[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: 'Pre-zygote' error by Condic; anti-life appointments mount for BHO

[PFLI PharmAid Center]

*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 26 Nov 2008AD

*
(please pass on)
 

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_134maureencondic1.html

 

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

Copyright November 18, 2008

 

This article is copyrighted and thus must be acknowledged when using its 
original ideas and resources or quoting from it. 

 

[*Note:*  The scientific facts of human embryology presented in this 
article by Dr. Dianne Irving, and specifically when during the process 
of fertilization a new human embryo begins to exist, are accurate and in 
accord with the /Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development/.  
-- C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology and 
Anatomy, specialty in Human Embryology, University of Arizona, College 
of Medicine.]

 

 

*Condic's 'Pre-Zygote' Error in 'When Does Human Life Begin?'*

* *

"A small error in the beginning leads to a multitude of errors in the end"

(Aristotle, /De Coelo/)

* *

*I. Introduction*

 

As noted centuries ago by Aristotle, the Father of Biology, a small 
error in the beginning leads to a multitude of errors in the end.  A 
similar caution is rightly made today by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in his 
"Foreword" to Maureen Condic's recent White Paper, "When Does Human Life 
Begin?  A Scientific Perspective":

 

" An honest debate about abortion, however, is about values based on 
facts. If we don't

get the facts right, we will not get our values right. Establishing by 
clear scientific evidence the moment at which a human life begins is not 
the end of the abortion debate. On the contrary, that is the point from 
which the debate begins. ... It is a scientific examination of facts 
which, when clearly understood, provide the subject matter upon which 
other forms of reasonable reflection---medical, moral, legal, political, 
and theological -- can then be brought to bear. ("Foreword", in Maureen 
Condic, When Does Human Life Begin?  A Scientific Perspective", The 
Westchester Institute, pp. v, vi; available at 
 http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf)

 

Indeed, if we don't get the scientific facts right about when a human 
being begins to exist, then the very "starting point" for determining 
our values will be corrupted and invalid.  It would also preclude a 
person from correctly forming his/her conscience on these related 
issues.  As well, deliberations and conclusions on the medical, moral, 
legal, political and theological levels will be corrupted and invalid.  
In particular, when erroneous scientific facts are incorporated into 
laws and regulations, they create legal loopholes for others to use to 
"scientifically" justify essentially unethical actions.  Legally, only 
what is specifically and formally defined in a particular law or 
regulation is covered; anything not specifically included in the legal 
definition would still be allowed.  And needless to say, such legal (and 
scientific) chicanery has reached epidemic proportions today.  A great 
deal hinges on the accuracy of those scientific facts.

 

More specifically, the use of inaccurate scientific facts of when a 
human being begins to exist would thus "scientifically" justify  the 
unethical use of living human embryos -- whether reproduced sexually or 
asexually, whether /in vivo/ or /in vitro/ -- as unfettered biological 
"material" for human embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, IVF 
and other ART laboratory and clinical practices, all manner of human 
genetic engineering (including OAR, ANT, and iPS research), as well as 
the early destruction of these human embryos by the use of 
abortifacients, the production of vaccines, the testing of chemicals and 
biological products, etc.

 

Unfortunately, such unethical practices may be inadvertently advanced as 
the result of Dr. Condic's White Paper, unless critical scientific 
corrections are made -- especially if such errors find their way into 
laws and regulations.  The following comments are made with the greatest 
respect for Dr. Condic's work and that of the Westchester Institute, and 
are offered as helpful suggestions only.  However, given the high 
stakes, not to comment would be remise.

 

But before addressing these concerns in more detail, it is suggested 
that one turn to the long-established objective scientific facts of 
human embryology as documented in Stage One of the /Carnegie Stages of 
Early Human Embryonic Development/, international standards that Dr. 
Condic never mentions in her White Paper.  Often referred to as "the 
Bureau of Standards" of human embryology (O'Rahilly and Muller, p. ix), 
these are the standards that would be best to use as the determinative 
criteria for identifying when a human being begins to exist, not simply 
the "cell activity" standard that Dr. Condic employs.  As we will see, 
"cell activity" is a necessary but not a sufficient standard to use. 

 

 

*II. /Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic/*/ /*/Development/**:     
Stage One*

 

*a. Brief History of Development of the /Carnegie Stages/*

 

For those unfamiliar with the field, human embryology is the scientific 
study of the material aspect of the developing human embryo and fetus 
with focus on the embryonic period, from the beginning of fertilization 
[or "when the matter is appropriately organized"] through 8 weeks 
(O'Rahilly and Muller 2001, p. 7). It has been systematically documented 
for sexually reproduced human beings in the /Carnegie Stages of Early 
Human Embryonic Development/ since 1942.

 

It is important to note, however, that human embryos can be reproduced 
both sexually (by fertilization - both natural and artificial, such as 
in IVF in vitro fertilization and other artificial reproductive 
technologies) and asexually (as in naturally occurring human monozygotic 
identical twinning /in vivo/ as well as in many different kinds of 
cloning and genetic engineering techniques /in vitro/). The immediate 
products of both human reproductive processes are new genetically unique 
individual living human beings, who immediately produce specifically 
/human/ proteins and enzymes, and continuously form specifically /human/ 
cells, tissues, and organs throughout development (Irving 1993b).  Once 
normal human embryos are reproduced (whether sexually or asexually), 
their biological development would continue as described in the 
/Carnegie Stages/, developed many years ago by pioneers in the study of 
human embryology.

