Most people think of cell biologists as bench scientists who grow things in little dishes. As a university professor training future cell biologists, I wondered about my students’ perceptions of the need for an ethical framework. I asked my advanced students for their feedback on the pressing ethical issues in our field. Here are some of their ideas:

1. The origin of the cells we work on matters.  We would find it morally problematic to help destroy embryos for stem cell research. Similarly, we would be opposed to using tissue obtained from induced abortions for research.
2. The stewardship of creation matters.  Genetic modification of crops, as well as genetic therapies for disease, may have unintended consequences. While all of us see the potential good in producing more food or curing disease, our knowledge of outcomes is limited. We must be careful stewards of these techniques.
3. Living creatures matter. Therefore, we should be wise in our use of resources. How drugs are tested impacts human beings as well as animals, and our use of  medications may impact the environment. We should develop research strategies that protect the environment and our fellow living creatures.
4. The gift of human procreation matters. Not all birth control methods protect the unborn. We wish to use, study, and develop family planning technologies consistent with a high view of human persons. Genetic screening and other forms of testing may allow for informed decision making. However, we regret that some persons may use test results as a basis for abortion

Ethical standards mentioned by my students include defending human life in its earliest forms, stewardship of the world around us, valuing all of God’s creation, and thinking deeply about how we procreate. Apparently, ethics does apply in a Petri dish after all.  Aren’t you relieved?

For more information: Global Health Outreach

_________________________________________

To listen, just click on the player below (click on the Audio MP3 button if the player doesn’t appear).

A recent update reminds us that applications of adult stem cells to treat human diseases continue to progress. Cellerix is a biotechnology company that has adult stem cells in various stages of human testing. This means we may see new therapies on the market within a few years. Some of these treatments may help patients with Crohn’s disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and other inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cells come from adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells, are found in the adipose (fat) tissue of adults.

This news comes on the heels of a development just last month, where scientists announced they had successfully isolated colon stem cells from biopsy samples. The inability to culture certain human stem cell types from adult cell lines is one of the main arguments for using embryonic stem cells (which requires the destruction of frozen embryos). These new  developments weaken the argument that embryonic stem cell research is essential to cure certain diseases that plague humanity.

The clinical trials cited above are by no means rare.  A Google search of adult stem cell therapy brings up many therapies already in clinical use. Search [adult stem cell clinical trial] and you will find even more therapies in various stages in development. Some of sources of adult stem cells in these therapies include cells derived from bone marrow, central nervous system, and fatty tissue of adults, as well as cells derived from umbilical cord blood or cells of placental origin, obtained after birth.

For those of us who morally object to embryonic stem cell research, the fact that new and successful clinical treatments use alternative sources of stem cells is a great encouragement. As more biotech companies develop such  treatments, there will be less pressure to terminate the lives of human embryos for the sake of scientific progress.

References:

1. Cellerix Secures 4.95M for Phase III Study of Allogeneic Adult Stem Cell Therapy: http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/cellerix-secures-4-95m-for-phase-iii-study-of-allogeneic-adult-stem-cell-therapy/81245764/?kwrd=Adult Stem Cells
2. Researchers Isolate and Expand Elusive Human Colon Stem Cells from Biopsy Samples: http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/researchers-isolate-and-expand-elusive-human-colon-stem-cells-from-biopsy-samples/81245626/?kwrd=Adult Stem Cells
3. Is the Progression of Adult Stem Cell Therapies into the Clinic a Good Sign for Technology? http://www.genengnews.com/analysis-and-insight/is-the-progression-of-adult-stem-cell-therapies-into-the-clinic-a-good-sign-for-technology/77899325/?kwrd=Adult Stem Cells

It’s ironic that the United Kingdom, one of the countries on the forefront of new biomedical research, (including embryo-destructive stem cell research), has no organized system for utilizing one of the best sources of stems cells: umbilical cord blood.

Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, the wife of Britain’s Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, found this out in February when trying to donate their son’s umbilical cord blood to a national tissue bank. Only a few public hospitals in Britain are capable of collecting cord blood, and a vast array of bureaucratic and monetary hurdles prevent potential donors from being able to give.

