The Stem Cell Controversy: A Rhetorical Analysis

Kathy Kieva
ENL 501 - Rhetorical Theory
Research Paper II
Jerrold Blitefield

12/15/08

1
INTRODUCTION

In my first research report, "Beyond Logos: An Overview of the Rhetoric of Science," I

explored how scientific discourse is fundamentally rhetorical. Contrary to our typical image of a

scientist as someone who is always logical, objective and unemotional, scientists make their

arguments using ethos and pathos, as well as logos. They also make extensive use of analogies,

metaphors and enthymemes, and their discourse can be rhetorically situated, therefore requiring

an awareness of their audience and the constraints of the situation.

This paper explores a specific scientific controversy - embryonic stem cell research -

from a rhetorical perspective. This controversy isn't exclusively scientific, meaning it's not

exclusively between scientists. Because of the subject, embryonic stem cells and their use in

research, there are many more voices audible in this debate - philosophers and ethicists,

journalists, patients with life-threatening diseases who are anxious for this research to move

forward and couples who can't imagine "discarding" the frozen embryos from their fertility

treatments, regardless of the potential benefit to others. By including these other voices, we can

get an idea of how this research is understood - and misunderstood - in the public arena and

analyze how scientists respond rhetorically in an effort to persuade public opinion to their cause.

By first establishing the controversy as a rhetorical situation as defined by Bitzer, I will

analyze the discourse used on both sides of the controversy as they make their case to pursue or

prohibit embryonic stem cell research. Although I will use examples found in the popular media,

my focus will be on the discourse used within the context of the President's Council on

Bioethics, established in November, 2001, to advise the President on the legal, ethical, moral and

2
medical issues surrounding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The Council

consisted of scientists, medical doctors, ethicists, philosophers, journalists, lawyers and public

policy makers and was chaired by Leon R. Kass, M.D., Ph.D., Addie Clark Harding Professor of

The College and the Committee on Social Thought, University of Chicago. The participation of

such a wide range of viewpoints from both sides of the controversy and the volume of the

discourse available for study - transcripts, meeting notes, reports, personal stories, background

articles and research papers - provides a rich resource for this analysis and can be found at

www.bioethics.gov/topics/stemcells_index.html. Individual reports, articles, transcripts, etc, will

be noted as necessary.

SETTING THE STAGE

Before beginning our analysis, we need to understand what stem cells are, specifically

embryonic stem cells and why their use in federally funded research is so controversial.

All the specialized cells of the human body - brain cells, kidney cells, bone cells, muscle

cells, nerve cells, and so on - originate from undifferentiated embryonic stem cells. The

following description is taken from "Stem Cells and Public Policy" and provides the clearest

explanation of what embryonic stem cells are:

All human beings develop from the union of an egg and a sperm. The result is a fertilized
egg, or zygote, a single cell that divides into other cells, which together constitute the
early embryo…About five to seven days after conception, a zygote will have divided into
about one hundred to one hundred and fifty cells. These take the form of a hollow ball
called a blastocyst, with a mass of undifferentiated cells inside it. These undifferentiated
cells are used to generate embryonic stem cell lines (7).

The ability of stem cells to differentiate into multiple types of cells and because of their

theoretical ability to self-replicate ad infinitum, thus maintaining a stem cell "line," there is

3
intense interest in using embryonic stem cells for scientific and medical research. "Stem cells

provide a wonderful tool for the study of cellular and developmental processes, both normal and

abnormal. With them, scientists hope to be able to figure out the molecular mechanisms of

differentiation through which cells become specialized and organized into tissues and organs.

They hope to understand how these mechanisms work when they work well, and what goes

wrong when they work badly. Second, stem cells and their derivatives may prove a valuable

source of transplantable cells and tissues for repair and regeneration" ("Monitoring Stem Cell

Research" 3).

