|
Bioethics carved in stone
A heated debate within the already
exciting world of bioethics was set off when UNESCO
adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics
and Human Rights at its General Conference on
October 19, 2005.
With scientists and labs around
the world pushing for innovations in stem cell
research, but no moral consensus, UNESCO created
the declaration in an attempt to globalize the
field.
Individual countries are still
responsible for creating their own legislation,
but the declaration provides a framework for the
member states to guide them in developing national
policies and codes of ethics. Its main points
stress that progress in science must promote the
wellbeing of individuals and of humanity and that
individual dignity should always have priority.
But many professionals in the
bioethics community have criticized the declaration,
saying it's just a ploy to promote the anti-abortion
cause by persuading developing countries to adopt
policies that outlaw embryo research.
|
Stem cell research is moving ahead
by leaps and bounds despite the ethical quagmire of
embryo morality. On November 25, South Korean stem cell
superstar Hwang Woo-Suk, Professor of Veterinary Science
at Seoul National University, admitted to 'ethical irregularities,'
namely the use of eggs from researchers on his team
to produce the world's first cloned human embryo as
a source of stem cells. The impact was immediate and
predictable — moral outrage and denouncements echoed
around the globe. Why? Because under internationally
accepted medical ethics standards, team members are
seen as susceptible to pressure from their bosses and
are therefore possible victims of coercion.
As the dust settles, it's already
clear that South Korea's position as a leader in cloning
research will survive the scandal. For one thing, the
achievement is a stunning one; as Dr Hwang himself pointed
out, "The technology we have developed with so much
effort will not return to nothing. It is already established."
Yet there's no question that situations like these continue
to fuel the ethics fire.
Last month, two new developments
in stem cell research in the US were splashed across
headlines. Researchers made the staggering claim they
had overcome all existing ethical hurdles by using new
techniques to harvest stem cell lines that wouldn't
destroy an embryo — at least in mice. While some
experts are wowed, others view these techniques as a
media sideshow, both irrelevant and removed from the
intended purpose of the science.
STEM
CELLED, STILL VIABLE
A team of scientists at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT)
in Wor-cester, Massachusetts, demonstrated that they
could pluck a cell from an embryo in an early stage
of development, use it to derive stem cell lines and
still allow the embryo to survive and even result in
a normal (mouse) pregnancy. At the Whitehead Institute
for Biomedical Research at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) scientists modified embryos by introducing
a dysfunctional gene, yielding embryos that are incapable
of growing into fetuses. Their view is that this method
circumvents any ethical concerns as no viable life is
being destroyed.
"The significance is scientific,
but it's also ethical and political," says Dr Mick Bhatia,
director of stem cell research at the University of
Western Ontario's Robarts Research Institute. "They're
attempting to advance the science that leads us to discovering
how to derive new stem cell lines and deal with the
ethical concerns."
Dr Bhatia points out that the advances
developed at MIT aren't as interesting to Canadian researchers
because they use a technique known as nuclear transfer,
or therapeutic cloning, which is prohibited in Canada
and many countries around the world. Canadian law doesn't
allow the creation of an embryo purely for research
purposes. But the ACT technique may be more viable and
valuable north of the border. "It allows the embryo
to continue and negates the argument that you've destroyed
anything," says Dr Bhatia. And the technique would be
allowable under current legislation.
TRITE
SOLUTION
Dr Michael Rudnicki, scienti-fic director of Canada's
Stem Cell Network, is unimpressed by the advances taking
place in Massachusetts. "It's a trite solution to a
regulatory problem," he says firmly. "It detracts from
the work that has to be done. I just don't think it
advances the field." He feels the developments are more
of a way for institutions to secure funding in the US
by making the research less controversial, but are of
little value in advancing the use of stem cells to cure
disease.
More to the point, perhaps, is
the fact that the experiments were conducted on mice,
not humans. "There are very few observations we've made
so far that show that mice and humans are the same,"
says Dr Bhatia. "It's making a great leap to assume
that this will translate into humans."
|