Cord blood stem cells, taken from the discarded placenta and umbilical cord after birth, have already demonstrated enormous potential in helping patients with diseases, including cancer, leukemia, and cerebral palsy. Best of all, these stem cells are readily available, and the are no moral or ethical dilemmas associated with their use. In spite of these attractive qualities, relatively few parents in the U.S. or the U.K. know about the life-saving potential found in their baby’s discarded umbilical cord, or of the options they may have to donate the cord blood for medical research and treatment.

Miriam Gonzalez Durantez was told by officials that donation of her son’s umbilical cord blood was “impossible.” She is now trying to raise awareness of cord blood donation in Britain, urging the British government to expand the capacity of the national blood bank to collect cord blood for treatment and research.

Americans should follow Durantez’s example, and educate the U.S. public about the amazing potential of cord blood stem cells to treat human disease. As demand for umbilical cord blood grows, so will the agencies that can accept and utilize cord blood donations. Human flourishing may be improved on both sides of the Atlantic, in an ethically responsible manner.

Article in The Independent

Although GCP protocols claim common themes with the Declaration, key ethical requirements contained in the Declaration are absent from the GCP. These requirements include: post-trial access to treatment for the patient; the condition that research, especially research done in developing countries, should benefit and be responsive to the health needs of the populations of that country; that the study design be publicly disclosed; and that investigators reveal their sponsors, funding, and potential conflicts of interest to research ethics committees and study participants.

Key tenets of ethical human research include the right of the patient to informed consent, and protection of those who are vulnerable. Both of these important qualifications may be lost in GCP-guided international research. It would be impossible for a patient to truly exercise informed consent if the researchers are less than honest about the study design, sponsors, and potential conflicts of interest in the study. In addition, historic evidence demonstrates that people with fewer educational opportunities and lower socioeconomic status are often more vulnerable to pressure to join medical research. Many populations in third world countries could be vulnerable to undue pressure to participate in research studies.

Sadly, many developing countries lack the financial and healthcare resources to offer their own citizens the benefits of new treatments, even when their citizens participate in research for the treatment. A long-held concept of research ethics contends that research should be conducted only on populations that would receive benefit from the research. Populations that will receive no benefit, even due to socioeconomic reasons, do not seem to be ethically sound sources for research participants.

Good ethics has a global outlook. What we consider impermissible in U.S. research should not be accepted in international research. The Bible teaches us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. We must stand up for our neighbors around the globe, and call for more accountability from the FDA in international medical research.

The Lancet Article

In a revolutionary treatment, doctors inserted a genetically engineered stem cell bundle into a stroke victim’s brain. The stem cells were taken from bone marrow, and the bundle was removed after 14 days. During that time, the cells repopulated the damaged area, and the victim regained the ability to speak and the use of his right arm. In a second instance, doctors transfused a child’s own stored umbilical cord blood to treat brain damage incurred at birth. Improvement in the victim’s coordination and concentration were evident just days after the treatment, and the child is now able to attend kindergarten on a regular basis.

Even if embryonic stem cell therapy posed no ethical issues for pro-life supporters, there are compelling utilitarian reasons for preferring non-embryonic stem cell research. No embryonic stem cell treatments have reached clinical trial stage in the U.S. or Europe, despite vast funding. In contrast, the potential of non-embryonic stem cells to treat medical maladies has already been demonstrated in numerous research and clinical applications.

The pro-life movement must be a strong voice to champion non-embryonic stem cell success. While not diminishing the importance of our belief that using embryonic stem cells is ethically wrong, we should also be educating the public about the ethical and practical benefits of non-embryonic stem cell therapy. In an increasingly utilitarian world, our voice might carry farther if we, too, get excited about ethically acceptable stem cell success.

Stroke Article

Brain Injury Article

We examine the context of cloning, both as a possible reproductive technology and (more likely) as a source of human embryos for stem cell research.

Sources:

• Cloning Fact Sheet
• Laws and Public Policy about Cloning
• Hearing on Human Cloning Ban

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound.