The controversy lies in the source of the stem cells and the fate of the embryos from

which the stem cells are taken. In vitro fertilization, a technique used to create a viable embryo

for infertile couples, typically results in many more fertilized eggs than can be used. In most

cases, these "surplus" embryos are frozen and stored for possible future use by the couple. They

can also be discarded - and many fertility clinics do just that, according to Krieger - or the

parents may choose to donate them for research purposes, provided the funding for such research

comes from private rather than federal sources. Extracting the inner-cell-mass of undifferentiated

stem cells from a blastocyst, however, results in the destruction of the embryo and this is the

essence of the controversy.

THE RHETORICAL SITUATION

A prohibition on using federal funds for research involving human embryos, known as the

"Dickey Amendment," has been attached to every Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS) appropriations bill since 1996 ("Monitoring" 25). In 1998, scientists first reported the

isolation of human ES cells, work that was privately funded, and the Clinton Administration

4
sought to implement guidelines that would allow such research to proceed with federal funding.

These guidelines were never enacted, however, and upon taking office in 2001, President Bush

decided to revisit the issue.

Bitzer tells us that a rhetorical situation consists of an exigence, defined as "an

imperfection marked by urgency," the audience, those "who are capable of being influenced by

discourse and of being mediators of change" and constraints, which can "influence the rhetor and

can be brought to bear upon the audience" and consists of beliefs, attitudes, traditions, interests,

motivations and facts (43, 44). The imperfection, in this case, is the profound suffering for which

ES cell research seems to hold out the possibility of a cure - the suffering of those with

Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and a whole host of other diseases. The

urgency stems from the recent scientific breakthroughs which have opened the door to

understanding the underlying causes of these diseases and the hope that embryonic stem cell

research holds for alleviating the suffering of millions. For those opposed to the research, the

urgency lies in the need to save "nascent human life" and the perceived "moral imperative to

protect the lives of human beings in their earliest and most vulnerable stages" ("Monitoring" 29). For

those opposed to the research there is little difference between abortion of a fetus and the destruction of

human embryos.

And who is the audience who can act as "mediators of change"? Since this Council was

established to advise and inform the President on bioethical issues, it's obvious that the President

himself is part of the audience, and his decision to allow or disallow federal funding or to allow

funding only under certain conditions, will carry the most weight. Congress, as the legislative

body of the government, is also an audience in this debate, since they are the ones who are

charged with appropriating funding for various federal agencies, including the National Institutes

5
of Health and the Department of Health and Human Resources, the potential funders of

embryonic stem cell research. The public is also an audience, in that as a democracy the people

can certainly make their voices heard with their representatives in Congress. It was the

possibility of using federal funds, i.e. taxpayer money, to fund ES cell research that initially

ignited the controversy, which played out in the Council's deliberations as well as in the public

arena.

The constraints lie, of course, in the fundamental beliefs that people on both sides of the

controversy hold about the definition of "life" and the value of human life along a continuum

from conception to birth and beyond, and the rhetoric reflects those differences, with one side

emphasizing the need to protect human life from the moment of conception while the other

insists that "…we are dealing really with cells and tissues at this point" (Gearhart, "Medical

Promise of Embryonic Stem Cell Research" transcript). The fundamental differences between the

two sides plays out in the public arena of scientific discourse and is apparent in Council's report

"Monitoring Stem Cell Research":

"…many scientists, physicians, and patient advocacy groups contend that the policy is too
restrictive and thwarts the growth of a crucial area of research. On the other side, some opponents
of embryo research believe the policy is too liberal and legitimates and rewards (after the fact) the
destruction of nascent human life. Some ethicists argue that there is a moral imperative to remove
all restrictions upon potentially life-saving research; other ethicists argue that there is a moral
imperative to protect the lives of human beings in their earliest and most vulnerable stages" (29).

Additional constraints lie in the real and perceived collaborations between scientists and

the biotech firms who stand to profit from the research, and the need for scientists to at least

appear as though they are not in the pockets of the biotech firms, which can be easier said than

done.

6
CONSTRUCTING ETHOS

A scientist's ethos depends upon his ability to base his research on existing foundation of

accepted knowledge, his place in the scientific community, which usually means his association

with a reputable institution and his place within a particular field of research, the ability of his

research to stand up to the scrutiny of his peers, and his ability to suspend judgment on a

particular claim until it has been empirically and logically confirmed and, if possible, reproduced

by other scientists. A scientist may sometimes defend himself against criticism based on his

supposed lack of these qualities by making virtues out of their opposites - particularism,

solitariness, interestedness and organized dogmatism, and both are on display in the scientific

discourse of stem cell research.

