Tuesday, March 4, 2008
ES Cells and iPS Cells: A Distinction with a Difference
BY FRANÇOISE BAYLIS

Gregory Kaebnick recently suggested in Bioethics Forum that apparent differences between induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells and embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer may not be all that relevant from a moral point of view. As Kaebnick explains, both techniques involve the reprogramming of somatic nuclei (either with the addition of gene transcription factors to somatic cells, which is what produces iPS cells, or with the help of egg cytoplasm, as in cloning). As well, both techniques ultimately may be capable of generating human life. On this view, those who object to cloning-based stem cell research as an instance of unjustified embryo killing should also object to the creation and use of iPS cells (which is a possible new kind of embryo). By the same token, those who are enthusiastic about iPS cells should endorse cloning-based stem cell research.

In response, Cynthia Cohen and Bruce Brandhorst argue that there are morally significant differences between iPS cells and cloned embryos. In their view, iPS cells are more akin to embryonic stem (ES) cells than to cloned embryos or any other kind of embryo for that matter. Cohen and Brandhorst compare iPS cells and ES cells and conclude that

In their view, though further research is needed to confirm that iPS cells can be as safe and effective as ES cells for cell therapy, there is good reason to be enthusiastic about iPS cells. This enthusiasm, however, should not undermine cloning-based ES cell research.

In short, Kaebnick suggests that iPS cells and cloned embryos may be the same in morally relevant respects, while Cohen and Brandhorst argue the opposite. What the two commentaries share, unfortunately, is a complete failure to appreciate the most important moral difference between stem cell research involving cell reprogramming of somatic nuclei and cloning-based stem-cell research. This is that they have a very different impact on women. Indeed, although Cohen and Brandhorst note that “concern about the fate of the eggs destroyed in somatic cell nuclear transfer has not been a significant feature of the objections to the production of ‘clonotes,’” they fail to remark that concern about the women who provide the eggs for somatic cell nuclear transfer has been a significant feature of the objections to cloning-based stem cell research.

Unlike research to create iPS cells, cloning-based stem cell research requires the use of human oocytes. Human oocytes come from women who undergo hormonal stimulation and surgical egg retrieval at considerable risk of harm to themselves. One of the more significant physical harms of superovulation is ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which can involve nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and respiratory difficulty, and at its most severe can produce life-threatening complications. In addition, when the women who provide eggs are also infertility patients, they may experience psychological harms when they do not become pregnant during an IVF cycle in which some of their eggs were given up or sold for research. There are the potential harms of coercion and exploitation of women and the more general harm of commodification of both reproductive tissues and reproductive labor.

As far as I can tell, the creation of iPS cells for regenerative medicine does not visit physical or psychological harms on women, involves no coercion or exploitation of women, and does not contribute to the commodification of reproductive labor and tissue. If I am right, then setting aside the question of moral status, these facts alone provide us with sound moral reasons to prefer research aimed at creating iPS cell to research involving the creation and destruction of cloned human embryos for stem cell research.

Françoise Baylis is Professor and Canada Research Chair in Bioethics and Philosophy at Dalhousie University, Canada. The author is a member of the board of directors of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada. The views expressed herein are her own.

Comment on this essay.

Comments are sent to the forum moderator. Select responses may be posted.

A Phony 'War on Science'
Michael Gerson, Washington Post
“In their talk of a Republican war on science, liberals may be blinding themselves to a very different kind of modern war in which their own ideals are deeply implicated: a war on equality.”

It’s Not Immoral to Want to be Immortal
Arthur Caplan, MSNBC
“Despite a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing, it is not obvious that wanting to live a lot longer is evil or immoral.”

Science Is Leading Us to More Answers, but It's Also Misleading Us
David A. Shaywitz, Washington Post
“Consumers of scientific information must balance the hope we place in global biology with the skepticism this field has surely earned.”

Taking the Scary out of Breast Cancer Stats
Carol Tavris and Avrum Bluming, LA Times
“The media understand how deeply women fear breast cancer, and the result is that every study that seems to find a link between some new risk factor and the disease makes headlines everywhere.”

Dollars to Doughnuts Diagnosis
Albert Fuchs, LA Times
“Insurance doesn't make routine care affordable; it makes it more expensive by adding a middleman.”

Tainted Medicine
Jerome P. Kassirer, LA Times
“Disclosure of financial ties may give a scientist or researcher a clean conscience, but that doesn't erase the possibility of a conflict.”

Children's health can't be left to faith alone
Arthur Caplan, MSNBC
“Parents do not have the right to watch a child wither away while they pray.”

Transplant List Numbers Raise Doubts
Arthur Caplan, MSNBC
“The American people have a right to expect absolute honesty about the number of people waiting for a transplant at any time.”

An Epidemic No One Wants to Talk About
Robert E. Fullilove et al., Washington Post
“Simply put, we will never rid the United States of HIV and other STDs if our only weapon is medical treatment.”

Making Cells Like Computers
Erik Parens, Boston Globe
“Conceivably, we are on the verge of installing synthetic genomes in bacterial cells to create products we want. But we are still a long, long way from doing what most people mean by ‘synthesizing life.’”

Miracle Workers?
David Rieff, New York Times Magazine
“Even today, the oldest of all relations between patient and physician — that of supplicant to shaman — continues to exert its authority.”

Overselling Overmedication
Judith Warner, NYTimes.com
“Most of the critics decrying the over-medicalization of the American mind rest their arguments upon the bedrock assumption that people who have nothing wrong with them are being medicated for largely fictitious concerns.”

Ads Spur Urge for Drugs
David Lazarus, LA Times
“DTC advertising has turned prescription drugs into just another gotta-have-it consumer product.”

Food Politics, Half-Baked
James E. McWilliams, New York Times
“Lost in this rhetorical battle was a quiet middle ground where the benefits and drawbacks of genetically engineered crops were responsibly considered.”

Perpetrating the Autism Myth
Benjamin Kruskal and Carole Allen, Boston Globe
“The scientific evidence is clear: neither the MMR vaccine nor thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines has any relationship to autism.”

Closing the Barn Door After the Cows Have Gotten Out
Verlyn Klinkenborg, New York Times
“The real beneficiaries are the nation’s large meatpacking companies — the kind that would like it best if chickens grew in the shape of nuggets.”

Human Embryos Cloned: What Does It Mean?
Art Caplan, MSNBC
“Let's not be frightened by scare tactics into not funding research that may be the key to curing what is currently incurable.”

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Is Bad Policy for Cloned Food
Art Caplan, MSNBC
“All of this fear-mongering about clones has made Americans forget that cloning is nothing more than artificially creating twins.”