 

The first to systematically study human embryos was Wilhelm His 
(/Anatomie Menschlicher Embryonen/ 1880-1885, 3 vols.), and the first to 
stage them was Franklin Mall in 1914. Later George Streeter (Streeter 
1942, p. 211; Streeter 1945, p. 27; Streeter 1948, p. 143) laid down the 
basis for the currently used Carnegie staging system, which was 
completed by Ronan O'Rahilly in 1973 and revised by O'Rahilly and Muller 
in 1987. The /Carnegie Stages/ are often referred to as "the Bureau of 
Standards" of human embryology (O'Rahilly and Muller 2001, p. 3). Today 
they continue to be verified and documented by the international 
/Terminologia Embryologica/ (formerly, /Nomina Embryologica/) committee, 
which consists of more than twenty experts academically credentialed 
specifically in human embryology from around the world. After reviewing 
the latest research studies in human embryology, their deliberations 
were published in the international /Nomina Embryologica/, part of the 
larger /Nomina Anatomica/ (now known as the /Terminologia Embryologica/, 
soon to be published as part of the larger /Terminologia Anatomica/).  
The /Carnegie Stages/ themselves can be accessed online (available from 
http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage1.pdf.

 

*b. Carnegie Stage One*

 

According to the /Carnegie Stages/, the embryonic period of the 
developing /human embryo/ is composed of twenty-three stages. Of special 
note is *Stage One* -- which, in sexual reproduction, begins when the 
sperm penetrates the oocyte and continues until just before the zygote 
starts its first cleavage cell division at syngamy (that is, when the 
pronuclear membranes surrounding the 23 paternally- and 23 
maternally-derived haploid chromosomes in the single-cell embryo mingle 
and line up on opposite sides of the mitotic spindle fibers that appear 
in the zygote just before cell division).  A great deal of human cloning 
and human genetic engineering takes place during Stage One of the 
developing human embryo, even /before/ its formation as the zygote at 
the end of fertilization (or sometimes slightly later while the cells of 
the very early human embryo are still totipotent).  It is Stage One that 
is particularly relevant to the scientific definitions and claims made 
in Dr. Condic's White Paper.

 

This White Paper brilliantly documents the functions and activities 
peculiar to the gametes and the new single-cell embryo during 
fertilization (pp. 3-5).  It also notes the fact that at the beginning 
of fertilization, when the sperm penetrates the oocyte, a new living 
genetically unique individual single-cell human individual and human 
organism begins to exist (pp. 5-7).  This conclusion is in accord with 
what the /Carnegie Stages/ have documented since 1946 (and has been 
known scientifically for almost 130 years, e.g., in the work of Wilhelm 
His). According to the /Carnegie Stages/, "the characteristic feature of 
the embryo in Stage One is unicellularity;  it is a single-celled 
organism."  As succinctly documented further by the /Carnegie Stages/:

 

Embryonic life commences with fertilization, and hence the beginning of 
that process may be taken as the point de depart of stage 1.  Despite 
the small size (ca. 0.1 mm) and weight (ca. 0.004 mg) of the organism at 
fertilization, the embryo is /"schon ein individual-spezifischer 
Mensch"/ (Blechschmidt, 1972).  ...  Fertilization is the procession of 
events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with an oocyte or 
its investments and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal 
chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote 
(Brackett /et al.,/ 1972).  (/Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic 
Development/, p. 9, available from 
 http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage1.pdf)

 

The White Paper also rightly notes that once the human embryo begins to 
exist, its further biological development is continuous.  All human 
embryologists would agree with this conclusion.  As Dr. Kischer 
explains, the biological development of a human being is a continuous 
process:  "[U]nder conditions we have come to describe and embrace as 
/normal/, all of development from first contact of the sperm and oocyte 
is a /fait accompli/" (Kischer 1993).  And as emphasized by Swiss human 
embryologists O'Rahilly and Muller, "Despite the various embryological 
milestones, however, development is a continuous rather than a saltatory 
process ...  " (O'Rahilly and Muller 2001, p. 8).  O'Rahilly and Muller 
even use a direct quote from one of the pioneers of human embryology to 
that effect as the dedication of their 2001 textbook: "It is to be 
remembered that at all stages the embryo is a living organism, that is, 
it is an on-going concern with adequate mechanisms for its maintenance 
as of that time (Streeter and Heuser 1951, p. 165)."

 

These are the long-known and long-acknowledged objective scientific 
facts of when sexually reproduced human embryos begin to exist which 
have been and remain as the international standards used today.  All 
human embryologists are professionally required to use them in their 
research and textbooks, and the /Carnegie Stages/ are explained and 
displayed in those textbooks  (e.g., see Kischer 1996 for a listing of 
human embryology textbook authors who consistently hold that, in sexual 
reproduction, human beings begin to exist at fertilization).

