In response to the latest erroneous reporting on reprogramming of adult stem cell cells: Should Pro-Life People Object to Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells? http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/10/should-pro-life-people-object-to-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells/ we offer our comments to Ms Taylor’s line of thinking which is grossly misinformed. Beginning with her points, our comments of response follow….
Taylor:
So what are some of the pro-life objections I have been reading?
First, there is a concern that iPSCs are dangerous because it is possible they can be used for cloning purposes. The concern stems from work where scientists, testing the pluripotency of the cells, were able to grow a mouse from just iPSCs suggesting that induced pluripotent stem cells are just like cloning, on their own able to produce a human being. But looking closer you find that the scientists had to manipulate some of the iPSCs with something called tetraploid complementation, so that the iPSCs could become the extra-embryo tissues like placenta. So while cloning creates a complete human embryo capable, at least some percentage of the time, of implanting in a uterus and continuing to grow, reprogramming adult cells back to pluripotency (upon my reading) only creates stem cells, not a complete organism.
Our Response:
This is scientifically inaccurate. Yamanaka himself noted the danger of being able to produce an entirely new embryo by reprogramming the adult cells back to the state of TOTIPOTENCY – that is the stage of a cell capable of forming all cells, tissues and organs PLUS entirely new embryos.
Taylor:
Second, there is an objection that the viruses used for the reprogramming were grown in a cell-line called HEK 293. Cell line HEK 293 was derived from the kidney tissue of a boy aborted in the 1970s. HEK stands for “human embryonic kidney.” The HEK 293 line was subsequently genetically engineered with viral DNA and is now available for sale from a common chemical supply. While I have never personally worked with HEK 293, I understand that this cell line is commonly used just about everywhere, which of course does not negate the ethical implications, but does shed some light on why HEK 293 was used in developing iPSCs.
Our Response:
They not only used HEK-293, but also IMR-90, MRC-5, Detroit 551 aborted fetal cell lines AND human embryonic stem cells: MEL-1 hesc. http://www.millipore.com/catalogue/item/scc020
Taylor:
The objection of course is that by using HEK 293 to grow virus used in the technique, all iPSC research is morally tainted. To some extent that is true for early research, but scientists are getting away from using viruses for the reprogramming, so iPSC research can be free of this particular stain.
Our Response:
This is simply not correct. Scientists continue to use both aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells in their experiments.
Taylor:
Analogously, vaccinations are commonly grown in 2 cell lines derived decades ago from aborted fetuses. Since no new abortions are needed to keep these cell lines going and vaccines are generally seen as vastly improving public health, Catholics can vaccinate their children if they ask for alternatives and voice their objections.
Our Response:
Apples and oranges: you cannot compare vaccine recipients to the researchers. The Vatican is implicitly clear that the use of the cell lines by researchers is illicit. Citing Donum Vitae, Dignitas Personae and the PAFL:
Dignitas Personae 35:
“Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life.”
Evangelium Vitae 63:
“[T]he use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person”.54 These forms of experimentation always constitute a grave moral disorder.55
Donum Vitae PAFL I:4:
“The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. In particular, they cannot be subjected to mutilation or to autopsies if their death has not yet been verified and without the consent of the parents or of the mother. Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided”
PAFL 2005: Pg 7
“As regards the preparation, distribution and marketing of vaccines produced as a result of the use of biological material whose origin is connected with cells coming from foetuses voluntarily aborted, such a process is stated, as a matter of principle, morally illicit, because it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other voluntary abortions, with the purpose of the production of such vaccines.”
Taylor:
It is my opinion that the same applies here. I object to the use of HEK 293 for research period. Please, scientists, find a suitable alternative. That being said, it is possible that iPSCs in the future can be free from any moral taint coming from DNA or cell lines derived from illicit origin.
Our Response:
And why would scientists switch to moral cell lines as long as people continue to say its okay to use the existing methods? This is her opinion indeed – but certainly not Catholic opinion. As stated, the use of aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells by researchers is illicit and it will not end until it is soundly condemned as such.
