Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Reprogrammed Skin Cells and Other Monkey Business
BY JOSEPHINE JOHNSTON

It was a busy week for stem cell research. First scientists in Oregon announced that they have created a cloned monkey embryo and extracted stem cells from it. Then, scientists in Japan and the United States reported generating pluripotent stem cells – cells very similar to those found in human embryos – from skin. What do these developments mean?

Human stem cells from skin:

1. The distinction between regular body cells and human embryos is blurring. Cells that look and behave a lot like those found in embryos can now be extracted from genetically modified skin cells.
2. Pluripotent stem cells made from an individual’s skin might one day be used in therapies that are tailored to that individual.
3. Adult stem cell research suddenly looks as promising as embryonic stem cell research, a fact that opponents of the latter will use to argue against destroying early human life for the sake of science. Proponents will argue that, for now at least, both kinds of research should proceed.
4. Other nations are active in stem cell research and are, in effect, giving the U.S. a run for its money.

Monkey cloning:

1. Cloning monkey embryos increases the likelihood that scientists will be able to clone human embryos. They could then extract stem cells for use in research and possibly therapy.
2. We still don’t know whether, if it were placed in a woman’s uterus, a cloned human embryo could develop into a fetus and lead to a healthy birth. Human reproductive cloning is certainly a step closer, but we’re not quite there yet.
3. Unless scientists can get a lot better at it, cloning human embryos will take many eggs: the monkey researchers used 304 eggs from 14 female macaque monkeys to generate two stem cell lines, of which one was defective.
4. Egg donation involves daily injections with strong hormones and takes several weeks to complete. U.S. practice at this time is not to compensate women who provide eggs for cloning research and, thus far, women have been reluctant to donate. For human cloning to proceed, a significant number of women will need to be persuaded to give up their eggs.

In light of persistent disagreement in American society about the moral status of the early human embryo, the first development promises the most bang for the buck. If we can reliably extract pluripotent stem cells from skin cells, then we can avoid significant ethical and logistical problems. We won’t need to ask women and men to donate their unused IVF embryos to stem cell research and we won’t need to ask women to go through the arduous and time-consuming process of donating eggs to cloning research. We’re not there yet – scientists will want to continue with embryonic stem cell research until it is clear that adult cells suffice – and fertility researchers will continue to use embryos in their research. But unless modified skin cells come to be considered a kind of embryo, which seems unlikely, the moral uproar over stem cell research will die down if embryos are no longer involved.

This is not to say that ethical (and legal) issues will vanish altogether. If adults are providing cells for research they might legitimately expect to receive something back. When John Moore argued before the Californian Supreme Court in 1990 that he should receive some of the hundreds of thousands of dollars his UCLA doctors had made by patenting and commercializing his T-lymphocytes, he was told he had no legal property interest in his own cells. Seventeen years later, the law may well be the same but a savvy cell donor could seek an upfront agreement to share in any eventual profits. If physicians, scientists, and their university employers can benefit financially by commercializing someone’s skin cells, why shouldn’t the donor share in the good fortune? (See Lori Andews’ article, “My Body, My Property,” Hastings Center Report 16, no 5 (1986), and a special report Angela Wasunna and I published in HCR this year, Patents, Biomedical Research, and Treatments: Examining Concerns, Canvassing Solutions.)

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.”