European Campaign to protect human embryo gains one million signatures

Last week, 'One of Us' announced that 1 million EU citizens had signed its initiative to protect tiny human lives. 

There will now be an official public hearing on the need to ban EU funding for activities that involve destroying human embryos. 

It's an amazing achievement - and this week, European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič officially congratulated the campaign.

The ‘One of Us’ campaign underlines the moment of conception as the beginning of human life, and aims to prevent any funding of activities which result in the destruction of human embryos, particularly focusing on areas of research, development aid and public health (see previous CMF update by Philippa Taylor  for more detail). 

It was launched in January 2013 by leaders in twenty European countries and follows a European Court of Justice ruling in 2011, in a lawsuit brought by Greenpeace, that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection (See my previous blogs on the ‘Bruestle Judgement’  here and here).

‘One of Us’ is a European Citizen Initiative, a new method provided in the Treaty of Lisbon for proposing legislation in the European Union. Such an initiative must have the support of at least 7 of the 27 member states and each individual state involved must collect a minimum number of signatures based on its overall population. 

Now that it has gathered one million signatures, the European Parliament is duty-bound to schedule a debate on the issue. With just six weeks to go until the deadline, organisers are keen to boost the total still further - the higher the total, the greater the political and public impact.  

Currently, European policies are at odds with the European Court of Justice decision. Europe today is funding scientific research that destroys and manipulates embryos and funds international groups touting abortion. With the recognition of life from the moment of conception, Europe’s policies would shift in favour of unborn life.

The UK sadly remains woefully under-represented ... Across Europe the initiative has proved very successful - but here in the UK it is yet really to take off. 

How to sign

To take part in this campaign you must be resident in a EU State, be 18 or over and eligible to vote in the European Elections.

To sign the petition you need to go to the ‘One of Us’ website (click here) and follow the few simple instructions. It takes about two minutes from start to finish.

The ‘One of Us’ campaign reminds us that we were all embryos once. But some scientific research activities destroy human embryos. Please help us stop public funding for this research.

Further background

3.8 million human embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2%

The moral status of the human embryo – when is a person?

You have read this article Embryos with the title Embryos. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2013/09/european-campaign-to-protect-human.html. Thanks!

UK decision to trial three parent embryos for mitochondrial disease ‘both premature and ill-conceived’ (Nature Magazine)

Christian Medical Fellowship has recently published a paper on ‘three parent embryos for mitochondrial disease’ which was strongly critical of this new technology on both theological and scientific grounds. 

This followed submissions that we made on the issue to both the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Nuffield Council.

I have also argued on this blog that the technique involved is unsafe, unethical and unnecessary (see here, here, hereand here).

I was therefore most interested to see these same views expressed this week an article in Naturearguing that the UK’s decision to trial the technique is ‘both premature and ill-conceived’.

Marcy Darnovsky (pictured) is executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, California. In an article titled ‘A slippery slope to germline modification’ she points out that ‘those opposed to green-lighting mitochondrial replacement have been described in some quarters as religious objectors, against all types of IVF’.

However, she says, ‘many secular and actively pro-choice scientists, bioethi­cists and women’s-health advocates have voiced grave and detailed concerns about the safety and utility of mitochondrial replacement, and about authorizing the intentional genetic modification of children and their descendants.’

Were the United Kingdom to grant a regulatory go-ahead later this year, she argues, it would unilaterally cross ‘a legal and ethical line’ observed by the entire international community that ‘genetic-engineering tools’ should not be used ‘to modify gametes or early embryos and so manipulate the characteristics of future children’.

Darnovsky is very clear that ‘mitochondrial-replacement procedures would constitute ger­mline modification’.

She calls claims that such therapy would not affect a person’s identity ‘scientifically dubious’  and warns that ‘the permissive record of the UK regulatory authorities’ raises the prospect that inheritable mitochondrial changes would be used as a ‘door-opening wedge towards full-out germline manipulation, putting a high-tech eugenic social dynamic into play’.

To the claim that mitochondrial techniques would save lives, she points out that ‘these women have much safer alternatives, including pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and the use of third-party eggs with conventional IVF’.

She questions the HFEA’s claims that 1 in 200 children is born each year with a form of mitochondrial disease and the media’s uncritical acceptance of this figure, pointing out that the number is ‘more like 1 in 5,000’ (R. H. Haas et al. Pediatrics 120;1326–1333; 2007).

