In November 1998, the world learned that human embryonic stem
cells had been successfully grown in cell culture. The discovery
was hailed as a "medical revolution," for here at last
was a source of undifferentiated human cells that have the
potential to develop into any cell type in the body. People with
illnesses or injuries requiring the replacement of
tissue—any tissue—need not worry about
finding a suitable donor. People need no longer suffer the
consequences of heart attacks, Alzheimer's disease or diabetes
when compatible heart tissue, neurons and pancreatic cells can
be grown in a culture dish. In theory, stem-cell technology
could fulfill such a vision.
There is a problem,
however. Stem cells were culled from human embryos and fetuses
that had the potential to develop into complete human beings.
The fear is that research using human embryonic tissue could
pull medicine down a slippery slope to a world where unborn
human beings are harvested for the cells they could provide to
another human being. It's a ghoulish image that conjures up the
public's worst fears of science. On the other hand, the human
embryonic stem cells that have already been collected may be a
sufficient source of cells for future replacement tissue, so
that no new embryos are required.
As with many issues
raised by the development of new technologies, there is no
simple answer to the question of how this research should
proceed. Reasonable people on both sides of the argument
disagree. As this magazine goes to press, the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission (NBAC) is undertaking an extensive review of
the ethical, legal and medical issues associated with human
embryonic stem-cell research. Their recommendations are slated
to appear early this summer. This research is of such
fundamental importance that all responsible citizens should be
aware of its implications. Here I provide a brief primer that
explains the current state of the science and the ethical
questions raised by the work.
What Are Embryonic Stem Cells?
Embryonic stem cells form at a very early stage in human
development and remain in an undifferentiated state for only a
short period of time. They are first clearly recognizable about
five to seven days after fertilization, when a human embryo
forms a structure called a blastocyst. Consisting of
merely 140 cells, this hollow, fluid-filled sphere gives little
indication that it could develop into a complete person. There
are two types of cells in the blastocyst at this stage.
Trophoblast cells, which form the "shell"
of the sphere, will become the supporting tissues of the fetus
such as the placenta. Inner-cell-mass cells, which are
located at one end within the blastocyst, are the
undifferentiated cells that will divide and develop into the
individual.
The inner cell mass begins to differentiate when it
forms the three fundamental germ layers of the embryo, known as
the ectoderm, the mesoderm and the
endoderm. Each of these germ layers has a specific
destiny as a particular set of tissues in the mature individual,
and all organs are ultimately derived from them. The ectoderm
will form the skin, the eyes and the nervous system. The
mesoderm will form bone, blood and muscle tissue. And the
endoderm will develop into the lungs, liver and lining of the
gut. Because the inner cell mass gives rise to a complete
individual, these cells are considered to be
totipotent. When inner-cell-mass cells are cultured in
a dish they are called embryonic stem cells.
Isolated mouse embryonic stem cells have been seen to
differentiate into various types of cells, including neural
cells, hematopoietic cells (the precursors of blood
cells) and cardiomyocytes (heart-muscle cells).
Remarkably, these cells have a tendency to develop spontaneously
into primitive versions of certain structures. For example,
under standard culture conditions a certain proportion of the
cells will differentiate into embryoids (which bear an eerie
resemblance to a small beating heart), and a certain proportion
will develop into yolk sacs containing hematopoietic cells. The
relative proportion of embryoids or yolk sacs that are produced
can be altered by modifying the culture medium, but to date no
one has been able to induce the cells to develop into a pure
population of differentiated cells.
In principle,
mouse embryonic stem cells have the capacity to develop into a
functional organ, but this has yet to be seen in the culture
dish. Some remarkable structures do form, however, when
embryonic stem cells are transplanted into mice with an
immune-system disorder (severe combined immunodeficiency, or
SCID), which prevents the mouse's body from rejecting the
transplanted cells. When placed into a SCID mouse, mouse
embryonic stem cells have developed into muscle, cartilage,
bone, teeth and hair.
Despite their potential,
isolated embryonic stem cells cannot develop into a mouse if
returned directly to the uterus because the cells have lost
their capacity to form trophoblast cells, which are necessary
for implantation. Under these conditions they are considered to
be pluripotent, rather than totipotent. However, if the
embryonic stem cells are first added to a donor tetraploid
embryo that is unable to develop normally and the resulting
embryo is transferred to a mouse uterus, a normal mouse is born
that is totally derived from the cultured embryonic stem cells.
This indicates the incredible totipotent properties of these
cells.