The transcripts of various sessions of the President's Council on Bioethics usually began

with a scientific presentation on a particular topic, followed by a question and answer period

between the presenter and the participants, and each presenter chose to establish his or her ethos

differently. For example, Dr. Donald W. Landry, Professor of Medicine, College of Physicians

and Surgeons, Columbia University, established his ethos by expressing the quality of

disinterestedness in the proceedings:

"I don't engage in stem cell research, so I don't have a vested interest in this beyond that
of a concerned citizen. I do take care of critically ill patients in a small private practice
and I think it's the context of seeing death in a close and personal way and seeing the
issues of organ donation that informs to some extent the ideas we're going to present
today" ("Session 6: Seeking Morally Unproblematic Sources of Human Embryonic Stem Cells"
transcript).

Dr. John Gearhart felt it was important to counter the perceived aloofness of scientists by saying

"I am concerned, I mean, as a biologist I'm concerned. I'm concerned about a number of issues.

It makes it sound as if most of the time that scientists aren't concerned, that we're just going

7
along in a fashion that, you know, science for science sake" ("Session 3: Stem Cell Research: Recent

Scientific and Clinical Developments" transcript). He also sought to enhance his credibility through a

transparent admission of his ties to the biotech firm Geron:

Now, I have to say up front that we are now required by our university to reveal where
our monies come from, and these are the sponsors of our research, and there is one sitting
in the middle there that I also have to show to you that I am conflicted.

And which means that to the sponsorship of this private company, we have received
money for research, for which licenses have been negotiated between Hopkins and
Geron, and that I am a stockholder, albeit a few hundred shares of something that is
trading now at — and I hate to think about it.

It is not in our possession as you know. It is held in escrow. But nonetheless we do have
this arrangement with this company. So I would tell you that this is not the motivation,
this connection.

Without the sponsorship of this research, this work would not have gone forward over the
past seven years. We are not in this business as individuals to make money ("Session 1:
Stem Cells 1: Medical Promise of Embryonic Stem Cell Research" transcript)

By revealing his ties with Geron, Gearhart hoped to deflect any potential criticism of his work

and the possible minimization of his claims. Transparency was also the path taken by Sue O'Shea

of University of Michigan's embryonic stem cell center. "We're regulated by the federal

government, we're regulated by the state government, I'm regulated by (a U-M oversight)

committee" (Gershman 2008).

One presenter found her credibility strained by the subsequent discovery of flawed data

in her research. Dr. Catherine Verfaillie presented her topic, "Medical Promise of Adult Stem

Cell Research" to the Council in April of 2002. In July of 2002, she published a paper on the

topic in Nature, claiming that "stem cells isolated from an adult could change into all major

tissue types" (Wade 2007). Subsequent investigation, however, revealed duplicate graphs had

been used in two different journal articles, supposedly referring to different mice, as well as

8
inconsistent data. Although Dr. Verfaillie asserted that the flawed data "did not affect the article’s

conclusions," the scientific community was put on notice regarding the possible lack of support

for her claims.

The peer-review process in professional journals is designed to shield the scientific

community from spurious claims, and is therefore a way of establishing and maintaining a

scientist's ethos. By exposing his research to a rigorous review by his peers, the scientist builds

his credibility and hones his arguments. That process, though, doesn't always accomplish its

goals, as the scientific community discovered when the Korean scientist, Dr. Hwang Woo-suk,

reported in the journal Science in 2004 that he had generated embryonic stem cells from adult

human cells, the Holy Grail of stem cell research. As Wade reports in his article "Journal Faulted

in Publishing Korean’s Claims," Woo-suk's research was later found to be fraudulent and the

journal was faulted for publishing his claims. A panel of scientists "advised online publication of

more of the raw data on which a scientific report is based. It also suggested that Science, Nature

and other leading journals establish common standards for reviewing papers to prevent authors

bent on deceit from favoring journals with laxer standards" (Wade 2006). Although scientists

may choose these particular journals specifically because they reach a broader audience, they

also run the risk of seeming somewhat less "professional" and thereby do harm to their carefully

constructed ethos.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research also seek to construct an ethos, that of a

compassionate defender of the helpless and vulnerable "pre-born" infants. The Center for

