Blogs and Stories
Does Research Really Need Human Embryos and Cloning?
Claim: We don't know whether iPSCs or hESCs will be better for therapies.
Currently, clinical trials for either hESCs or iPSCs are problematic because of concerns regarding safety (cancer risk) and efficacy (ability to differentiate into useful cell types). However, if these obstacles can be overcome, there are at least two significant reasons why iPSCs will be better for therapies:
* IPSCs are patient-specific, a huge advantage for therapeutic use, compared to hESCs “left over” from fertility clinics that are not patient-specific and would require immune suppression.
* IPSCs do not use human eggs, making it possible to develop therapies without imposing significant medical risks on women (who must be given hormones to produce numerous eggs per cycle for egg donation).
Claim: IPSCs can make tumors and convert to cancer cells.
Multiple scientific studies show that all pluripotent cells, including hESCs, form tumors (teratomas) and can convert to cancer cells. The risk of tumor formation from iPS cells was initially greater than for embryo-derived stem cells because the genes used for reprogramming remained inserted in the cell. However, over the last year, the iPS technique has been significantly improved. Current approaches have eliminated any added risk of tumor formation, and iPS cells are now no more likely to produce tumors or cause cancer than are hESCs.
The risk of tumor formation that is NOT due to the reprogramming procedure but common to all pluripotent stem cells can theoretically be addressed by converting pluripotent stem cells into mature cells that do not form tumors and can be transplanted safely to patients. It is important to understand that the efficient conversion of pluripotent stem cells to transplantable cells useful in the clinic is not yet possible for any human cell type, although much progress has been made. Thus, no immediate therapies should be expected from human pluripotent stem cells, either embryo-derived or iPSC.
Claim: Embryos are just a ball of cells, but patients are human beings who are suffering.
All human beings began life as a one-cell embryo. The argument that small size and immaturity are sufficient reasons to destroy one human individual, in the hope of benefiting someone of larger size or greater maturity is clearly an unethical line of reasoning. The critical question is whether human embryos at early stages are mere collections of human cells or developing human beings. And this question has been thoroughly addressed by the scientific evidence: Embryos are developing human beings, not tumors or disorganized collections of human cells. They are small and immature, as all human beings once were, but they are human individuals. As Dr. Leon Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, has stated in the Washington Post:
"The moral issue does not disappear just because the embryos are very small or because they are no longer wanted for reproductive purposes: Because they are living human embryos, destroying them is not a morally neutral act. Just as no society can afford to be callous to the needs of suffering humanity, none can afford to be cavalier about how it treats nascent human life."
Claim: Science should not be restricted by ‘religious’ objections.
Religious objections are those that appeal to specific religious traditions, invoking religious authorities or teachings, such as those found in the Quran, the Torah, or the Bible. An objection to eating during daylight hours in the month of Ramadan, to eating pork at any time, or to eating meat on Fridays during the season of Lent would be examples of “religious” objections stemming from the Islamic, Jewish, and Catholic traditions, respectively. Such objections should indeed be confined to members of the religion itself.
In contrast, objections to embryo-destructive research are not religious; they are ethical and moral objections. They are based on religiously neutral reasoning that takes into consideration both the scientific evidence indicating human embryos are human individuals and the current U.S. law that prohibits harming human beings (including prenatal human beings) in scientific experiments. The protection of human beings who participate in scientific research is an important ethical consideration. The Nazi experiments on Jews, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on black men, and the Japanese hypothermia experiments on prisoners of war were unethical, and were not justified simply because they led to new and exciting discoveries that benefited patients. Science, like all human endeavors, must operate within an ethical framework. This is not a religious objection, it is just common sense.
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.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
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.