cpt-emnn348-5551212

Scientists and medical researchers who want to produce hESCs for research or therapeutic purposes must therefore come to grips with the unavoidable fact that turning the "inner cell mass" from whence come the "embryonic stem cells" into hESCs ends any existing potential of these cells to become a fetus or a living person.

Researchers who are doing, or who want to do, experiments or treatments with human embryonic stem cells accept this trade-off and either believe (or say they believe) that doing this is ethical, or they believe it isn't ethical but they're willing to do it anyway. Some may even believe that the question of destroying potential human life for whatever purposes they intend is above or outside of any ethical considerations entirely, or even that there is no such thing as "ethics."

Others believe that destroying potential human life for any purpose, or for the purpose of creating embryonic stem cells for experimental or therapeutic purposes, is not ethical.

From these opposing perspectives comes the controversy over the ethics of human embryonic stem cell research.

While those opposing the creation of hESCs do what they can to stop government funding for it and try to outlaw it, proponents are engaged in a process of trying to convince others (the public and lawmakers) that it's ok.

Douglas Melton, the Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences at Harvard and one of the co-directors of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI), in an article in the Harvard Gazette entitled "Melton derives new stem cell lines" has this to say:

"Melton got around federal funding restrictions, but what does he say to people who believe that life begins upon conception? 'Unquestionably,' he answers, 'the material from which these stem cells are derived has the potential to form a life. But this potential is very low. Those who say that frozen embryos are identical to children are mistaken. You cannot take a child and put it in a freezer. We need to draw a strong line between what has the potential for life and what is alive.

"'Even more important,' he continues, 'the material we used was slated for destruction. From that point of view, one could almost consider our position pro-life. We took something that was going to be destroyed and isolated cells from it that could improve the lives of people suffering from disease and trauma. I don't know of any scientist who thinks this was a bad idea or that it should not have been done.'"

In an article in Wired Magazine entitled "How to Farm Stem Cells Without Losing Your Soul," subtitled "A solution to the stem cell dilemma that even the Vatican can love," William Hurlbut, identified in the article as a "a bioethicist from Stanford," is shown presenting to "some of the Vatican's top thinkers, including a dozen men in clerical dress, a nun in a flowing brown habit, and a Dominican priest whose prayer beads quietly clatter" a proposal to put to rest any moral qualms about converting "inner cell masses" to "embryonic stem cells":

"In a bit of diplomacy that may satisfy both the scientists and the theologians, Hurlbut advocates genetically altering cloned embryos so, like a teratoma, they wouldn't have the DNA necessary to become viable humans. For the first few days of existence, they would grow normally and produce stem cells, but then die when a critical embryonic component - say, a placenta - failed to emerge. 'They would have no coherent drive in the direction of mature human form,' Hurlbut tells the crowd. 'It's analogous to growing skin in a tissue culture. Such an entity would never rise to the level of a human being.' You could grow them in vats, kill them at will, and never risk offending God. As both a medical doctor and a deeply religious Christian, Hurlbut borrows from each side: It's a theological breakthrough in the form of a scientific technique."

In any case, the political side of this debate involves a number of levels of potentially unethical behavior. The highest such level apparently is where the issue of what is called "reproductive human cloning" resides. To understand reproductive human cloning, and its close relative, "therapeutic human cloning," it's necessary first to understand "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT).

Normally, when a human egg is fertilized, either naturally or through in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracellular sperm injection (ICSI), a male gamete containing half the number of chromosomes needed to provide a full complement of the genetic blueprint needed to make a human being (the "haploid" number, in humans 23) combines with a female gamete containing the same haploid number to create a cell with the full ("diploid," in humans 46) number of chromosomes.

Going back to the 19th century work of the monk Gregor Mendel (and oversimplying a bit), the interaction of genetic "alleles," the corresponding genes on the two sets of chromosomes, will determines which of the two will determine the expressed characteristics of the new offspring, with "dominant" genes trumping "recessive" prescriptions for the same characteristic, which reduce to a series of proteins coded for by the data in the genes.