 

The problem arises when Dr. Condic refers to the new living human being 
formed at the /beginning/ of the process of fertilization as the 
"zygote".  The fact is that the zygote does not form until the /end /of 
the process of fertilization.  Before that, the developing embryo is 
referred to respectively as "the penetrated oocyte" and the "ootid".  
Quoting directly again from the /Carnegie Stages/:

 

Fertilization, which takes place normally in the ampulla of the uterine 
tube [[fallopian tube]], includes *(a)* contact of spermatozoa with the 
zona pellucida of an oocyte,

penetration of one or more spermatozoa through the zona pellucida and 
the ooplasm, swelling of the spermatozoal head and extrusion of the 
second polar body, *(b)* the formation of the male and female pronuclei, 
and *(c)* the beginning of the first mitotic division, or cleavage, of 
the zygote.  ... */The three phases (a, b, and c) referred to above will 
be included here under stage 1, /*/the characteristic feature of which 
is unicellularity/. (/Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic 
Development/, p. 9, available from 
 http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage1.pdf) (emphases 
added)

 

[See also:  /Carnegie Stages/ online from University of Fribourg, 
Switzerland, "Human Embryology," 1999;   also, Carlson 1999, pp. 24-37;  
Edwards et al. 1992, pp. 994-998;   Gasser 2003;  Irving 2008b and 
2006;  Kischer 1992, 1993, 1996 and 2003;  Kischer and Irving 1997;  
Larsen 1998, pp. 12-14;  Levron at al. 1995, pp. 653-657;  Michelmann et 
al. 1986, pp. 243-246;  Moore and Persaud 1998, pp. 34-37;  O'Rahilly 
and Muller 2001, pp. 3, 7, 31-33, 19-35, Table 8-1, p. 89;  Riley and 
Merrill 2005, p. 1;  Sathananthan et al. 1991, pp. 4806-4810]

 

Given what is at stake, it is critical to investigate the implications 
of the author's error in more detail.

 

 

*III. Condic's 'Pre-Zygote' Error *

 

For our purposes here, note that Stage One of the /Carnegie Stages/ 
includes the following as different phases of the development of the 
early human /embryo/ during the process of fertilization:  the 
penetrated oocyte, the ootid, and the zygote.  That is, Stage One of the 
/Carnegie Stages/ does /not /consist merely of the zygote alone.  Nor 
does the zygote form at the beginning of the process of fertilization 
(when the sperm penetrates the oocyte) as the White Paper claims, but 
rather at the /end/ of that process.   Dr. Condic in fact scientifically 
contradicts herself.  For example, in an effort to reject "syngamy" as 
the point in time when a new human being begins to exist, she counters 
that a human being begins to exist at the beginning of the process of 
fertilization, i.e., when the sperm penetrates or makes contact with the 
oocyte -- yet she refers to that embryo as the "zygote".  Which does she 
really mean?  It is difficult to tell.  A few examples of this inherent 
scientific contradiction are sufficient:

 

Modern science indicates that the beginning of life occurs sometime 
after the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell ... (p. 1)

 

The basic events of early development are both reasonably well 
characterized and entirely

uncontested. Following the binding of sperm and egg to each other, the 
membranes

of these two cells fuse, creating in this instant a single hybrid cell: 
the zygote

or one-cell embryo.  ...  The contents of what was previously the sperm,

including its nucleus, enter the cytoplasm of the newly formed zygote. 
Within minutes

of membrane fusion, the zygote initiates changes in its ionic 
composition that

will, over the next 30 minutes, result in chemical modifications of the 
zona pellucida,

an a-cellular structure surrounding the zygote.  ... Thus, the zygote 
acts immediately

and specifically to antagonize the function of the gametes from which it 
is derived;

while the "goal" of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to 
fuse, the first act

of the zygote is immediately to prevent any further binding of sperm to 
the cell surface.  (p. 3)

 

Based on this factual description of the events following sperm-egg 
binding, we can

confidently conclude that a new cell, the zygote, comes into existence 
at the "moment"

of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. (p. 5)

 

 From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a complete 
whole,

with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion 
to generate the

structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue 
developing towards

its mature state. Everything the sperm and egg do prior to their fusion 
is uniquely

ordered towards promoting the binding of these two cells. Everything the 
zygote does

from the point of sperm-egg fusion onward is uniquely ordered to prevent 
further

binding of sperm and to promote the preservation and development of the 
zygote

itself. (p. 7)

 

Zygote: a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly, the 
developing individual

produced from such a cell (p. 17)

 

B. Zygote formation: The zygote forms immediately upon sperm-egg fusion. 
(p. 17)

 

C. Early acts of the zygote: Within 30 minutes, meiosis II is complete, 
establishing the final diploid genome of the zygote. (p. 17)

 

In fact, the cover photograph of the White Paper "shows a light 
micrograph of a cryopreserved unicellular human zygote approaching syngamy".

 

Obviously, Dr. Condic can't have it both ways.  Either a human being 
begins to exist at the beginning of the process of fertilization, as 
long documented by the /Carnegie Stages/, or a human being begins to 
exist when the zygote is formed at the end of the process of 
fertilization.  If Dr. Condic means by the term "zygote" the embryo 
formed at the /end/ of the process of fertilization, then the developing 
human embryo formed /before/ the zygote (the penetrated oocyte and the 
ootid) would not be classified as a human being.  This would 
"scientifically" open the door to its use in all manner of unethical 
projects, as noted above (See Irving 2006, 2008a, and 2008b).

