Rev. John Richard Neuhaus
First Things
Institute on Religion and Public Life
156 5th Avenue, Suite 400
New York, New York 10010
Dear Father Neuhaus:
I am writing to express my solid and enthusiastic support for an article which is being sent to your editor, James Noterlein, and strongly urge its publication in First Things. The article is entitled "New Wave Dialectic .... ", by Clayton Ward Kischer, Ph.D.
For the last couple of years Dr. Kischer, who has been teaching human embryology for almost 30 years, and I have been vigorously attempting to correct a great deal of the inaccurate science (and philosophy) abounding in our respective literatures. Specifically we have been addressing that misinformation which has played such a major role in the "fetal personhood" debates. I believe I have sent you some of my own work, as well as an early article by Dr. Kischer which was published in the Linacre Quarterly in which he addresses the incorrect embryology used by Richard McCormick and Clifford Grobstein (who is not a human embryologist) for so many years. Dr. Kischer's corrections are in agreement with virtually every nationally and internationally recognized dean of human embryology. You have also been sent the amicus curiae brief which I wrote for the J.M. New Jersey abortion petition to the United States Supreme Court, one of the amici being Dr. Kischer. The amicus brief was also submitted in the recent Loce case.
I recall one of your articles in First Things in which you discussed the troubles and discriminations which many faculty members in the academy face when their work is not perceived as "politically correct". Both Dr. Kischer and myself have, indeed, experienced the very "syndrome" of which you spoke. Dr. Kischer's article which he is submitting to your editor is, precisely, a courageous attempt to have his corrections of the "human" embryology being used in the abortion debates published. These scientific corrections are not only critical for the sake of securing and maintaining the integrity of this scientific information, data and theories for their own sake but - since the incorrect science is used as the basis, grounding and justification for "delayed personhood" arguments - they are also necessary for the integrity of the arguments and debates concerning abortion, as well as issues conceptually related to abortion: fetal research, fetal tissue research, psychiatric research, organ transplantation, withholding and withdrawal of medical treatments, euthanasia, "persistent vegetative state", brain death and brain life criteria, etc. All of these issues are discussed and decided fundamentally on the basis of a perceived concept of "personhood", usually based on the very incorrect "human" embryology which is the subject of Dr. Kischer's article.
Recently Dr. Kischer and I have been trying to help both the grass-roots pro-life groups with their projects as well as briefing Congressional members and staff on the incorrect science (and philosophy) - specifically with regard to the current NIH Human Embryo Research Panel meetings and deliberations. When the NIH Panel finally sends up its recommendations, we will be analyzing them from both a scientific and a philosophical perspective. Needless to say, most of the discussions and decisions of this Panel are grounded on this very same incorrect embryology.
In the meantime, we are both (collectively and individually) pursuing every means possible to set the academic records straight. But this is almost always a very difficult path, since there is much at stake for those whose arguments would lose credibility. A great deal of pressure is placed on us to be silent, as well as on others who under ordinary circumstances might help us.
Dr. Kischer's corrections of this human embryology are a critical story to get out. Perhaps its publication might encourage many others who have had similar experiences to speak up, eventually so that so much of the deception and pressure can be removed from those who are willing to "hang out there" to tell the truth, even at great personal and professional risk. What I am beginning to find is that sometimes it takes someone or some organization "on the outside" to accomplish what those who are caught inside cannot. First Things would be in the position to publicize what some other journals are reluctant to make public. And if the "public square" is so factually misinformed, how can coherent or sound discussions take place?
I can personally vouch for Dr. Kischer's integrity, honestly and competence - and I frankly do not know what I personally would have done in my own work without his help, encouragement, patience and persistence. He has been extremely supportive of my own efforts in every way, and I hope that your journal will seriously consider publishing his article as quickly as possible - especially in view of the current NIH Panel's charge.
I have previously sent Fr. Burtchaell,, one of the committee members of the NIH Fetal Tissue Transplant Research Conference, my own dissertation and several papers, as well as my recent testimony before the NIH Panel. He is fairly drowning in my papers, as a matter of fact - but always manages to respond to me with characteristic humor and encouragement! If you need further background on me or these issues, I am sure he will discuss this with you. Michael Novak, Hadley Arkes, Russell Hittinger are also aware of my work, and Robert George recently based part of his Bradley Lecture on some of my papers - much of which was drawn from or correlated with Dr. Kischer's own work. If you would like additional information or papers from either Dr. Kischer or myself, please just let me know.
