Science

Pandora's box? Wall Street Journal piece on human-animal hybrids needs more than vague ethics

Pandora's box? Wall Street Journal piece on human-animal hybrids needs more than vague ethics

My $19/month Wall Street Journal subscription is pricey, I admit, but every so often there comes a story that makes the investment worthwhile.

Or at least causes you to do a double take.

Such was Monday’s piece titled “Creation of First Human-Monkey Embryos Causes Concern.”

Excuse me? Do read on:

Imagine pigs with human hearts or mice whose brains have a spark of human intelligence. Scientists are cultivating a flock of such experimental creations, called chimeras, by injecting potent human cells into mice, rats, pigs and cows. They hope the new combinations might one day be used to grow human organs for transplants, study human illnesses or to test new drugs.

In the latest advance, researchers in the U.S. and China announced earlier this month that they made embryos that combined human and monkey cells for the first time. So far, these human-monkey chimeras (pronounced ky-meer-uhs) are no more than bundles of budding cells in a lab dish, but the implications are far-reaching, ethics experts say. The use of primates so closely related to humans raises concerns about unintended consequences, animal welfare and the moral status of hybrid embryos, even if the scientific value of the work may be quite high.

The idea of chimeras brings up images of half-human, half-beast gargoyles.

The bottom line: This story screams for some kind of input from religious leaders and academics. After all, doesn’t the creation of these … things have something to do with the whole concept of what is human or not?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New podcast: Familiar splits among white 'evangelicals,' only now they're about vaccines

New podcast: Familiar splits among white 'evangelicals,' only now they're about vaccines

It’s really a matter of simple math and logic.

Let’s start with this question, stripped of the political and journalism questions attached to it: Which of the following numbers is larger and, thus, more important — 45 or 55?

If you said “45,” then you’re ready to write headlines and edit controversial stories for The New York Times.

Before we move on, let’s ask another question that was at the heart of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). I’ll frame this in as neutral a manner as possible: If members of the Democratic Party were divided 55% “yes” to 45% “no” on a major decision, would you see this (a) as a sign that Democrats were united in opposition to the question at hand or (b) that Democrats were starkly divided on the question, with a majority taking a positive stance? I should mention that the 55% “yes” vote includes virtually all of leaders of major institutions within the world of Democratic Party life.

With that in mind, let’s contemplate the story under the following double-decker headline from the Times:

White Evangelical Resistance Is Obstacle in Vaccination Effort

Millions of white evangelical adults in the U.S. do not intend to get vaccinated against Covid-19. Tenets of faith and mistrust of science play a role; so does politics.

This brings us to the crucial summary material in this story:

The opposition is rooted in a mix of religious faith and a longstanding wariness of mainstream science, and it is fueled by broader cultural distrust of institutions and gravitation to online conspiracy theories. The sheer size of the community poses a major problem for the country’s ability to recover from a pandemic that has resulted in the deaths of half a million Americans. And evangelical ideas and instincts have a way of spreading, even internationally.

There are about 41 million white evangelical adults in the U.S. About 45 percent said in late February that they would not get vaccinated against Covid-19, making them among the least likely demographic groups to do so, according to the Pew Research Center.

“If we can’t get a significant number of white evangelicals to come around on this, the pandemic is going to last much longer than it needs to,” said Jamie Aten, founder and executive director of the Humanitarian Disaster Institute at Wheaton College, an evangelical institution in Illinois.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Inspiring Easter feature idea sent aloft by (what are the odds?) producers at MSNBC

Inspiring Easter feature idea sent aloft by (what are the odds?) producers at MSNBC

Most media consumers will think of MSNBC as a heavy-breathing, politically and socially liberal cable television news operation — 24/7/365. Nor, so far as The Guy knows, has it shown much interest in religion coverage.

So it was quite the eyebrow-raiser when the March 11 edition of "Morning Joe" aired a relatively long and serious discussion of a theme that journalists may want to grab if they're looking for a promising Easter feature idea.