Human Embryonic Stem Cells
Since 1978,
the federal government has banned the use of federal funds for
human embryo research. However, the Public Health Service Act
authorizes federal funding of human fetal-tissue research and
provides conditions for its conduct. Members of several
scientific societies, such as the Society for Developmental
Biology and the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB), have claimed a voluntary
moratorium on human embryo research. In 1994 the Human Embryo
Research Panel presented a report to the director of the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) suggesting that research
deriving human embryonic stem cells is acceptable as long as
embryos are not created expressly for research purposes. A
broadly written federal law bans the use of federal funds for
the derivation of human embryonic stem cells [Public Law 105-78,
Section 513(a)], but it is legal for private funds to be used to
perform human embryo research.
Private funds from Geron Corporation in Menlo Park,
California are currently supporting three laboratories engaged
in human embryonic stem-cell research: John Gearhart's team at
Johns Hopkins University, Roger Pedersen's team at the
University of California, San Francisco, and James A. Thomson's
team at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. All three
laboratories have strictly segregated their research on human
embryonic stem cells so that it is supported only by the private
funds.
Gearhart's laboratory has used a novel approach
to obtain undifferentiated human cells. Rather than relying on
the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, Gearhart reasoned that
primordial germ cells (the precursors of egg and
sperm cells) should be undifferentiated, much like embryonic
stem cells. Embryonic germ cells are derived from embryos or
fetuses when they are about five to nine weeks old, when the
undifferentiated cells are migrating from the yolk sac to the
gonads. In his experiments, Gearhart's team acquired the cells
from embryos and fetuses that were aborted for therapeutic
reasons. When grown on a "feeder" layer of mouse
fibroblasts (which release factors that inhibit stem-cell
differentiation), embryonic germ cells have properties similar
to embryonic stem cells: They can be cultured for at least seven
months without differentiating, they retain normal chromosome
structure, and when properly stimulated they can differentiate
into embryoids similar to those observed in mouse embryonic
stem-cell cultures. The embryoids contain several types of
differentiated cells including derivatives of all three germ
layers. Thus, human embryonic germ cells are considered
pluripotent.
Roger Pedersen's and James Thomson's research groups
acquired human embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass of
the blastocyst. These experiments have proved to be extremely
challenging. Obtaining human embryonic stem cells from
blastocysts is difficult because the embryos are acquired as
"leftovers" from in vitro
fertilization clinics. The quality of these embryos is usually
poor because the attending physician implants the best embryos
into the mother. Moreover, blastocysts are in limited supply,
and few are donated for research as it costs about $10,000 to
produce a batch by in vitro fertilization. There is an
added technical problem because it is difficult to get in
vitro fertilized human embryos to develop to the blastocyst
stage.
Despite these difficulties, Thomson's
laboratory (which is very experienced with non-human primate
embryonic stem cells) has met with much success. They obtained
human embryos produced by in vitro fertilization from
couples who provided informed consent. Of 14 inner-cell masses
(representing 14 embryos of both sexes), five embryonic
stem-cell lines have been established. All five cell lines
appear to retain the characteristics of human embryonic stem
cells. Their pluripotency is demonstrated by experiments in
which the stem cells are injected into SCID mice. In each
instance the injected cells form a "teratoma"
consisting of cells derived from all three germ layers. These
stem-cell lines also have the capacity to renew themselves while
remaining undifferentiated. This is because the cells have high
levels of telomerase, an RNA-dependent DNA polymerase enzyme
that allows cells to divide indefinitely. Cells that do not
express telomerase have a limited capacity to replicate. In
principle Thomson's cell lines provide a virtually unlimited
supply of normal, pluripotent human embryonic stem cells.
It is unclear whether these pluripotent cells are also
totipotent, because the only way to prove totipotency is to
derive a human being from the cells. This has not been done for
ethical and legal reasons. Many scientists claim that human
embryonic stem cells cannot develop into a human being if
implanted directly into a woman's uterus because the cells have
lost the ability to develop into trophoblast cells. However, if
the same technology that is used for mouse embryos is applied to
human embryos, the embryonic stem cells could be repackaged with
trophoblast cells from a donor human embryo. In theory, this
embryo could develop into a normal human being if implanted into
a woman's uterus.
Funding the Research
Because of the
regenerative capacity of human embryonic stem cells, the
currently established cell lines could be used to supply other
scientists without the need to collect new embryos or fetuses.