In addition she notes that among that much smaller group, a significant majority of cases involve mutations in nuclear as well as in mito­chondrial DNA, and so could not be helped by mitochondrial replacement.

Safety, she adds is ‘unproven’ and the results of animal trials are ‘far from reassuring’. Her overall assessment?

‘The question raised by these proposals is whether a risky technique, which would at best benefit a small number of women, justifies shred­ding a global agreement with profound significance for the human future. We need a moratorium on procedures based on human germline modification while that question is widely and fairly considered.’

Genuine concerns about this new mitochondrial technology have been swept aside in Britain in the headlong rush to push the scientific boundaries. But in many countries around and the world, and by commentators from both secular and faith based scientific backgrounds, Britain is viewed as rogue state in this area of research.

You have read this article Embryos / Mitochondrial Disease with the title Embryos. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2013/09/uk-decision-to-trial-three-parent.html. Thanks!

Over 850,000 people have signed the petition to protect human embryos in Europe. Have you?

The ‘One of Us’ campaign underlines the moment of conception as the beginning of human life, and aims to prevent any funding of activities which result in the destruction of human embryos, particularly focusing on areas of research, development aid and public health (see previous CMF update by Philippa Taylor  for more detail). 

It was launched in January 2013 by leaders in twenty European countries and follows a European Court of Justice ruling in 2011, in a lawsuit brought by Greenpeace, that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection (See my previous blogs on the ruling hereand here).

‘One of Us’ is a European Citizen Initiative, a new method provided in the Treaty of Lisbon for proposing legislation in the European Union.

Such an initiative must have the support of at least 7 of the 27 member states and each individual state involved must collect a minimum number of signatures based on its overall population. 

If the campaign gathers one million signatures, the European Parliament is duty-bound to schedule a debate on the issue.

So far 180,000 signatures have been gathered, leaving only 150,000 more required by November 2013.

Currently, European policies are at odds with the European Court of Justice decision.

Europe today is funding scientific research that destroys and manipulates embryos and funds international groups touting abortion.

With the recognition of life from the moment of conception, Europe’s policies would shift in favour of unborn life.

How to sign

To take part in this campaign you must be resident in a EU State, be 18 or over and eligible to vote in the European Elections.

To sign the petition you need to go to the ‘One of Us’ website (click here) and follow the few simple instructions.

It takes about two minutes from start to finish.

The ‘One of Us’ campaign reminds us that we were all embryos once. 

But some scientific research activities destroy human embryos.

Further background

3.8 million human embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2%

The moral status of the human embryo – when is a person?

You have read this article Embryos with the title Embryos. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2013/08/over-850000-people-have-signed-petition.html. Thanks!

3.8 million human embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2%

The Daily Telegraph this weekend reports on a new expert study which has raised fears that some clinics may be offering techniques that put the embryo at risk for their own profit.

The review, carried out by Dr Justin McCracken, the former head of the Health Protection Agency, highlighted a new technique, known as Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS), as one which is possibly being offered inappropriately for commercial reasons.

For a fee, which can run into thousands of pounds, clinics can check embryos created by a successful IVF cycle for certain genetic abnormalities and only implant those that appear normal.

The process is becoming especially popular for older couples seeking IVF, because embryos created from their sperm and eggs have a higher chance of abnormalities. As it involves the removal of a cell from an embryo (see picture) it carries some risk for the embryo being tested.

Dr McCracken said the jury was still out on whether PGS improves the chances of having a baby and warned there is a risk of harm to the foetus. He said it was vital that the regulator checks that clinics are not simply recommending it to boost profits.

 ‘I understand that there is no clinical consensus regarding its efficacy, but there is a real risk to the embryo in carrying it out.’ (emphasis mine)

This is a somewhat curious statement. Dr McCracken seems (appropriately) concerned about the riskof damage to a few hundred embryos each year undergoing PGS.

But he is curiously silent (or perhaps unaware) that over three million embryos have perished or been deliberately destroyed since 1990 as a result of procedures made legal by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Alton recently asked in parliament how many embryos have been created in each year since the commencement of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and how many of these have resulted in live births.

Figures given in reply by the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health Earl Howe showed that 3,806,699 embryos have been created since 1990. Between 1992 and 2006 a total of 122,043 live births occurred according to figures from the HFEA given alongside his reply (see also here).

122,043 live births from 3,806,699 embryos represent a success rate of 3.21% (1 in 30). Or, to put it another way, 3,684,656 embryos never made it to birth. CMF has highlighted this ratio of 1 in 30 before.