Adding to the surprises, MSNBC located and featured two intelligent evangelical Protestant leaders of the sort who all too rarely get air time on cable news networks, whether liberal or conservative.

One of this era's most successful pastors, the Rev. Timothy Keller of New York City, appeared to chat about his newly released book "Hope in Times of Fear: The Resurrection and the Meaning of Easter" (Viking). Joining him was journalist-attorney David French of TheDispatch.com, booked this time not as a #NeverTrump scribe but to undergird Keller's case for why modern people can believe in Jesus Christ's literal resurrection and what this means for them.

Adding to the drama, Keller mulled his simultaneous publication of one of those must-read articles, a very personal account for The Atlantic about writing an objective book on life and death during a year when he was coping with his own fatal diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

As Keller confesses, it's one thing for a pastor to try to help parishioners face terminal illness and quite another for the pastor himself to face the same. In Keller's case, it took months for questions to give way to an even sweeter appreciation of life and of faith.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Hey journalists: Can you name three or more Ramadan news angles linked to COVID-19 vaccines?

Hey journalists: Can you name three or more Ramadan news angles linked to COVID-19 vaccines?

I don’t mind admitting it. I thought I had read just about every religion-angle COVID-19 vaccine story that there was to read (and I say that just before heading out the door to drive deep into the Cumberland Mountains to get shot No. 1 at a small-county health clinic).

The Detroit Free Press published a long, long story the other day that certainly proved me wrong on that. The headline: “Vaccine-mobile brings COVID-19 shots to Dearborn mosque, helping to convince the hesitant.

The key to the story was mentioned in an email from the GetReligion reader who (thank you readers who take the time to do this kind of thing) sent us the URL for this story. Here is part of her note:

What I really liked about this article was the way it presented vaccine concerns of the Metro Detroit Muslim community in the context of how the mosque met those concerns. Some of the concerns are unique to the Muslim community (such as the relationship of vaccination to the Ramadan fast) and others are more broad, but the article shows how this religious community is addressing them. The article quotes a variety of actual community members, which I always appreciate.

The Ramadan angle?

That’s the connection that I admit had not occurred to me. The key is explaining the specific link between the strict rules of the Ramadan fast and the simple act of getting a shot of vaccine. We are not talking, at this point, about conspiracy theory talk about the vaccine formulas containing traces of pork.

Here is the crucial part of the story, quoting Mirvat Kadouh, vice chair of the Islamic Center of America's Board of Trustees.

"We are trying to vaccinate as many people as we can before Ramadan," Kadouh said early Monday morning, spreading a plastic tablecloth over a folding table in a large conference room, where the Islamic Center's first COVID-19 vaccine clinic was about to begin.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

'Follow the science': Is there room for Catholic voices in COVID-19 news coverage?

'Follow the science': Is there room for Catholic voices in COVID-19 news coverage?

The phrase “follow the science” may very well be one of the most annoying to emerge from this pandemic. It’s proudly used by politicians, often to talk down to the rest of us when they are trying to chide political conservatives or religious people (not always the same thing) on an array of issues.

Was New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo “following the science” when his executive order last year forced elderly patients with COVID-19 be returned to nursing homes rather than kept in hospitals? He eventually reversed the order — but his administration remains in hot water after admitting they covered up the number of nursing home deaths. At least he didn’t fly to Cancun in the middle of all of it.

While he received wave after wave of positive press coverage, Cuomo’s actions last year were anti-science, since understanding how the virus was spreading at the time was critical to stopping it nationwide. The U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn and the FBI are now investigating the matter.

“Follow the science” is a phrase that has been used by politicians and mimicked by the mainstream press. A Google News search of the phrase yields 203,000 mentions. In mainstream news outlets, particularly last year when Donald Trump was president, the phrase became an attack on the administration’s handling of the virus. Post-Trump, the phrase continues to be one that journalists, especially in newsrooms like The New York Times are eager to quote.