 

Dr. Condic further equates the process of fertilization with "conception":

 

Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human 
zygote, comes into

existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in 
less than a second.  ...  Thus, the scientific evidence supports the 
conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new 
human being commences at a scientifically well defined "moment of

/conception/." (Summary, p. ix)

 

Based on a scientific description of fertilization, fusion of sperm and 
egg in the

"moment of conception" generates a new human cell, the zygote, with 
composition

and behavior distinct from that of either gamete. (p. 7)

 

Human development is an ongoing process that begins with the zygote ...  
A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the 
onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined "moment of 
conception," a conclusion that unequivocally indicates

that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living 
individuals of

the human species---human beings. (p. 12)

 

As most people now realize, the term "conception" is not a scientific 
term and has been rejected by human embryologists (see O'Rahilly and 
Muller 1994: "The term conception, however, may refer either to 
fertilization or to implantation and hence (like gestation) is best 
avoided" (p. 19)).  Further, if the term "conception" refers to the 
process of fertilization only, then Condic's statements would not apply 
to all human embryos reproduced asexually (without the use of sperm or 
oocyte).  This would even include one of every two naturally occurring 
human monozygotic identical twins /in vivo/ (reproduced asexually within 
the woman's body), as well as all human embryos asexually reproduced /in 
vitro/ by means of cloning, genetic engineering, etc.  And if the term 
"conception" applies only when the embryo is inside the mother's "womb", 
then it would not cover the embryo moving through the fallopian tube, 
and thus would allow for the use of abortifacients.  Worse, the term 
"conception" is already defined legally in many state laws as meaning 
"implantation" (5-6 days post-fertilization) -- which would thus legally 
justify the unethical use or destruction of all human embryos before 
implantation (see Irving 2008a).

 

In effect, Dr. Condic has perhaps unwittingly fallen into the same error 
as her colleagues, whom she admonishes for creating a *"pre-zygote"* 
when they argue for "syngamy" as the beginning of a human being.  In 
criticizing "syngamy" as an "arbitrary definition for the beginning of 
life", Dr. Condic notes that:

 

Syngamy, the breakdown of nuclear membranes in preparation for cell 
division, is

commonly held to be the point at which the zygote is formed and life 
begins. This

definition does not deny that a new cell with unique composition and 
behavior is

formed at sperm-egg fusion (a "pre-zygote," perhaps), but it fails to 
specify the nature

of this cell. (p. 7)

 

And in response to Dr. Micheline Mathews-Roth's defense of "syngamy", 
Dr. Condic likewise interprets her as erroneously claiming that the cell 
that results from the fusion of sperm and egg is not a new individual 
but merely "a unique human cell in the process of becoming a new human, 
but not there yet" (p. 11).

 

If we are to take Condic her at her own words, she could be considered 
just as arbitrary in claiming that a human being begins with the 
formation of the zygote -- which doesn't really take place until the end 
of the process of fertilization.  Therefore, one must assume that she 
means that before the formation of the zygote there is only a 
"pre-zygote" present (i.e., referring to the penetrated oocyte and the 
ootid) -- i.e., "a human being is not there yet".

 

Dr. Condic also argues that "the essential problem with the view that 
life begins at syngamy is the notion that a cell can change from one 
type (a "pre-zygote" that exists following sperm-egg fusion but prior to 
syngamy) into another type (the zygote that exists after syngamy) 
without any actual change in the material state or behavioral trajectory 
of the cell. (p. 9)"

 

Precisely; but then the same argument would apply to her as well.  In 
reality, Dr. Condic's own "pre-zygote" does not change from one 
cell-type to another without any actual change in the material state or 
behavioral trajectory of the cell.  The penetrated oocyte, the ootid, 
and the zygote are simply names given /to the very same single-cell 
embryo/ as that embryo passes through the various phases of the process 
of fertilization.  There is no "body/body" split or "mind/body" split to 
be had in this process!

 

Perhaps, had Dr. Condic referred to the /Carnegie Stages/ as her 
"criteria" for determining when sexually reproduced human beings begin 
to exist, instead of relying only on "cell activity" criteria, she would 
have realized that to use the term "zygote" as marking the beginning of 
a human being would in effect create a "pre-zygote" for others to 
champion as "scientific evidence" to justify performing inherently 
unethical activities -- and for lawmakers to appropriate for creating 
dangerous legal loopholes in laws and regulations.

 

Finally, Dr. Condic's insistence that the "zygote" (as she defines it) 
marks the beginning of a human being is a bit reminiscent of the 
"pre-embryo" saga that has haunted both Catholic and non-Catholic 
leaders alike for almost 40 years now.  It is worth recounting here the 
strong rejection of the false "scientific" term "pre-embryo" in 
O'Rahilly and Muller's human embryology text book:

 

... The term 'pre-embryo' is not used here for the following reasons:  
(1)  it is ill-defined because it is said to end with the appearance of 
the primitive streak or to include neurulation;  (2)  it is inaccurate 
because purely embryonic cells can already be distinguished after a few 
days, as can also the embryonic (not pre-embryonic!) disc;  (3)  it is 
unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word embryo includes all 
of the first 8 weeks;  (4)  it is equivocal because it may convey the 
erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some 
considerable time after fertilization;  and (5)  it was introduced in 
1986 'largely for public policy reasons' (Biggers).  ...  Just as 
postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization." 
(O'Rahilly and Muller 2001, p. 88)

 

Not to push the analogy too much, but Dr. Condic's definition of the 
human "zygote" could also be considered to be ill-defined, inaccurate, 
unjustified, equivocal, and would convey the erroneous idea that a new 
human organism is formed only at the end of fertilization with the 
formation of the zygote, rather than at the beginning with the formation 
of the penetrated oocyte.  This would in effect deconstruct the 
/Carnegie Stages/.  Fortunately, the international nomenclature 
committee has also rejected the false scientific term "pre-embryo".  
Most probably they would reject its new relative the "pre-zygote" as 
well Irving 2004a).