The unique combination of genes created in the union of the two gametes will determine the genetic make-up of the new person. If the fertilized egg separates into two identical embryos early in the developmental process, it will yield identical twins. (Simultaneous pregnancies from separately-fertilized eggs will yield "fraternal," or non-identical, twins, while a partial separation of a single fertilized embryo will produce "conjoined" (formerly "Siamese") twins.

Natural selection in human evolution, until now, has relied on the differential survival of individuals with unique genetic make-ups generated by the combination of two existing genomes (constellations of genes).

Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, adds a new, technologically-mediated twist to the natural and artificial means by which new human beings are now being created. Building on the laboratory techniques developed for IVF and ICSI, some medical scientists now want to create viable fertilized embryos by removing the haploid genetic material in the nucleus of a human egg ("denucleation") and replace it with the diploid (full) complement of genes from an adult body cell ("somatic cell nuclear transfer").

Add a bit of electricity to the mix and, when it works, the newly-"fertilized" human egg will begin to divide, taking as its blueprint for the individual's characteristics not the combined result of mixing male and female genes, but using solely the already-existing complete genetic code coming from the individual who's adult cell was used to provide the genetic material for the new organism.

The product of somatic cell nuclear transfer is a "clone," genetically identical (except for the mitochondrial DNA, about which nothing further here) to the individual from whom the source nuclear DNA came.

At the point where such a clone has been created through the SCNT process, it is no more possible to describe that process as "human reproductive cloning" or "human therapeutic cloning" than it is to know if Schrödinger's cat, inside a closed box where its life-or-death condition is unknown until the box is opened, is dead or alive.

What makes the process "reproductive" or "therapeutic" is what happens to the embryo after it's been created.

If it's implanted in a uterus with the intention of bringing the individual to term, it becomes "reproductive cloning." If the "inner cell mass" that appears in it after a few days is removed from the blastocyst and transferred to a Petri dish or other non-uterine vessel, it becomes "therapeutic cloning," whether the embryonic stem cells so created are used, as is envisioned now, to investigate the processes by which these "pluripotent" cells develop into individualized types of human cell (for example, nerve, muscle, pancreatic, etc.) or, as is planned for later, to generate pluripotent cells that will either be used themselves or used to generate specific types of cells that can actually be used to treat living people (or embryos) for various diseases.

So far, only one research team, in Korea has reported successfully generating pluripotent human embryonic stem cells through somatic cell nuclear transfer.

With this background in mind, we can consider the various combinations of attitudes towards allowing, encouraging, prohibiting or having the government pay for the different types of embryonic stem cell and cloning options.

Obviously, the most extreme pro-hESC/human cloning position possible would be for state and/or federal governments to allow, encourage, and fund human reproductive and human therapeutic cloning, making possible the "harvesting" of pluripotent human stem cells from existing "surplus" embryos created in IVF clinics, the creation of new IVF and/or ICSI-generated embryos created specifically for purposes of hESC research, and the creation of human clones through SCNT, for research, therapy, and the gestation and birth of cloned humans.

At the other end of the spectrum would be the most tightly-restrictive set of regulations, laws prohibiting and criminalizing human reproductive cloning, human therapeutic cloning, and the "harvesting" of embryonic stem cells from existing "surplus" human embryos.

In between these extremes would be sets of rules allowing the "harvesting" of embryonic stem cells from existing "surplus" human embryos, with or without government funding of this process; rules allowing SCNT for research but not treatment purposes; rules allowing it for both research and treatment (in these two cases either with or without government funding); and a set of regulations allowing, or even encouraging, but not having the government pay for, human reproductive cloning designed to produce a live human clone.

