SRT Home Page What is the SRT Project? Site Map & Subject Index What's New? Highlights Current Talking Point The Big Issues The Big Issues "Engineering Genesis" Genetic Engineering GM Food GM Animals Human Genetics Cloning Xenotransplantation Patenting Risk Environment Climate Change Energy Nuclear Power Transport Eco-Congregation Church Energy Saving Technology Internet Issues Science & Faith SRT Publications SRT Newsletter SRT Information Sheets SRT Topical Papers Press Room Contact SRT Send a comment Guest Book SRT Trust & Associates Links European Christian     Environmental Network Eco-Congregation

Society, Religion and Technology Project Church of Scotland Looking at the ethics of technology for a New Millennium

The isolation by Advanced Cell Technologies of primate stem cells derived from parthenogenetic "embryos" represents a significant technical development, but not the ethical breakthrough which the paper hopes for. Indeed it raises some disturbing ethical issues.

"I don't think the fact that a parthenogenetic embryo is not viable solves the ethical problems for those who object to using human embryos for stem cells." says Dr Donald Bruce, Director of Society Religion and Technology Project of the Church of Scotland, which has been examining ethical issues of cloning and stem cells since 1996.

If these primate embryos created by parthenogenesis seem to have the properties of embryos - to the point that stem cells can be derived and differentiated into various body cell types - then what we have is an embryo. It is not viable because although ACT’s method has stimulated the process by which an egg develops into an embryo, it has also compromised it irredeemably. This poses an ethical problem of creating what is a kind of deformed embryo. For those for whom any such use of human embryos is anathema, the production of a malformed and non-viable human embryo is unlikely to satisfy their ethical concerns.

What this does do is pose the question : what do we mean by an embryo or pre-embryo? Is it the early stages of human development prior to implantation in the womb, or merely a set of cells with certain properties? Only those with a rather reductionist view of the embryo are likely to be satisfied that parthenogenesis represents a real alternative to human embryonic stem cells. It is a "technical fix" argument which would not satisfy a more holisitic view, which would see this as no different in status from a non-viable cloned embryo or a non-viable IVF embryo.

There are other problems. The cells would only have the genetic make up of the woman from whom the egg was taken and not the usual genetic mixing of male and female. This means the genetic imprinting process, by which it matters vitally that certain genes come specifically from one gender, would be compromised. This could throw doubts about the quality of the stem cells that would be produced, if imprinting mattered in the development of the relevant cell types. If the technique were used to make replacement cells which were of the patient’s own genetic type, this would only be a treatment for females not males.

There are significant ethical concerns in relation to primates. Applying the act of parthenogenesis to primates - creating an embryo from an egg directly by biochemical manipulation - is ethically controversial in itself, and would be even more so in humans. It raises questions of respect for animals which do not appear to have been addressed in the paper. The paper also describes an experiment in which primate stem cells were injected into the brain of a mouse with a defective immune system, which raises some serious animal welfare issues.

Some of the procedures involved would be invasive. Experimentation on primates is generally regarded as unacceptable in the UK. Its only justification is for something so crucial in humans that nothing else would achieve. On the face of it a good case for ethical justification would seem unlikely to be made for what rather speculative research.

It is not clear if this or ACT’s claim of making human parthenogenetic embryos last month have been through the type of thorough ethical review process that would occur in the UK. There is growing concern about the whether ethically sensitive research of this kind being done in the private sector in the USA - which is to a large degree unregulated - is being subject to the kind of proper ethical scrutiny and animal welfare evaluation that would be expected.

See the SRT Director's interview on BBC Radio 4 Today Programme 1 February 2002.

Further Information