Blogs and Stories
Does Research Really Need Human Embryos and Cloning?
RNL Bio Co. Ltd. via Getty Images
Neurobiologist Maureen L. Condic investigates 11 common arguments in favor of embryonic stem-cell research, and explains why science may not need the controversial technique, after all.
Claim: Good science demands that we investigate all avenues of inquiry.
False. “Good” research respects both scientific and ethical standards. Researchers' 2007 breakthrough in induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSC, provides patient-specific stem cells that are the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells. IPSC research meets every mark of good science and has the following ethical advantages: It does not destroy human embryos; it does not use human oocytes (eggs) harvested from women; and it does not alienate a large part of the country’s citizens by engaging in research that they find deeply immoral.
Claim: Human embryonic stem-cell research involves only embryos that will be discarded by fertility clinics.
False. Human-embryo cloning is the endgame. HESC proponents are now advocating for tax funding of research of embryos created solely for the purpose of research—whether by cloning or fertilization.
Unlike iPS cells, hES cells from “surplus embryos” are not genetically identical to patients, and would be rejected by the immune system. For hESCs to be patient-specific like iPS cells, "spare embryos" from fertility clinics will not be sufficient. Instead, cloned embryos will have to be intentionally produced in the laboratory, and then destroyed to obtain stem-cell lines.
Claim: Americans support funding embryonic stem-cell research.
Americans are not aware that President Obama's executive order did not limit taxpayer funding to “spare embryos who would die anyway.” A recent poll shows that while many Americans support the use of “spare” embryos for research, intentionally producing cloned embryos only to destroy them for research is largely rejected by the public.
A March 2009 Gallup poll shows that 14% of Americans support funding of unrestricted embryo research. This means that 86% of Americans would be opposed to what the National Institutes of Health is poised to fund if they were aware that the president’s order was not restricted to “spare embryos who would die anyway.
Claim: Even if “leftover” embryos from fertility clinics would not be sufficient for treating patients, politicians should codify into law the Obama executive order allowing federal funding for the use of such embryos in research, despite the recent advance of iPSCs.
Direct reprogramming to create iPSCs provides a scientifically feasible and promising alternative to research that requires destroying human embryos. Even President Clinton’s bioethics commission concluded that embryo destruction posed a moral problem and was “justifiable” only if there were no alternatives.
“In our judgment, the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research. But as we have noted, stem cells from embryos appear to be different in scientifically important ways from AS cells and also appear to offer greater promise of therapeutic breakthroughs. The claim that there are alternatives to using stem cells derived from embryos is not, at the present time, supported scientifically. We recognize, however, that this is a matter that must be revisited continually as science advances.”
- National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research (Sept. 1999), Volume I, p. 53
Claim: Embryonic stem cells are natural cells, not laboratory-produced like iPSCs, so they are better.
Just because embryonic stem cells, known as ES cells, are isolated from embryos does not mean that they are unchanged by the isolation process. Multiple studies have shown that ES cells are not identical to natural cells of the embryo; rather they are a laboratory-produced cell type, just as iPS cells are. This is precisely why ES cells can be patented as “inventions.”
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Good article!
I have been waiting for someone to write something worth while about the difference between iPSCs and hESCs and how we should be funding iPSC research in a major way. I was even trying to write one myself (but it wouldn't have been this good).
For anyone who is concerned about human cloning and opposed to future needs for egg harvesting I think major funding for iPSCs is a must have and something to demand in protests.
My case and point: hESCs research is already going on in many countries with very lax laws (like China). If seem "further along" with research with hESCs than we are with iPCSs than the will potentially get more funding from private investors and at the latest when they begin to actually offer some kinds of treatment will be heavily funded.
Investing heavily in iPCSs is not just a good thing for people suffering, its arguably one of the top most priorities for any pro-life oriented person. If we are at the cutting edge of research and we use iPCSs it will save an astronomical amount of embryos in the long run!
I am quite disappointed with the pro-life community in general right now, not only do they not seem to be able to vote in true pro-lifers (lets face it a huge block of allegedly pro life congressmen but no bills being presented = a scam) they also seem quite weak in pushing the issue of iPCSs. Most of them probably don't even know about them.