 

 

*IV. Other Scientific Errors*

 

The study of and literature research in the field of human embryology 
can be daunting at best.  But accuracy, especially in scientific 
definitions, should be paramount, especially if they are marked for 
later use in legislation.  To that end, it is perhaps prudent to note a 
few more minor scientific errors contained in this White Paper:

 

-- The scientific footnotes used refer mostly to research studies using 
non-human species -- e.g., mouse, monkey, bovine, shark, phthon, turkey, 
and "mammalian".  Without access to the proper experts in the field, it 
is common to assume, e.g., that scientific data achieved by the use of 
non-human animal embryos will automatically translate into accurate 
/human/ embryonic data.  However, nothing could be further from the 
truth, and this propensity to equate non-human with human embryonic 
development is often a signal that one has not really mastered human 
embryology /per se/ itself.  As O'Rahilly and Muller caution constantly 
in their own textbooks:

 

Experimental results obtained from animal embryos such as those of the 
chick and the mouse provide valuable insight into developmental 
processes.  Great caution, however, needs to be exercised in applying 
the data of comparative and experimental embryology to the 
interpretation of human development. (O'Rahilly and Muller 2001, pp. 7, 
see also p. 10)

 

As an example, these same human embryologists note problems with the 
commonly used term "morula":  "The term is not ideal, because it was 
used originally for amphibians, in which it gives rise to embryonic 
tissues only and not, as in mammals, to both embryonic and non-embryonic 
(e.g., chorion, amnion) structures" (O'Rahilly and Muller 2001, pp. 
37-38).  In fact, it was the frog embryology of embryologist Clifford 
Grobstein that was used by Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick as the 
"scientific" basis for their now-infamous human "pre-embryo" (Kischer 
and Irving 1997).

 

The point is that sometimes there is a correlation between non-human and 
human embryonic development -- and sometimes there /is not/.  In fact, 
the problem is so prevalent that O'Rahilly and Muller construct a chart 
of "Examples of Discarded and Replaced Terms" in their text book to aid 
students in identifying scientifically unsound "data", including that 
derived from non-human sources (see p. 12).  Among those erroneous terms 
are included the terms "egg", "ovum", "morula", "tail", "yoke sac", and 
"pre-embryo".

 

-- The White Paper states that, /demethylation/ is required "for normal 
patterns of gene expression to occur when zygotic transcription begins 
approximately ten hours later, and it is, therefore, also part of a 
developmental sequence that is initiated by sperm-egg fusion and unique 
to the zygote." (p. 7).  In fact, such demethylation also occurs when 
germ line cells are formed in the early and late human blastocyst.

 

-- The term "genome" is mis-defined as "one haploid set of chromosomes 
with the genes they contain" (p. 14).  This definition would include 
only those chromosomes found in the nucleus of a cell, and omits those 
chromosomes found in the cell's cytoplasm (e.g., those chromosomes that 
constitute mitochondrial DNA which are outside the nucleus).  In fact, 
in human genetics, the human genome is defined as the total amount of 
DNA in a human cell -- both nuclear and extranuclear.  See, for example:

 

A genome consists of the entire set of chromosomes for any particular 
organism, (Lewin 2000, p. 4); In animal cells, DNA is found in both the 
nucleus and the mitochondria. (p. 10)  ... The human genome is the term 
used to describe the total genetic information (DNA content) in human 
cells.  It really comprises two genomes:  a complex nuclear genome ..., 
and a simple mitochondrial genome.   (Strachan and Read 1999, p. 139)

 

Nor does the "nuclear" membrane dissolve from around the paternal and 
maternal pronuclei chromosomes just before syngamy, but rather the 
"pronuclear" membranes.  As the White Paper itself notes, the zygote has 
no nucleus (p. 5).

 

-- The term "cloning" is mis-defined only in terms of somatic cell 
nuclear transfer (SCNT), and mis-defines the product of SCNT:

 

Finally, cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), presents a 
challenge to the proposed definition of when life begins because cloning 
does not involve the union of sperm and egg. In SCNT, the nucleus of an 
egg is removed and a mature body (somatic) cell is then fused to the 
empty egg, generating a hybrid cell that contains the genetic 
information of the body cell.(p. 10)  ...  SCNT/Cloning: Somatic cell 
nuclear transfer (SCNT); transplanting nuclei from body (i.e., somatic) 
cells to enucleated eggs (p. 16).

 

The fact is that there many kinds of human cloning techniques, e.g., 
both somatic cell and germ line cell nuclear transfer, pronuclei 
transfer, parthenogenesis, "twinning" (also referred to as blastomere 
separation, blastocyst splitting, embryo multiplication, etc.), a 
routine technique used in "infertility clinics";  and many currently 
used techniques of genetic engineering.  Nor is the "enucleated egg" 
used in SCNT "empty", because its own mitochondrial DNA remains in the 
"egg" and becomes part of the resulting cloned embryo.  Thus the cloned 
embryo does not "contain the genetic information of [just] the body 
cell", because it also contains the foreign mitochondrial DNA from the 
enucleated oocyte used, and it also /lacks/ the mitochondrial DNA from 
the body (donor) cell.  Such genetic differences in the stem cells 
derived from the cloned human embryo have long been acknowledged to 
cause serious immune rejection reactions when injected into patients as 
"therapies", even when the donor cell is derived from the same patient.