These figures make McCracken’s concern about PGS embryos alone look like what Jesus called ‘straining a gnat whilst swallowing a camel’ (Matthew 23:23-24).

In a letter to the Telegraph, as yet unpublished, disability rights advocate Ann Farmer has highlighted the fact that, in addition to the vast wastage of embryos, some women have also died from complications of infertility treatments such as OHSS. She comments:

‘The whole point of the infertility industry is to manufacture babies out of embryos… A car factory that managed to accumulate 3,684,656 surplus models between 1990 and 2012 and in addition killed some of its customers would surely have gone out of business long ago.’

In 1948 the World Medical Association adopted the Declaration of Geneva which included the affirmation, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even against threat’.

Today’s doctors, it seems, take a contrary view.

If you agree with today’s doctors that early human life can be treated as a disposable commodity then the figures that Lord Alton has uncovered (not much short of the current population of New Zealand!) will probably not bother you much at all.

But if, like me, you believe that they are special creations made in God’s image, which should be granted respect, wonder, empathy and protection you will no doubt be very concerned indeed.

See also ‘The moral status of the embryo. When is a person?’

You have read this article Embryos / HFEA / Pre-Implantation Diagnosis with the title Embryos. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2013/08/38-million-human-embryos-created-to.html. Thanks!

The moral status of the human embryo – when is a person?

The moral status of the embryo is one of the key pressure-points in ethical debates about post-coital contraception, therapeutic cloning, pre-implantation diagnosis, artificial reproduction, embryo research and cloning.

The issue, which has profound implications for medical practice as doctors, has divided people for centuries and remains controversial.  

It is a fundamental principle both of Christian teaching and also of natural justice that human beings deserve utmost respect.

Christians believe that human beings have been individually created by God and derive their integrity and worth from the fact that they are made in the image of God - regardless of genotype, age, size, location or degree of dependence and disability.

The presence of a disability, either inherited or acquired, does not detract from a person 's intrinsic worth. All human beings are thereby worthy of the utmost respect. They must never be treated as means to an end. At the heart of the Christian ethic is self-giving love, whereby the strong make sacrifices for, and if necessary lay down their lives for, the weak.

Historical medical ethical codes, recognising the power and strength of doctors, have enshrined a view similar to the Christian one.

The Declaration of Geneva (1948) stipulates that doctors should ‘maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception’.

In like manner, the International Code of Medical Ethics (1949)says that a doctor 'must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from the time of conception until death'.

The Declaration of Helsinki (1975) says that in biomedical research:

 'the interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the well-being of the subject '.'In any research upon human beings,each potential subject should be adequately informed of the aims,methods, anticipated benefits and potential hazards for the study...'and 'the subjects should be volunteers '. 'It is the duty of the doctor to remain the protector of the life and health of that person on whom biomedical research is being carried out.'

By contrast the emerging view amongst contemporary ethicists (such as Peter Singer) is that human beings are nothing but the product of matter, chance and time; merely highly specialised animals.

The value of individual human beings is determined by their level of rationality or self-consciousness, physical attributes or capacity for relationship. Human life that has fewer of these qualities is of less value and can be disposed of. This 'Darwinian ethic 'with its aim of 'survival of the fittest 'places the demented, mentally handicapped, brain-injured and unborn (particularly the human embryo) in great danger.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFE Act) starts with a presupposition that has never been properly established - that the human embryo is not a human being with rights, and can therefore be treated as a means to an end.

In keeping with this foundation the Act sanctions embryo freezing, research and destruction along with abortifacient contraception and the disposal of abnormal embryos after genetic testing -practices that we would not countenance for human beings at any other stage of development.

Any biology textbook tells us that human development is a continuous process beginning with fertilisation; essentially the only differences between zygote and full term baby are nutrition and time.

Biologically the human embryo is undoubtedly human; it has human chromosomes derived from human gametes. It is also alive, exhibiting movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition.

It is therefore most accurate to speak of it as a human being with potential, a human being in an early stage of development or a potential adult; rather than a potential human being.

Philosophers, biologists, politicians and even theologians, however, have advanced arguments to undermine the status of the human embryo.

Here are three of the main ones with my responses:

1. Human embryos are not human beings worthy of respect because they lack rationality or capacity for relationship

This was the thinking behind the Warnock Committee’s recommendation of no embryo research beyond 14 days, as the neural crests first form 10 days after fertilisation. Others have suggested that breathing movements (12 weeks), or 'quickening' (20 weeks), or even the first breath of air should be the end point. It has even been argued that newborn babies are not persons since they lack 'self-awareness'.

