ADULT STEM CELLS: These blue cells are human mesenchymal stem cells that have become senescent—or lost the ability to divide—after X-ray irradiation.
Image: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
San Francisco— When researchers first demonstrated in 2007 that human skin cells could be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells that can fully differentiate into other cells, scientists and politicians alike rejoiced. All the potential of embryonic stem cells might be harnessed with the new techniques—without the political and moral controversy associated with destroying a fertilized egg.
That optimism, however, may be misplaced; these transformed cells, known as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells), actually present equally troubling ethical quandaries, according to bioethicists who met at the International Society for Stem Cell Research annual meeting in June. Not only do many of the ethical challenges posed by embryonic stem cells remain, but the relative ease and low cost of iPS techniques, combined with the accessibility of cells, accelerate the need to address futuristic-sounding possibilities such as creating gametes for reproduction. Scientists have already reported progress in growing precursor cells for eggs and sperm from both iPS and embryonic stem cell lines.
Although perfecting the process may take another decade, “we should start thinking carefully about this now,” said Kazuto Kato, a bioethicist at Kyoto University in Japan. To make sure the gametes work normally, for instance, researchers will need to grow embryos and then destroy them, a morally contentious practice with prohibitions and policies differing around the world. Sperm and egg from skin cells eventually might be used for reproductive purposes, enabling parenthood at any age using tissue from either the living or dead. In fertility clinics, iPS cells could enable prospective parents to choose embryos for desired traits more easily than they can with conventional assisted-reproduction technologies. The possibilities raise a radical question about the moral status of human cells, noted Jan Helge Solbakk, head of research at the Center for Medical Ethics at the University of Oslo in Norway and chair of the society’s ethics and public policy committee.
Although Kato called human reproductive cloning directly from iPS cell lines “very hypothetical,” he pointed out progress for that possibility when he noted that three teams had produced mouse clones from iPS cells. Less expensive and more efficient than the process that produced Dolly the sheep, the iPS approach also would skirt the language of many current prohibitions against human reproductive cloning. Some bioethicists have called for a new international ban that would clearly prohibit the implantation of a human clone in part because of the tantalizing research uses for nascent embryos.
More immediate concerns have to do with control of the original donation and tissue grown from iPS cells. “Biobanks” all over the world already store biological material and related data for research, and many do not seek consent for future work as long as the material cannot be connected back to the donor. The far-reaching potential of iPS research, combined with a higher likelihood that cell lines will stay linked to a single donor (and that donor’s health history), heightens the need for consensus, said Timothy Caulfield, research director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.
Yet such consensus may be hard to achieve. In research on attitudes, Caulfield has noticed a trend: clinical researchers, patient participants, privacy experts and the general public disagree about whether consent should be necessary for each new use of donated tissue or whether blanket consent will do. And how will a disillusioned cell donor withdraw when iPS cell lines have been distributed all over the world? Bedrock international research norms of consent and withdrawal may no longer be workable. “We have to recognize all the complicated issues that iPS research is engaging and get a sense of how existing laws and policies play out,” Caulfield said.
See what we're tweeting about
28 Comments
Add CommentWith 7 BILLION of us and projected to go to 10, it seems to me that the old fashioned way seems to be working too well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me with 7 Billion people on earth and projected to go to 10, that the old fasioned way is working too well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ hartson.doak, Nicely put :-) Now, I don't disregard the concerns of the Bioethics institutions but, frankly, what they are trying to do is to tie Science's hands! OK, to some extent I agree with them that experimentation with embryos conceived from naturally derived eggs and sperm, is ethically troublesome. Now, we are at the doorstep of an era when we can create human organs without the necessity to destroy natural-gamete-derived embryos. And now they say that even this is not right! But wasn't this the point ?! To keep untouched peoples' embryos, and to create new ones by artificial means. In fact, what kind of a law has the moral authority to prevent a dying person from cloning his/her so needed organs to replace the malfunctioning ones? Is it a greater cost to destroy an undeveloped human being (your own clone without any consciousness yet) for the sake of saving your own life (one full with dreams, aims, beloved people, experience)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those who have ethical opposition to using and destroying embryonic stem cells to harvest undifferentiated stem cells for medical or other purposes, using skin cells that can be differentiated into other cells is a great step forward for the ethical practice of medicine. It does not require destroying a viable life form. The cells are diploid already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever the technology can be used to produce haploid cells and those haploid cells can be fused with other haploid cells to produce and use embryos in an unethical manner.
So, go down the good path and stay off the bad path. Just do what is right rather than pursue unethical technology over ethical technology. Unethical technology is the real waste of resources.