So please if you are in any position do get out the message DO IT! And it dosn't have to be an anti Obama thing. I am convinced that if we ask for funding for iPCSs in a major way he will not veto it. We need to put congress under pressure!
unfortuntly i can not be as praising as the above poster. while it is true that good science must be ethical as well as explorative, there are few moral considerations in embryonic stem cell research. the majority of people who subscribe to such an ideal are alarmists fearing some sort of apocalypse. in reality the ethical considerations are heavily monitered and no fears mut be given to the dangers of loning, lest they begin to manufacture human beings, which is what underlays most reasoning in such oppisitio. further more, the issue of here and now techniques are applied in your article- which is faulty reasoning. the very fact that certain adult stem cell therapies have been realized should show that those therapies that show promise but have yet to be realized are more deserving of our time and energy. just because somethiing has not been proven, does not mean it should be disregarded, but in fact be made the sole point of researchers time. further more the term cell plasisity never once enters the article. adult stem cells are nowhere near as useful as some esc reasearhers believe escs could be. also i not sure where the claim that adult stem cells alone can mutate into cancer came up- no pro esc claims have ever been made. rather this is most likely a twisting of wording that came from the camp in response to the ill fated case of a boy who was administered esc treatment and tied from complications that followed. the response as such would be to point out that such alternative research does not create cells that are any more safer, which some pro lifers most likely stated. the extra cost and effort put into escs is due to the fact that the cells are even more viable than their adult counterparts in terms of the cells they can create- adult stem cells can only create the cells of the tissues they originated from. now the religious argument complaint many escs advocates bring up is the fact that a majority of those who oppose such research do so on religious moral grounds relating to the sanctity of human life, and back this up by pointing out that most biology text books mark a zygote as the beginning of life. yes, that is true but the term of 'life' that applies to a zygote potentially apllies the same the skin cells on ones arm, due to the fact that those zygotes will never develop into a human being, and should not, for obvious reasons. therefore the zygote is not equivelent to a human being- an so should not be granted such inclusive rights. the only reson to give such embryos rights/protection is simply the understanding that those most likely to go on to become human beings in full should not be subjected to those who would deny them such oppurtunities. therefore the science is legitamate, the moral and ethical considerations merely twisting of logic and the claims on which you base your superiority mere strawmen fallacies that do nothing to legitamatly discredit embryonic stem cell research or elevate adult stem cells beyond their apparent weaknesses.
I think you missed the point.
Adult stem cells, as in the ones that can only become the tissue that they came from, are not the same thing as iPSCs. iPSCs are thought to be, in most intents and purposes hESC equivalent. This means they can become many different kinds of tissue.
Although I am just as frustrated with most pro-life propaganda as you seem to be I must say on the condition that iPSCs prove to be equivalent there is still the non-religous argument that donating eggs needed for cloning is still a hazardous and damaging procedure for the downer.
It is telling that the author quotes Leon Kass as an "ethical" expert. Kass is widely regarded by his peers as a right wing ideologue, and one who has a very poor grasp of philosophy. He was appointed to Bush's council on bioethics specifically because of his ultra-conservative views and anti-science bias.
The point of the article fundamentally relies on the arguments made in the last two "claims", and both of those are deeply philosophically flawed. The argument made for an embryo being a little human being would also apply to a sperm and egg sat in a petri dish next to each other, and so would not be regarded as valid by the vast majority of bioethicists. An embryo without a womb to develop it IS just a collection of cells, and giving it special status has no basis in reality. At the current state of technology, it has no potential to become a human being without a mother to support its development. The desire to give an embryo in a laboratory environment full human status IS most certainly religiously or ideologically driven, and is in no way ethical or moral, and from a purely philosophical point of view is closer to being anti-ethical.
Whether iPSCs or hESCs are used should be a purely technical matter for scientists to consider unless there is good reason to do otherwise, and the attempts by the author and others to bring it into a false moral framework are damaging to research capability in the US without valid reasoning. Ethical considerations for experimentation are absolutely justified, but irrational positions derived from simplistic and sloppy reasoning should not be given the same status as those considerations that are well thought through and can be defended.
Somehow no one seems to be reading this, or at least no one is commenting. Thats too bed! It is a great article on a good topic, thank you Dr. Maureen L. Condic.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.