Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:28:08.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years of Controversy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

John A. Robertson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research has been a source of ethical, legal, and social controversy since the first successful culturing of human ESCs in the laboratory in 1998. The controversy has slowed the pace of stem cell science and shaped many aspects of its subsequent development. This paper assesses the main issues that have bedeviled stem cell progress and identifies the ethical fault lines that are likely to continue.

The time is appropriate for such an assessment because the field is poised for a period of rapid development. President Obama has removed the Bush administration’s restrictions on federal funding. A huge influx of federal research funds is in the offing and presumably a more rapid maturing of the science will take place. Stem cell science is also moving into the clinical realm. In March 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first clinical trial with an ESC-derived therapy for spinal cord injuries, an important first step — though by no means a final or a sure one — in moving ESC research out of the laboratory into clinical medicine. Finally, recent work with induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells suggests that non-embryonic sources of pluripotent stem cells may one day be routinely available. Such a development will lessen the temperature of the ethical debate while raising other issues.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , Summer 2010 , pp. 191 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The FDA has also approved Phase I stem cell clinical trials for Batten Disease and Pelizaeus-Merzbacher Disease, which are much rarer than spinal cord injury. Lo, B., “Case-Based Reasoning in Stem Cell Clinical Trials: The Case of Parkinson's Disease,” Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010). Since approving Geron's clinical trial, the FDA has put the study on hold pending more data on cyst formation and immunosuppression in the animal studies used to support Geron's application. Dimond, P. F., “Special Report, Geron's Setback with Testing Its hESC Therapy in Humans Points to FDA's Continued Cautionary Stance,” August 28, 2009, available at <http://www.genengnews.com/specialreports/sritem.aspx?oid=61364204> (last visited April 7, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, J. A. et al., “Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts,” Science 282, no. 5391 (1998): 1145–1147; Shamblott, M. J. et al., “Derivation of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Cultured Human Primordial Germ Cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95, no. 23 (1998): 13726–13731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
This is a conflict over the methods used to obtain the cells used in research. Concerns about research methods, however, can arise at any stage of a science. Research methods can be directly harmful, as with the release of toxic agents or microbes into the biosphere. Or they could use animals in cruel ways or human subjects without consent. The creation of chimeras may also be contentious. See infra note 47.Google Scholar
Debates over embryo status and ESC research are complicated further by their connection with cloning, assisted reproduction, and other technologies at the beginning of life. The announcement of lab culture of human ESCs came a year after Ian Wilmut's announcement of nuclear transfer cloning of a sheep had roiled the world with the possibility of reproductive cloning and genetic control over progeny. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloning has been thought necessary to generate ESCs with particular genomes to model disease and to produce histocompatible replacement tissue, and has played a central role in ESC policy debates.Google Scholar
George, R. P. and Tollefsen, C., Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (New York: Doubleday, 2008).Google Scholar
For an analysis of this issue, See Brock, D. W., “Creating Embryos for Use in Stem Cell Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efforts at state constitutional amendments or legislation protecting all fertilized eggs and embryos have usually failed. In Colorado such an amendment made it to the ballot but failed. See Amendment 48 (2008), available at <http://www.leg.state.co.us/lcs/initrefr/0708initrefr.nsf/89fb842d0401c52087256cbc00650696/16f403e0c19126f98725744b0050fd4d/$file/amendment%2048.pdf> (last visited April 8, 2010).+(last+visited+April+8,+2010).>Google Scholar
Poll, Gallup, “Six in 10 Americans Favor Easing Restrictions on Stem Cell Research,” 2007, available at <http://www.gallup.com/poll/27898/Six-Americans-Favor-Easing-Restrictions-Stem-Cell-Research.aspx> (last visited April 8, 2010).Google Scholar
Sometimes they distinguish research embryos created by fertilization from those created by SCNT. In Massachusetts and Missouri, for example, it is illegal to create embryos for research by fertilization but not by SCNT.Google Scholar
I have argued that the difference is a symbolic one – the line is a place to symbolize or mark a person's firm commitment to respect for human life. The benefits of that symbolic position, however, should be weighed against the loss in knowledge that results by not having this method of obtaining embryos for research available. Robertson, J. A., “Symbolic Issues in Embryo Research,” Hastings Center Report 25, no. 1 (1995): 37–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. A., “Embryo Culture and the Culture of Life: Constitutional Issues in the Embryonic Stem Cell Debate,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 2006 (2006): 1–40.Google Scholar
410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
505 U.S. 833 (1992).Google Scholar
Robertson, J. A., “Assisting Reproduction, Choosing Genes, and the Scope of Reproductive Freedom,” George Washington Law Review 76, no. 6 (2008): 1490–1513.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. A., “Embryo Culture and the Culture of Life: Constitutional Issues in the Embryonic Stem Cell Debate,” University of Chicago Legal Forum 2006 (2006): 1–40, at 31–38.Google Scholar