@hereticoftruth Well, the question is "What's ethical and what is not?" - actually, this is what Bioethics committees are trying to figure out... And to be honest, it's not a scientific matter - if a fanatically religious supreme court judge or a politician decides that deriving human embryos from iPS cells is UNethical, we can't really make them think otherwise, because such people hold a very different view on what human is, as compared to the majority of the science community... But to be clear - I do not stand behind individuals with intentions to use the new knowledge to cause harm to others - this is what I call 1. unethical, 2. immoral and 3. illegal..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEmbryonic stem-cell research directly entails the destruction of embryonic human beings. Induced pluripotent stem-cell research does not. Those facts inherently make ESCR easily more "morally fraught" than IPSC, regardless of potential applications that apply to both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEmbryonic stem-cell research directly entails the destruction of embryonic human beings. Induced pluripotent stem-cell research does not. Those facts inherently make ESCR easily more "morally fraught" than IPSC, regardless of potential applications that apply to both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it hard to fathom that other nations will have ethical repercussions regarding skin stem cells.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect that behind the scenes, more right wing Christian culture is stirring this issue.
Whatever the causative reasoning, America will be left behind in technology while much of the world progresses forward if this International team gives the thumbs down for skin stem cells.
So when you need a stem cell therapy in the future, plan to make a trip abroad.
Questions of "ethics" and their answers should be obvious and not require possible road maps thru multiple iterations of the questions until a desired result is reached, ie, it's ethical or it is not. This is an example of tortured logic and the derivative answer being one that indicates the use of IPS cells might be unethical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo other technology has the power to transform humanity more than biotechnology. Ethical concerns matter but allowing ourselves to be paralyzed by them is foolish. Our future as a species, and the future of all species may very well depend on our understanding of cellular biology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre the ethics of christian America the same as those of secular Europe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEmotional twaddle. The only people capable of discussing this completely rationally and impartially are those who haven't had offspring, whose minds haven't been chemically altered in baby-mode to disproportionately place the importance of a desired offspring over everything else in the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as breeders are making the rules, ethics will only mean so much (or so little).
For Teresa Lewis, could left the word with a noble end , donate your body for researsh , and extend this to other in the same situation .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould Teresa Lewis , leaft the word with a noble end , donate your body for research, and other people in the same situation .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ethics have many questions for be noble , or polite
"without the political and moral controversy associated with destroying a fertilized egg."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-If your so concerned about a fertilized egg, why aren't you o n the streets protesting the millions of fertilized eggs currently on ice? I mean really! Go an carry the darn thing yourself, are you going to force other to carry it?
-What if a pregant women falls and the fetus dies? Are you going to charge her with unintentional homicide?
"...hat if a pregant women falls and the fetus dies? Are you going to charge her with unintentional homicide?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBehold the reasoning ability of the typical pro-choice advocate. Here's a fun exercise. Get one going then take out a piece of paper and list the logical fallacies. In about five minutes you should have ad hominem, tu quoque, post hoc, guilt by association, shifting goal posts, changing the subject, and, the one above: false equivalence.
As mentioned by other commentators, the primary moral distinctions between using transformed induced pluripotent stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells is that no human embryos are required. There is no fundamental moral issue involved with, especially patient sourced, iPSCs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat one does with stem cells is an independent issue. This article seems to imply that the use of iPSCs (for heart muscle repair, for example) should not be allowed because they could instead be used some immoral reproductive purpose.
This is an absolutely absurd inference made by some unidentified 'bioethicists' who met at the International Society for Stem Cell Research annual meeting in June. Who are these people and why is this being reported in Scientific American?
I once heard a man working as secretary express his fears that somebody may have made tenths of Adolf Hitler clones. Besides that these days the only succesful activity was cloning frogs, and that a person is not only a product of genes, but also of his/her education , environment and experiences, is it reasonable that somebody in a clerical job worries about a copy of Hitler reappearing?. Besides this, human cloning, coming from gametes or from skin cells is unethical. In some way the present article deviates attention from the destruction of fertilized eggs, an horrifying fact, to a factoid. If we go into cloning and if there were aliens, they can feel free to clone some of us, educate them and send them into our world as a fifth column. Chinese are in the right way by banning all kind of gamete export out of China
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi don't know where this is all headed, but i can guarantee it ain't going to be pretty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- While immoral reproductive research might be more convenient with iSPCs, they are not necessarily required to achieve human cloning, for example.