But the development of the nervous system is a continuous process beginning at fertilisation and choosing an arbitrary point on this continuum discriminates between human lives on the basis of neural function. It is therefore 'neuralist '. Neuralism varies from racism and sexism only on the basis of the non-morally significant quality selected as the basis for discrimination. It is simply another form of ageism.

Our value as human beings does not consist in our capacities or attributes but in the fact that we are human. Arguing that the value of any human life depends on its place of residence (uterus, fallopian tube or petri dish) or degree of independence similarly discriminates on the basis of non-morally significant characteristics.

2. Human embryos are not human beings worthy of respect because they have a high mortality; about 40-70% don't reach maturity

But the value of human beings is not contingent on their survival rates. We don't say that refugees in Africa, flood victims in Asia or people with cancer are less important simply because they have a high mortality. 

Similarly, if survival rates at any stage of development are low this does not justify us actively ending life. The general strategy of medicine is rather to save and preserve life. The figure of 40-70%may well be an overestimate anyway. No one really knows how many early embryos die as there is no biochemical marker for fertilisation, as opposed to implantation.

3. Human embryos are not human beings worthy of respect because many embryos that do spontaneously abort have a high incidence of genetic (particularly chromosomal) abnormality

But all of these abnormal embryos have formed from the union of two human gametes. Aren't they therefore just human lives with severe disabilities, human lives with special needs? We would not argue in any other sphere that the value of any individual human life was contingent on how ‘normal’ it was; far less that abnormality justified killing by 'disposal '.

Conclusions

The arguments used for devaluing the status of the human embryo are both unconvincing and discriminatory. The human embryo should instead be given the benefit of any doubt regarding its status.

We have a choice: we either act to ensure the protection and survival of the most vulnerable members of our society by endorsing the Christian ethic of the strong making sacrifices for the weak; or we continue to ensure the ‘non-survival of the weakest’ by politicising the 'Darwinian ethic '.

The HFE Act has politicised Darwinism by enshrining in statute law discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human race. It is built on a fundamental presupposition that has never been established logically, philosophically ethically or morally.  

You have read this article Bioethics / Embryos with the title Embryos. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-moral-status-of-human-embryo-when.html. Thanks!

Three parent embryos for mitochondrial disease – unsafe, unethical and unnecessary

Britain is planning to become the first country in the world to offer controversial ‘three-parent’ fertility treatments to families who want to avoid passing on mitochondrial diseases to their children.

The BBC reports this morning on the new techniques which it is claimed will children born through 'three-person IVF' who would carry genetic material from each of three different people.

There are about 50 known mitochondrial diseases (MCDs), which are passed on in genes coded by mitochondrial (as opposed to nuclear) DNA. They range hugely in severity, but for most there is presently no cure and little other than supportive treatment.

It is therefore understandable that scientists and affected families want research into these two related ‘three-parent embryo’ techniques (pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer) to go ahead. But there are good reasons for caution.

This is not about finding a cure. It is about preventing people with MCD being born. We need first to be clear that these new technologies, even if they are eventually shown to work, will do nothing for the thousands of people already suffering from mitochondrial disease or for those who will be born with it in the future.

There are also already some alternative solutions available for affected couples including adoption and egg donation.

But apart from this I’m left with four big questions.

Is it safe? This is far from established. Each technique involves experimental reproductive cloning techniques and germline genetic engineering, both highly controversial and potentially very dangerous. Cloning by nuclear transfer has so far proved ineffective in humans and unsafe in other mammals with a large number of cloned individuals spontaneously aborting and many others suffering from physical abnormalities or limited lifespans. Also, any changes, or unpredicted genetic problems (mutations) will be passed to future generations. In general, the more manipulation needed, the higher the severity and frequency of problems in resulting embryos and fetuses.

Will it work? I am sceptical. This technology uses similar ‘nuclear transfer’ techniques to those used in ‘therapeutic cloning’ for embryonic stem cells (which has thus far failed to deliver) and animal-human cytoplasmic hybrids (‘cybrids’). The wild claims made about the therapeutic properties of ‘cybrids’ by the biotechnology industry, research scientists, patient interest groups and science journalists duped parliament into legalising and licensing animal human hybrid research in 2008. Few now will remember Gordon Brown’s empty promises in the Guardian on 18 May that year of ‘cybrids’ offering 'a profound opportunity to save and transform millions of lives' and his commitment to this research as 'an inherently moral endeavour that can save and improve the lives of thousands and over time millions of people'. That measure was supported in a heavily whipped vote as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, now the HFE Act. But ‘cybrids’ are now a farcical footnote in history. They have not worked and investors have voted with their feet. Ironically, it was in that same Act of Parliament, that provision for this new research was also made.

