Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) announced a few days ago that it had developed a technique that allowed it to extract a stem cell from a very, very young embryo, without killing or damaging it. This caused a media frenzy. Did this new procedure solve the ethical dilemma?
To refresh your recollection, the “the ethical dilemma” is this: Extracting stem cells from embryos kills them. Since human embryos are human beings in the earliest, or “embryonic,” stage of development, killing an embryo kills a human being.
One of the reasons why scientists want to use embryonic stem cells in research is that they believe cures for various diseases and illnesses can be found as a result of doing such research. However, the use of embryonic stem cells in research using federal tax dollars has been limited under President Bush’s policy to those extracted from embryos killed prior to August 9, 2001 (the date of the issuance of his policy). For this and other reasons, some scientists have looked for alternative and ethically-acceptable ways of obtaining human embryonic stem cells. There are a variety of ways by which this could be possible. One is by creating an embryonic stem cell from a human egg cell directly; another is by extracting stem cells from dead embryos; another is by “re-engineering” a somatic cell to become an embryonic stem cell; another is by an extraction method such as that which ACT used.
All four methods were carefully examined by the President’s Council on Bioethics in a white paper on “Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells.” All were found to be scientifically possible and ethically permissible. All that is, except the fourth, which is the one ACT used.
Why? One reason might be the technique itself. Does it actually work, that is, does it extract a stem cell without killing — or injuring — the embryo? What ACT did actually failed this test, despite the media reports. That is, ACT killed the embryos involved.
Also, note this: In order to know if any purported technique worked, it would require animal trials, lasting many years before it could even be tried with human beings. Since ACT has not done this, even if ACT’s technique had “worked” in its initial trials, actual human trials are still years away. But, if ACT had been successful with animal trials, would that have solved the ethical problems?
Not necessarily. The embryo is a human being. In order for it to serve as a subject of research, since it is unable to give its consent, its parents must, and they may only give consent to research that does not harm the embryo.
Furthermore, as ACT’s own initial press release demonstrated, their method of extraction of these stem cells is envisioned as being intertwined with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). However, PGD is often employed for highly unethical purposes — to determine if the unborn human is defective: If it is found to be defective it is aborted. In other words, PGD is used to kill the handicapped. It should also be noted that what constitutes being handicapped has proven, in practice, to be as minute as having a cleft palate or club feet — or being of the “wrong” sex.
For more than a decade now, the American conservative media has reported that handicapped infants in the Netherlands are being euthanized. The Netherlands is, you will recall, a country that permits physician-assisted suicide. Such reports rightly horrify us. But we should be equally horrified by killing even younger children (i.e., embryos) because they don’t “measure up” — no one should have to justify their right to live.
Another hidden issue is whether ACT’s technique encourages the creation and freezing of human embryos through in vitro fertilization techniques (IVF). As IVF is practiced in this country, scores of human eggs are fertilized, few are implanted, and the rest are placed in cryogenic storage (i.e., “frozen”). Thus, a couple can decide to have an embryo implanted in the future, without having to go through the dangerous procedure of “egg-procurement” from a donor-woman again.
Would ACT’s technique encourage the creation of greater numbers of frozen embryos in order to provide a larger, more genetically-diverse pool of embryonic stem cells? The idea is not farfetched since it was the existence of a large number of frozen embryos that gave scientific-entrepreneurs the idea of embryonic stem cell research in the first place
Perhaps worst of all, ACT’s announcement demonstrates again the media’s fascination with embryonic stem cell research. There is another kind of research, which is ethically acceptable: adult stem cell research. This research uses stem cells taken from non-embryonic sources, such as umbilical cord blood and placentas. Such research is highly promising, and has already resulted in successful treatments for ailing human beings (something embryonic stem cells have utterly failed to do).
Yet such research is ignored by the media. The sad lesson from the hype around ACT’s announcement is that the media has still not learned its lesson.
Bill Saunders is the Senior Fellow and Director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Life & Bioethics. The views expressed are his and are not meant to represent official institutional views of FRC.