This piece — “Studies Examine Variant Surging in California, and the News Isn’t Good” — began like this:

A variant first discovered in California in December is more contagious than earlier forms of the coronavirus, two new studies have shown, fueling concerns that emerging mutants like this one could hamper the sharp decline in cases over all in the state and perhaps elsewhere. …

“I wish I had better news to give you — that this variant is not significant at all,” said Dr. Charles Chiu, a virologist at the University of California, San Francisco. “But unfortunately, we just follow the science.”

This pandemic may have led to the wide use of this feel-good phrase, allowing government officials (copying what they hear from scientists) to exert enormous powers. However, other politically polarizing issues — such as abortion, transgender rights and climate change — have also led to its overuse. For many journalists, it means something like this: We have the truth on our side, while the rest of you believe in conspiracy theories. It’s a way to stifle debate, while offering lopsided news coverage.

What does it mean for journalism and particularly the impact of Catholic voices in news stories?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Joe Biden era puts transgender rights atop newsroom agendas (which creates religion news)

Joe Biden era puts transgender rights atop newsroom agendas (which creates religion news)

Among American "social issues," freedom of abortion is long-settled as a matter of law, so foes largely nibble at the edges. Courtroom victories for gays and lesbians have put dissenters on the defensive seeking to protect conscience claims.

Meanwhile, in the Biden-Harris era the transgender debate -- emotion-laden, multi-faceted and religiously weighty -- is moving to the top of the news agenda. {The Guy admits at the start he brings no psychological insight to this complex terrain and has personal knowledge of only two such situations.}

Democrats' zeal is the major new factor. President Joe Biden has said that he believes "transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise." Last year, Donald Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch made the case for "gender identity" rights in the Supreme Court's Bostock ruling, but this covered only secular employment. During his first hours in office, President Biden issued an executive order that extends this outlook across the board.

The president declared, for instance, that school kids shouldn't have to worry about their "access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports," nor should adults be mistreated "because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes." He directed each government agency to spend the next 100 days reframing all gender policies accordingly.

Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez, elected leader of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, immediately responded that on this and other matters like abortion, America's second Catholic president "would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity." Chicago's Cardinal Blasé Cupich assailed Gomez's Inauguration Day statement as "ill-considered." (Click here for GetReligion post and podcast on this topic.)

Then New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan and four other chairmen of bishops' committees jointly declared that by reaching beyond the Supreme Court ruling Biden "needlessly ignored the integrity of God's creation of the two complementary sexes, male and female," and threatened religious freedom. This protest echoed the 2019 Vatican pronouncement "Male and Female He Created Them (.pdf here).”

A second Biden executive order Feb. 4 defined the new "LGBTQI+" approach in U.S. foreign policy. He directed 15 Cabinet departments and agencies to press other countries to comply with America's new stance, using diplomacy and, as needed, financial sanctions or visa restrictions. The State Department is to report annually on problem nations.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Watch what Biden does, not what he says: Executive orders will widen rift within U.S. bishops

Watch what Biden does, not what he says: Executive orders will widen rift within U.S. bishops

Can you feel the unity yet? That’s the joke among political conservatives as the Biden administration closed out its first week.

Within hours of taking the oath of office on his family’s massive Bible, President Joe Biden signed a raft of executive orders — something that went on in the ensuing days — to undo strategic executive moves during Donald Trump’s presidency. During that process, Biden fan afoul of traditional Catholic teachings and, once again, placed the spotlight on his Catholic faith.

Political and religious conservatives (not always the same thing) can agree that Biden’s actions over the past week didn’t foster unity. If anything, this blitz of activity highlighted the differences between two ever-divergent Catholic camps in this country, something that revealed itself on Day 1 among the U.S. bishops and across the Atlantic Ocean in Rome as a result of dueling statements and the polemics it unleashed, all of which pointed to old fights and old wounds. Can you say “Theodore McCarrick”?

