- J.A. Thomson et al., “Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts,” Science 282.5391 (November 6, 1998): 1145–1147.
- Testimony of Markus Grompe, M.D., director of the Oregon Stem Cell Center, before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, House Committee on Government Reform, February 7, 2006: “I am concerned that therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells is not the only reason for the desire to create cloned human embryos. In fact, it may only be a pretense to achieve wider-ranging deregulation and erode the protected status of early human life. Some researchers are simply interested in the basic science of the very interesting dynamics of how human embryos develop. Once early embryos became fair game, studies of more advanced stages of embryonic development (such as the formation of internal organs and brain) will be next on the list.” Robert P. George, member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, “Fetal Attraction: What Stem Cell Scientists Really Want,” Weekly Standard 11.3 (October 3, 2005), http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/006/119xobmg.asp?pg=1: “Up to now, embryonic stem-cell advocates have claimed that they are only interested in stem cells harvested from embryos at the blastocyst (or five- to six-day) stage. They have denied any intention of implanting embryos either in the uterus of a volunteer or in an artificial womb in order to harvest cells, tissues, or organs at more advanced stages of embryonic development or in the fetal stage. Advocates are well aware that most Americans, including those who are prepared to countenance the destruction of very early embryos, are not ready to approve the macabre practice of ‘fetus farming.’ However, based on the literature I have read and the evasive answers given by spokesmen for the biotechnology industry at meetings of the President’s Council on Bioethics, I fear that the long-term goal is indeed to create an industry in harvesting late embryonic and fetal body parts for use in regenerative medicine and organ transplantation.”
- National Bioethics Advisory Commission (President Clinton), Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, vol. 1 (Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1999), 53.
- The rationales for accepting this project are becoming more and more ubiquitous and forthright in their formulations. For instance, consider this recent post from Dominic Wilkinson, a doctoral student of Prof. Julian Savulescu, Oxford bioethicist and noted proponent of embryo-destructive research. It follows as the third of three reasons he offers his readers as to why we still need hESC research: “Third, there are likely to continue to be good reasons for performing research in human embryos—even if stem cells can be safely and efficiently generated from other sources and they prove as effective in treatment. For example, such research may be necessary for the development of therapies for a range of genetic diseases not amenable to stem-cell based treatment. As I alluded in my post last week, it may be that research using early human embryos is ethically preferable to research in animals, since it will not cause the research subjects to suffer and research findings are more likely to be directly transferable to humans” (emphasis added). “Is This the End of the Debate for Human Embryo Research?” Practical Ethics blog, University of Oxford, http://ethicsinthenews.typepad.com/practicalethics/2007/11/is-this-the-end.html#more.
- See also, “The Administration’s Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Funding Policy: Moral and Political Foundations” (2003), a staff working paper of the President’s Council on Bioethics, foundations. html.
- William B. Hurlbut, “Framing the Future: Embryonic Stem Cells, Ethics and the Emerging Era of Developmental Biology,” Pediatric Research 59.4 (2006), 5R: “Through … reflection on the meaning of human embodiment, we may draw a distinction between the material parts and the living whole that defines the locus of our moral concern. This distinction may suggest a way forward that will allow positive progress in biomedical science while preserving our most fundamental principles for the protection of human subjects and the defense of human dignity.”
- That paper reported on, and gave an initial ethical evaluation of, four proposals for obtaining embryonic stem cells without destroying human embryos. The proposals are as follows, in simple terms. The first was proposed by Dr. Donald Landry and Dr. Howard Zucker. They would seek to obtain embryonic stem cells from embryos that have been determined to be clinically “dead” in IVF clinics and that are about to be disposed of; the second proposal is to perform a biopsy on an eight-cell embryo to remove an early forming stem cell presumably without harming the embryo; the third, proposed by Dr. William Hurlbut, is altered nuclear transfer (ANT, the subject of the present examination); and the fourth is to endeavor to convert adult cells into pluripotent stem cells by reprogramming the nucleus of the adult cell to a pluripotent state. While the council could not endorse the “biopsy” proposal, it did encourage the pursuit of research on the other proposals using animal models.
- A human zygote is informed by an overarching principle of organization in dynamic tension toward the full unfolding of human, organismic life as a member of the species homo sapiens. Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical anthropology calls this principle the soul, characterized by its thoroughgoing active potential and directiveness toward organization.