Bioethics and Human Dignity (www.cbhd.org) puts their adherence to what they call "biblical

values" right up front:

9
 Recognizing that biblical values have exercised a profound influence on Western culture,
the Center explores the potential contribution of such values as part of its work
("Our Purpose," http://www.cbhd.org/aboutcbhd/index.html)

According to their position paper on stem cell research they oppose human embryonic stem cell

research for the following reasons (www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/position_statement.htm):

1. It violates existing law and policy.

2. It is unethical.
3. It is scientifically questionable.
4. Methods exist which do not require embryo destruction.

Ethos is also enhanced, however, by their recourse to science itself to make their case. In

questioning the scientific necessity of using embryos to obtain stem cells, the position paper cites

scientific data which seems to refute the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) claim

"that stem cells are not, and cannot develop into, embryos may itself be subject to dispute. Some

evidence suggests that stem cells cultured in the laboratory may have a tendency to recongregate

and form an aggregate of cells capable of beginning to develop as an embryo," going on to

mention a 1993 Canadian study in which scientists claimed to have produced a "live-born mouse

from a cluster of mouse stem cells." In the section of the position statement about alternate

methods that do not require destruction of the embryo the Center cites several studies in which

scientists successfully regenerated tissue from adult somatic (body) cells, using this as "proof"

that embryonic stem cells are not necessary. Using science to cast doubt on the claims made by

supporters of embryonic stem cell research, the opponents rhetorically strengthen their case and

minimize the possibility that they will be dismissed simply as "religious nuts" who "just don't

understand the science."

EXPLAINING THE SCIENCE

10
 Conveying the complex details of stem cell biology to a lay audience consisting of

journalists, politicians, lawyers, ethicists and the general public can be daunting both for the

scientists and the audience. Not only is the terminology challenging, but so is accurately

conveying how scientific research itself works, a problem that is exacerbated by the heart-

rending cases of patients for whom stem cell research holds perhaps their only hope for a cure

and who are understandably anxious for progress. When a breakthrough is made, what is often

lost in the media reports is the painstaking and time-consuming effort behind the breakthrough

and how far the research has yet to go before it can be applied to real patients.

The stem cell controversy is replete with complex terminology, and how one uses or

misuses terms affects how well each side makes its arguments. In the Council's working paper on

terminology (http://www.bioethics.gov/background/workpaper5.html), the staff itemized the

various terms used to describe the activity of cloning: cloning, asexual reproduction,

reproductive cloning, research cloning, therapeutic cloning, somatic cell nuclear transfer (or

nuclear transplantation), nuclear transfer for stem cell research, nuclear transfer for regenerative

medicine. They also listed some terms used to describe the product of the cloning activity: cell,

activated cell, clump of cells, reconstituted (or reconstructed) egg, zygote, embryo, human

embryo, blastocyst, potential human being, human being, clone, person. The report adds:

There is honest disagreement about what names should be used, and there are also
attempts to select and use terms in order to gain advantage for a particular moral or policy
position. It is terribly important to try to be accurate and fair in the matter of language.
Choice of names can decisively affect the way questions are posed, and hence how
answers are given. Efforts to win the moral argument by Orwellian use of speech must be
resisted. The issue is not a matter of semantics; it is a matter of trying to call things by
their right names, of trying to fit speech to fact as best one can. We should not only
stipulate the meanings we intend by our use of terms; we should also choose terms that
most accurately convey the descriptive reality of the matter at hand. If this is well done,

11
 the moral argument can then proceed on the merits, without distortion by linguistic
sloppiness or chicanery.