- Regardless of what the moral right in this country might determine for all of us, there will be plenty of other countries who have no problem continuing development of biological processes utilizing iSPCs and fetal stem cells.
- While China has been proactive in address the otherwise untenable overpopulation problem by limiting births, I suspect that they have no issues with using fetal stem cells for any purpose that does not increase their population. Have they banned gamete imports? One Einstein (or whoever) baby per couple should be enough.
- Any reproductive research and development that increases the human population (short of, so to speak, producing miniature humans) will only hasten our demise. The human population has increased from about 2.5 billion to nearly 7 billion since I was born in 1950. Even if this rate of increase diminishes, the current population cannot be sustained on non-renewed supplies of fossil potable water, highly optimized agriculture and now rapidly diminishing seafood stocks. A disruptive event such as global warming, floods or sustained droughts or rising sea levels would produce devastation.
Why should I have to "respect" some peoples "imaginary fairy tale stories" that were dreamed up by some primative nomads a couple of centuries ago?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has shown that we are composed of what are essencially digital information encoded into self-replicating DNA structures by evolutionary processes that evolved long before human cultures evolved. The fact that science has now reached a point where we can understand and manipulate such technologies does not mean that we have to cow-tow to these ignoramuses, it was bad enough for the struggle of scince to get this far. We now have the ability to be able to manipulate these genetic machinery, and we will soon have the ability to make our own custom nanomachines.
With this new tech, we will be able to reveres the damage of aging and make old people young again and also be able to modify ourselves etc.
The abilty to make new cells and experiment with existing stem cells and modify them and create them from the instructions (DNA) of any one of our cells demonstrate the power of manipulating information (30 years of the personal computer revolution have shown people the power on information and computing systems be they a personal computer (chip) or the genetic machinery inside our cells or the new nanomachine we will be capable of creating in the future). The ethics of making people from skin cells essentially, given enough technical progress needs addressing, but the progress that we will get from repairing aging and reversing it will eventually get most peoples interest up. I hope that the religeous nutbars do not retard aging research too much. A good site is the Mprize.org and also, see the documentary "To age or not to age", it is out on dvd now and does explore the rate of aging research breakthroughs and all its implications.
nerd1024 - So how many perpetual offspring can a perpetually persistent reproducing human produce? I'm sure I don't want any of my children to die, either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see, there are nearly 7 billion humans right now. How many greedy perpetually persistent humans can this planet support, anyhow? I guess we'll have to figure out how to survive without drinking or eating, but that should be easy enough... Do we have to continue this pointless discussion? Sure, I'd like to live forever, but I don't think I want you to...
@gzuckier,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"i don't know where this is all headed, but i can guarantee it ain't going to be pretty."
Perhaps learn some fundamental logic before reading any popularized scientific articles? Lots of free beginners courses on line ;-)
@gzuckier : "i don't know where this is all headed, but i can guarantee it ain't going to be pretty."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith this (your) complete lack of fundamental logic reasoning your guarantee should stand strong ;-)
Patrick.
SORRY FOR DOUBLE POST ABOVE! Connection error...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.
You know, we don't have to solve every ethical problem to use stem cells. Making reproductive cells may entail problems (Chief among them, as others have noted, being why do we need artificial reproduction at all?) but none of those problems apply to making new skin, lungs, kidneys, etc. Speaking of ethical problems, why do YOUR ethical qualms justify interfering with someone else's actions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must agree to the use of IPS cells, no matter the cost. As long as we no longer see natural sperm-egg embryo's being destroyed , I cannot argue against artificial embryos built by IPS cells. We must ask ourselves what if it is us one day or a loved one. If a "test-tube" baby can be developed with natural
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissperm or a natural egg, we should then explore this method. I am not in total affirmation of this method, but if this way can lead to a promising future for ending the destruction of embryos altogether, we should pursue it now to advance already past this primitive way of using embryos of any kind.
This article brings up a lot of “what ifs”, and avoids the facts about adult stem cells. Using iPS cells has been successful, and people need to consider sources that provide both sides of the argument, not paranoid sources such as this. The Stem Cell Institute in Panama City, Panama offers stem cell treatment with patient’s own iPS cells, meaning the chance of rejection is 0%, as the cells are from the body they are being used in. One of the most prevalent diseases in America, Type II Diabetes, (in adults in 2007, type 2 diabetes accounted for 90-95% of all diagnosed cases of diabetes*) is treatable through this therapy. However, our “what if” way of thinking makes this and other important treatments difficult, as people have to travel outside of the country to get cared for. What’s going to happen when you or someone close to you needs this treatment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/statistics/