Is it ethical? No, there are huge ethical issues. A large number of human eggs will be needed for the research, involving ‘harvesting’ that is both risky and invasive for women donors. How many debt-laden students or desperate infertile women will be exploited and incentivised by being offered money or free IVF treatment in return for their eggs? How many thousands of human embryos will be destroyed? If it ever works, what issues of identity confusion will arise in children with effectively three biological parents? What does preventing those with mitochondrial disease being born say about how we value people already living with the condition? Where will this selection end? Some mitochondrial diseases are much less serious than others. Once we have judged some affected babies not worthy of being conceived, where do we draw the line, and who should draw it?

Is the debate being handled responsibly? No. The research scientists involved have huge financial and research-based vested interests and getting the regulatory changes and research grants to continue and extend their work is dependent on them being able to sell their case to funders, the public and decision-makers. Hence their desire for attention-grabbing media headlines and heart rending (but highly extreme and unusual) human interest stories that are often selective about what facts they present.

It must be tempting for politicians to make promises of ‘miracle cures’ in years to come which no one may remember. But I suspect it is much more about media hype than real hope.

This new push is being driven as much by prestige for government, research grants for scientists and profits for biotechnology company shareholders as anything else.

Let’s keep a cool head and instead concentrate on finding real treatments and providing better support for affected individuals and their families rather than spending limited health resources on unethical, risky and highly uncertain high tech solutions that will most likely never deliver. 

 (See BBC, Guardian, Times(£), Independent, Daily Mail and Telegraph).

You have read this article Embryos / Mitochondrial Disease with the title Embryos. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2013/06/three-parent-embryos-for-mitochondrial.html. Thanks!

Time lapse imaging of embryos – exciting breakthrough or just eugenics by another name?

Various media outlets (including The Times (£), The Telegraph, BBC, The Independent and The Guardian) have published articles reporting on how fertility specialists from Nottingham have developed a radical technique that will ‘dramatically improve’ the chances of IVF couples having a baby.

The original research appears in Reproductive BioMedicine Online.

About one in eight couples have trouble having children through natural conception and around 48,000 women currently undergo IVF treatment each year resulting in about 12,200 IVF births, an overall success rate of 25%.

This failure rate of 75% causes immense emotional upset to affected couples, many of whom have paid between £5,000 and £10,000 for each treatment cycle.

However the new  procedure, which uses ‘time-lapse imaging’ to monitor the health of embryos by taking thousands of digital pictures to identify ones that are developing well, could raise the chance of a live birth to 78%, about three times the national average.

The new technique identifies the ‘best embryos’ to be implanted into the womb based on the time it has taken to develop between two key stages in the early life-cycle of the embryo.

Thousands of time-lapse pictures taken during the first few days of an IVF embryo's life are used to identify the time between the first appearance of the fluid-filled cavity, called the blastula (normally 97 hours), and the full blastocyst (122 hours).

In embryos at high risk of aneuploidy (extra chromosomes) these steps occurred about 6 hours later on average. Aneuploidy is the single biggest cause of IVF failure.

To test the system, the doctors ran the program on time-lapse images of 88 embryos that had been recorded previously for 69 couples at the clinic. Some 61% of the embryos ranked as low risk for abnormal chromosomes led to live births, compared with none of those ranked as high risk.

Around a dozen private and NHS clinics are currently using time-lapse embryo imaging. It costs around £750 in addition to about £3,000 for IVF.

The £750 cost compares favourably with the current cost of £2,500 for Pre-implantation Genetic Screening, an invasive test which removes cells from the early embryo for analysis.

If the new imaging test proves to be effective in larger trials it seems likely that it will be used much more widely.

What is singularly lacking from any media coverage of this research however is any discussion of the ethics.

Not only does it seem to be taken for granted that the improved success rates override any ethical objection. There is simply no ethical objection even considered.

But let’s think about what is actually happening here.

Embryos are being created in a laboratory and those with aneuploidy are being identified and discarded.

Some of these will have the commoner trisomies (three rather than two copies of a particular chromosome) – Down’s syndrome (trisomy 21), Edward’s syndrome (18) and Patau’s syndrome (13) – where affected babies are often born alive.