By using scientific terms such as "unindividualized cells," "zygote," "cell mass" or even

"preimplantation embryo" to describe the human embryo from which stem cells can be taken,

scientists de-emphasize the embryo's potential humanity. Although scientists may agree that the

embryo is indeed "human," or at least potentially human, the terminology they use neither

reflects nor lends itself to "humanizing" the cells they are working with. Scientists use

terminology that both creates and reflects their reality, and it's very difficult to think of an

embryo as "human" when it's described as "unindividualized cells." In personal statements made

to the Council (www.bioethics.gov/reports/white_paper/personal_statements.html), Michael S.

Gazzaniga, Ph.D., advocated for the use of spare in-vitro fertilization (IVF) embryos by noting

that:

These are entities that do not possess a single neuron and are ready to go and can create
tens of thousands of cell lines. Put another way, a piece of DNA is not a human being. A
human being is an entity with a functioning brain consisting of billions of neurons with
trillions of synapses that develops over time and with crucial interactions with the
environment.

Dr. William Hurlburt provided a different perspective, noting that "advances in our

understanding of developmental biology have strengthened the case of those with ethical

objections to embryo destruction. New scientific evidence supports the idea that there is an

integrated unity and unbroken continuity of development from fertilization onward-and

undercuts claims that the early embryo is an "inchoate clump of cells," available for instrumental

use with little or no moral concern."

The rhetoric used in these kinds of statements reveals a wide range of viewpoints even

within the scientific community, with little agreement even on the terminology and definitions to

12
be used. There is a world of connotative difference between "cell mass" and "potential human"

and which one is used seems to depend upon one's pre-existing viewpoint; there seems to be

little indication that either side has had much success in persuading the other.

EVOKING PATHOS

Emotional appeals carry particular force in the stem cell debate. For those who support

the research, it holds out the promise of a cure for patients suffering from a range of life-

threatening and debilitating diseases like Parkinson's, leukemia, diabetes, and a whole host of

genetic defects. For those who oppose it, the research evokes visions of science run amok

creating Frankenstein-like creatures in the lab, the exploitation of poor women who will

willingly sell their eggs for research, and a further erosion of respect for human life.

Jeremy Rifkin provides us with examples of the rhetorical language used to oppose stem

cell research, specifically cloning, which is the insertion of the nucleus from an adult body cell

such as skin or muscle into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed, creating an exact

genetic duplicate of the organism which provided the skin or muscle cell nucleus ("Stem Cells

and Public Policy"). In his article "Why I Oppose Human Cloning," Rifkin's reasons include

"unethical incentives for eggs," "the bio-industrialization of life" and the reduction of human life

to "mere research tools, manufactured products and utilities." He also expresses shock regarding

patents on clonal human embryos as "inventions" (24). Cheshire credits the Human Genome

Project with unlocking the mystery of a single fertilized cell, marveling that "wrapped up within

the nucleus of the human embryo could be found the complete genetic design for a being capable

of learning, love, and laughter, of sonnets, science, and space exploration is beyond

comprehension. Having discovered this, one can only respond in awe" ("Human Embryo

13
Research after the Genome"). The Nighlight Christian Adoption web site facilitates adoption of

frozen embryos left over from fertility treatments, which they call "pre-born children" and

"snow-flake babies" because "embryos are unique and fragile, just like a snowflake" (http://

www.nightlight.org/Snowflakesfacts.pdf). The rhetoric used by all these individuals and

organizations is designed to put a human face on what scientists tend to describe as "mere cells"

and to play on our natural emotional response to newborns and infants, our natural desire to

protect the helpless and vulnerable.

On the other side of the debate are patients and their advocates. Equally heart-rending

appeals are evident in the stories and media coverage of people suffering from a variety of

debilitating and potentially life-threatening illnesses including leukemia, Parkinson's, diabetes,

AIDS and Alzheimer's for whom stem cell research may provide a cure. The visual impact of

wheelchair-bound Christopher Reeve's address to the 1996 Democratic National Convention in

which he pleaded for continued support for stem cell research, or Michael J. Fox visibly shaking

and twitching from his Parkinson's disease in a political ad for Claire McCaskill, the Senate

Democratic nominee in Missouri who supported stem cell research, are powerfully persuasive.