 

It is notable that the White Paper's mis-definitions of "genome" and 
"cloning" are quite similar to those found in the recent 
Weldon/Brownback "total human cloning bans" -- which mis-definitions 
would have resulted in various legal loopholes so that literally no 
human cloning would be banned.  (See Irving 2001).

 

-- The definition of "ovum (oocyte, egg)" could also cause confusion (p. 
15).  The terms "ovum" and "egg" are not used by human embryologists.  
As O'Rahilly and Muller have noted, the term "egg" is "best confined to 
the hen and to cuisine; use oocyte";  and the term "ovum"  "does not 
exist in humans;  use oocyte, ootid, or embryo"  (O'Rahilly and Muller 
2001, p. 12).  The definition goes on to refer to "a mature egg that has 
undergone reduction, is ready for fertilization".  However, it is not 
made clear that the oocyte that is "ready for fertilization" is diploid 
-- not haploid -- until and unless fertilization actually takes place.  
Such definitions have been taken to mean that the oocyte is always 
haploid, which is not correct.

 

There are several other minor scientific problems in this White Paper, 
but these are probably the more important ones to point to.  It should 
be noted that Dr. Condic acknowledges taking these definitions "from the 
NIH-administered medical dictionary".//

 

 

*V.  Conclusion*

 

As noted in the "Introduction" of this article, a small error in the 
beginning leads to a multitude of errors in the end.  As is hopefully 
apparent by now, to scientifically mis-define the human "zygote" as when 
a human being begins to exist would result in the human embryo preceding 
the zygote to be classified as a /non/-human being -- a "pre-zygote".   
This in turn would preclude a sound determination of values and the 
correct formation of conscience.  Deliberations and conclusions on the 
medical, moral, legal, political and theological levels would likewise 
be corrupted and invalid.  And in particular, when erroneous scientific 
facts as those identified in this White Paper are incorporated into laws 
and regulations, they would justify the destruction of "pre-zygotes" for 
a multitude of purposes -- especially if the term "zygote", and other 
scientific errors noted in this White Paper, are appropriated into laws 
and regulations.  It is with these concerns in mind that the above 
comments have been presented.  Hopefully, at least some of these errors 
will be reconsidered.

 

 

*_BIBLIOGRAPHY_*

 

Erich Blechschmidt, /Der Menschliche Embryo/ (Stuttgart, Germany 1963).

 

Erich Blechschmidt, /Die Pränatalen Organsysteme des Menschen/ 
(Stuttgart, Germany 1973).

 

Erich Blechschmidt, "Zur Personalität des Menschen," /Internationale 
Katholische Zeitschrift/ 11, no.22 (1982): 171-181.

 

Bruce M. Carlson, /Human Embryology and Developmental Biology/, 2nd ed. 
(St. Louis 1999).

 

/Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development/, Carnegie 
Collection of Embryology, National Museum of Health and Medicine, Human 
Developmental Anatomy, available from 
http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/anatomy.htm, 
http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/Stages_Table.htm, and 
http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/Select_Stage_and_Lab_Manual.htm 
<http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/Select_Stage_and_Lab_Manual.htm>(accessed 
November, 2008).   See also:  /Carnegie Stages/ online from the 
University of Fribourg, Faculty of Science, Department of Medicine, Unit 
on Anatomy, Fribourg, Switzerland, Swiss Virtual Campus, "Human 
Embryology," available from 
http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/iperiodembry/planmodperiod.html 
<http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/iperiodembry/planmodperiod.html>(accessed 
November 18, 2008).

 

Raymond Gasser, "Stage One," in /Virtual Human Embryo/, by Louisiana 
State University Health Sciences Center (New Orleans, 2003), available 
from 
http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/demos/Stage1/Intro_pg/Intro.htm 
<http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/demos/Stage1/Intro_pg/Intro.htm>(accessed 
November 18, 2008).

 

Wilhelm His, /Anatomie Menschlicher Embryonen: I. Embroyonen des Ersten 
Monats/ (Leipzig, Germany 1880).

 

Dianne N. Irving, "The Impact of 'Scientific Misinformation' on Other 
Fields: Philosophy, Theology, Biomedical Ethics, Public Policy," 
/Accountability in Research/ 2, no. 4 (1993a): 243-272, PubMed ID: 
11652144, available from http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvimpact.htm 
<http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvimpact.htm>(accessed November 18, 2008)

 

Dianne N. Irving, "Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation 
of the Arguments on 'Personhood'," /The Linacre Quarterly/ 60, no. 1 
(February 1993b): 18-46; PubMed ID 16035170;  available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_04person1.html 
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_04person1.html> (accessed 
November 18, 2008);  a mini-summary of her doctoral dissertation, 
/Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human 
Embryo/, Georgetown University 1991.

 

Dianne N. Irving, "When Does a Human Being [Normally] Begin? Scientific' 
Myths and Scientific Facts," /International Journal of Sociology and 
Social Policy/ 19, no. 3/4 (February 1999): 22-47, available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html 
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html>(accessed 
November 18, 2008).

 

Dianne N. Irving, "University Faculty for Life: Letter of Concern to 
Senator Brownback and Congressman Weldon Re the 'Weldon/Brownback Human 
Cloning Bills'"(2001), 1-17, available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_52weldonbrownback1.html 
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_52weldonbrownback1.html>and 
http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvbrownback.htm 
<http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvbrownback.htm>(accessed November 18, 2008).