In light of the legislative ban on supporting human embryo
research with government funds, Harold Varmus, director of the
NIH, asked for a legal opinion regarding the use of these cell
lines from the NIH's cabinet-level parent agency, the Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS), on December 2, 1998. After
a thorough discussion of the law and the human embryonic
stem-cell research, the DHHS concluded that "the
congressional ban on human embryo research does not apply to
research on human embryonic stem cells because the cells are not
an embryo as defined by statute." In addition, "since
the human embryonic stem cells do not have the capacity to
develop into a human being" on their own if implanted into
a woman's uterus, "they cannot be considered human
embryos." Therefore research using pluripotent stem cells
derived from human embryos can be funded by the DHHS.
With regard to the human embryonic germ cells, "the legal
opinion indicated that because the embryonic germ cells are
derived from non-living fetuses, they fall within the legal
definition of human fetal tissue." Thus the use of
embryonic germ cells is subject to the federal restrictions on
fetal-tissue research, and work that generates and uses
pluripotent stem cells from non-living fetuses can also be
supported by the DHHS.
The NIH plans to fund research using human embryonic
stem cells. However, the NIH assures that no government funds
will be used for the creation of human embryos expressly for
research purposes. Although the NIH understands and respects the
compelling ethical, legal and moral issues surrounding human
pluripotent stem-cell research, it has also asked Congress, the
NBAC and the Council of Public Representatives for additional
advice and will not fund any human embryonic stem-cell research
until guidelines are developed and disseminated to the research
community. In addition, President Clinton has asked the NBAC to
undertake a thorough review of the issues associated with human
stem-cell research, including ethical, legal and medical
considerations (as it had done with the human cloning issue in
1997).
As reported in recent issues of The New
York Times (January 20, 1999, page A29 and February 17,
1999, page A12), reaction to the DHHS ruling has been mixed. A
group of 73 scientists, 67 of them Nobel laureates, support the
DHHS position, calling it both laudable and forward-thinking
(Science 283:1849). The American Society for
Reproductive Medicine praised the decision. In a letter on
December 2, 1998, FASEB President William R. Brinkley of the
Baylor College of Medicine strongly urged members of the Senate
Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee to
allow federal funding of the stem-cell research to continue
because of the tremendous medical potential. He is pleased about
the ruling but at the same time warns that we should recognize
the complex ethical issues involved and the need to examine them
fully. Other scientific societies, including the American
Society for Cell Biology and the Society for Developmental
Biology, also support the ruling on Federal funding for human
embryonic stem-cell research. Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa
Democrat, called for speedy issuance of the ruling and indicated
that the decision would bring scientists closer to finding cures
for many diseases, saying that "the government should not
issue blanket bans on medical research." Harold Varmus
indicated that "the prospect of doing amazingly interesting
science is really quite wonderful." However, he cautioned
that it would still be illegal for scientists to use federal
funds to derive their own embryonic stem cells. On the other
hand, they can now use federal monies to work on the cell lines
already obtained by Thomson and Gearhart, if their projects are
funded by NIH.
Other responses have not been so favorable to the new
ruling. Richard M. Doerflinger, associate director for policy
development at the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities at the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, denounced the ruling as
a loophole that violates the spirit of current law: "[T]hey
will destroy the embryos with private funds and experiment on
the tissue with public funds." On February 16, 1999, 70
members of the House of Representatives asked to rescind the
ruling allowing federal money for research on human embryonic
stem cells in a letter to Donna E. Shalala, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services. The letter indicated that "the
ruling would violate both the letter and spirit of the Federal
law that bars Government support for research in which human
embryos are destroyed." Other people reacted to the
research itself. Judy Brown, president of the American Right to
Life League, protested the use of stem cells since they were
taken from potential human beings who should be protected by law
(Time, November 16, 1998, page 96).
Several
people, including Harold Varmus, are troubled that stem-cell
research is performed only by private companies, because the
oversight contributed by an institutional review board for
NIH-supported research is omitted from the process. The
oversight is designed to analyze the scientific merits of the
research and to ensure that human and animal subjects are
protected. Although private companies have their own review
boards, they are not required to follow NIH guidelines. Some
also worry that if biotechnology companies alone support the
research, independent verification of the results will not be
possible. This could result in medical products that may be
marketed before their effects are fully known. Others argue that
the review of NIH-funded research by an institutional review
board is not sufficient, because NIH itself commercializes
research by patenting discoveries made by its scientists and by
encouraging scientists to enter into joint ventures with private
companies. Some suggest that more federal regulations are needed
to address the debate on stem-cell research. According to Lori
Andrews, director of the Institute for Science, Law and
Technology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, "In
1997, Senator John Glenn introduced a bill to extend federal
protection to the subjects of research supported by private
funds. Ironically, the bill died in committee in October, just
before the stem-cell debate began." (The Chronicle of
Higher Education 45(21):B4–B5)
An Alternative?