Thank you for your consideration, and all of your important work! I deeply pray that your journal will publish Dr. Kischer's paper, and I look forward to your response. Best wishes and God bless -
Sincerely,
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
History of Philosophy/Bioethics
(Home: 5108 Randall Lane
Bethesda, MD 20816-1917
301-229-4176
FAX 301-229-8748)
[Edited for format and clarity July 18, 2004]
Copyright September 16, 1994
The Reverend Richard John Neuhaus
President
Religion and Public Life
156 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
New York, New York 10010
Dear Reverend Neuhaus:
Thank you very much for your kind invitation to participate in the Ramsey Colloquium on October 6, 1994, to respond to the NIH panel's report on research using human embryos. I would, of course, consider it an honor to participate with such a distinguished group, and look forward to deliberating about this important issue with you.
I have been involved in and concerned about this issue since defending my doctoral dissertation at Georgetown University in 1991. The major question I addressed in the dissertation was: "Is it ethical to use 'surplus' human embryos in experimental research?". In analyzing and researching that question I soon realized that a considerable amount of incorrect science, philosophy and theology had already been incorporated in virtually all of the arguments concerning "fetal personhood" in the prevailing literature. I and others have been attempting to bring this situation to the attention of both lay and academic audiences since then, particularly in view of the degree of harm which can result with the acceptance and application of these "theories". The transcripts and invited papers of the meetings of the present NIH Human Embryo Research Panel will attest to the fact that it is already a "fait accompli".
Per your request I am enclosing (1) a copy of a very short summary from my dissertation of the incorrect science used in the "delayed personhood" debates (complete with several pages of references), entitled "Background material on the scientific and moral status of the early human embryo: The 'personhood' debates". I am also enclosing (2) a recent copy of my resume, since some of the members of the group may be unfamiliar with my background and work. A recent article (3) by Diane Gianelli in the American Medical News, comparing the arguments of seven of us working in this area, is also included. Your may, of course, at your discretion, send these materials to the other participants.
In addition, I am enclosing for your information several other materials pertinent to this issue which may be of help: (4) my dissertation, entitled Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human Embryo; (5) the Loce amicus curiae brief which I wrote for the University Faculty For Life (which is basically a summary of my dissertation); (6) a paper recently published in the Linacre Quarterly, "'New age' embryology text books: 'Pre-embryo', 'pregnancy' and abortion counseling; Implications for fetal research"; (7) a paper entitled, "The impact of scientific mis-information on other fields: Philosophy, theology, biomedical ethics and public policy"; (8) a paper entitled, "Which ethics for science and public policy?"; and (9) a copy of my individual testimony before the NIH Panel in March. You certainly have my permission to distribute any of these materials if they can be of any use to the group.
I would like to express to all of you my sincere appreciation for addressing this complicated and controversial issue, and I look forward to meeting with you in October. In the meantime if there are any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
History of Philosophy/Bioethics
5108 Randall Lane
Bethesda, MD 20816-1917
301-229-4176
FAX 301-229-8748
[Edited for format and clarity July 18, 2004]
Copyright September 21, 1994
Reverend Richard John Neuhaus
President
Religion and Public Life
156 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
New York, NY 10010
Dear Reverend Neuhaus:
I am enclosing a few items which might be useful background material for our discussions at The Ramsey Colloquium on October 6.
(Also, on the last two pages of my resume which I sent to you, there are the names of several resources - in TV, radio and newspapers - who have already interviewed me on the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel issues, and who would therefore probably be interested in some follow-up stories by others in the "Ramsey" group).
I will have American Life League send you a copy of their own critique of Dr. Varmus' letter of response, which contains considerable references and well-articulated arguments. I will also ask Mary Meehan, of the National Catholic Register, to send you copies of the numerous articles which she has written for the paper on this issue (Mary has been present at most of the NIH meetings).
Finally, Robert George, a member of the Ramsey Colloquium, called me early this summer to ask me which one of my articles would be the most helpful to pass along to the members of the group. It was decided that the article, "Philosophical and Scientific Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on 'Personhood'", Linacre Quarterly (Feb. 1993), 60:1:18-46, would be the most appropriate, as it details not only the incorrect science being used in the "personhood" debates, but also details (and references) the metaphysics, epistemology and anthropology required to respond to these arguments. I have assumed that this paper was distributed, but it was not included in the "background" folder which you have sent to me. So I have taken the liberty of enclosing another copy of that article here.
Of course it is not expected that everyone read all of these background materials, but at least they will all be in one place if anyone wants to go into more detail at a later date. Looking forward to the discussions. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
History of Philosophy/Bioethics
5108 Randall Lane
Bethesda, MD 20816-1917
301-229-4176
FAX 301-229-8748
[Edited for format and clarity July 18, 2004]