As Rutenberg writes in his New York Times article, "There is no question that [Fox's]

advertisement is a powerful attention-grabber. And there is hardly a more effective spokesman

for stem cell research than Mr. Fox, whose shaking would seem to make him an all the more

sympathetic advocate. The advertisement clearly links Ms. McCaskill to a majority of likely

voters, who polls show support the measure."

There is another kind of pathos on display in the rhetoric of this controversy, and that's

the sense of the excitement and urgency in the scientific community itself, an example of which

14
is displayed in a working paper commissioned by the President's Council entitled "Current

Progress in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research":

The immortality and potentially unlimited developmental capacity of human

embryonic stem (ES) [1] cells ignite the imagination. After months or years of growth in
culture dishes, these cells retain the ability to form cell types ranging from heart muscle
to nerve to blood—possibly any cell in the body. Because of their unique developmental
potential, human ES cells have widespread implications for human developmental
biology, drug discovery, drug testing, and transplantation medicine. Indeed, human ES
cells promise an essentially unlimited supply of specific cell types for in vitro
experimental studies and for transplantation therapies for diseases such as heart disease,
Parkinson's disease, leukemia, and diabetes (Ludwig & Thomson, emphasis mine).

The descriptive words highlighted in this section are fundamentally rhetorical, revealing the

emotional arguments scientists are using in their attempts to persuade their audience - the

President, Congress, other members of the bioethics council and the public at large - to allow this

research to proceed unimpeded. By describing embryonic stem cells in almost magical terms,

particularly their virtually "unlimited potential" to address and (hopefully) cure a wide range of

human defects and diseases, scientists seek to counter the arguments of those concerned with the

moral and ethical implications of the research. Emphasizing the many uses to which embryonic

stem cells can be applied - "human developmental biology, drug discovery, drug testing, and

transplantation medicine" - conveys a sense that stem cells can serve as something of a medical

panacea for almost any genetic or acquired defect the human body may be heir to. That the

rhetoric "works" to generate enthusiasm is evident by the response of patients and advocates,

who seem to think that such scientific enthusiasm means imminent applicability to their

particular condition. Dr. Catherine Verfaillie eloquently conveyed some of the pressure stem cell

researchers are under to produce quick results in her presentation to the Council:

15
 "…my e-mail and phone have a lot of messages on them from patients locally, around the
country, and around the world who want to bring a child or a parent with a certain
disease, and want us to treat whatever disease you can come up with.

And we have to speak the truth, and even though we are excited about the work that we
have, and for the work that people do in embryonic stem cells, at this point it is a
promise, and I don't think there is any data to say that in the next 1 or 2 years we will
actually be in clinical trials with any of this.

So we really have to tell patients, families, and whomever, that currently we are trying to
cure mice, but a lot of mice have been cured with a lot of different things, and that doesn't
necessarily mean that it will translate into humans.

And so we need to do the regular science that needs to be done to come up with a therapy
that is both potentially useful and for certain not dangerous ("Medical Promise of Adult
Stem Cell Research" transcript)

Dr. John Gearhart brought up the same point in his presentation, mentioning the 10,000 emails he

received after publication of his 1998 paper on the identification and isolation of stem cells.

"And every day," he states, "I still get hundreds of emails relating to this" ("Medical Promise of

Embryonic Stem Cell Research" transcript).

"TO BE OR NOT TO BE"

When each side of the debate presents themselves as the true advocates of life - opponents

of the research advocating for the life of the embryo, while supporters advocate for the lives of

their patients - and each side endeavors to create an ethos of both compassion and scientific

rationale, how does one choose? How does one measure the rhetorical persuasiveness of each

side's arguments? It may come down to the pre-existing values and beliefs that define each

person's own particular world view. Whether someone supports all embryonic stem cell research,

some (under certain conditions and with particular restrictions) or none at all, ever, under any

circumstances, it is only those in the middle who may perhaps be "persuadable." Those scientists

16
who view the few-day-old embryo as simply a "cell mass" with no reference to its potential

humanity will not be persuaded by those who insist that the embryo is a "pre-born" person with a

right to be protected under the law, and vice versa; they are simply not speaking the same

language and neither side seems willing to accommodate the other. It seems to be left, therefore,

to those in the middle to find a way to compromise between the two extremes. The rhetoric used

in this debate by both sides seems to be designed to create an insurmountable wall - scientists

don't see a "baby" in the mass of cells under their microscopes and parents of rosy-cheeked

"snowflake babies" find the description of the embryo as a "cell mass" abhorrent. Hopefully, we

will be able to find a middle ground that gives neither side all of what they want but may address

some of the fundamental issues that make this issue so controversial.