Taylor:
Another objection is the iPSCs are just like embryonic stem cells and so are no good for treating patients. It is true that because iPSCs are pluripotent like embryonic stem cells they will likely have many of the same safety issues for transplantation. More research is needed. What iPSCs are good for is creating model tissues for scientists to use to study disease progression and treatment. As I have written before, previous to iPSCs, scientists would have to create a mouse or other animal that exhibited the symptoms of a human disease that they were interested in studying. Now they can take a skin cell from a person with a disease, reprogram that cell back to a pluripotent state, and then differentiate them into cells of interest whether they be neurons or fat cells. iPSCs can continue to grow in culture and be frozen giving researchers a nearly limitless supply of diseased cells to work on. This is especially useful in brain disorders because isolating neurons from the brain of a patient is dangerous. Scientists can use the iPSCs to generate tissue used for testing new drugs or other methodologies in the fight against disease.
Our Response:
Scientists have not “generated tissue” nor have they shown they could do so in any iPS cell research without using immoral sources. There is no science documentation to back such a claim.
Taylor:
Another objection is that iPSCs have been used to generate gametes for IVF in animal models. This is true. Scientists have created mouse egg and sperm with this technology and then used them to create mice. Some pundits are talking about using this technique to allow gay couples to have genetically related children. I see this as a problem not with iPSC technology per se, but as a problem with the fertility industry that has an anything goes attitude toward procreation. Get the fertility industry under control with some regulations prohibiting genetically modifying or manipulating gametes and embryos and this objection evaporates.
Our Response:
Taylor misses the central concern because not only is this a fertility issue, it allows full production of embryos that will be destroyed for their stem cells. The point is that full blown cloning is not only possible, it has already been done by producing both ovum and sperm with iPS cells. So “getting the fertility industry under control” does not solve the problem!
Taylor:
Stepping back and looking at the big picture, iPSCs I believe are something pro-lifes can be happy about with the knowledge that their history is not perfect. But remember that before iPSC technology, the talk was of nothing other than destroying IVF embryos and creating and destroying embryos through cloning as the “best” ways to develop stem cell cures. Now we have an alternative, developed directly as a way to avoid creating and destroying embryos. Which is why moral theologian Father Thomas Berg praised the work of Dr. Yamanaka for helping to “put human embryonic stem-cell research largely out of business.”
Our Response:
If indeed Fr Berg knows the truth about the use of aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells in iPS cell research and still praises it, that position would be contrary to Catholic teaching.
To say that scientists will no longer need embryos is foolish fallacy and wishful thinking as reported: “We agree with Dr. Jamie Thompson, who published the first two studies on iPS with Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, that we must continue work on hES while pursuing iPS. Thompson cautioned that researchers still “must confirm that the reprogrammed human skin cells really are the same as stem cells they get from embryos. And while those studies are under way…it would be premature to abandon research with stem cells taken from human embryos.” http://www.americansforcures.org/article.php?uid=1154
Taylor:
I think that is reason to celebrate.
Our Response:
Don’t be offended if pro-lifers don’t raise a toast with you.
First I woud like to thank Children of God for Life for all the wonderful work that you do.
Where I think we disagree is the inherent morality of indcued pluripotent stem cells. I do not hold that iPSCs are inherently immoral. The Church has not said that the technology is inherently immoral. Yes, there are immoral aspects to the development of iPSC technology but those can be addressed and eliminated.
It is true that it might be possible that induced reprogramming could be further developed to make a totipotent instead of a pluripotent cell, but mouse models are showing that the technique is producing pluripotent cells not capable on their own of making placenta, etc. Scientists are using tetraploid complementation or blastocyst complementation for that. Pluripotent stem cell creation was Yamanaka’s intent. (I would like to read what Yamanaka said about creating totipotent cells with reprogramming. Do you have that reference?) So far I have not read that scientists are trying to tweak the process to create a zygote, which would really negate the whole idea behind iPSC technology. Some legislation that prevents the cloning of human embryos with SCNT or other reprogramming would address this issue.
Thank-you for bringing out that the cell lines used to make the viruses needed for the reprogramming are of illicit origin. But the moral objection is with the use of those cell lines, not with the actual iPSC technology. We must object to the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses in all research and if scientists stop using in this technology, iPSCs can be free of that moral stain.
The same can be said for gamete production with reprogramming technology. Again the objection is with manipulation and creation of gametes and the creation of life outside the act of martial love, not with the actual iPSC technology that someday might be used in this unethical way in humans. Again some laws preventing the creation and manipulation of gametes in vitro and using them to create human embryos for fertility treatment or research would address this issue.
iPSC research can continue without the further destruction of embryos in embryonic stem cell research. Of course we must implore scientists to abandon the embryo-destructive route. iPSC technology was developed with that goal in mind so that scientists could have an alternative to destroying embryos. iPSC technolgy gives researchers the opportunity to choose to create embryonic-like stem cells without destroying embryos. That is the reason I believe we pro-lifers can celebrate.
The entire point is that as long as people keep touting this as morally acceptable, scientists will never take the moral route! Prolifers who are praising the award of the Nobel Prize to someone who didn’t do their research morally is destructive, not helpful!
“But the moral objection is with the use of those cell lines, not with the actual iPSC technology.”
But the technology uses those cell lines. There is no technology without them.
I am rather new to this particular area of science, but I am reeling at all the justifications for it. We don’t have any cures from ESCs, so why is there all this hope for cells that mimick them using questionable materials to create them?
It doesn’t add up.
I think it is important for prolifers to be precise wbout what we are objecting to. Here we are objecting to the use of HEK 293 and other cell lines of illicit orgin, which we do in all research that involves this cell line, and the use of ESCs as controls. And we object to possible future immoral uses that may or may not come to pass. But there is not an inherent objection to iPSCs. If the Church comes out and says that we cannot in anyway support iPSC technology then I will happily accept that teaching. But until then I will see an alternative to the mass creation and destruction of embryos for pluripotent stem cells as a step in the right direction (with the continued objection to the use of cell lines of illicit origin in all research.)
Which is why I am very grateful to COG for Life for exposing what the media will not, so please keep on with your phenomenal work so we can call out that objection when we need to.
Hi Rebecca…Please understand that this entire iPS cell debate comes down to the fact that from the first experiments done by Yamanaka and Thomson 5 years ago – right up to the report we did last month – they continue to use not only existing aborted fetal cell lines, but fresh ones -and embryos – not just in control studies either. See this link where they are using 18-20 weeks gestation babies’ liver and lungs – its sick and it has to stop. If we keep praising these guys, they are certainly not going to change their methods – and I know this only too well when Merck rationalized using aborted fetal cell lines based on “several thoughtful articles by moral theologians”. Here is the link to last month’s news: https://cogforlife.org/2012/09/10/ips-no-pro-life-panacea/
I am well aware that Yamanaka’s initial efforts to produce iPS cells involved the use of morally tainted cells. I do not “praise” that fact nor that aspect of his work. In fact, it was CNA who described me as “praising his work.” That obviously was a generalized statement which needs nuancing. What is indisputable is that iPS cells can be produced without morally tainted cells. To that extent, this technology can be used for morally licit purposes. Is the technology itself a double-edged sword? Of course it is. Who ever suggested it was not? The positive element in Yamanaka’s research is that it directed the entire field well away from even greater embryo-destructive research. To believe that further successes in adult stem cell research were ever going to upend human embryonic stem cell research would simply be out of touch with reality.
With all due respect Father, to believe that iPS research will end embryonic stem cell research or result in fewer embryos destroyed is simply not correct. The researchers have said so themselves and they have moved on to further heinous methods using 18-20 week old aborted fetal liver and lungs – as well as new embryonic cell lines.
In the analogy I that used to vaccines that are produced in cell lines of illicit origin I did not articulate well enough.
Readers like COG for Life have taken that to mean that I was asserting that the researchers are not morally responsible for using HEK 293. That is not at all what I meant to convey. I was arguing from the pro-lifer’s prospective, not from the scientists’ perspective. What I meant was that while we pro-lifers find vaccines a moral good, we object to the use of cell lines of illicit origin in their production. I should have been more clear that I meant that while many pro-lifers believe that iPSC technology is a moral good, we object to the use of cell lines of illicit origin to produce viruses used in the process.
I apologize for any confusion I have caused. Researchers are responsible for finding alternatives to cell line of illicit origin in their research. Period.
Thank-you Debi for pointing that out.