendoza A, Pflueger J, Frazer T, et al. 2023. Transient naive reprogramming corrects hiPS cells functionally and epigenetically. Nature. 620(7975):863–872. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06424-7. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 24].  Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06424-7
  16. Houser K. 2023 Aug 22. Breakthrough creates stem cells without any “memories.” Freethink.  [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 23].  Available from: https://www.freethink.com/science/ips-cells
  17. Boekestein W. 2021 Dec 17. Can science and faith be reconciled? Reformation 21.  [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 24].  Available from: https://www.reformation21.org/blog/can-science-and-faith-be-reconciled

Leave a comment