For purposes of this discussion, we will skip over any consideration of what is called "germline manipulation," in which modifications are made to either egg or sperm in the pre-fertilization stage or to the "undifferentiated cells of an early embryo," in which case "the changes are not limited to the individual organism. For when DNA is incorporated into an embryo's germ cells, or undifferentiated cells that give rise to germ cells, the altered gene or genes will be passed on to future generations and may become a permanent part of the gene pool."

On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush delivered a television address to the American people in which he said, "I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans.".

Two days later, on August 11, 2005, President Bush made stem cell research the subject of his weekly radio address to the nation. At that time, he said, "I strongly oppose cloning."

Subsequently, President Bush implemented a federal policy of funding embryonic stem cell research only when it involved using one or more embryonic stem cell lines already in existence at the time he instituted his policy.

According to a statement made on April 14, 2005, to California Politics Today by White House spokesperson David Almacy:

"The President supports stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research and he is the first President to approve federal funding for the effort. This is a promising area of research, but the science is still in the very early stages, according to the White House."

Federal policy on embryonic stem cell research under President Bush has, accordingly, been to allow it but not allow the federal government to pay for it, unless it involves certain pre-existing embryonic stem cell lines.

Since that time, critics of that approach have claimed that the existing stem cell lines are not diverse enough to be useful and that they are mostly contaminated with mouse cells that render them unusable for human therapies.

See, in this regard, a January 23, 2005 article on the Forbes.com web site entitled "U.S. Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Contaminated."

As a direct result of the Bush Administration's ban on federal funding for new hESC research, proponents of this type of work in California put together and passed in November, 2004, Proposition 71, which authorized the sale of $3 billion in state bonds to fund hESC research and also specifically wrote a right to perform SCNT into California law.

The sale of these California state bonds, and the awarding of research grants funded with the proceeds from those sales, is currently stalled, due to litigation brought against the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee (ICOC) established by Proposition 71 to make these awards brought by the Life Legal Defense Foundation.

Meanwhile, the legislature in Massachusetts, eager to avoid a "brain drain" of hESC medical researchers and a "corporate drain" of life sciences companies to California because of the (delayed) stem cell gold rush there, has passed legislation that would legalize, but apparently not provide government funding for, "therapeutic" human cloning, while banning the "reproductive" type of human cloning.

This approach does not sit well with Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, and he has returned the legislation that would do this to the Massachusetts legislature with a recommendation that "lawmakers outlaw the practice and impose sanctions, including up to five to 10 years in jail, for violators. Romney supports research using adult stem cells or leftover frozen embryos from fertility clinics."

One member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Betty Poirier, has attempted to raise an alarm about what she says will be the staggering number of donated eggs from women necessary to fuel the research and possible eventual treatment phases of SCNT-based research and the possible abuse and/or exploitation of women worldwide to get those oocytes. You can listen to her concerns by clicking here.

Not as worried as Representative Poirier, but still somewhat concerned about this issue is Judy Norsigian, executive director of the Our Bodies, Ourselves collective in Boston. You can hear her views on the issue of female "egg farming" by clicking here.

Even less worried about the risks of "egg farming" than Ms. Norsigian is Dr. David Adamson, Chairman and CEO of Advanced Reproductive Care, Inc. (ARC) in Palo Alto, California, whose remarks on the subject can be heard by clicking here.

Efforts to allow, encourage, and possibly even federally fund some types of hESC research are now pending in the U.S. Congress, along with Senator Brownback's proposed law (S. 658) to ban all forms of human cloning.

Colorado Democratic Representative Diane DeGette and Delaware Republican Representative Mike Castle, along with Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Tom Harkin of Iowa, are sponsoring the "The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005," which would allow federal funding for new stem cell lines derived from existing or future "surplus" embryos produced in the course of IVF treatment, if they meet certain specified criteria.

Democratic California Senator Diane Feinstein, Republicans Orrin Hatch of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democrat Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts are also sponsoring the "Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005", which would make human reproductive cloning a crime punishable by up to ten years in prison, but allow (although apparently not fund) "therapeutic" human cloning.