Id. A relevant case here is Turner Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 662 (1994) (more than minimal rational basis required for First Amendment restriction).Google Scholar
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs and Washington Legal Foundation v. Eschenbach, 445 F.3rd 470 (D.C. Cir. 2006); reversed en banc, 495 F.3d 695 (C.A.D.C. 2007); cert. den. 128 S. Ct. 1069 (2008).Google Scholar
The EAB recommended that IVF research go forward and then no embryo research occur without EAB approval. Green, R. M., “Political Interventions in U.S. Human Embryo Research: An Ethical Assessment,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethicis 38, no. 2 (2010).Google Scholar
President Clinton immediately said he would not permit funding of research embryos. See Green, , id.Google Scholar
The first version of it was Pub. L. No. 104–99, 110 Stat. 26 (1996). For later cites, see President's Bioethics Council, Monitoring Stem Cell Research, 2004, at note 8, page 49.Google Scholar
See Raab, H., Memorandum to Harold Varmus, M.D., Director, NIH, Federal Funding for Research Involving Human Pluripotent Stem Cells, January 15, 1999.Google Scholar
L. Guenin has argued that ESC research is research in which embryos are destroyed because it is necessary to destroy them to get the ESCs, but has failed to convince lawmakers of his position. Guenin, L. M., The Morality of Embryo Use (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Guenin, L. M., “A Proposed Stem Cell Research Policy,” Stem Cells 23, no. 8 (2005): 1023–1027. If the Dickey-Wicker rider had said “research involving embryos,” there might have been a different outcome.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Human Pluripotent Stem Cells, Federal Register 65 (August 25, 2000): 51975–51981. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research (Rockville, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999).Google Scholar
Remarks by President George W. Bush on Stem Cell Research, August 9, 2001, reprinted in President's Bioethics Council, Monitoring Stem Cell Research, Appendix B, 181–185, 2004.Google Scholar
His administration claimed that more than 60 lines fit that bill, but in time only between 15–20 lines were available. Some could not be verified. Some had onerous licensing restrictions, and some sources were not set up to become suppliers throughout the world. Interestingly, it is cells from a Bush-approved line at the University of Wisconsin that led to the first clinical trial with ESC therapy.Google Scholar
Germany also used a cut-off time. ESC lines cannot be legally derived in Germany, but German researchers could import lines that had been derived legally in other countries before January 1, 2002. See Robertson, J. A., “Assisted Reproduction in Germany and the United States: An Essay in Comparative Bioethics,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 43, no. 1 (2004): 189–227, at 212. See also Robertson, J. A., “Causative vs. Beneficial Complicity in the Embryonic Stem Cell Debate,” Connecticut Law Review 36, no. 4 (2004): 1099–1113 (arguing that Bush's complicity standard would also support federal funding of those lines that had been derived in the private sector after the Bush announcement).Google Scholar
This required separate equipment, accounting, and even buildings for use of cell lines outside the Bush cut-off. If frozen embryos being stored for use to derive new lines in a separate facility had a freezer shutdown, they could not switch them to the federally funded freezer without disqualifying any embryos there stored.Google Scholar
The Director of the NIH actually testified before Congress that the Bush administration funding policy was hurting the progress of ESC science. Weiss, R., “Stem Cell Policy Hampering Research, NIH Official Reports,” Washington Post, January 20, 2007.Google Scholar
See note 31 for an account of Prop 71. New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland, and New York also made significant commitments, though none as great at that of California.Google Scholar
Korobkin, R., “Embryonic Histrionics: A Critical Evaluation of the Bush Stem Cell Funding Policy and the Congressional Alternative,” Jurimetrics 47, no. 1 (2006): 1–29.Google Scholar
Obama, President Barack, “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells,” Executive Order No. 13,505, Federal Register 74 (March 11, 2009): 10667–10668.Google Scholar
Those lines will still have to meet the strict standards for consent of donors, including their consent to use in the particular kind of research in which they will be used. While this will disqualify some lines from federal funding, enough other lines have been created to meet the needs of researchers. See Federal Register 74 (July 7, 2009): 32170–32175; Editorial, “Consent Issue Dogs Stem Cell Approval,” Nature 462, no. 7275 (December 17, 2009): 837 (embryos donated for diabetes research may not be used for other purposes).Google Scholar
45 CFR 46.101 et seq.Google Scholar
This was the classic case with the Berg letter that led to Asilomar and the NIH's Recombinant DNA rules. Berg, P. et al., Letter, “Potential Biohazards of Recombinant DNA Molecules,” Science 185, no. 4148 (1974): 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council, “Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” 2005, available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11278> (last visited April 8, 2010) [hereinafter “NAS Guidelines”].+(last+visited+April+8,+2010)+[hereinafter+“NAS+Guidelines”].>Google Scholar
Critics may question whether such guidelines have enough bite to get the job done. Sometimes professionally developed guidelines are window-dressing. But this does not appear to be the case with the NAS stem cell rules. With the ESC field so eager to move forward and the source so authoritative (the NAS is not merely another professional interest group), they have earned widespread respect and support.Google Scholar