 

Dianne N. Irving, "What Is 'Bioethics'?," in Joseph W. Koterski, ed., 
/Life and Learning X: Proceedings of the Tenth University Faculty For 
Life Conference/ (Washington, D.C. 2002), 1-84, available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_36whatisbioethics01.html 
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_36whatisbioethics01.html>(accessed 
November 18, 2008); extensive analysis and evaluation of the "birth" of 
bioethics in 1978 by the U.S. Congress, with scientific, historical and 
bioethics references;  note, Irving was a member of the first formal 
graduate class of this new bioethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, 
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

 

Dianne N. Irving, "What Human Embryo? Funniest Mental Gymnastics from 
Medicine and Research" (October 14, 2004a), 1-31, available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_82whathumanembryo1.html 
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_82whathumanembryo1.html>(accessed 
November 18, 2008).

 

Dianne N. Irving, "Analysis of Legislative and Regulatory Chaos in the 
U.S.: Asexual Human Reproduction and Genetic Engineering" (October 20, 
2004b), 1-65, available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_81chaosasexgen1.html 
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_81chaosasexgen1.html>(accessed 
November 18, 2008)

 

Dianne N. Irving, "The /Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic 
Development/: Chart of all 23 Stages, and Detailed Descriptions of 
Carnegie Stages 1 - 6" (April 22, 2006), 1-33, available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_123carnegiestages2.html 
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_123carnegiestages2.html>(accessed 
November 18, 2008).

 

Dianne N. Irving, "Neither, Nor: Bryne's and Willke's Pseudo-Battle Over 
Human Embryonic Stem Cells" (June 19, 2008a), pp. 1-7, available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_129bryneandwillke.html 
(accessed November 18, 2008).

 

Dianne N. Irving, "Human Embryology and Church Teachings" (September 15, 
2008b), at:  
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/em/em_132embryologychurch1.html 
(accessed November 20, 2008).

 

C. Ward Kischer, "In Defense of Human Development", /Linacre 
Quarterly/59 (1992):68-75; available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_09defensehumandev.html 
(accessed November 22, 2008).

 

C. Ward Kischer, "Human Development and Reconsideration of Ensoulment", 
/Linacre Quarterly/ 60 (1993):57-63; available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_10humandevelopment.html 
(accessed November 22, 2008)

 

C. Ward Kischer, "A Commentary on The Beginning of Life: A view from 
human embryology", /Linacre Quarterly/63 (1996):73-78; available from 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_08lifecontinum.html 
(accessed November 22, 2008).

 

C. Ward Kischer, "When Does Human Life Begin?  The final answer", 
/Linacre Quarterly/70 (2003):326-339; available from . 
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html 
(accessed November 22, 2008).

 

C. Ward Kischer and Dianne N. Irving, /The Human Development Hoax: Time 
To Tell The Truth!/, 2nd ed. (Gold Leaf Press, Clinton Township, Mich. 
1997), esp. 4-13, 129-184, 224-247, 248-257, 267-282;  available from 
http://goldleafpress.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=10 
<http://goldleafpress.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=10> 
(accessed November 18, 2008).

 

William J. Larsen, /Essentials of Human Embryology/ (New York 1998), pp. 
12-14;  available from http://cna.uc.edu/embryology/ (accessed November 
18, 2008).

 

Benjamin Lewin, Genes VII (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).

 

Jacob Levron, Santiago Munne, Steen Willadsen, et al., "Male and Female 
Genomes Associated in a Single Pronucleus in Human Zygotes," /Biology of 
Reproduction/ 52, (1995): 653-657, available from PubMed ID 7756458;  
available from PubMed, 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7756458?ordinalpos=70&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7756458?ordinalpos=70&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum> 
(accessed November 18, 2008).

 

H.W. Michelmann, A. Bonhoff and L. Mettler, "Chromosome Analysis in 
Polyploid Human Embryos," /Human Reproduction/ 1, no. 4, (1986): 
243-246, available from PubMed ID 3558764;  available from PubMed, 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3558764?ordinalpos=54&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3558764?ordinalpos=54&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum> 
(accessed November 18, 2008).

 

Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, /The Developing Human: Clinically 
Oriented Embryology/ (6th ed. and later only) (Philadelphia, Penn.: 
1998), pp. 34 -37.

 

Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, /Human Embryology & Teratology/ (New 
York 2001), pp. 3, 7, 31-33, 19-35, Table 8-1, p. 89.   See also 
O'Rahilly and Muller, /Developmental Stages in Human Embryos/, published 
by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 637, 1987;  
available from the website of the /Carnegie Stages of Early Human 
Embryonic Development/ (noted in the bibliography, above), e.g., Stage 
One, http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage1.pdf 
(accessed November 18, 2008).

 

Margaret Foster Riley and Richard A. Merrill, "Regulating Reproductive 
Genetics: A Review of American Bioethics Commissions and Comparison to 
the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority," /The Columbia 
Science and Technology Law Review/ 1, no. 6 (August 26, 2005), available 
from http://www.stlr.org/html/volume6/riley.txt 
<http://www.stlr.org/html/volume6/riley.txt>(accessed November 18, 2008).