It may be possible to
produce made-to-order, person-specific, pluripotent embryonic
stem cells using somatic-cell nuclear-transfer technology, the
technology used to produce the cloned sheep Dolly. With this
method, any human somatic cell, such as a cheek cell, could be
fused with an enucleated donor human egg cell that is then
stimulated to develop into a blastocyst embryo. The
inner-cell-mass cells could then be harvested from the
blastocyst. A specific tissue could then be grown from the
embryonic stem cells, which could be implanted into the original
donor. The advantage of the nuclear-transfer method is that the
embryonic stem cells would be compatible with the donor of the
somatic cell. This would prevent any graft rejections due to
immune-system incompatibility. To date no one has derived
embryonic stem cells using this technique, but the feasibility
of this approach has been demonstrated.
In 1996 Jim Robl, of the University of Massachusetts,
and Jose Cibelli, now at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester,
Massachusetts, fused one of Cibelli's cheek cells with an
enucleated cow egg using nuclear-transfer technology. The
resulting hybrid, or chimeric, embryo successfully
divided at least five times to the 32-cell stage, but was not
allowed to develop further. In principle, if the chimera were
allowed to develop to the blastocyst stage, it could be used to
harvest embryonic stem cells.
Could such an embryo
develop into a person? The nuclear DNA certainly would direct
the embryo's cells to make human proteins, but the cells would
contain both human and bovine mitochondria, which have their own
DNA. Because mitochondria express DNA primarily for
mitochondrial function in the production of energy, it is
thought that they do not contribute greatly to the overall
appearance of the cell. However, the cell's nucleus contributes
proteins for mitochondrial function. If human proteins are
incompatible with bovine mitochondria, presumably the human
mitochondria would then provide the cell's energy needs. If the
bovine cytoplasm acts mainly as a source for nutrients and
energy, the human DNA should direct the cells to have the
characteristics of a human cell. Based on research with other
organisms, the cells should have a human appearance. However,
there is insufficient evidence to determine whether such an
embryo could provide viable embryonic stem cells and whether it
could develop into a child.
Those who support the
cow/human-chimera research claim that state and federal bans on
embryo research are avoided because these laws only apply to the
"product of fertilization," and the nuclear-transfer
technique does not involve fertilization or human eggs. Others
argue that because the embryos contain some bovine DNA they are
not human embryos. There is insufficient scientific evidence to
know whether such an embryo could develop into a person, and
therefore it is unclear whether the cow/human chimera could be
considered human. A possible use of such a chimeric embryo is
that it may provide a means to overcome rejections of
transplanted tissues without creating human embryos.
President Clinton is ". . . deeply troubled by the news of
experiments involving the mingling of human and non-human
species." As a result, the President has asked members of
the NBAC to investigate the bioethical, medical and legal
ramifications of the research and report back to him as soon as
possible. The report is expected early this summer.
The Potential
If scientists are
ultimately successful in inducing human embryonic stem cells to
routinely differentiate into specific cell types, the potential
applications are enormous. Any disorder that involves the loss
of normal cells could be targeted for tissue-transplantation
therapy. New neurons could be grown for neurodegenerative
disorders such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease,
new pancreatic cells for diabetics, and new cardiac muscle for
rebuilding the heart.
Human embryonic stem cells could also be genetically
altered to be universal donors, so that the resulting graft
tissue will not be rejected. A bank of cell types could be
generated for transplantation medicine. Embryonic stem cells
could be grown as universal graft tissue for blood, bone marrow,
lung, liver, kidney, tendons, ligaments, muscle, skin, hair,
teeth, the retina and the lens of the eye. The possibilities are
endless.
Another way to prevent graft rejection is to
substitute the embryonic stem-cell nucleus for a nucleus from a
healthy cell of the patient. The resulting graft tissue would
genetically match the patient's tissue. This would be especially
important for organ transplantation. The modified embryonic stem
cells could be grown into a new organ that is derived from the
genetic instructions provided by the patient's donor cell
nucleus. The trick would be to induce the cells to become a
functioning organ. Some companies (such as Advanced Cell
Technology) are currently working with pig and cow embryonic
stem cells as sources of animal organs for human transplants.