Biden, the first Roman Catholic president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, is often identified as “devout” (click here for background), when journalists describe his faith. Of course, the doctrinal side of Biden’s piety isn’t something journalists dig into. We don’t know what is in Biden’s heart or even his head.

But here is the key point for journalists and news readers: What we do know — as is the case with every politician — is what he does and says. Options about church teachings on marriage and sexuality are one thing. Biden’s decision to perform an actual gay union rite represented open conflict with the teachings of his church.

Journalists can (and should) report and show where there is overlap regarding church teachings and where there is clear contradiction. The Religious Left will soon learn that it shouldn’t hitch their wagon to any political ideology. The Religious Right learned that the hard way with Trump — something that could take years to unspool when it comes to credibility.

With Biden being a Democrat, however, I don’t expect the mainstream press to do any of this. Instead, we see puff pieces from The New York Times calling Biden “perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century.” Guess they forgot that George W. Bush was a born-again Christian who regularly attended services. What about Jimmy Carter’s decades teaching Sunday school?

Here’s the key excerpt from that very feature that ran this past Saturday:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Weekend Plug-In year in review: Religion-beat scribes select their top journalism of 2020

What a year for religion news!

From the pandemic to the election, the major headlines of 2020 had huge faith angles.

For this special year-end edition of Weekend Plug-in, I asked some of the nation’s top reporters and columnists to share the favorite religion story they wrote during 2020.

However, some of them couldn’t stop at just one. I guess I’m OK with that because it means more terrific links in the list below.

It’s a holiday week, so I didn’t catch up with everybody. But I sure appreciate my colleagues who responded. And I beg forgiveness for the excellent Godbeat work I missed in this roundup, this week and every week.

Power Up: The Year’s Best Reads

Journalists who write about religion pick their top story — or in some cases, top stories — of 2020.

Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Washington Post: Seeking power in Jesus’ name: Trump sparks a rise of Patriot Churches, published Oct. 26.

Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service: Stacey Abrams’ passion for voting began with her preacher parents, published Oct. 16.

Deepa Bharath, Orange County Register: Hospital chaplains fill role of surrogate family members during times of isolation, depression, death, published July 12.

Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post: These Mormon twins worked together on an IRS whistleblower complaint over the church’s billions — and it tore them apart, published Jan. 16.

Katherine Burgess, Memphis Commercial Appeal: Family of Tennessee death row inmate awaits 'miracle' as 11th hour DNA test underway, published Oct. 20.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

SCOTUS flips script on COVID-19 worship bans, but Francis Collins of NIH urges closures

First New York.

Now California.

With the addition of a fifth, solidly conservative member — new Justice Amy Coney Barrett — the U.S. Supreme Court has flipped the script on months of legal battles over pandemic-era worship gatherings.

“It is time — past time — to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote last week as the 5-4 court blocked New York from imposing strict attendance limits on religious services.

Then on Thursday, the court “sided with a California church protesting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pandemic-related restrictions on indoor worship services,” noted the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes. The brief, unsigned order returned the issue to lower court judges and “suggests the state’s ban on indoor services is likely to fall,” reported the Los Angeles Times’ David G. Savage.

In San Francisco, Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has complained that the city’s “treatment of churches is discriminatory and violates the right to worship,” as explained by the Catholic News Agency. For more details on the California battle, see Sacramento Bee writer Dale Kasler’s story this week on churches defying Newsom’s order.

In related news, the Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas highlighted a clash over in-person classes in religious schools in Kentucky. And Boston.com’s Nik DeCosta-Klipa covered Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker’s concerns over “COVID-19 clusters stemming from religious gatherings.”

Here in my home state of Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt has refused to issue a statewide mask mandate that might help slow the spread of COVID-19. But he declared Thursday a day of prayer and fasting over the coronavirus, as reported by The Associated Press’ Ken Miller.

Amid a surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths nationally, a top public health official Thursday “called on religious leaders to keep their worship spaces closed, despite rising protests from some church leaders,” according to NPR’s Tom Gjelten:


Please respect our Commenting Policy