 

A.H. Sathananthan, I. Kola, J. Osborne, et al., "Centrioles in the 
Beginning of Human Development," /Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences of the United States of America/ 88, no. 11 (June 1, 1991): 
4806-4810, PubMed ID 2052559,  available from 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2052559?ordinalpos=51&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2052559?ordinalpos=51&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum> 
(accessed November 18, 2008).

 

Tom Strachan and Andrew P. Read, Human Molecular Genetics 2 (2nd ed.) 
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999).

 

G.L. Streeter, "Developmental Horizons in Human Embryos: Description of 
Age Group XI, 13 to 20 Somites, and Age Group XII, 21 to 29 Somites," 
/Contributions in Embryology/ 30, (1942): 211-245.

 

G.L. Streeter, "Developmental Horizons in Human Embryos: Description of 
Age Group XIII, Embryos of 4 or 5 Millimeters Long, and Age Group XIV, 
Period of Identification of the Lens Vesicle," /Contributions in 
Embryology/, Carnegie Institute 31, (1945): 27-63.

 

G.L. Streeter, "Developmental Horizons in Human Embryos: Description of 
Age Groups XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIII," /Contributions in Embryology/, 
Carnegie Institute 32, (1948): 133-203.

 

G.L. Streeter, "Developmental Horizons in Human Embryos: Description of 
Age Groups XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, and XXIII," prepared for publication by 
C.H. Heuser, and G.W. Corner, /Contributions in Embryology,/(1951): 165.

 

/Dr. Maureen Condic /

*/White Paper. When Does Human Life Begin?/*/

http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113 
<http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113>/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The List So Far - Anti-Life Appointments in the Obama Administration*

By Kathleen Gilbert

November 25, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the media continues to leak 
real and projected appointments to Mr. Obama's future administration, 
the emerging pattern is clear: most of the appointments with any voting 
or lobbying history represent the extreme end of the pro-abortion movement.

Following is a list of Obama appointments so far who have a track record 
of opposing the pro-life movement and actively promoting the anti-life 
cause.

Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel - The Clinton veteran, whose fiery temper 
has earned him a fearful reputation, earned a 100% NARAL pro-choice 
rating and a pro-homosexuality track record during his years as an 
Illinois congressman. 

Commerce Secretary: Bill Richardson - The governor of New Mexico calls 
himself a "Catholic" and says he is personally opposed to abortion; yet 
the Democrat has worked against true marriage and pushes so vehemently 
for unrestricted "reproductive rights" he was named a "Champion of 
Choice" by NARAL in January of 2007. 

Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS): Tom Daschle - Daschle 
gained notoriety for his consistently pro-abortion voting record in his 
years as Democratic Senate majority leader.  Daschle blocked votes on 
five major pro-life bills that passed the U.S. House, and in 2002 wrote 
a letter to his constituents asking for donations to NARAL.

(One bioethicist who will likely join the ranks of the new HHS 
committee, along with Daschle, is Dr. R. Alta Charo, an avid supporter 
of embryonic stem-cell research who has called pro-life bioethicists 
leaders of "the endarkenment.")

Secretary of Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano - The Arizona governor 
is a well-known abortion supporter who vetoed a partial birth abortion 
ban, and in 2005 earned praise from NARAL for forcing Arizona pharmacies 
to distribute the morning-after pill despite moral objections.

Communications Director: Ellen Moran - Moran is the current executive 
director of EMILY's List, a major political action committee dedicated 
to helping elect solidly pro-abortion Democratic women to political 
office. She supports tax-payer funded abortions, and opposes any bans on 
partial birth abortion.

Likely appointees include:

Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton - Sen. Clinton has proven herself as 
one of the most notorious names in pro-abortion American politics, with 
a liberal record so extreme that, while campaigning for the Democratic 
presidential ticket last year, she accused Mr. Obama himself of failing 
to support abortion tenaciously enough.  Obama has frequently been 
called the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history.

Secretary of the Interior: Raúl M. Grijalva - The Democratic Congressman 
from Arizona, first elected in 2002, is a steady supporter of abortion, 
same-sex "marriage," and embryonic stem cell research.  A partisan 
figure who voted 97.5% along party lines during the current Congress, 
Grijalva sports a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Extreme Pro-Abortion Leader Chosen for Obama Communications Director
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112404.html

Obama Selecting the Most Anti-Life, Anti-Family Radicals He Can Find for 
Administration
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08112009.html

Obama Solidifies Pro-Abortion Agenda with "Attack Dog" Rahm Emanuel for 
Chief of Staff
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110605.html

<mailbox:///C%7C/Program%20Files/Mozilla%20Thunderbird/defaults/profile/bo/Mail/Local%20Folders/Inbox?number=11572288#0> 
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com 
<http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=08112505>

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFLI PharmAid Center

pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org


PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to 
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held 
religious, moral or ethical beliefs.  For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq

*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just 
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area or better yet, just enroll right from 
our main news page at
http://www.pfli.org;  to cease your subscription [although we can't
imagine anyone would!] self-manage your account at: 
http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org

*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For 
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA,  1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
 +1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-707-667-2447 [fax]; e-mail us at 
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.

*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your 
membership or donate right on our
secure website at http://www.pfli.org/shop <http://www.pfli.org>. Click 
on the "PFLI Store" link on the toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as 
purchase a wide range of publications. 

* *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20081126/fb247e5f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78028 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20081126/fb247e5f/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20081126/fb247e5f/attachment-0001.gif>