Interesting Editorial on the New Stem Cells Derivation Technique

Interesting Editorial on the New Stem Cells Derivation Technique

David Magnus, director of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics and a member of the California Human Stem Cell Advisory Committee, and Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics (website may be down), co-wrote an editorial which appeared in the San Jose Mercury News on Wednesday October 19th. Their piece says that the two new techniques are both “scientific pandering.”

They say that few in the scientific community think that either method (ANT or PGD-method) will be effective, that the techniques do not solve the moral issues for people opposed to making any changes to human embryos, that “holding up important research to pursue possible alternatives because there are critics of the morality of existing techniques is a terrible idea,” and

There is no evidence yet that primate cloning is possible and all available knowledge suggests that embryos produced by cloning cannot reliably develop into fully functioning human beings. In other words, we have had the technology and
techniques we need already. . . . We should not be trying to appease a minority with scientific flimflammery while delaying promising research that one day may lead to treatments that improve millions of lives.

While I generally agree with these points, I do see this editorial as one coming from a rhetorical position of high moral certainty, even dogmatism, that perhaps needs to be challenged a little. Critics in a minority are not necessarily wrong because they are small in number; many social transformations have been started by a few ostracized people. There are times when it is not a terrible idea to step back and pursue alternatives, times when it is important to pay attention to those who criticize the morality of something.

Let’s put aside the specific questions embryonic stem cell research generates (What is a human? When does human life begin? What makes an embryo?) for a moment to see what happens when an issue, be it scientific or sociological or artistic, is approached in a spirit of open-minded discovery and generosity. Science by its very nature leads to complications in how human see themselves and their place in the world, and it is worth spending some time to acknowledge the complications and their accompanying, often unspoken, fears instead of shutting them down.

Korean Stem Cell Bank Part 2

Korean Stem Cell Bank Part 2

As expected, there has been a lot of press coverage of the new Korean plan to bank cloned stem cells for researchers in other countries to use. I’ll give a sampling of media responses here. Main details that are in most articles include the following:

The South Korean government is providing funding; the center will be known as the World Stem Cell Hub and located at Seoul National University Hospital; and the opening ceremony was attended by the president of South Korea. Also present were scientists from other countries, including Gerald Schatten, a cell biologist at the University of Pittsburgh, who will chair a foundation participating in the bank.

The Guardian includes with its report links to several other related articles, including a special report called the Ethics of Genetics, which reprints articles it has previously published about stem cells, gene patents, IVF laws, and other topics. A Bloomberg article printed in the Moscow Times provides a good overview of the subject and the issues, including a comment from Leonard Zon, head of the stem cell program at Children's Hospital in Boston. Zon compared the bank to bone marrow centers for leukemia transplants—only one existed years ago but it is now widespread—and estimated ten years for the human SCNT technology to become widely available.

The English-language version of the Korean Chosun Ilbo article on the subject quoted a New York Times editorial applauding the center and said that it “has drawn praise from U.S., where there political influence of the religious right is making research increasingly difficult.” The same newspaper also ran a couple of photographs of the opening ceremony in another article. Forbes ran a HealthDay article which referred frequently to Susan Okie’s Perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, and high-lighted the issue of egg donation being a problem in the United States, as well as some scientists’ concern about technology being centralized.

So what does all this mean?

Well, first of all it means that prohibitions in countries such as Australia, Britain, and the United States against SCNT technology are not going to impede the research. The research will go forward. American public opinion will probably be mixed. It seems to me that the issues which will be debated will include the expected ones about respect for embryonic life, respect for human life (e.g. healing diseases in persons out of the womb), commercialization of embryos (how will foreign scientists pay the Koreans?), feminist issues (are women commodified as egg-bearers?), issues about control of science (will the Korean government dictate the kind of research that can be done by foreign scientists, or which scientists get a shot at a limited supply?), issues about who gets treated (Will pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies approach this as a profit-making venture and limit access to stem cell treatments to those who can afford exorbitant rates?), and a host of other ones I cannot even begin to imagine.

It also seems to me, writing as an American, that a global shift of scientific power might be in the making. American students’ performance in the sciences (and many other fields, alas) is already poor compared to many other countries. Limited funding for education in general and restricted federal funding for stem cell research in particular will only keep the US further back of this particular biotech wave. But the wave isn’t going to stop now.

Can technology overleap ethics? Yes, of course, and frequently it does. How much scientific inventiveness and money has been invested in finding new and better ways to kill people? But science and ethics can also overleap the ordinary views of the masses and stretch us forward, painfully perhaps but healthily and necessarily.