Some will have other trisomies (like trisomy 15, 16 and 22) and inevitably will either fail to implant or result in miscarriages.

So is it right to implant those embryos more likely to survive and throw away the others?

Well that surely depends on what these tiny organisms actually are.

They are undoubtedly individual human lives, but what status do they have? Are they potential human beings or are they human beings with potential?

Philosophers like Singer, Glover and Harris will tell you that they are alive but non-persons because they do not yet have functioning nervous systems.

But others, who would argue that human life from the time of fertilisation should be shown the utmost respect and afforded protection would say that every living human organism – no matter how young, old or disabled and regardless of its intellectual capacity – is also a human person with rights.

I know what I think, but what do you think and why? They are either persons or not persons. Which is it?

Is this new technique the 'most exciting breakthrough in IVF treatment in 30 years'? Or is it just eugenics by another name?

It makes all the difference in the world.

You have read this article Embryos / IVF with the title Embryos. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2013/05/time-lapse-imaging-of-embryos-exciting.html. Thanks!

Embryonic stem cells from cloned human embryos – six reasons for caution

The newspapers are full today of the news that scientists in the US state of Oregon have produced embryonic stem cells (ESCs) using the same cloning technology (somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)) that created Dolly the sheep.

The original paper was published in the scientific journal Cell (Reutersand Naturegive helpful reviews).

Shoukhrat Mitalipov and his colleagues took skin cells and transplanted their nuclei into eggs from paid donors from which the nuclei had been removed. Some resulting embryos were grown to the blastocyst stage (about 150 cells) at which point embryonic stem cells were harvested and developed into stem cells lines from which a range of more specialised body cells were derived.

Some are claiming that this might be the first step in producing stem cells that can be used to treat conditions in which there is cell loss like Parkinson’s, diabetes and spinal cord damage.

The huge media coverage this story has generated is due to the obsession of the British media with embryonic stem cell technology, the fact that this is the first time embryonic stem cell lines have been derived from cloned human embryos and the emotion generated by conditions for which there is currently no cure.

Amidst the hype let me register six reasons for caution.

First, what many news outlets do not make clear is that these embryonic stem cells have been produced by the cannibalising of cloned human embryos, a process that results in their destruction. This is a huge ethical barrier to the technology for those who believe, as I do, that human life begins at conception.

Second, the paper discloses that ten women were paid to ‘donate’ more than 120 eggs in the course of the research. The primary means by which these eggs are procured is ovarian hyperstimulation which is associated with serious health risks in both the short and long term. Egg donors for the experiment received US$3,000–7,000 in compensation. This is expensive and risks creating an organ trade that preys on the poor, especially students. Jennifer Lahl’s excellent book ‘Eggsploitation’spotlights the booming business of human eggs told through the tragic and revealing stories of real women who became involved in selling their eggs.

Third, the method used to create these embryos is identical to that used to create cloned adults. If someone were to implant one of these embryos in a woman it could theoretically be grown into a cloned baby. Such portakabin technology is extremely difficult to police and some like Dr David King, from the campaign group Human Genetics Alert, are saying for this reason that it should not be done at all.  

Fourth, we know already that cloned mammalian embryos are not normal because they do not grow into normal adults. It took 277 attempts to create Dolly the sheep and she was abnormal and died early. This raises the strong possibility that stem cells derived from cloned embryos may not be normal either. This means that they are very unlikely ever to be used in treatments but only in research. It is adult stem cells derived from sources like umbilical cord blood and bone marrow that hold the real promise, are involved in the overwhelming majority of clinical trials and are already being widely used in treatment of a wide range of conditions.

Fifth, there is already alternative stem cell technology available for research. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) (which can be made from reprogrammed adult cells without the need to create and destroy embryos) and for which Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka won a Nobel prize in 2012, have already led many researchers to abandon research using cloning methods. Although this research is still at an early stage iPS cells appear to have most of the properties of embryonic stem cells and their production does not involve the same ethical barriers.

Finally, this new research is at a very early stage and we need to beware of the huge media hype that will be generated around it by biotechnology companies and scientists who have financial and personal vested interests and a hotline to the media. We need to be wary that we are not being given an exaggerated account which is high on hype and plays down the real risks. 

You have read this article Cloning / Embryos / Stem Cells with the title Embryos. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2013/05/embryonic-stem-cells-from-cloned-human.html. Thanks!