Special Music: “Thousands Are Sailing,” by Mike Hanrahan

Music Bumpers: “Celtic Mystic,” by Tigertail and “Dignity” by Green Druid.

To listen, just click on the player below (click on the “Audio MP3″ button if the player doesn’t appear).

Player:

[T]hey tested this combination of genes in a commercially available, genetically modified cell culture, IMR90 fetal fibroblasts. (These cells were cultured from a little girl aborted at 16 weeks gestation). These cells are fetal cells, not adult cells, and they were chosen because they have been studied and the genome is well known.

There are other ethical ways to produce the DNA needed for transformation, efficiently and morally. If these means were employed to produce the needed DNA, there would be no moral issues with the use of reprogrammed adult cells for research.

Original Scientific Papers:

Takahashi, et al (Yamanaka research group in Kyoto, Japan)
Yu, et al (Thomson research group in Wisconsin)

I’m talking, of course, about the announcment on November 20th that researchers had converted ordinary human skin cells into embryonic stem cells. They did this by simply adding four genes that caused these cells to de-differentiate into a “pluripotent” form. If the works holds up, such cells could become the foundation for growing all kinds of starter cells, with the promise of cures for heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, and diabetes, to name just a few possibilities. According to the New York Times:

Researchers and ethicists not involved in the findings say the work, conducted by independent teams from Japan and Wisconsin, should reshape the stem cell field. At some time in the near future, they said, today’s debate over whether it is morally acceptable to create and destroy human embryos to obtain stem cells should be moot.

There is still a lot of work to be done, and actual clinical trials on humans may actually be years away. But the ethical concerns that have so bitterly divided our society on this issue may be alleviated.

Imagine — men and women of good faith, from all different religions and worldviews, working together to solve the health problems of humanity.

Stay tuned. This could be a wonderful Christmas present indeed.

NYTimes Article
Further Analysis

The solution? Governor John Corzine wants to borrow half a billion dollars more and invest it in embryonic stem cell research. Presumably, he thinks this is worth the risk, since some predict there will be a huge jackpot if his gamble pays off.

Of course, he is flying in the face of facts. No studies currently show any benefit to human beings, and in mice embryonic stem cells cause tumors. Assemblyman John Rooney said, “We’ve taken a failed [area of] research and are now giving them money with no strings attached.”

Don’t worry. Future governors can just raise taxes further to pay for this huge gamble.

National Review Article

But here’s a sober bit of perspective. “Biotech” has become such a holy grail, attracting a lot of speculative investment money, without much possibility of a tangible return. Consider all of the excitement over human embryonic stem cell research, much of it driven by wishful thinking, and not necessarily a lot of good science (other blog articles on stem cell research).

Finally there comes a voice of reason. Joe Cortright is an economist and corporate VP who calls biotechnology an “idea virus.” Cortright questions the mentality of going after investment money based on ideas alone, and rightly points out that biotech won’t necessarily generate a lot of new jobs or create new products.

I’m reminded of the hype for “genetic engineering” in the 1990s. There were many start-up companies, and a wave of enthusiasm for these ideas. How many products resulted from the billions of dollars invested, that are actually helping people or treating disease today? Almost none. Oh, and by the way, hardly any of those companies exist anymore. The investors made a slight profit on hype alone, and got out.

The modern enthusiasm for stem cell research is leading to distortions of scientific accuracy in the public media, with the public blindly approving the use of state monies for some very questionable future gains. It’s a sophisticated form of snake-oil hucksterism, where the real losers will be you and me, along with any rational understanding of human dignity.

(Article on Joe Cortright)

Admittedly, there were some subtle errors in Dr. Verfaillie’s study that caused her to be more modest in her conclusions. Yet her basic premise, that adult stem cells (ASCs) can generate all three of the basic germ layers (from which all other body cells are derived), is still completely supported by other studies. Michael Fumento, writing in the American Spectator, put it this way:

Pointing to flaws in Verfaillie’s work to say that ASCs cannot develop into all three germ layers is like declaring that new revelations on the Wright Brothers’ methodology call into question whether planes actually fly or that flaws in Thomas Edison’s work indicate light bulbs may not light.

