Regarding the Pending Stem Cell Votes in the Senate
I have heard from people requesting that I post my thoughts about the upcoming Senate votes on funding embryonic stem cell research, funding "alternative sources" for deriving pluripotent stem cells, and the ban on "fetal farming." So, here goes:
The vote to increase funding for ESCR is just so much hype. With existing federal, state, and private funding, ES cell scientists already have more money available than they can spend at the moment. Moreover, the bill will not become law while President Bush is in office, since he will exercise his first veto. The media will huff and puff but I don't think it will hurt the president politically since he is merely keeping a campaign promise.
I do note with some amusement (and no surprise) the very personal attack against the credibility of my good friend David Prentice by the forces of Big Biotech. David has worked very hard to make the world aware of the potential for adult stem cell research, and this attack is clearly timed for the Senate vote. (See the Do No Harm Web site for an initial response.) Apparently, David has drawn blood by pointing out that adult stem cells are treating human ailments either in clinical settings, or more often, in early human trials around the world. Scientists can't say anything like that about ES cells since they are unsafe, at present, for human use.
The big news for me is the bill to fund alternative sources of stem cells, which is expected to pass by a huge margin, followed quickly by a House vote. This is a personal triumph for my good friend Bill Hurlbut who has worked intensely for years to raise the level of public awareness about this possibility. The bill would not only fund animal research into altered nuclear transfer (ANT), which is Bill's project, but other innovative approaches as well, such as the potential to revert a patient's own cells into an embryonic stem cell state.
The ban on fetal farming is important because it draws a first line in the sand, which is only the beginning of an important process aimed at ensuring that biotechnology does not run out of control. This bill will also pass easily, perhaps unanimously, followed by an immediate vote in the House.
My understanding is that President Bush will sign the two bills and veto the one at an East Room ceremony at the White House on Wednesday. I have been invited to attend the President's speech, which I was honored to accept. I will post my reaction to what he has to say when I return from Washington.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:12 PM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
A couple of comments about your post
First of all, my understanding of this bill is that it will allow stem cell lines to be generated only from embryos already destined for destruction. Regardless of how we feel about the destruction of embryos, passage or failure of this bill will not influence the fertility clinics in this practice. Isn't it ethical to ensure that through the potential of stem cell research, society may at least derive some good from the process?
I was also hoping that as an ethicist, you could comment further about your support of ANT. As a molecular biologist, I do not see how this technique really solves the ethical dilemma. Essentially, a genetically altered SCNT embryo is created which is incapable of implantation (and therefore cannot be used for reproductive cloning). An embryo is still created (for the purpose of being destroyed in the harvesting of embryonic stem cells). The mutation must be subtle, or else the derived stem cells will be of little use. All we have done is given the embryo a handicap. If conditions could be developed to sustain development in vitro, this embryo could ABSOLUTELY develop into a human being. Therefore, if you believe that an embryo is life, you are still advocating the creation of life for the purpose of destroying it. But wait...it gets worse. You are also advocating the manipulation of life to create custom-tailored embryos (by introducing these mutations). This is called human transgenics, and scientists have long held the practice to be grossly unethical. Once you open the door to the genetic manipulation of embryos, designer babies will be right around the corner.
I hate to sound alarmist, but I don't think the ethicists have fully thought this one through...
Thanks for writing. ANT, if it works, would not create a disabled embryo. It would create the moral equivalent of a somatic cell line, only the cells would be pluripotent. I support animal testing of the process to see if it can actually be done. I have taken no position on doing the procedure with humans. Nor has Bill Hurlbut, for that matter. If it did create an embryo for use and destruction, I would not support it. For more info, check out Bill Hurlbut's work and the report of the President's Council on alternative methods.
ESCR with leftover IVF embryos treats nascent human life like a harvestable crop. I object. But my real issue is human cloning and ESCR is the gateway to using that technology in humans--as we have already seen.
I find it ironic in the extreme that scientists supposedly find it objectionable to create ANT non embryos but perfectly fine (if it can be done) to create true human embryos asexually for use in research. Also, the NAS "ethical" guidelines would also permit creating natural embryos for use in research, which we were once told would not happen. Odd value system.
In any event, thanks for contributing.
You also left out how Doug Melton and Art Kaplan are brutally critical to Dr Hurlbut all the while Dr Melton is using rabbit eggs for the purposes of SCNT.
Indeed. Caplan and Melton disdain Hurlbut because he has effectively focused the world on the potential moral cost of using embryos as commodities.
I did as you asked and read more about ANT. Here is the only passage I can find which mentions real molecular details about the method:
"One possibility is the alteration of 'cdx2,' a gene essential for differentiation of the trophectoderm (the tissues that ultimately form the placenta). In experiments with mouse models, when this gene is not expressed there is only a partial and disorganized developmental process resulting in a visibly abnormal blastocyst. Nonetheless, there is the formation of an inner cell mass from which functional ES cells have been harvested. For ANT, this gene might be temporarily silenced (using RNA interference) by altering the somatic cell nucleus or the cytoplasm prior to transfer, so that once the ES cells have been procured the gene could be re-expressed to allow fully potent ES cells.
The limited biological entity created by such a procedure would fail to establish even the most fundamental features of organismal infrastructure, and would be incapable of implantation."
You are the ethicist, but I don't see here "the moral equivalent of a somatic cell line. A somatic cell line is derived from somatic cells. These cells are derived from the product of a SCNT 'fertilization' process. The only thing that keeps this entity from developing into a normal, healthy embryo is that a gene required for placental development is temporarily repressed by RNAi (only to be derepressed once the stem cells have been extracted). In other words, if not for our ACTIVE and SUSTAINED intervention, this is a normal embryo. In my opinion, if you perform SCNT, you have the moral equivalent of an embryo. By repressing cdx2, you are handicapping that embryo. Ergo, this is morally equivalent to destroying an embryo.
It really seems like ANT is splitting hairs to bypass a moral dilemma. In ethics, isn't the INTENT more important?
My understanding is that no embryo is created because the organizational capacity never develops. This remains to be seen. As I said, the idea is to do animal testing to see what it looks like. If it turns out that the process creates a "disabled embryo," it will not be supported. If it turns out that it creates no such thing, it may well be.
But realize, ANT isn't the only avenue that could prove to be an alternative to ESCR. For example, I am excited about the prospect of reverting a patient's somatic cells to an embryonic stem cell state.
Post a Comment
<< Home