In his view, the amendment was intended to disallow all federal funding for research that causes, brings about or involves the destruction of human embryos. However, subsequent loopholes were created to obscure that intention.
Asked about continued challenges to the amendment, which Congress must renew annually, the priest said that the amendment had been “in the crosshairs” of many entities and legislators who “see it as an obstacle to much easier funding.”
The court ruling is “certainly” going to prompt further attempts to block the amendment, he predicted.
“My sense is the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is certainly more in danger now than it ever has been,” he continued, recommending that pro-life advocates “really need to speak very clearly and loudly to our representatives and let them know we want to preserve Dickey-Wicker.
Fr. Berg said the amendment arguably reflects the views of a majority of Americans, referring to a 2009 poll which reported that most Americans do not want their taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos.
Furton addressed Collins’ claim that the ruling could do “serious damage” to embryonic stem cell research.
“There’s a lot of money at stake, hundreds of millions of dollars,” he told CNA. “There hasn’t been much momentum on ESCR, it’s been very slow going.
According to Furton, alternatives such as induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell research have attracted “all the research money” from the business community and are “making great strides.”
The ethicist said that ESCR therapy is “plagued” by inherent and unsolved problems like immune system incompatibility, uncontrollable cell growth and the creation of tumors.
“The adult stem cells are much easier to direct down a particular path,” he explained. “If you’re looking for cures for diseases, then adult stem cells are the way to go.”
He deemed claims about the potential use of embryonic stem cells to be “highly theoretical and speculative.”
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Asked about the description of embryo-derived stem cells as the “gold standard,” Furton said it was an “odd” expression but “understandable from a scientific standpoint” because other stem cells are compared to the embryonic cells to see if they have the same properties.
“If your gold standard is the human embryo, then it is the so-called gold standard. But it is funny that you have a gold standard that doesn’t seem to work very well.”
The Westchester Institute’s Fr. Berg addressed the ethical objections to ESCR funding, saying the practice is “complicity in the destruction of individual, embryonic human persons.”
Asked about objections to the claim that the embryo is a person, he replied:
“You were once an embryo. That’s a simple matter of scientific and biological facts … In a way, we cannot become something that we aren’t already. An acorn is not going to grow up to be a birch tree, it can only become an oak tree.
“The human embryo is already a human being. It is already a human person at an early stage of development. The arbitrary isolation of that embryonic stage has no logical footing to stand on,” he continued, opposing the claim that embryos aren’t persons but “somehow” become persons at some other time.