Dr. Verfaillie’s research led to many other studies that duplicated and extended her work. Here’s the actual score:

Adult Stem cells: 1300 clinical trials (over 70 approved treatments)
Embryonic Stem Cells: 0 (that’s right, zero: still being tested in animals)

In recent weeks, we also have seen the underreported story that human amniotic fluid may produce “embryonic-like” stem cells that can become all of the tissues of adult organs (see my commentary on this). It seems that the hype and hysteria to destroy embryos for purely speculative gains is overriding common sense.

American Spectator article

Sources and Links:

• Stem Cells in Amniotic Fluid
• Ashley’s Treatment
• NPR Report on Ashley’s Treatment
• Katrina Baby

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound

Special Music: ‘Long Time Traveler,’ by The Wailin’ Jennys

Music Bumper: ‘Satan, Your Kingdom Must Come Down,’ by Martin Simpson

Except as noted, all music courtesy of IODA Promonet.

To listen, just click on the player below.

Podcast Alley{pca-736855c6889f8515afc76b007c672534

Podcast Pickle

Stem cells are the “starter” cells that may become various mature cells of the body. Such cells from early embryos are often called “pluripotent” cells, because each one can grow into a variety of adult tissues. Perhaps some day such cells could be used to cure a variety of human illnesses, but harvesting the cells is a real problem, since it requires the destruction of embryos, a violation of the sanctity of human life.

Now comes news that stem cells nearly as powerful as embryonic ones can be found in amniotic fluid. This is the liquid cushion that surrounds babies in the womb. Dr. Atala and his colleagues have used them to make muscle, bone, fat, blood vessels, nerves, and liver cells in the laboratory. Claims Dr. Atala: “I feel these cells are pluripotent like human embryonic stem cells.”

If this research works out, and Dr. Atala cautions that any clinical applications lie several years in the future, it will make the destruction of human embryos unnecessary. Imagine, men and women of good faith, both liberals and conservatives, could agree to work together on this one, since this type of stem cell research is ethically completely acceptable.

Will this news make a difference in the divisive debate in Congress? Don’t hold your breath. Already, the House of Representatives has voted to overturn President Bush’s ban on public funding of destructive embryo research, with the Senate due to take up the measure soon.

Reuters News Report

Special thanks to senior biology major Stacey Henness, who took microphone and recorder in hand to talk with some folks at a nearby shopping mall.

Sources and Links:

• Stem Cells 101, by Dennis Sullivan
• Small Things Considered, by William Cheshire
• Father of Animal Activism Backs Monkey Testing, from the Times Online (Britain)

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound

Special Music: Overwhelmed by Bree Noble

Music Bumpers:

• ‘Dark Blue’ and ‘There Is’ by Allison Crowe
• ‘Reflection at Sundown’ by A Sunken Ship Irony
• ‘Washing Off Like an Aardvark’ by Derek K. Miller

Except as noted, all music courtesy of The Podsafe Music Network.

To listen, just click on the player below.

Podcast Alley{pca-736855c6889f8515afc76b007c672534

Podcast Pickle

Sources:

• Ukraine Babies in Stem Cell Probe (BBC)
• Arthur Caplan Commentary (MSNBC)

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound

Music Bumper: Winter in Ohio by Justin Gordon

Except as noted, all music courtesy of The Podsafe Music Network.

Podcast Alley{pca-736855c6889f8515afc76b007c672534

Podcast Pickle

A chimera (pronounced keye-MARE-ah), from Greek mythology, was “a monstrous creature made of the parts of multiple animals” (def. from Wikipedia). The thing had the head of a lion, but the body of a goat, and a snake for its tail. This fire-breathing beast had to be detroyed by the hero Bellerophon, with the help of Pegasus, the winged-horse.

In biology, the word ‘chimera’ describes an animal that can (rarely) occur naturally, with the blending of genetic material from two or more different embryos. However, science can now produce animal chimeras in the laboratory from two completely different species. For example, in 1984 a geep was produced by combining embryos from a goat and a sheep.

