In 2005, scientists in California reported that injecting human neural stem cells appeared to repair spinal cords in mice. Institute for Stem Cell Research hide caption
In 2005, scientists in California reported that injecting human neural stem cells appeared to repair spinal cords in mice.Institute for Stem Cell Research
South Korean stem-cell scientist Hwang Woo Suk speaks during a news conference in Seoul, Jan. 12, 2006. A paper his team published in the journal Science, claiming an embryonic stem-cell line was made from a cloned human embryo, was discredited. Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images hide caption
South Korean stem-cell scientist Hwang Woo Suk speaks during a news conference in Seoul, Jan. 12, 2006. A paper his team published in the journal Science, claiming an embryonic stem-cell line was made from a cloned human embryo, was discredited.Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images
The first embryonic stem cells were isolated in mice in 1981. But it wasn't until 1998 that researchers managed to derive stem cells from human embryos. That kicked into full gear an ethical debate that continues to this day. Here's a look at key moments in the controversy so far:
1981: Embryonic stem cells are first isolated in mice by two groups — Gail Martin at the University of California, San Francisco, and Martin Evans, then with the University of Cambridge (he's now at the University of Cardiff).
November 1995: Researchers at the University of Wisconsin isolate the first embryonic stem cells in primates — rhesus macaque monkeys. The research shows it's possible to derive embryonic stem cells from primates, including humans.
Nov. 5, 1998: Researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins University report isolating human embryonic stem cells. The cells have the potential to become any type of cell in the body and might one day be used to replace damaged or cancerous cells. But the process is controversial: One team derived their stem cells from the tissue of aborted fetuses; the other from embryos created in the laboratory for couples seeking to get pregnant by in vitro fertilization. (MORE: 'Scientists Report Breakthrough in Embryonic Stem Cells')
Aug. 23, 2000: The National Institutes of Health issue guidelines that allow federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Former President Bill Clinton supports the guidelines.
February 2001: The month after taking office, President George W. Bush requests a review of the NIH funding guidelines and puts a hold on federal funds for stem-cell research.
July 18, 2001: Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a vocal abortion opponent, call for limited federal funding for stem-cell research.
July 29, 2001: House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and other Republican House leaders come out in opposition to federal funding for research.
Aug. 9, 2001: President Bush announces his decision to limit funding to a few dozen lines of embryonic stem cells in existence at that date. Many of the approved lines later prove to be contaminated, and some contain genetic mutations, making them unsuitable for research. (MORE: 'Bush Limits Funding for Stem-Cell Research')
Nov. 25, 2001: Scientists at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts claim to have cloned a human embryo. However, the evidence proves controversial and not conclusive.
Feb. 12, 2004: South Korean scientists announce the world's first successfully cloned human embryo. Unlike other past cloning claims, the scientists report their work in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal, Science. The embryos were cloned not for reproductive purposes but as a source of stem cells. The news reopens the contentious debate over somatic-cell nuclear transfer, which is sometimes referred to as therapeutic cloning. Scientists say cloning offers a unique way to produce cells that may someday be used to treat diseases. But critics argue that any form of cloning is morally repugnant and should be banned. (MORE: 'Scientists Succeed in Cloning Human Embryo')
June 25, 2004: New Jersey legislators pass a state budget that includes $9.5 million for a newly chartered Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey. The move makes New Jersey the first state to fund research on stem cells, including those derived from human embryos. (MORE: 'New Jersey to Fund State Research on Stem Cells')
Nov. 2, 2004: California voters approve Proposition 71, which authorizes the state to spend $3 billion on embryonic stem-cell research over 10 years. The measure is a response to federal funding restrictions put into place in 2001. It puts California ahead of the federal government and many other nations in promoting the research.
May 19, 2005: The same South Korean researchers who reported cloning a human embryo in 2004 announce another milestone: They say they've created a streamlined process that uses far fewer human eggs to produce usable embryonic stem cells — a major step toward mass production. Their work is published in Science. (MORE: 'Researchers Report Advance in Stem Cell Production')
May 24, 2005: The House passes a bill that would ease President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research.
May 26, 2005: A version of the bill passed in the House is introduced in the Senate. Among Senate sponsors of the bill are two prominent Republicans, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. Their support comes despite President Bush's promise to veto any legislation lifting the restrictions on funding he put in place on Aug. 9, 2001.
May 31, 2005: Connecticut approves $100 million in funding for adult and embryonic stem-cell research over the next 10 years.
July 13, 2005: Bypassing the Illinois state legislature, Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich creates a stem-cell research institute by executive order. The institute will be funded through a line item in the state budget that gives the Public Health Department $10 million to fund research.
June 15, 2005: Gov. M. Jodi Rell signs a public act that permits stem-cell research and bans human cloning. The act appropriates $20 million for conducting embryonic or human adult stem-cell research.
July 29, 2005: In defiance of President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) announces his support of legislation to ease federal funding restrictions for stem-cell research.
Sept. 19, 2005: Scientists in California report that injecting human neural stem cells appeared to repair spinal cords in mice. The therapy helped partially paralyzed mice walk again. (MORE: 'Research Finds Stem Cells Aid in Spinal Cord Repair')
Sept. 21, 2005: Advocates of embryonic stem-cell research in Florida propose a ballot initiative that would give $200 million in state funds toward the research over the next decade. Two days later, opponents of the science file a petition to amend Florida's state constitution to ban state funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Nov. 11, 2005: University of Pittsburgh researcher Gerald Schatten alerts editors at the journal Science that there may have been ethical lapses in a landmark cloning paper published in February 2004. In that paper, South Korean scientists claimed they had made an embryonic stem-cell line from a cloned human embryo. Schatten alleged that some of the egg donors in that study had been paid, and some were junior colleagues of the lead author, Hwang Woo Suk. Schatten also says there were minor technical errors in one of the tables in a 2005 paper by the same group, a paper on which Schatten was senior author. In that paper, Hwang et. al. claimed to have made 11 cloned stem-cell lines. At the same time, Schatten severs his collaboration with the South Korean scientists.
Dec. 15, 2005: Hwang admits that there are serious errors in his 2005 paper in Science and asks the journal to retract it. The admission comes three weeks after Hwang apologized for ethical lapses and stepped down as head of the stem-cell program at Seoul National University. (MORE: 'Top Stem-Cell Researcher Resigns After Ethical Lapse')
Dec. 16, 2005: New Jersey becomes the first state to finance human embryonic stem-cell research. The state's Commission on Science and Technology awards $5 million to research teams throughout the New Jersey.
Dec. 29, 2005: The Seoul National University investigation concludes all of the data was fabricated in the 2005 paper that Hwang's team published in Science. (MORE: 'Seoul University Debunks Stem-Cell Paper')
Jan. 10, 2006: The Seoul National University investigation concludes that the landmark 2004 paper was fabricated as well. Two days later, Science formally retracts both Hwang papers. (MORE: 'Earlier Work by S. Korean Scientist Also Fraudulent')
April 6, 2006: Gov. Robert Ehrlich signs the Maryland Stem Cell Research Act, which allocates $15 million for embryonic stem-cell research grants.
May 12, 2006: South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk is charged with fraud, embezzlement and violating the country's laws on bioethics. He faces up to 13 years in prison. In 2004, Hwang and his research team claimed they had created the world's first cloned embryos and extracted stem cells from them. An investigation concluded the research was fabricated.
July 2006: The Senate considers a bill that expands federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. The House passed its version of the bill in 2005.
July 19, 2006: President Bush vetoes the bill — the first use of his veto power in his presidency. (MORE: 'Bush Vetoes Bill to Expand Stem-Cell Research')
Aug. 23, 2006: Scientists unveil a new technique they claim could break the political deadlock over human embryonic stem cells. Researchers with the company Advanced Cell Technology say it's possible to remove a cell from an embryo without harming the embryo and then grow the cell in a lab dish. That single cell ccould then be used to derive embryonic stem cells. (MORE: 'Firm Creates Stem Cells Without Hurting Embryos')
Nov. 7, 2006: Missouri voters back a constitutional amendment that safeguards embryonic stem-cell research in the state. Missouri's legislature had been trying to ban such research in the state. (MORE: 'Missouri Backs Stem Cells')
Jan. 7, 2006: Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University report that stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells. They reported they were able to extract the stem cells from the fluid, which cushions babies in the womb, without harm to mother or fetus and turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types, including brain, liver and bone.
Jan. 11, 2007: The House of Representatives is expected to pass a bill that would expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but the bill won't carry enough votes to override a threatened presidential veto. Both the House and the Senate passed the same legislation last year, with President Bush vetoing the bill.
Feb. 28, 2007: Iowa's Gov. Chet Culver signs legislation easing limits on types of stem-cell research in Iowa. The new legislation allows medical researchers to create embryonic stem cells through cloning. While allowing for further research, it prohibits reproductive cloning of humans.
March 16, 2007: After approving nearly $45 million for embryonic stem-cell research in February 2007, California's stem cell agency authorizes another $75.7 million to fund established scientists at 12 non-profit and academic institutions.
April 11, 2007: The Senate passes a bill that would expand federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. The bill passes 63-34, just shy of the two-thirds majority needed to protect the legislation from President Bush's promised veto.
May 30, 2007: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announces an agreement between the University of California at Berkeley and Canada's International Regulome Consortium to coordinate stem-cell research at both institutions. The Ontario Institute of Cancer Research donates the first $30 million to fund a Cancer Stem Cell Consortium to advance work on potential cancer treatments.
June 6, 2007: Researchers at Whitehead Institute in Massachusetts succeed in modifying a skin cell so that it behaves like an embryonic stem cell. This is thought to ease some ethical concerns that cloning embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a human embryo. At Harvard University, scientists make it possible to clone mice from previously fertilized eggs.
June 7, 2007: With a vote of 247 to 176, the House grants the final congressional approval for legislation to ease restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research. The bill would authorize federal support for research on stem cells from spare embryos that fertility clinics would otherwise discard. But the House is still 35 votes short of what it needs to override a presidential veto.
June 20, 2007: President Bush vetoes legislation that would have eased restraints on stem-cell research. This marks the second time the president has used his veto power against federally funded embryonic stem-cell research. The president also issues an executive order encouraging scientists to derive new methods to obtain stem cells without harming human embryos.
Nov. 14, 2007: Scientists for the first time successfully clone embryos from the cells of an adult monkey and derive stem cells from those cloned embryos. The Oregon National Primate Research Center researchers report their work in the journal Nature.
Nov. 20, 2007: Two independent teams of scientists report on a method for making human embryonic stem cells without destroying a human embryo.
By adding a cocktail of four genetic factors to run-of-the-mill human skin cells, two scientific teams, one in Japan and one in America, have been able to isolate cells that behave just like embryonic stem cells. The researchers caution there are many steps before these cells are useful for human therapies. But the work is being hailed by others in the field as a critical step forward, both scientifically and ethically.
The research appears in the journals Cell and Science.
Reporting by Maria Godoy, Joe Palca and Beth Novey.
Stem cell research offers great promise for understanding basic mechanisms of human development and differentiation, as well as the hope for new treatments for diseases such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s disease, and myocardial infarction. However, human stem cell (hSC) research also raises sharp ethical and political controversies. The derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines from oocytes and embryos is fraught with disputes about the onset of human personhood. The reprogramming of somatic cells to produce induced pluripotent stem cells avoids the ethical problems specific to embryonic stem cell research. In any hSC research, however, difficult dilemmas arise regarding sensitive downstream research, consent to donate materials for hSC research, early clinical trials of hSC therapies, and oversight of hSC research. These ethical and policy issues need to be discussed along with scientific challenges to ensure that stem cell research is carried out in an ethically appropriate manner. This article provides a critical analysis of these issues and how they are addressed in current policies.
STEM CELL RESEARCH offers great promise for understanding basic mechanisms of human development and differentiation, as well as the hope for new treatments for diseases such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s disease, and myocardial infarction (1). Pluripotent stem cells perpetuate themselves in culture and can differentiate into all types of specialized cells. Scientists plan to differentiate pluripotent cells into specialized cells that could be used for transplantation.
However, human stem cell (hSC) research also raises sharp ethical and political controversies. The derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines from oocytes and embryos is fraught with disputes regarding the onset of human personhood and human reproduction. Several other methods of deriving stem cells raise fewer ethical concerns. The reprogramming of somatic cells to produce induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) avoids the ethical problems specific to embryonic stem cells. With any hSC research, however, there are difficult dilemmas, including consent to donate materials for hSC research, early clinical trials of hSC therapies, and oversight of hSC research (2). Table 1 summarizes the ethical issues that arise at different phases of stem cell research.
Ethical issues at different phases of stem cell research
II. Multipotent Stem Cells
Adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells do not raise special ethical concerns and are widely used in research and clinical care. However, these cells cannot be expanded in vitro and have not been definitively shown to be pluripotent.
A. Cord blood stem cells
Hematopoietic stem cells from cord blood can be banked and are widely used for allogenic and autologous stem cell transplantation in pediatric hematological diseases as an alternative to bone marrow transplantation.
B. Adult blood stem cells
Adult stem cells occur in many tissues and can differentiate into specialized cells in their tissue of origin and also transdifferentiate into specialized cells characteristic of other tissues. For example, hematopoietic stem cells can differentiate into all three blood cell types as well as into neural stem cells, cardiomyocytes, and liver cells.
Adult stem cells can be isolated through plasmapheresis. They are already used to treat hematological malignancies and to modify the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Furthermore, autologous stem cells are being used in clinical trials in patients who have suffered myocardial infarction. Their use in several other conditions has not been validated or is experimental, despite some claims to the contrary (3).
III. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Pluripotent stem cell lines can be derived from the inner cell mass of the 5- to 7-d-old blastocyst. However, human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research is ethically and politically controversial because it involves the destruction of human embryos. In the United States, the question of when human life begins has been highly controversial and closely linked to debates over abortion. It is not disputed that embryos have the potential to become human beings; if implanted into a woman’s uterus at the appropriate hormonal phase, an embryo could implant, develop into a fetus, and become a live-born child.
Some people, however, believe that an embryo is a person with the same moral status as an adult or a live-born child. As a matter of religious faith and moral conviction, they believe that “human life begins at conception” and that an embryo is therefore a person. According to this view, an embryo has interests and rights that must be respected. From this perspective, taking a blastocyst and removing the inner cell mass to derive an embryonic stem cell line is tantamount to murder (4).
Many other people have a different view of the moral status of the embryo, for example that the embryo becomes a person in a moral sense at a later stage of development than fertilization. Few people, however, believe that the embryo or blastocyst is just a clump of cells that can be used for research without restriction. Many hold a middle ground that the early embryo deserves special respect as a potential human being but that it is acceptable to use it for certain types of research provided there is good scientific justification, careful oversight, and informed consent from the woman or couple for donating the embryo for research (5).
Opposition to hESC research is often associated with opposition to abortion and with the “pro-life” movement. However, such opposition to stem cell research is not monolithic. A number of pro-life leaders support stem cell research using frozen embryos that remain after a woman or couple has completed infertility treatment and that they have decided not to give to another couple. This view is held, for example, by former First Lady Nancy Reagan and by U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch.
On his Senate website, Sen. Hatch states: “The support of embryonic stem cell research is consistent with pro-life, pro-family values.
“I believe that human life begins in the womb, not a Petri dish or refrigerator … . To me, the morality of the situation dictates that these embryos, which are routinely discarded, be used to improve and save lives. The tragedy would be in not using these embryos to save lives when the alternative is that they would be discarded” (6).
A. Existing embryonic stem cell lines
In 2001, President Bush, who holds strong pro-life views, allowed federal National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for stem cell research using embryonic stem cell lines already in existence at the time, while prohibiting NIH funding for the derivation or use of additional embryonic stem cell lines. This policy was a response to a growing sense that hESC research held great promise for understanding and treating degenerative diseases, while still opposing further destruction of human embryos. NIH funding was viewed by many researchers as essential for attracting scientists to make a long-term commitment to study the basic biology of stem cells; without a strong basic science platform, therapeutic breakthroughs would be less likely.
President Bush’s rationale for this policy was that the embryos from which these lines were produced had already been destroyed. Allowing research to be carried out on the stem cell lines might allow some good to come out of their destruction. However, using only existing embryonic stem cell lines is scientifically problematic. Originally, the NIH announced that over 60 hESC lines would be acceptable for NIH funding. However, the majority of these lines were not suitable for research; for example, they were not truly pluripotent, had become contaminated, or were not available for shipping. As of January 2009, 22 hESC lines are eligible for NIH funding. However, these lines may not be safe for transplantation into humans, and long-standing lines have been shown to accumulate mutations, including several known to predispose to cancer. In addition, concerns have been raised about the consent process for the derivation of some of these NIH-approved lines (7). The vast majority of scientific experts, including the Director of the NIH under President Bush, believe that a lack of access to new embryonic stem cell lines hinders progress toward stem cell-based transplantation (8). For example, lines from a wider range of donors would allow more patients to receive human leukocyte agent matched stem cell transplants (9).
Currently, federal funds may not be used to derive new embryonic stem cell lines or to work with hESC lines not on the approved NIH list. NIH-funded equipment and laboratory space may not be used for research on nonapproved hESC lines. Both the derivation of new hESC lines and research with hESC lines not approved by NIH may be carried out under nonfederal funding. Because of these restrictions on NIH funding, a number of states have established programs to fund stem cell research, including the derivation of new embryonic stem cell lines. California, for example, has allocated $3 billion over 10 yr to stem cell research.