The guidelines of the International Society of Stem Cell Researchers (ISSCR) overlap substantially with those of the NAS, but there are differences. Some ISSCR members have pointed out that the NAS guidelines were drafted without international representation: “To hold that the U.S. guidelines can simply be lifted and imported to other international settings ignores the differing political, cultural, and religious perspectives that shape research policy.” Hyun, I., Taylor, P., and Daley, G. Q., “Letter,” San Jose Mercury News, February 8, 2007.Google Scholar
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee, National Research Council, 2007 Amendments to the National Academies' Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, 2007. The changes to the guidelines involved clarifying the phrase “provenance of the cell lines” (changes to Section 1.2); use of the hESCs approved for use in federally funded research (addition to Section 1.4); importation of hESC lines into an institution or jurisdiction (addition of Section 1.5); and allowing ESCRO committees to serve multiple institutions (changes to Section 2.0 and addition of Section 2.1). Id., at 3–4.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, “National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research,” Federal Register 74, no. 128 (July 7, 2009): 321470.Google Scholar
Lo, B., Parham, L., and Cedars, M. et al., “NIH Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Gamete Donors,” Science 327, no. 5968 (February 19, 2010): 962–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, C. B. and Majumder, M. A., “Future Directions for Oversight of Stem Cell Research in the United States,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19, no. 1 (2009): 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. A., “Compensation and Egg Donation for Research,” Fertility and Sterility 86, no. 6 (2006): 1573–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statement of the Empire State Stem Cell Board on the Compensation of Oocyte Donors, June 11, 2009. Nelson, L., “New York State Allows Compensation in Egg Donations for Research,” New York Times, June 26, 2009, at A18.Google Scholar
Strictly speaking the research occurring was not “research with a human subject” under the HHS guidelines. 45 CFR 46.101 et seq. See also Cho, M. and Magnus, D., “Issues in Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research,” Science 308, no. 5729 (2005): 1747–1748.Google Scholar
See NAS Guidelines, supra note 36, at 100.Google Scholar
See Cohen, and Majumder, , supra note 42, at 91.Google Scholar
Id. The Obama guidelines also deny funding for such research. See Federal Register 74 (2009): 32170–32175, at 32175 (“Chimera ban”).Google Scholar
See Lo, , supra note 1; Lo, B., Kriegstein, A., and Grady, D., “Clinical Trials in Stem Cell Transplantation: Guidelines for Scientific and Ethical Review,” Clinical Trials 5, no. 5 (2008): 517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. (Lo).Google Scholar
Special problems may arise here that require sham surgery, so that all patients will think that they are getting the new therapy. See Lo, , supra note 49.Google Scholar
Mathews, D. J. H. et al., “Cell-Based Interventions for Neurologic Conditions,” Neurology 71, no. 4 (2008): 288–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
ISSCR 608 commentary.Google Scholar
See Lo, , supra note 49.Google Scholar
The willingness to travel abroad to uncertified clinics for untested but highly touted and expensive treatments is an example of the ease with which consent can be obtained. See Hyun, , infra note 61.Google Scholar
International Society for Stem Cell Research, Guidelines for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells, December 3, 2008.Google Scholar
See discussion of therapeutic misconception in Magnus, D., “Translating Stem Cell Research: Challenges at the Research Frontier,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Johns Hopkins group argues that researcher and oversight bodies should ensure that the consent process is above reproach, and that it provides few opportunities for even misguided criticism because of the sensitivity and political ramifications of ESC research. See Mathews, et al., supra note 51, at 291.Google Scholar
Lo, Bernard and Sugarman, Jeremy also make these points. See Lo, , supra note 49 and Sugarman, J., “Reflections on Governance Models for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).Google Scholar
Several papers in this symposium address the issue of innovative therapy. See Hyun, I., “Allowing Innovative Stem Cell-Based Therapies Outside of Clinical Trials: Ethical and Policy Challenges,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010) (page numbers coming); Taylor, P. L., “Overseeing Innovative Therapy Without Mistaking It for Research: A Function-Based Model Based on Old Truths, New Capacities, and Lessons from Stem Cells,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
I do not mean to underestimate the problems that even people with insurance have in getting standard care. Some of those same problems could prevent access to stem cell therapies just as they do to other treatments.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, “Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law; Final Rule,” Federal Register 73, no. 425 (December 19, 2008): 78072–78101, CFR version at 45 CFR 88.Google Scholar
Takahashi, K. and Yamanaka, S., “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors,” Cell 126, no. 4 (2006): 663–676; Gearhardt, J., Pashos, E., and Prasad, M., “Pluripotentcy Redux – Advances in Stem-Cell Research,” New England Journal of Medicine 357, no. 15 (2007): 69–72; Shaw, J., “Tools and Tests: The Evolution of Stem-Cell Research,” Harvard Magazine 112, no. 3 (January-February 2010): 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamanaka, S., “Elite and Stochastic Models for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Generation,” Nature 460, no. 7251 (2009): 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 51.Google Scholar
See references listed in Cohen, and Majumder, , supra note 42, at 94–95.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar