When I investigated human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research for Christianity Today in 2005, the debate about the ethics of the science was heated and tense. I was a pro-lifer whose child had an incurable disease. What I wanted to know was: what would I do if hESCs could cure my child's Neurofibromatosis? As part of that investigation, I spent 10 days attending a National Institutes of Health (NIH) training course for post-doctoral scientists at Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC) in Southern California. Every other attendee was there to learn how to create and grow stem cell lines from five-day-old human embryos (blastocysts). Because it was an NIH-funded course, no new embryos were destroyed to grow the lines the researchers manipulated.
I was the invited guest of Phil Schwartz, who is both director of the Human Neural Stem Cell Resource at CHOC and a Christian opposed to embryo destruction. Schwartz ran the course with Jeanne Loring, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California. Loring is a cell biologist who has been working with hESCs since 1997. Before that, she worked with another Christian, Francis Collins, on mapping the human genome. She describes herself as a "cultural Catholic" but practices no religion and has never had any doubts about the ethics of her hESC work.
In 2008, Schwartz invited me to attend the course again and I did. The political tenor had changed considerably with the advent of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are derived from adult somatic cells and thus are not controversial. Writing in November 2008 on the Center for Genetics and Society's blog, Project Director on Biotechnology Accountability Jesse Reynolds predicted:
With the end of stem cell research as a political vehicle, its advocates are likely to temper expectations. They'll not just move out the goalposts on the timeline towards treatments, but the touted uses of stem cells will shift from potential cellular therapies to models of human diseases in Petri dishes and better drug testing methods. These new purposes will win fewer votes than "your own personal biological repair kit," but they are also much more realistic.
And yet, here we are again, with advocates lamenting a lawsuit that brought a temporary injunction against NIH funding of hESC research. (The injunction was quickly lifted.) So, I called Jeanne Loring and asked her thoughts on the law, the ethics and the science of stem cell research. Here's that interview, edited for space:
SCHELLER: What do you think of the NIH legal situation?
LORING: For scientists, the embryonic stem cells have been the basis for all of the research, including the induced pluripotent stem cell research. Also, they've had a lot of influence over adult stem cell research, although I don't think those guys would admit it. ... There's a gradual growing excitement ... because of what you can do with them. So we have people with all sorts of different skills that are all focusing on hESCs or iPSCs or stem cells in general. What the legislation does is it puts a halt to an awful lot of research that's ongoing right now. Maybe in another 10 years, it wouldn't have such an impact because people would have already done all these things and it would all be in the hands of companies, but right now it's in a really frantic research phase. We're discovering things all the time. It's the worst possible time to have money taken away.
SCHELLER: Who brought case?
LORING: A researcher who used to be at Harvard. Harvard denied him tenure and he went on a hunger strike. That's what he was famous for. I knew I'd heard of him before.
SCHELLER: Was he opposed to the research on ethical grounds?
LORING: There are two people: a woman from Louisiana, I believe, opposing the research on ethical grounds, and this guy. In legal terms, in order to get an injunction, you have to show financial harm. He said he was being financially damaged because hESC research was unfairly competing with adult stem cell research at NIH. It's outrageous. It's foolish. It's silly, because research funded by the NIH is funded on merit, and there's no one pot for all stem cell research that gets divided up differently. There's a big pot for all sorts of research, and depending on the stage of the science and the urgency of the need, the research dollars go in a lot of different directions. Adult stem cell research gets far more funding than embryonic stem cell research and it continues to, mostly because it's already well established.
SCHELLER: Do you think the spinal cord hESC therapy human trials that have been approved by the FDA [the first of their kind] at the Reeve-Irvine research Center in Southern California will work?
LORING: I don't know. Scientifically, I think there's a possibility. As a scientist, what I really want are for those cells to not harm anybody because it's a Phase One trial, and the object of a Phase One trial is to show that it doesn't do any harm, and that will be a huge step forward if they can show that.
SCHELLER: In 2008, we heard from Geron-Corporation-funded Oxford scientist Paul Fairchild that the immune challenge with hESCs wouldn't be overcome. Has that changed?
LORING: No. They are going to have an immune problem, but they're going to treat it like an organ transplant. They're going to use the minimum amount of immune suppression that they can get away with. ... This is not a fix for immune rejection. I just got a grant to develop a way to trick the immune system into thinking transplanted cells are theirs. There are several projects going on along those lines. The cells themselves are not going to move into another body and not cause a reaction, which is actually good because if your immune system is not aware of something and that cell became cancerous, you couldn't do anything about it.
SCHELLER: California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) co-founder Robert Klein is the father of a diabetic child. I've never understood the trade-off of insulin dependency for immune suppression that diabetic patients would potentially make if hESC therapies become available. Do you grapple with that at all?
LORING: Sure. Ranking diseases is always difficult. A lot of what diseases are going to be treated with cell therapy really depends on a balance between how serious they are and how deadly they are and how easily they can be treated with cells. So, diabetes seems to be, relatively among all diseases, probably easier than most to treat, but it's not life-threatening. So you have to get a really good therapy, but definitely require immune suppression before you would actually use it.
SCHELLER: So there's a risk/benefit analysis?
LORING: Yeah, that's right. So there is progress to be made. All this immune system stuff is sort of catching fire now, so people are not going to just stand by and let the immune system reject everything. They're going to try to modify the immune system, not with immune suppression, but in a way that will last. Now people are also encapsulating cells so that the immune system can't get at them.
SCHELLER: They're still able to function when they're encapsulated?
LORING: Yeah, in diabetes they certainly are because all they have to do is react to glucose in the blood and make insulin.
SCHELLER: Last time I talked to you, you sounded more excited about iPSCs than hESCs.
LORING: I am more excited for a lot of reasons about iPSCs because you can make them from any individual. As far as the way they act in the culture dish, they're exactly the same as embryonic stem cells. You have the same problems and the same advantages.
SCHELLER: Is it much harder to get them to turn into other cell types than it is with hESCs?
LORING: No. It's very easy to get them to turn into other cell types. They're essentially equivalent. If you look at 100 iPSCs and 100 hESCs, you'll find there are outliers in both groups -- cells that are difficult or act funny. But on the average, among those 200 cell lines, you really couldn't tell them apart.
SCHELLER: 2009 was the last NIH-funded course you directed with Phil Schwartz. Is there no longer a need to train scientists?
LORING: My lab is still running courses. We're doing it semi-independently and also for CIRM. They are more popular than ever. We modified them so we are actually offering them every couple of months because there are so many people in line waiting to take them.
SCHELLER: So it's not the case then, as it was in 2005, that you have more cell lines than scientists to do the research?
LORING: No, it's not like that at all. People really want to get involved in this field. We still teach embryonic stem cell culture methods because that is still the fundamental technology that underlies all of this work.
SCHELLER: Do you need new hESC lines?
LORING: No, I don't need to make hESCs. This is a dilemma. You make hESC lines from five-day-old blastocystes that have been donated by people in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. I've been getting repeated frantic emails from people who want to donate their embryos. I don't really have any need for them, but I'm feeling like I should start a bank. The alternative is throwing them away. Nobody's going to adopt the embryos, so they're paying to have them stay frozen and they want to see some good come of them. I want to start a bank. It's just that I don't have funding for it. I'm cooperating with an IVF physician who's temporarily taking the embryos in. We definitely don't need to make embryonic stem cell lines. There are probably 400 around now. All you have to do is call somebody and ask them for them.
SCHELLER: At the 2008 course, an IVF physician called his field "Cowboy Science" because of the lack of regulation. It seems to me that this lack of regulation may be a bigger problem than hESC research because it creates the excess embryos.
LORING: I have no objection to increasing regulation of IVF. It's like any medical practice. It shouldn't be hurt by oversight.
SCHELLER: We also heard about the potential for exploitation of egg donors in 2008.
LORING: The egg donation issue in 2008 was very hot. That's died out considerably with the advent of iPSCs because people were looking for alternative sources for pluripotent cells, and now there is an alternative source.
SCHELLER: As you know, I initially investigated this topic because my first pregnancy was unplanned and I didn't believe I had the right to end it. My child was then born with Neurofibromatosis. So I had an ethical dilemma to think about when hESC research emerged.
LORING: Yeah, I understand. I obviously don't feel it in my heart, but I understand.
SCHELLER: How would you describe your ethical convictions about hESC research?
LORING: I find it completely ethical. I have absolutely no problems with it. It isn't abortion, so my opinion about abortion is irrelevant. The fact that these embryos would be thrown away and not used for research, I think it would be unethical not to use them.
SCHELLER: You've never had any doubts?
LORING: I've never had a doubt.
SCHELLER: How long have you been doing this research?
LORING: I started in 1997 in northern California. I started my own company to make hESCs. I didn't know then that there were so many embryos being thrown away every day. So it made me nervous to have embryos in the lab, and I made sure that I got good cell lines out of them. It would still do that to me now. They are really precious, but you can't do anything else with them. I was interviewed by a reporter for a Christian newspaper maybe a year ago. I actually wanted to talk to this guy because I wanted to suggest that the churches should put up embryo banks because there's no adoption for embryos. It would be like starting an orphanage. If they want to keep the embryos from being used for research or being thrown away, then they should set up a bank, a freezer somewhere and just keep them.
SCHELLER: And then do what with them?
LORING: Whatever they want.
SCHELLER: In other words, we should take responsibility for our convictions?
LORING: Exactly. Nobody took me up on it. I'm happy to say that again, though.
SCHELLER: People say similar things to pro-life Christians about abortion.
LORING: This would be really simple, though, simple and cheap because you don't have to raise them. All you have to do is keep them frozen. And then you can figure out what should happen to them after that. That's not my problem.
SCHELLER: Do you get any flack from your Catholic relatives about your work?
LORING: No. As you know, many Catholics also think birth control is okay and a lot think IVF is fine. So it all follows from that. My relatives are pretty intelligent people, so I don't get any trouble from them. There might be an outlier somewhere, but not a close relative.
SCHELLER: Thanks for talking to me Jeanne. I always appreciate the fact that you shed light rather than heat on this issue.
LORING: If somebody wants controversy, they're going to have to go somewhere else.
Follow Christine A. Scheller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cascheller
No parents who have completed their families with IVF can afford to pay the $1000 to $10,000 a year costs to continue storage of the unused embryos indefinitely
Would someone with conviction please step up and provide a place where excess embryos can be sent so that they can remain frozen? The cost per embryo per year to maintain a frozen collection of embryos would be far less than the price paid by individuals to their IVF clinics. If any of you are willing to solve this problem, please contact me- I can tell you what equipment and space you need, the informed consent and IRB approvals you'll need, and what is necessary to set up a non-profit business.
Jeanne Loring
As to IVF, my husband just reminded me that after a tubal ligation reversal that I attempted to have in 1998 failed, the surgeon talked to us about IVF. We asked him way back then if he could implant one or two embryos at a time because we were not comfortable creating excess embryos. He thought we were crazy and we elected not to proceed. It is my understanding that in Europe and elsewhere, there are much greater controls over how many embryos can be created, in part because IVF is funded differently. Because health-care is privately funded here, doctors and patients elect to seek a higher yield with each cycle. This not only creates the excess embryos, but may unnecessarily endanger women's health. This needs to change.
Also, as noted by commenter bobbylaw, the scientist mentioned in our interview in conjunction with the NIH lawsuit was denied tenure at MIT, not Harvard. Thanks for the correction!
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/stem-cell-research-plaintiff-links-lifesaving-potential-to-building-apartments-on-mars.php
The religious have done nothing but attempt to inhibit the progress of humanity in order to satisfy their self-made monopoly over notions of morality. They'd rather prolong the suffering of millions of people currently alive than take advantage of cells unaware of their own existence.
Some morality.
If you look in my posting history you'll find exactly that suggestion multiple times. There is nothing stopping them from storing experimental and aborted embryo's and implanting them in an adopted parent instead.
Nothing except a willingness to spend the time and money. And it isn't even that expensive all things considered, the money they spend lobbying to roll back Roe every year would more than cover it.
The religious nutjobs have no leg to stand on here. They're a bunch of deluded whack jobs and should be dismissed as such.
Since nobody is against the destruction of gametes (except Christine O'Donnell), I just don't understand what is so different about an embryo. Legally, we consider death to have occurred upon the cessation of brain waves (brain dead); why don't we consider life to begin when these brain waves do? (about the 40th week)?
A few sects of a few religions do. Many religions don't. For example, Jewish tradition holds that ensoulment occurs on the first breath inhaled outside the womb. Islam has a rough consensus that ensoulment doesn't occur until after 4 months. Various Xtian sects that don't acknowledge the authority of the pointy hatted narcissist in Rome use anywhere from the Biblical quickening ( 14 weeks ) to birth as cut off points.
Its just that the minority who does is very very loud.
He is truly a nut.
It is Christian hypocrisy to deny a women to do what is right for their child or body. It is just like the dark ages when they wanted everybody to believe the earth is flat and everything else revolved around it. Furthermore, some just [use] the banner of religion to deny a woman her fundamental rights. Some have become lethargic & sleepy to religion. The fact of the matter is that someone died for our sin, and are free from the same. The link below leads to the 'hidden books', which really were never hidden:
www.thereluctantmessenger.com
Not to say that abortion should be performed willy-nilly or that infanticide or children today have no value before the age of 5, but read the book. During Biblical times, children did not have much value. Children today have a much better chance of survival. Abortion restriction was added to Christianity later by the Catholics for the sake of increasing the numbers of followers. Think the "don't eat meat on Fridays" argument which was added to sell more fish on behalf of a sagging fishing industry and also isn't in the Bible.
My personal belief is that abortion should be regulated but, since everyone doesn't believe the same things in our free country it would be inflicting my opinion on everyone else who doesn't share that opinion. That is more wrong.
nobody is talking about killing anyone
that couldn't be plainer in the article
Loring just gets flack from the ignorant relatives, apparently. Conversely, those that disagree with her, must be ignorant. Such an enlightened viewpoint. "If you disagree with me, it must be because you are stupid, it couldn't possibly be your convictions..." And academia wonders why the public thinks it's full of snobby, elitist, out-of-touch professors looking down their tweed jackets at the masses.
I really wish some reporter would confront them with lists of scientists, with PhDs and often even well known, who disagree with them (whether we're talking about this issue or any other where people commonly take the arrogance line.) I'd like them to run down the list and individually pronounce every one of those people as unintelligent. I know they couldn't do it. They know it isn't true. It's a smear that works against a group, but would never work against individual members of that group, (and so, of course, is not true for the group either.)