Under President Obama, it is expected that federal funding will be made available to carry out research with hESC lines not on the NIH list and to derive new hESC lines from frozen embryos donated for research after a woman or couple using in vitro fertilization (IVF) has determined they are no longer needed for reproductive purposes. However, federal funding may not be permitted for creation of embryos expressly for research or for derivation of stem cell lines using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) (10,11).
B. New embryonic stem cell lines from frozen embryos
Women and couples who undergo infertility treatment often have frozen embryos remaining after they complete their infertility treatment. The disposition of these frozen embryos is often a difficult decision for them to make (12). Some choose to donate these remaining embryos to research rather than giving them to another couple for reproductive purposes or destroying them. Several ethical concerns come into play when a frozen embryo is donated, including informed consent from the woman or couple donating the embryo, consent from gamete donors involved in the creation of the embryo, and the confidentiality of donor information.
1. Informed consent for donation of materials for stem cell research.
Since the Nuremburg Code, informed consent has been regarded as a basic requirement for research with human subjects. Consent is particularly important in research with human embryos (13). Members of the public and potential donors of embryos for research hold strong and diverse opinions on the matter. Some consider all embryo research to be unacceptable; others only support some forms of research. For instance, a person might consider infertility research acceptable but object to research to derive stem cell lines or research that might lead to patents or commercial products (14). Obtaining informed consent for potential future uses of the donated embryo respects this diversity of views. Additionally, people commonly place special emotional and moral significance on their reproductive materials, compared with other tissues (15).
2. Waiver of consent.
In the United States, federal regulations on research permit a waiver of informed consent for the research use of deidentified biological materials that cannot be linked to donors (16). Thus, logistically it would be possible to carry out embryo and stem cell research on deidentified materials without consent. For example, during IVF procedures, oocytes that fail to fertilize or embryos that fail to develop sufficiently to be implanted are ordinarily discarded. These materials could be deidentified and then used by researchers. Furthermore, if infertility patients have frozen embryos remaining after they complete treatment, they are routinely contacted by the IVF program to decide whether they want to continue to store the embryos (and to pay freezer storage fees), to donate them to another infertile woman or couple, or to discard them. If a patient chooses to discard the embryos, it would be possible to instead remove identifiers and use them for research. Still another possibility involves frozen embryos from patients who do not respond to requests to make a decision regarding the disposition of frozen embryos. Some IVF practices have a policy to discard such embryos and inform patients of this policy when they give consent for the IVF procedures. Again, rather than discard such frozen embryos, it is logistically feasible to deidentify them and give them to researchers.
However, the ethical justifications for allowing deidentified biological materials to be used for research without consent do not always hold for embryo research (13). For example, one rationale for allowing the use of deidentified materials is that the ethical risks are very low; there can be no breach of confidentiality, which is the main concern in this type of research. A second rationale is that people would not object to having their materials used in such a manner if they were asked. However, this assumption does not necessarily hold in the context of embryo research. A 2007 study found that 49% of women with frozen embryos would be willing to donate them for research (12). Such donors might be offended or feel wronged if their frozen embryos were used for research that they did not consent to. Deidentifying the materials would not address their concerns.
3. Consent from gamete donors.
Frozen embryos may be created with sperm or oocytes from donors who do not participate any further in assisted reproduction or childrearing. Some people argue that consent from gamete donors is not required for embryo research because they have ceded their right to direct further usage of their gametes to the artificial reproductive technology (ART) patients. However, gamete donors who are willing to help women and couples bear children may object to the use of their genetic materials for research. In one study, 25% of women who donated oocytes for infertility treatment did not want the embryos created to be used for research (17). This percentage is not unexpected because reproductive materials have special significance, and many people in the United States oppose embryo research. Little is known about the wishes of sperm donors concerning research.
There are substantial practical differences between obtaining consent for embryo research from oocyte donors and from sperm donors. ART clinics can readily discuss donation for research with oocyte donors during visits for oocyte stimulation and retrieval. However, most ART clinics obtain donor sperm from sperm banks and generally have no direct contact with the donors. Furthermore, sperm is often donated anonymously to sperm banks, with strict confidentiality provisions.
As a matter of respect for gamete donors, their wishes regarding stem cell derivation should be determined and respected (13). Gamete donors who are willing to help women and couples bear children may object to the use of their genetic materials for research. Specific consent for stem cell research from both embryo and gamete donors was recommended by the National Academy of Sciences 2005 Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and has been adopted by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), the state agency funding stem cell research (18,19). This consent requirement need not imply that embryos are people or that gametes or embryos are research subjects.
4. Confidentiality of donor information.
Confidentiality must be carefully protected in embryo and hESC research because breaches of confidentiality might subject donors to unwanted publicity or even harassment by opponents of hESC research (20). Although identifying information about donors must be retained in case of audits by the Food and Drug Administration as part of the approval process for new therapies, concerns about confidentiality may deter some donors from agreeing to be recontacted.
Recently, confidentiality of personal health care information has been violated through deliberate breaches by staff, through break-ins by computer hackers, and through loss or theft of laptop computers. Files containing the identities of persons whose gametes or embryos were used to derive hESC lines should be protected through heightened security measures (20). Any computer storing such files should be locked in a secure room and password-protected, with access limited to a minimum number of individuals on a strict “need-to-know” basis. Entry to the computer storage room should also be restricted by means of a card-key, or equivalent system, that records each entry. Audit trails of access to the information should be routinely monitored for inappropriate access. The files with identifiers should be copy-protected and double encrypted, with one of the keys held by a high-ranking institutional official who is not involved in stem cell research. The computer storing these data should not be connected to the Internet. To protect information from subpoena, investigators should obtain a federal Certificate of Confidentiality. Human factors in breaches of confidentiality should also be considered. Personnel who have access to these identifiers might receive additional background checks, interviews, and training. The personnel responsible for maintaining this confidential database and contacting any donor should not be part of any research team.
hESC research using fresh oocytes donated for research raises several additional ethical concerns as well, as we next discuss (21).