They are trying to genetically alter the embryonic stem cells so
that the tissues derived from them are compatible with the human
immune system. The resulting animals could then be used for
human transplants. To date, transplanting hearts or kidneys from
pigs into people has been unsuccessful because the human immune
system recognizes the tissue as foreign. By using genetically
engineered embryonic stem cells to generate embryos, these
grafts may become successful.
Another exciting
application of human embryonic stem cells is in the development
of pharmaceuticals. The cells would provide a means to screen
and test potential new drugs and toxicological agents. The
standard methods use traditional cell lines or cells from other
species, but these do not always give a true indication of the
normal human cell's response to the chemicals. By using human
embryonic stem cells, the numbers of animals required for drug
testing would be greatly reduced. Human embryonic stem cells may
also provide a means to study the progression of human disease
and find effective, permanent treatments. Human embryonic stem
cells will also be useful for studying the normal
differentiation process to enhance our understanding of human
development.
It is important to keep in mind that these potential
applications require further research with the embryonic stem
cells before any of them are realized. One of the big
hurdles—culturing the cells—has been overcome. Major
difficulties remain, however, such as finding the magic
combination of growth factors that will induce the cells to
differentiate into a specific tissue type. Some believe that it
will be sufficient if the embryonic stem cells are induced to
specialize into a precursor cell. Transplanting the precursor
cells into the correct environment should be sufficient to
generate the required tissue type, because the body has all the
factors necessary to do this, and scientists do not need to know
exactly what the factors are. Another difficulty will be
engineering a universal donor tissue type to prevent graft
rejections. It should be possible to swap the embryonic stem
cell nucleus with the patient's own cell nucleus, but it is
unclear if the resulting cell would still behave like an
embryonic stem cell. Transferring the patient's nucleus into a
donor egg would produce embryonic stem cells with a genetic
composition that matches the patient's tissues, but here we are
limited by the availability of donor eggs. It is also unclear
whether the technique would induce chromosomal abnormalities.
Moreover, further research is required to determine whether
differentiated embryonic stem cells are prone to cancer.
How long will it be before human embryonic stem cells are
used for replacement tissue? Ethical, religious and legal issues
aside, some claim that significant advances will be seen within
the next ten years.
Ethical Concerns
The tremendous
medical potential of human embryonic stem cells notwithstanding,
there are serious concerns about setting the boundaries for this
research. Many questions surround the source of the cells and
their potential applications. For example, human embryonic stem
cells derived from in vitro fertilized embryos would
develop into a child if given the chance. What if the cells are
derived from a pregnancy that was intentionally terminated? Is
it ethical to use these cells when an embryo was killed to
obtain them? Does a good end justify an evil means? Is it right
to use the cells obtained from an embryo that was spontaneously
aborted or killed in an accident? Several human embryonic stem
cell lines exist now. They may be sufficient to supply all the
embryonic stem cells that will be needed. Should these cells be
used to benefit us now that they have been collected? Some
suggest that adult stem-cell research should be pursued further
and embryonic stem-cell research should be abandoned.
Unfortunately, the versatility of adult stem cells is limited.
Some argue that it is unethical to harvest embryonic stem
cells from human embryos because human life has not been
respected. Others claim that since scientists have not killed
the cells, only changed their fate, it is ethical to use them.
Some fear that companies will support in vitro
fertilization clinics and abortion clinics for the acquisition
of embryos and aborted fetal tissue, assuming more cells will
need to be collected.
If the embryonic stem cells and
embryonic germ cells became commercially available as a cell
line, would it be ethical for scientists to use them? What type
of research would be acceptable? Should scientists be allowed to
grow individual tissues and organs to study the process of
development or to build medical replacement tissue? Since it is
currently acceptable for human genes to be inserted into
non-human animal cells, is it ethical to insert human embryonic
stem cells into domestic animal embryos to create a chimera for
the purposes of harvesting human organs for transplantation? Is
it ethical for human embryonic stem cells from an embryo with a
genetic disease (such as cystic fibrosis) to be genetically
altered for therapeutic purposes and allowed to continue
development into a healthy newborn? Potential ramifications of
using the cells reach into adulthood as well. If human
replacement tissues become readily available, do people need to
live responsibly any more? Might we open the door for people to
engage in high-risk behaviors?
These are not easy
questions to answer. As a society we must identify the ethical,
social, legal, medical, theological and moral issues that
surround this research. People from all walks of
life—scientists, lawyers, ethicists, clergy and the
general public—should be involved in making the decision.
We are also at a crossroads where further scientific evidence is
needed to explore the full potential of these cells, and yet
many of the necessary experiments raise further ethical issues.
The question of how we should use these powerful cells remains a
challenging problem for the next century.