This legislation is strongly supported by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Interesting, Senator Feinstein makes the same argument on a global level that Massachusetts legislative supporters of embryonic stem cell research there made on a national level, as was reported in an Associated Press article as follows:

"'There's such an uneven panoply of laws across the United States,' Feinstein said. She said the federal government must step in or risk scientists 'going to Great Britain, they're going to go to China, go to South Korea.'"

And U.S. Representative Nancy Johnson of Connecticut has introduced a legislative proposal that would provide $30 million in tax-free bonds to help the states pursue hESC research, but only with research on embryos created for fertility treatments that would otherwise be destroyed..

Meanwhile, two prominent organizations have weighed in on the issue, each offering its own set of guidelines for the regulation of embryonic stem cell research.

On April 27, 2005, the National Academy of Sciences Embryonic Stem Cell Research Guidelines Committee issued its proposal. Jonathan Moreno, the co-chair of that committee, spoke with Etopia Media Medical News Networks (EMMNN) the same day about that report. You can hear what he had to say about it by clicking here.

The May 2, 2005, edition of "The Dean's Newsletter" at Stanford Medical School takes note of this report.

On May 12, 2005, the President's Council on Bioethics issued its own set of recommendations for ethical hESC research.

As reported by Reuters, the President's Council on Bioethics attempts to resolve the controversy by suggesting ways of producing embryonic stem cells "without creating and destroying human embryos."

The report suggests this might be done by deriving hESCs from "dead embryos; from living embryos, by nondestructive biopsy; from bioengineered embryo-like artifacts; and from reprogramed adult somatic cells."

Reuters elaborated:

"Dead embryos would include those unsuccessfully thawed at fertility clinics. Nondestructive biopsy refers to studies showing it might be possible to take a cell or two from an embryo without destroying it and grow those in labs.

"Bioengineered cells would be genetically altered so that they could never become an actual human being [see the proposal, above, by William Hurlbut at Stanford]. Reprograming adult cells remains the goal of many stem cell researchers, who would like to be able to take a cell from a patient and change its genetic instructions so that it can form a batch of the desired tissue."

No one prominent in either the scientific or the political community has publicly supported going forward with human reproductive cloning. Proposition 71, the pending legislation in Massachusetts, and the proposed "Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005" all pair provisions allowing therapeutic human cloning with bans on the reproductive variant of this procedure.

The conventional wisdom on this subject can be heard in these comments by Dr. David Adamson at Advanced Reproductive Care (ARC), in Palo Alto, California when, during his May 4, 2005 EMMNN interview, he says:

"I'm not a philosopher, or an ethicist but in general I would find that a fairly disturbing concept and certainly wouldn't be supportive of it ["constructive human immortality" produced by human reproductive cloning]. Everything in life, you know, is born, lives and dies and it seems to have worked in the universe, not only people but animals, plants, planets, suns, so it seems to me that it would be unnatural, as it were, to do that and on that basis alone I wouldn't be able to support it."

The principal objection raised by opponents of human embryonic stem cell research is that the process of extracting the "inner cell mass" from the blastocyst to produce the "embryonic stem cells" terminates an innocent human life and that doing so is ethically wrong.

While "therapeutic" human cloning necessarily destroys a potential human life by its very nature, "reproductive" human cloning, in which the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer is implanted in a uterus with the intention of bringing a live human into existence, does not. In fact, it is a way, like the widespread practice of in vitro fertilization, of creating new life, albeit new life that is an almost-identical genetic copy of pre-existing life.

Considering, then, the ethical continuum according to which these matters are being weighed, by what consistent principle can those who want to allow therapeutic human cloning (which destroys what its critics call "innocent human life") while banning the reproductive version of SCNT (which does not) make that distinction, that judgment and the rules they propose to legislate?