C. Ethical concerns about oocyte donation for research
Concerns about oocyte donation specifically for research are particularly serious in the wake of the Hwang scandal in South Korea, in which widely hailed claims of deriving human SCNT lines were fabricated. In addition to scientific fraud, the scandal involved inappropriate payments to oocyte donors, serious deficiencies in the informed consent process, undue influence on staff and junior scientists to serve as donors, and an unacceptably high incidence of medical complications from oocyte donation (22,23,24). In California, some legislators and members of the public have charged that infertility clinics downplay the risks of oocyte donation (19). CIRM has put in place several protections for women donating oocytes in state-funded stem cell research.
1. Medical risks of oocyte retrieval.
The medical risks of oocyte retrieval include ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, bleeding, infection, and complications of anesthesia (25). These risks may be minimized by the exclusion of donors at high-risk for these complications, careful monitoring of the number of developing follicles, and adjusting the dose of human chorionic gonadotropin administered to induce ovulation or canceling the cycle (25).
Because severe hyperovulation syndrome may require hospitalization or surgery, women donating oocytes for research should be protected against the costs of complications of hormonal stimulation and oocyte retrieval (19). The United States does not have universal health insurance. As a matter of fairness, women who undergo an invasive procedure for the benefit of science and who are not receiving payment beyond expenses should not bear any costs for the treatment of complications. Even if a woman has health insurance, copayments and deductibles might be substantial, and if she later applied for individual-rated health insurance, her premiums might be prohibitive. Compensation for research injuries has been recommended by several U.S. panels (26) but has not been adopted because of difficulties calculating long-term actuarial risk and assessing intervening factors that could contribute to or cause adverse events.
Requiring free care for short-term complications of oocyte donation is feasible. In California, research institutions must ensure free treatment to oocyte donors for direct and proximate medical complications of oocyte retrieval in state-funded research. The term “direct and proximate” is a legal concept to determine how closely an injury needs to be connected to an event or condition to assign responsibility for the injury to the person who carried out the event or created the condition. Commercial insurance policies are available to cover short-term complications of oocyte retrieval. CIRM allows state stem cell grants to cover the cost of such insurance. The rationale for making research institutions responsible for treatment is that they are in a better position than individual researchers to identify insurance policies and would have an incentive to consider extending such coverage to other research injuries.
2. Protecting the reproductive interests of women in infertility treatment.
If women in infertility treatment share oocytes with researchers—either their own oocytes or those from an oocyte donor—their prospect of reproductive success may be compromised because fewer oocytes are available for reproductive purposes (21). In this situation, the physician carrying out oocyte retrieval and infertility care should give priority to the reproductive needs of the patient in IVF. The highest quality oocytes should be used for reproductive purposes (21).
As discussed in Section B. 2, in IVF programs some oocytes fail to fertilize, and some embryos fail to develop sufficiently to be implanted. Such materials may be donated to researchers. To protect the reproductive interests of donors, several safeguards should be in place (20). For the donation of fresh embryos for research, the determination by the embryologist that an embryo is not suitable for implantation and therefore should be discarded is a matter of judgment. Similarly, the determination that an oocyte has failed to fertilize and thus cannot be used for reproduction is a judgment call. To avoid any conflict of interest, the embryologist should not know whether a woman has agreed to research donation and also should receive no funding from grants associated with the research. Furthermore, the treating infertility physicians should not know whether or not their patients agree to donate materials for research.
3. Payment to oocyte donors.
Many jurisdictions have conflicting policies about payment to oocyte donors. Reimbursement to oocyte donors for out-of-pocket expenses presents no ethical problems because donors gain no financial advantage from participating in research. However, payment to oocyte donors in excess of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses is controversial, and jurisdictions have conflicting policies that may also be internally inconsistent (27,28).
Good arguments can be made both for and against paying donors of research oocytes more than their expenses (29). On the one hand, some object that such payments induce women to undertake excessive risks, particularly poorly educated women who have limited options for employment, as occurred in the Hwang scandal. Such concerns about undue influence, however, may be addressed without banning payment. For example, participants could be asked questions to ensure that they understood key features of the study and that they felt they had a choice regarding participation (19). Also, careful monitoring and adjustment of hormone doses can minimize the risks associated with oocyte donation (25). A further objection is that paying women who provide research oocytes undermines human dignity because human biological materials and intimate relationships are devalued if these materials are bought and sold like commodities (14,30).
On the other hand, some contend that it is unfair to ban payments to donors of research oocytes, while allowing women to receive thousands of U.S. dollars to undergo the same procedures to provide oocytes for infertility treatment (29). Moreover, healthy volunteers, both men and women, are paid to undergo other invasive research procedures, such as liver biopsy, for research purposes. Furthermore, bans on payment for oocyte donation for research have been criticized as paternalistic, denying women the authority to make decisions for themselves (31). On a pragmatic level, without such payment, it is very difficult to recruit oocyte donors for research.
4. Informed consent for oocyte donation.
In California, CIRM has instituted heightened requirements for informed consent for oocyte donation for research (19). The CIRM regulations go beyond requirements for disclosure of information to oocyte donors (19). The major ethical issue is whether donors appreciate key information about oocyte donation, not simply whether the information has been disclosed to them or not. As discussed previously, in other research settings, research participants often fail to understand the information in detailed consent forms (32). CIRM thus reasons that disclosure, while necessary, is not sufficient to guarantee informed consent. In CIRM-funded research, oocyte donors must be asked questions to ensure that they comprehend the key features of the research (19). Evaluating comprehension is feasible because it has been carried out in other research contexts, such as in HIV prevention trials in the developing world (33). According to testimony presented to CIRM, evaluation of comprehension has also been carried out with respect to oocyte donation for clinical infertility services.
