Friday, February 1, 2008
Getting Clear on the Ethics of iPS Cells
BY CYNTHIA B. COHEN AND BRUCE P. BRANDHORST

In an essay here last week, Greg Kaebnick proposed that induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells are akin to the “clonotes” that result from somatic cell nuclear transfer, since both involve reprogramming the nucleus of a human somatic cell. To develop an iPS cell, one must reprogram a somatic cell, such as a skin cell, by inserting new genes into its genome, whereas to develop a “clonote,” one must reprogram that cell by inserting it into an egg, where the gene products residing in the cytoplasm of the egg do the job. Kaebnick suggests that the “clonote” “looks much like a zygote,” and maintains that just as a “clonote” appears to be a new kind of embryo, so an iPS cell may also be a new kind of embryo. Therefore, he argues, those who hail the development of iPS cells as a way to get around the moral difficulties associated with the destruction of human embryos entailed by the derivation of embryonic stem cells (ES cells) will need to rethink their critique of cloning.

This is fascinating speculation until one considers the features of iPS cells. These cells are akin to ES cells rather than to “clonotes,” and neither ES cells nor iPS cells have been shown, or are expected to be shown, to be equivalent to embryos.

Let’s compare ES cells and iPS cells. Human ES cells will not develop into newborn humans if transferred to the bodies of women for implantation because (1) they lack the extracellular layer required prior to implantation, (2) they are too small and lack the internal organization needed to function as zygotes, and (3) they are not totipotent. They can produce all the cells of the embryo proper when implanted into an embryo host, but not the extraembryonic tissues required for the development of the fetus. According to the preliminary studies carried out by those who developed them, iPS cells appear to have the same features as ES cells: they, too, (1) lack the extracellular layers required by embryos, (2) are too small and lack egg-like organization, and (3) are not totipotent, by all evidence.

Kaebnick is struck by the fact that in tests of their pluripotency these new iPS cells produce the embryoid bodies of teratomas. He appears to take this to mean that they therefore have the same capacities as embryos. While these embryoid bodies consist of tissues derived from all three embryonic germ layers (indicating pluripotency), they are not organized like an embryo and would not develop like an embryo if implanted in a woman’s uterus; they would continue to be a tumor. Teratocarcinoma tumors can also form embryoid bodies, but they are clearly not embryos. Thus, a pluripotent stem cell can divide and aggregate to form an embryoid body, but this does not make it, nor the embryoid body it may form, an embryo.

Kaebnick suggests that what might really be going on among those who object morally to the development of “clonotes” but who accept as ethical the development and use of iPS cells is that they revere the human egg as a natural entity that is “expected” to try to become a human individual because it has a “natural potential” to do so. Yet surely it is difficult to explain the moral repulsion that some experience toward cloning as grounded in a concern about the “unnatural” destruction of the human egg. There is no movement among them to freeze all “left-over” eggs in order to fertilize them and develop “Snowflake” babies from them. The basic objection of many critics of reproductive cloning is that a “clonote,” if transferred to the uterus of a woman, could well grow into a living individual human being, but with a high probability of having serious gene-based conditions. The self-indulgent creation of duplicates of living persons or the use of “clonotes” as disposable sources of spare body parts hardly justify the huge risk of damage to, or even destruction of, cloned children. 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.”

The iPS cells provide another form of pluripotent stem cell that, if developed in a way that did not call for the insertion of genes causing random mutagenesis, could become a safe and effective source of stem cells. If this were done successfully, there would be little or no need to transfer somatic cell nuclei into eggs to clone ES cells for individualized therapy or for research on patient-specific diseases.

There would also be no special need for human ES cells if the reprogramming of somatic cells to pluripotency (or useful multipotency) and high proliferative capacity could be performed so that the resulting iPS cells were safe for therapeutic uses. However, we are a long way from that. Much more research on human iPS cells is required before we know that they do indeed have the same desirable properties as human ES cells and are safe to use for any therapy. In the meantime, it is important to continue to do research on human ES cells and to produce new ES cell lines in order to learn how these cells develop, proliferate, and function and to find new, more comprehensive treatments for those who suffer from serious diseases.

Cynthia B. Cohen is a faculty affiliate at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. She is also the author of Renewing the Stuff of Life: Stem Cells, Ethics, and Public Policy. Bruce P. Brandhorst chairs the Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry at Simon Fraser University, in Canada.

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.”