Embryos Survive Stem Cells' Creation?

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is trumpeting another stem cell research breakthrough.

The problem is the article on the latest technique is somewhat sloppy and misleading.

It begins with the claim that stem cells were created from embryos without destroying them.

In the latest feat of stem cell wizardry, researchers have been able to create viable new lines of embryonic stem cells from human embryos that were not destroyed in the process.

The accomplishment is the newest wrinkle in a rapidly evolving effort to find ways to develop prized human embryonic stem cells without the ethical baggage that has plagued the field since its inception nearly a decade ago. Already, the new method is generating controversy.

The five new lines of human embryonic stem cells that were created using the process are genetically normal and have the ability to become any of the more than 220 cell types in the body, said Robert Lanza, senior author of the paper published online Thursday in the journal Cell Stem Cell.

"We could send these cells out (to researchers) tomorrow," said Lanza, chief science officer at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass. "If the White House approves this methodology, researchers could effectively double or triple the number of stem cell lines available within a few months."

...But it appears that the federal government is not likely to approve funding for stem cells obtained using the method, at least not anytime soon.

That's because under an executive order by President Bush last year it must be proved that embryos not only were not destroyed, but also were not harmed in the process of obtaining stem cells.

The process used by Lanza and his co-authors involves extracting one or two cells from surplus embryos, a technique that is similar to a relatively common practice used to test for genetic abnormalities in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization. But an earlier study suggests that when genetic testing is done, the rates of pregnancies and live births are reduced somewhat.

In order to prove that no harm was done to embryos, doctors would have to implant them into the wombs of women and babies would have to be born.

"I don't think that is a reasonable experiment," said Story Landis, who leads the stem cell task force of the National Institutes of Health.

But she added, "I can't think of a feasible study to prove embryos aren't harmed."

In other words, there's reason to believe that the embryos may be harmed in this new process.

Researchers can't be sure that stem cells are, in fact, obtained without damage to the embryos. Terms need to be defined here. For instance, when does damage become destruction?

This technique is still dragging around "ethical baggage."

It's false to suggest otherwise.

...[T]he new method is a highly efficient way to obtain stem cells, similar to rates found with conventional techniques, Lanza said.

"The approach utilized by the authors definitely does make the case that lines of human embryonic stem cells can be isolated without having to destroy embryos," said John Lough, a stem cell researcher at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

But Lough said that while new cell lines created by the process would help bolster the dwindling supply of stem cell lines used in basic research, the process would not be feasible for stem cells that someday might be implanted in patients.

For clinical use in patients, doctors will need stem cells that are genetically matched to the patient, he said.

So, this process would be completely useless in the actual treatment of patients.

These stem cells could help in "basic research," but not in clinical use.

That's very different from the breakthrough reported last year, genetically engineering skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells, which would have the potential for implantation in patients without being rejected.

Rather than clearly reporting on the new process, the article emphasizes the politics of the "ethical baggage."

Landis said Lanza and his co-authors should submit a request for funding to NIH "and see what happens."

Short of that, they could wait for the next president to rescind Bush's order, she said.

Bush is standing in the way of scientific progress again -- typical Journal Sentinel spin.

I don't think orders to protect life are obstacles or inconvenient "ethical baggage." Defending the sanctity of life is a moral obligation and a cornerstone of a civilized society.


"[T]here is no such thing as a spare embryo. Every embryo is unique and genetically complete, like every other human being. And each of us started out our life this way. These lives are not raw material to be exploited, but gifts."

--George W. Bush














Long live embryos!