IV. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT)
Pluripotent stem cell lines whose nuclear DNA matches a specific person have several scientific advantages. Stem cell lines matched to persons with specific diseases can serve as in vitro models of diseases, elucidate the pathophysiology of diseases, and screen potential new therapies. Lines matched to specific individuals also offer the promise of personalized autologous stem cell transplantation.
One approach to creating such lines is through SCNT, the technique that produced Dolly the sheep. In SCNT, reprogramming is achieved after transferring nuclear DNA from a donor cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed. However, creating human SCNT stem cell lines has not only been scientifically impossible to date but is also ethically controversial (34,35).
A. Ethical concerns about SCNT
1. Objections to creating embryos specifically for research.
Some people who object to SCNT believe that creating embryos with the intention of using them for research and destroying them in that process violates respect for nascent human life. Even those who support deriving stem cell lines from frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded sometimes reject the intentional creation of embryos for research. In rebuttal, however, some argue that pluripotent entities created through SCNT are biologically and ethically distinct from embryos (36).
2. Objections to human reproduction using SCNT.
There are several compelling objections to using SCNT for human reproduction. First, because of errors during reprogramming of genetic material, cloned animal embryos fail to activate key embryonic genes, and newborn clones misexpress hundreds of genes (37,38). The risk of severe congenital defects would be prohibitively high in humans. Second, even if SCNT could be carried out safely in humans, some object that it violates human dignity and undermines traditional, fundamental moral, religious, and cultural values (34). A cloned child would have only one genetic parent and would be the genetic twin of that parent. In this view, cloning would lead children to be regarded more as “products of a designed manufacturing process than ‘gifts’ whom their parents are prepared to accept as they are.” Furthermore, cloning would violate “the natural boundaries between generations” (34). For these reasons, cloning for reproductive purposes is widely considered morally wrong and is illegal in a number of states. Moreover, some people argue that because the technique of SCNT can be used for reproduction, its development and use for basic research should be banned.
3. Use of animal oocytes to create SCNT lines using human DNA.
Because of the shortage of human oocytes for SCNT research, some scientists wish to use nonhuman oocytes to derive lines using human nuclear DNA. These so-called “cytoplasmic hybrid embryos” raise a number of ethical concerns. Some opponents fear the creation of chimeras—mythical beasts that appear part human and part animal and have characteristics of both humans and animals (39). Opponents may feel deep moral unease or repugnance, without articulating their concerns in more specific terms. Some people view such hybrid embryos as contrary to a moral order embodied in the natural world and in natural law. In this view, each species has a particular moral purpose or goal, which mankind should not try to change. Others view such research as an inappropriate crossing of species barriers, which should be an immutable part of natural design. Finally, some are concerned that there may be attempts to implant these embryos for reproductive purposes.
In rebuttal, supporters of such research point out that the biological definitions of species are not natural and immutable but empirical and pragmatic (40,41,42). Animal-animal hybrids of various sorts, such as the mule, exist and are not considered morally objectionable. Moreover, in medical research, human cells are commonly injected into nonhuman animals and incorporated into their functioning tissue. Indeed, this is widely done in research with all types of stem cells to demonstrate that cells are pluripotent or have differentiated into the desired type of cell. In addition, some concerns can be addressed through strict oversight (40), for example prohibiting reproductive uses of these embryos and limiting in vitro development to 14 d or the development of the primitive streak, limits that are widely accepted for other hESC research. Finally, some people regard repugnance per se an unconvincing guide to ethical judgments. People disagree over what is repugnant, and their views might change over time. Blood transfusion and cadaveric organ transplantation were originally viewed as repugnant but are now widely accepted practices. Furthermore, after public discussion and education, many people overcome their initial concerns.
V. Fetal Stem Cells
Pluripotent stem cells can be derived from fetal tissue after abortion. However, use of fetal tissue is ethically controversial because it is associated with abortion, which many people object to. Under federal regulations, research with fetal tissue is permitted provided that the donation of tissue for research is considered only after the decision to terminate pregnancy has been made. This requirement minimizes the possibility that a woman’s decision to terminate pregnancy might be influenced by the prospect of contributing tissue to research. Currently there is a phase 1 clinical trial in Batten’s disease, a lethal degenerative disease affecting children, using neural stem cells derived from fetal tissue (43,44).
VI. Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS Cells)
Somatic cells can be reprogrammed to form pluripotent stem cells (45,46), called induced pluripotential stem cells (iPS cells). These iPS cell lines will have DNA matching that of the somatic cell donors and will be useful as disease models and potentially for allogenic transplantation.
Early iPS cell lines were derived by inserting genes encoding for transcription factors, using retroviral vectors. Researchers have been trying to eliminate safety concerns about inserting oncogenes and insertional mutagenesis. Reprogramming has been successfully accomplished without known oncogenes and using adenovirus vectors rather than retrovirus vectors. A further step was the recent demonstration that human embryonic fibroblasts can be reprogrammed to a pluripotent state using a plasmid with a peptide-linked reprogramming cassette (47,48). Not only was reprogramming accomplished without using a virus, but the transgene can be removed after reprogramming is accomplished. The ultimate goal is to induce pluripotentiality without genetic manipulation. Because of unresolved problems with iPS cells, which currently preclude their use for cell-based therapies, most scientists urge continued research with hESC (49).
iPS cells avoid the heated debates over the ethics of embryonic stem cell research because embryos or oocytes are not used. Furthermore, because a skin biopsy to obtain somatic cells is relatively noninvasive, there are fewer concerns about risks to donors compared with oocyte donation. The President’s Council on Bioethics called iPS cells “ethically unproblematic and acceptable for use in humans” (39). Neither the donation of materials to derive iPS cells nor their derivation raises special ethical issues.