17
CITATIONS

"Stem Cells and Public Policy: A Century Foundation Guide to the Issues." The Century Foundation
Press, New York City, 2006.

"Monitoring Stem Cell Research." Report to the Presidents Council on Bioethics, www.bioethics.gov/
reports/stemcell/fulldoc.html.

"White Paper: Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells." Report to the Presidents Council on
Bioethics, www.bioethics.gov/reports/white_paper/index.html

Bitzer, Lloyd. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 1, 1968, pp 1-14.

Cheshire, William P. "Human Embryo Research after the Genome." Post Date: November 14, 2002
http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/cheshire_2002-11-14.htm

Gershman, Dave. "Both sides in Proposal 2 stem-cell debate call themselves pro-life" Ann Arbor News,
Posted: Oct. 6, 2008 http://www.mlive.com/annarbornews/news/index.ssf/2008/10/
both_sides_in_proposal_2_stemc.html
Krieger, Lisa. "Study: most clinics discard human embryos." San Jose Mercury News (San Jose,
CA) (August 30, 2004): NA. Academic OneFile. Gale. UMass Dartmouth. 11 Nov. 2008

Ludwig, Tenneille E. & Thomson, James A. "Current Progress in Human Embryonic Stem Cell
Research." Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://
www.bioethics.gov/background/Thomson.html
Rifkin, Jeremy. "Why I oppose human cloning. (Current Debate)." Tikkun 17.4 (July-August
2002): 23(4). Academic OneFile. Gale. UMass Dartmouth. 11 Nov. 2008

Rutenberg, Jim. "Michael J. Fox, Parkinson's, and Stem Cell Research" New York Times online, Post
Date: Oct. 25, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/us/politics/25adbox.html

Wade, Nicholas. "Panel Finds Flawed Data in a Major Stem Cell Report." New York Times online, Post
Date: Feb. 28, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/science/28stem.html

-- "Journal Faulted in Publshing Korean's Claims." New York Times online, Nov. 29, 2006. http://
www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/science/29stem.html
TRANSCRIPTS
Session 1: Stem Cells 1: Medical Promise of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Present and Projected)
Dr. John Gearhart, Thursday, April 25, 2002 http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/apr02/
apr25session1.html
Session 2: Stem Cells 2: Medical Promise of Adult Stem Cell Research (Present and Projected) Dr.
Catherine Verfaillie, Thursday, April 25, 2002 http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/apr02/
apr25session2.html
Session 3: Stem Cells 3: Ethics of Human Stem Cell Research
Dr. Gene Outka, Thursday, April 25, 2002 http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/apr02/
apr25session3.html

18
Session 2: Stem Cell Research: Current Ethical Literature, Paul Lauritzen, Ph.D., Director,
Applied Ethics Program, John Carroll University, Thursday, July 24, 2003 http://
www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/july03/session2.html
Session 3: Stem Cell Research: Recent Scientific and Clinical Developments, John Gearhart,
Ph.D., Professor, Institute for Cellular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Rudolf Jaenisch,
M.D., Member, Whitehead Institute; Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
David Prentice, Ph.D., Professor, Life Sciences, Indiana State University; Adjunct Professor,
Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Thursday, July 24,
2003 http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/july03/session3.html
Session 6: Seeking Morally Unproblematic Sources of Human Embryonic Stem Cells,
Howard A. Zucker, Department of Pediatrics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia
University, Donald W. Landry, Professor of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons,
Columbia University, Council Member William Hurlbut, Friday, December 3, 2004 http://
www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/dec04/session6.html

19