- A teratoma is a type of tumor that derives from pluripotent germ cells. The word comes from a Greek term meaning roughly “monster tumor.” Teratomas usually start from cells in the testes in men, the ovaries in women, and in the sacrum in children. Teratomas involve cells from all three germ layers: ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm. They can be benign or malignant. Teratomas often contain well-differentiated cells which can result in tissues growing in a teratoma which are quite different from the surrounding tissue—ovarian teratomas have been known to grow hair and teeth. Complete hydatidiform moles are diploid in nature. They occur when an ovum, lacking a nucleus, is fertilized by two sperms or by a single sperm that subsequently duplicates its genetic information to restore a diploid state. We now know that some of these aberrant products of fertilization are capable of generating ESCs or their functional equivalents.
- I.H. Park et al., “Reprogramming of Human Somatic Cells to Pluripotency with Defined Factors,” Nature 451.7175 (January 10, 2008): 141–146; K. Takahashi et al., “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors,” Cell 131.5 (November 30, 2007): 861–872.; J. Yu et al., “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells,” Science 318.5858 (December 21, 2007): 1917–1920; W.E. Lowry et al., “Generation of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells from Dermal Fibroblasts,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105.8 (February 26, 2008): 2883–2888.
- Several of these advantages also hold for iPSCs.
- This concern gives rise to further specific moral questions, for instance: given the cultural status quo, does the prospect of employing nuclear transfer in ANT constitute any degree of material involvement in the broader cloning enterprise? If so, would this constitute an unreasonable degree of (material) involvement? In promoting ANT, do we wrongly (even if only as a political or strategic error) lend credibility to the proponents of ESC and embryo-destructive research and their claims?
- In this sense, ANT dovetails with current efforts to reprogram adult cells, and both areas of endeavor are complementary. On possible transcription factors, see K. Takahashi et al., “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells,” 861–872; Junying Yu et. al., “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells,” Science 318.5858 (December 21, 2007): 1917–1920.
- See our “Joint Statement on Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming: Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming,” http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/programs/ant_oocyte.htm.
- See W. Burke, P. Pullicino, and E.J. Richard, “The Biological Basis of the Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming (OAR) Hypothesis: Is It an Ethical Procedure for Making Embryonic Stem Cells?” The Linacre Quarterly 74.3 (August 2007): 204–211.
- R.M. Schultz, “Regulation of Zygotic Gene Activation in the Mouse,” Bioessays 15.8 (August 1993): 531–538; C. Bouniol, E. Nguyen, and P. Debey, “Endogenous Transcription Occurs at the 1-Cell Stage in the Mouse Embryo,” Experimental Cell Research 218.1 (May 1995): 57–62; A. Ao et al., “Transcription of Paternal Y-Linked Genes in the Human Zygote as Early as the Pronucleate Stage,” Zygote 2.4 (November 1994): 281–287; R. Daniels et al., “XIST Expression in Human Oocytes and Preimplantation Embryos,” American Journal of Human Genetics 61.1 (July 1997): 33–39.
- C. Bouniol-Baly et al., “Dynamic Organization of DNA Replication in One-Cell Mouse Embryos: Relationship to Transcriptional Activation,” Experimental Cell Research 236.1 (October 10, 1997): 201–211.
- H. Van de Velde et al., “The Four Blastomeres of a 4-Cell Stage Human Embryo Are Able to Develop Individually into Blastocysts with Inner Cell Mass and Trophectoderm,” Human Reproduction 23.8 (August 2008): 1742–1747.
- M. Zernicka-Goetz, “Patterning of the Embryo: The First Spatial Decisions in the Life of a Mouse,” Development 129.4 (February 15, 2002): 815–829; R.L. Gardner and T.J. Davies, “The Basis and Significance of Pre-patterning in Mammals,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 358.1436 (August 29, 2003): 1331–1338; discussion 1338–1339; J.A. Stanton, A.B. Macgregor, and D.P. Green, “Gene Expression in the Mouse Preimplantation Embryo,” Reproduction 125.4 (April 2003): 457–468; J. Rossant and P.P. Tam, “Emerging Asymmetry and Embryonic Patterning in Early Mouse Development,” Developmental Cell 7.2 (August 2004): 155–164; B. Plusa et al., “The First Cleavage of the Mouse Zygote Predicts the Blastocyst Axis,” Nature 434.7031 (March 17, 2005): 391–395.
- See Burke, Pullicino, and Richard, “The Biological,” 207.
- Y. Babaie et al., “Analysis of Oct4-Dependent Transcriptional Networks Regulating Self-Renewal and Pluripotency in Human Embryonic Stem Cells,” Stem Cells 25.2 (February 2007): 500–510.