A. Downstream research
Some potential downstream uses of iPS cell derivatives may be so sensitive as to call into question whether the original somatic cell donors would have agreed to such uses (50). iPS cells will be shared widely among researchers who will carry out a variety of studies with iPS cells and derivatives, using common and well-accepted scientific practices, such as:
Genetic modifications of cells
Injection of derived cells into nonhuman animals to demonstrate their function, including the injection into the brains of nonhuman animals.
Large-scale genome sequencing
Sharing cell lines with other researchers, with appropriate confidentiality protections, and
Patenting scientific discoveries and developing commercial tests and therapies, with no sharing of royalties with donors (51).
These standard research techniques are widely used in other types of basic research, including research with stem cells from other sources. Generally, donors of biological materials are not explicitly informed of these research procedures, although such disclosure is now proposed for whole genome sequencing (52,53).
Such studies are of fundamental importance in stem cell biology, for example to characterize the lines and to demonstrate that they are pluripotent. Large-scale genome sequencing will yield insights about the pathogenesis of disease and identify new targets for therapy. Injection of human stem cells into the brains of nonhuman animals will be required for preclinical testing of cell-based therapies for many conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke.
However, some downstream research could also raise ethical concerns. For example, large-scale genome sequencing may evoke concerns about privacy and confidentiality. Donors might consider it a violation of privacy if scientists know their future susceptibility to many genetic diseases. Furthermore, it may be possible to reidentify the donor of a deidentified large-scale genome sequence using information in forensic DNA databases or at an Internet company offering personal genomic testing (54,55). Other donors may object to their cells being injected into animals. For example, they may oppose all animal research, or they may have religious objections to the mixing of human and animal species. The injection of human neural progenitor cells into nonhuman animals has raised ethical concerns about animals developing characteristics considered uniquely human (56,57). Still other donors may not want cell lines derived from their biological materials to be patented as a step toward developing new tests and therapies. People are unlikely to drop such objections even if the cell lines were deidentified or even if many years had passed since the original donation. Thus there may be a tension between respecting the autonomy of donors and obtaining scientific benefit from research, which can be resolved during the process of obtaining consent for the original donation of materials.
It would be unfortunate if iPS cell lines that turned out to be extremely useful scientifically (for example because of robust growth in tissue culture) could not be used in additional research because the somatic cell donor objected. One approach to avoid this is to preferentially use somatic cells from donors who are willing to allow all such basic stem cell research and to be contacted for future sensitive research that cannot be anticipated at the time of consent (50). Donors could also be offered the option of consenting to additional specific types of sensitive but not fundamental downstream research, such as allogenic transplantation into other humans and reproductive research involving the creation of totipotent entities.
Because these concerns about consent for sensitive downstream research also apply to other types of stem cells, it would be prudent to put in place similar standards for consent to donate materials for derivation of other types of stem cells. However, these concerns are particularly salient for iPS cells because of the widespread perception that these cells raise no serious ethical problems and because they are likely to play an increasing role in stem cell research.
VII. Stem Cell Clinical Trials
Transplantation of cells derived from pluripotent stem cells offers the promise of effective new treatments. However, such transplantation also involves great uncertainty and the possibility of serious risks. Some stem cell therapies have been shown to be effective and safe, for example hematopoietic stem cell transplants for leukemia and epithelial stem cell-based treatments for burns and corneal disorders (58). However, “there are some clinics around the world already exploiting patients’ hopes by purporting to offer effective stem cell therapies for seriously ill patients, typically for large sums of money, but without credible scientific rationale, transparency, oversight, or patient protections” (58). Although supporting medical innovation under very limited circumstances, the International Society for Stem Cell Research has decried such use of unproven hSC transplantation.
These clinical trials should follow ethical principles that guide all clinical research, including appropriate balance of risks and benefits and informed, voluntary consent. Additional ethical requirements are also warranted to strengthen trial design, coordinate scientific and ethics review, verify that participants understand key features of the trial, and ensure publication of negative findings (59). These measures are appropriate because of the highly innovative nature of the intervention, limited experience in humans, and the high hopes of patients who have no effective treatments.
A. Risks and prospective benefits in stem cell clinical trials
The risks of innovative stem cell-based interventions include “tumor formation, immunological reactions, unexpected behavior of the cells, and unknown long-term health effects” (58). Evidence of safety and proof of principle should be established through appropriate preclinical studies in relevant animal models or through human studies of similar cell-based interventions. Requirements for proof of principle and safety should be higher if cells have been manipulated extensively in vitro or have been derived from pluripotent stem cells (58).
Even with these safeguards, however, because of the highly innovative nature of the intervention and limited experience in humans, unanticipated serious adverse events may occur. In older clinical trials of transplantation of fetal dopaminergic neurons into persons with Parkinson’s disease, transplanted cells failed to improve clinical outcomes (60,61). Indeed, about 15% of subjects receiving transplantation late developed disabling dyskinesias, with some needing ablative surgery to relieve these adverse events (60,61). Although the transplanted cells localized to the target areas of the brain, engrafted, and functioned to produce the intended neurotransmitters, appropriately regulated physiological function was not achieved. Participants in phase I trials may not thoroughly understand the possibility that hESC transplantation might make their condition worse.
B. Informed consent in early stem cell clinical trials
Problems with informed consent are well documented in phase I clinical trials. Participants in cancer clinical trials commonly expect that they will benefit personally from the trial, although the primary purpose of phase I trials is to test safety rather than efficacy (62). This tendency to view clinical research as providing personal benefit has been termed the “therapeutic misconception” (32,63). Analyses of cancer clinical trials reveal that the information in consent forms generally is adequate. However, in early phase I gene transfer clinical trials, researchers’ descriptions of the direct benefit to participants commonly were vague, ambiguous, and indeterminate (64).
Participants in phase I stem cell-based clinical trials might overestimate their benefits and underestimate the risks. The scientific rationale for hSC transplantation and preclinical results may seem compelling. In addition, highly optimistic press coverage might reinforce unrealistic hopes.