The U.K. proposal is really not all that new, inasmuch as rabbit/human chimeras have already been produced in China in 2003, though not allowed to divide for more than a few days. The new wrinkle is to use such hybrids as a source of stem cells for medical research. The embryos would be mostly human, but would contain some animal genes. They hope to provide a new source of stem cells “without the ethical problems of tampering with human life.”

How does that work? Scientists hope to justify destructive human embryo research by adding in a few bunny genes? Is that ethically an improvement? Does that honor human nature?

If such ideas make you uncomfortable, it’s because of the inherent “yuck factor.” We have a natural revulsion to mixing our genes with animals. Leon Kass has written that such reactions are a form of wisdom: “Repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate it.”

Call it instinct, intuition, or natural law, this is scary stuff.

U.K. news article: http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=10&id=1477452006

As I discussed in my July 30th post, destroying embryonic humans for the supposed betterment of others violates long-held ethical standards against the taking of innocent lives. Since those who honor the sanctity of life from conception have made so much ethical fuss, scientists have been searching for other ways to produce early stem cells. Would it be possible to remove one or two cells from an embryo for this purpose, but not destroy it?

The new “breakthrough” is actually a modification of a technique that has been around for awhile. The older technique, called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), samples a single cell from an early (three-day-old) eight-cell embryo. In the past, a genetic analysis would be performed on the extracted cell to determine the fitness of the embryo for implantation into a woman’s womb. Certain serious genetic diseases would result in rejection of the embryo.

The new idea is to use PGD technology to remove a single cell from a three day-old embryo to use as a starter cell for a stem cell line, leaving the embryo intact to be implanted later. Would this be an ethically acceptable way to produce embryonic stem cells?

First of all, I applaud the idea of research that attempts to avoid destroying life. Yet it is hard to imagine what good accrues to the embryonic humans involved. In other words, here is a potentially harmful procedure for which the embryos cannot give their consent, that does not benefit them in any way. This violates the principle of informed consent in research.

Furthermore, it turns out that the whole thing has been misrepresented. The research report, which appeared in the scientific journal Nature, did not accurately report the facts. Since it was a procedure performed in the laboratory, “none of the embryos was implanted and in fact several were destroyed. And no cell lines were created from single cells, but instead created by incubating several cells together.” In other words, they did not accomplish what they claimed to have accomplished: an ethical way to produce embryonic stem cells.

It’s bad enough when scientists want no restraints on research that many find ethically problematic, but then to distort their findings to assuage ethical criticsm seems like the height of hypocrisy. Stem cell researchers must do better.

Another commentary on this development

Of course, we could debate the nuances of each of these. For example, several religious traditions would deny there is such a thing as a “just war,” while others would affirm the concept. Self defense depends on the circumstances, and even in the case of bodily attack, lethal force is not always appropriate. Capital punishment is justified in Scripture (Gen. 9:6), but in practice, there may be racial or economic inequities in the way it is administered.

On what basis do we destroy embryonic humans for the supposed betterment of others? I recognize that some do not accept the personhood of early embryos. But even among those who do (or at least who respect this idea), you may hear the argument, “Since they’re going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn’t we destroy the embryos so that some good may result?” This is an understandable question, but there are many flawed assumptions embedded within it.

First of all, the embryos are under the control of the families who produced them. They are now in frozen storage in fertility clinics. Their fate is not inevitable. The parents can choose to donate them to other childless couples. Such “embryo adoption” would give these embryonic humans a chance to live a full life.

Second, what is this “good” that may result? There are no currently usable medical therapies that utilize embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, there are 72 actual medical treatments utilizing adult stem cell sources. These are ethically non-problematic, and are saving lives right now. By the way, appealing to “good” in this way implies that the only “good” that human beings can have is for the parts they supply others. Don’t go there.

We began this discussion by asking what circumstances might justify an exception to society’s rigid rules against killing. Which of these exceptions applies to embyros? This is not war, this is not self-defense, and we certainly can’t claim that embryos have committed a capital offense. Indeed, embryos are the most innocent members of our society.