- See David L. Schindler, “A Response to the Joint Statement ‘Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming,’” Communio 32.2 (Summer 2005): 369–380; idem, “Veritatis Splendor and the Foundations of Bioethics: Notes Towards an Assessment of Altered Nuclear Transfer and Embryonic (Pluripotent) Stem Cell Research,” Communio 32.1 (Spring 2005): 195–201; idem, “Agere sequitur esse: What Does It Mean? A Reply to Father Austriaco,” Communio 32.4 (Winter 2005), 795–824. For Walker, see Adrian J. Walker, “The Primacy of the Organism: Response to Nicanor Austriaco,” Communio 32.1 (Spring 2005): 177–187; idem, “A Way Around the Cloning Objection Against ANT? A Brief Response to the Joint Statement on the Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming,” Communio 32.1 (Spring 2005): 188–194; idem, “Reasonable Doubts: A Reply to E. Christian Brugger,” Communio 32.4 (Winter 2005): 770–783; idem, “Who Are the Real Aristotelians? A Reply to Edward J. Furton,” Communio 32.4 (Winter 2005): 784–794.
- Schindler, “A Response to the Joint Statement,” 371–372: “Epigenetics can determine only the phenotypical manifestation of the cell whose identity is at issue, not its (ontological) identity as such. Thus, the mere act of modifying the epigenetic profile of the [ANT] product cannot be sufficient to prevent that product from being, or having been, an incipient human organism.”
- Walker, “The Primacy of the Organism,” 180–181: “ANT begins, not just anywhere, but with a totipotent zygote, whose normal developmental path it follows up to the blastocyst stage. The ANT product may end up resembling a disorganized cell mass, but it starts as only a human embryo can start. And as the venerable Aristotelian principle has it, ‘if it walks like a duck and it swims like a duck….’”
- Walker, “Reasonable Doubts,” 774.
- Ibid., 775.
- Schindler, “A Response to the Joint Statement,” 372.
- Unpublished manuscript. In that same draft, Brugger further points out: “Dermoid cysts, hydatidiform moles, and other species of teratoma tumors can begin with this type of body. To be consistent, Schindler and Walker would need to maintain that each and every one of these began as an embryo. They would also need to maintain that every product of natural conception is in principle an embryo no matter the disorders that characterize the epigenetic profile. Further, they would be committed to holding that every parthenogenically activated oocyte is an embryo since oocytes before fertilization possesses diploid nuclei. Although it is possible that some moles and other kinds of gamete-derived tumors begin as embryos, it is impossible for any one of them to be an embryo if it never possesses an embryonic epigenetic profile.” See also by the same author “Altered Nuclear Transfer-Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming (ANT-OAR): A Morally Acceptable Means for Deriving Pluripotent Stem Cells: A Reply to Criticisms,” Communio 32.4 (Winter 2005): 753–769; idem, “Altered Nuclear Reprogramming and Efficient Causality,” in Life and Learning: Proceedings of the Seventeenth University Faculty for Life Conference 2007, ed. Joseph W. Koterski, S.J. (Washington, D.C.: University Faculty for Life, 2008); idem, “New Research Would Resolve the Stem Cell Debate,” Science & Theology News (June 2006): 22, 24; idem, “Moral Stem Cells,” First Things 163 (May 2006): 14–17.
- William Hurlbut, Robert P. George, and Markus Grompe, “Seeking Consensus: A Clarification and Defense of Altered Nuclear Transfer,” Hastings Center Report 36.5 (September–October 2006): 45.
- We wish to acknowledge that this apt description of the product of ANT was provided by Christian Brugger in a draft of a forthcoming essay Altered Nuclear Reprogramming And Efficient Causality, 9–10. We would also like to note that a mature, ovulated oocyte contains a diploid nucleus in an oocyte cytoplasm, and yet is not considered an embryo by anyone, including Schindler and Walker.
- We hold this to be a genuinely Catholic view of knowledge. The anti-science mindset characteristic of some of our critics would appear to represent a reductionistic epistemology which is simply not characteristic of the Catholic intellectual tradition.
- For example, oocytes can be matured in vitro either from tissue obtained by ovarian biopsy or from ovaries removed from patients for other medical reasons. In vitro maturation is reviewed in R.C. Chian, J.H. Lim, and S.L. Tan, “State of the Art in In-Vitro Oocyte Maturation,” Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 16.3 (June 2004): 211–219.
- Schindler, “A Response to the Joint Statement,” 375: “Determination of the presence of life in its most subtle beginnings is precisely not obvious in the manner of a positivistic fact, but always involves philosophical mediation (even if only unconsciously). Apprehending life in its most subtle beginnings involves a cognitional act that is not only empirical but also (at least implicitly) metaphysical in nature, an act which, rightly exercised, recognizes the mystery characteristic of the organism in its very givenness…. God gives the organism to itself and so creates an originality that by definition we cannot know or control exhaustively, an originality that we therefore should not attempt or claim to know or control exhaustively.”
The Linacre Quarterly
Volume 75, 2008 - Issue 4