A couple of corrections and some comments on the original article, from the journal, Stem Cells.
The authors did not achieve any stem cell lines (“hESCs”)from the early (2-10) cell lines. So I was wrong about their having done what Lanza and Advanced Cell Technology claimed to have done.
Also, the Nature article by Alison Abbott has at least one glaring mistake that I did not pick up on when I wrote my earlier post. (A poster at FReeRepublic.com alerted me).
Ms. Abbott repeated the myth that the US does not allow the development of hESC lines if they come from destroyed embryos. LifeEthics readers know that the government limits where it will spend the tax-payers’ money. Only the lines derived from embryos destroyed prior to August 9, 2001 are eligible for Federal funds. There are no restrictions on private money, on destruction of embryos, or on the research itself.
Please take a moment to email Nature at news@nature.com (this is the “Feedback” email address, as well as the url) and let them know that they need to hire better reporters. Their “news” is not reliable and people like me can make mistakes on our blogs in the middle of the night if we rely on it.
Nancy Valko forwarded the link to a better review on the report from the Mercury News newsfeed. Which leads to the journal and the actual report.
The journal, Stem Cells, has graciously made the article about stem cells derived from cells removed from arrested – or dead – embryos an “Open Access” article, available in full and for free. Bravo, Stem Cells!!
I’ve read the report only once and still need to digest some of the information. However, I would like to note a few points.
First, please note the discussion about the organization of the embryo from the first division into dedicated trophoblast and inner cell mass on page 6. (My “sound bite” on this is “Embryos are organized, embryos are organisms.” I use it to counter the “clump of cells” comments.) I don’t see any comments about the capacity of the embryo for twinning at the earliest stages – meaning that the cells are not irreversibly dedicated and are still totipotent or capable of developing twins or multiples.
Second, 8 of the 9 cell lines were not derived from arrested embryos. The source of these were embryos that had been discarded because they were poor quality, with uneven or fragmented cells at division. These would not be dead. It’s not ethical to intentionally destroy living human beings, even those who are abnormal, defective or of poor quality. Only 1 of the cell lines in the (beautiful) tables and photos is from an ethical source.
Third, the efficiency is still poor. However, for the living embryos, the derivation approached 33%. If it is ethical to use cadaveric tissue or tissue from dead human beings, the efficiency is not quite as important, ethically.
Fourth, the cell lines are grown on human fetal lung tissue cultures. I’m uncomfortable with this medium. There’s the problem of the possibility of contamination with human-infective viruses and prions, as well as human proteins that would persist in any culture or product of the research. These can then be passed on to any future subjects. (Of course, this is the distant future.) There is also the problem of the ethics of using cadaveric tissue that was obtained by illicit means – i.e., if the lung tissue was collected after an elective abortion and if there will be a need for new lines and new breaches of the First, do no harm principle.
Which, brings us to the ethics of in vitro fertilization. With care and for the purpose of bringing to birth of a child, IVF can be ethical. However, only those embryos destined for implantation should be created in the first place and the parents, doctors and technicians have a duty to these children to ensure that they are given the best chance at life.
And that brings me back to another sound bite: “Whenever possible, use original container.”
(Edit at 1:30 PM to get rid of bad Latin. ??”Use first language”??)
LifeEthics 
Discussion
No comments yet.