Several measures may enhance informed consent in early stem cell-based clinical trials (59). First, researchers should describe the risks and prospective benefits in a realistic manner. Researchers need to communicate the distinction between the long-term hope for effective treatments and the uncertainty inherent in any phase I trial. Participants in phase I studies need to understand that the intervention has never been tried before in humans for the specific condition, that researchers do not know whether it will work as hoped, and that the great majority of participants in phase I studies do not receive a direct benefit.
Second, investigators in hESC clinical trials should discuss a broader range of information with potential participants than in other clinical trials. The doctrine of informed consent requires researchers to discuss with potential participants information that is pertinent to their decision to volunteer for the clinical trial (65). Generally, the relevant information concerns the nature of the intervention being studied and the risks and prospective benefits. However, in hESC transplantation, nonmedical issues may be prominent or even decisive for some participants. Individuals who regard the embryo as having the moral status of a person would likely have strong objections to receiving hESC transplants. Although this intervention might benefit them medically, such individuals might regard it as complicit with an immoral action. Thus researchers in clinical trials of hESC transplantation should inform eligible participants that transplanted materials originated from human embryos.
Third, and most important, researchers should verify that participants have a realistic understanding of the clinical trial (59). The crucial ethical issue about informed consent is not what researchers disclose in consent forms or discussions, but rather what the participants in clinical trials understand. In other contexts, some researchers have ensured that participants understand the key features of the trial by assessing their comprehension. In HIV clinical trials in developing countries, where it has been alleged that participants did not understand the trial, many researchers are now testing each participant to be sure he or she understands the essential features of the research (33). Such direct assessment of participants’ understanding of the study has been recommended more broadly in contexts in which misunderstandings are likely (26). We urge that such tests of comprehension be carried out in phase I trials of hSC transplantation (58,59).
Careful attention to consent in highly innovative clinical trials might prevent controversies later. In early clinical trials of organ transplantation, the implantable totally artificial heart, and gene transfer, the occurrence of serious adverse events led to allegations that study participants had not truly understood the nature of the research (66,67,68). The resulting ethical controversies brought about negative publicity and delays in subsequent clinical trials.
VIII. Institutional Oversight of Stem Cell Research
Human stem cell research raises some ethical issues that are beyond the mission of institutional review boards (IRBs) to protect human subjects, as well as the expertise of IRB members. There should be a sound scientific justification for using human oocytes and embryos to derive new human stem cell lines. However, IRBs usually do not carry out in-depth scientific review. Some ethical issues in hESC research do not involve human subjects’ protection, for example the concern that transplanting human stem cells into nonhuman animals might result in characteristics that are regarded as uniquely human.
A. The stem cell research oversight committee (SCRO)
An institutional SCRO with appropriate scientific and ethical expertise, as well as public members, should be convened at each institution to review, approve, and oversee stem cell research (18,69,70). The SCRO will need to work closely with the IRB and, in cases of animal research, with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Because of the sensitive nature of hSC research, the SCRO should include nonaffiliated and lay members who can ensure that public concerns are taken into account.
B. Use of stem cell lines derived at another institution
Sharing stem cells across institutions facilitates scientific progress and minimizes the number of oocytes, embryos, and somatic cells used. However, ethical concerns arise if researchers work with lines that were derived in other jurisdictions under conditions that would not be permitted at their home institution. Researchers and SCROs need to distinguish core ethical standards that are accepted by international consensus—informed consent and an acceptable balance of benefits and risks—from standards that vary across jurisdictions and cultures. Using lines whose derivation violated core standards would erode ethical conduct of research by providing incentives to others to violate those standards.
The review process should focus on those types of hSC derivation that raise heightened levels of ethical concern (71). hSC lines derived using fresh oocytes and embryos require in-depth review because of concerns about the medical risks of oocyte donation, undue influence, and setbacks to the reproductive goals of a woman undergoing infertility treatment.
Dilemmas occur when donors of research oocytes receive payments in excess of their expenses and such payments are not permitted in the jurisdiction where the hSC cells will be used. For example, the United Kingdom enacted an explicit policy to allow such payment after public consultation and debate and provided reasons to justify its decision (72,73,74,75). Jurisdictions that ban payments should accept such carefully considered policies as a reasonable difference of opinion on a complex issue. Concerns about payment should be less if lines were derived from frozen embryos remaining after IVF treatment and donors were paid in the reproductive context. Such payments, which were carried out before donation for research was actually considered, are not an inducement for hESC research (71).
Other dilemmas arise with hESC lines derived from embryos using gamete donors. As previously discussed, explicit consent for the use of reproductive materials in stem cell research should be obtained from any gamete donors as well as embryo donors (13,76). An exception may be made to “grandparent” older lines derived from frozen embryos created before such explicit consent became the standard of care, for example before the 2005 National Academy of Sciences guidelines (76). Use of such older lines is appropriate because it would be unreasonable to expect physicians to comply with standards that had not yet been developed (71). It would also be acceptable to grandparent lines if gamete donors agreed to unspecified future research or gave dispositional control of frozen embryos to the woman or couple in IVF. However, the derivation should be consistent with the ethical and legal standards in place at the time the line was derived.
In summary, hSC research offers exciting opportunities for scientific advances and new therapies, but also raises some complex ethical and policy issues. These issues need to be discussed along with scientific challenges to ensure that stem cell research is carried out in an ethically appropriate manner.
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant 1 UL1 RR024131-01 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research and by the Greenwall Foundation. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NCRR or NIH.
B.L. is co-chair of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards Working Group.
Disclosure Summary: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
First Published Online April 14, 2009
Abbreviations: ART, Artificial reproductive technology; hESC, human embryonic stem cell; hSC, human stem cell; iPS cells, induced pluripotent stem cells; IRB, institutional review board; IVF, in vitro fertilization; SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer.
- Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Institute of Medicine 2002 Stem cells and the future of regenerative medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press
- Lo B 2009 Resolving ethical dilemmas in clinical research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams, Wilkins
- Smith S, Neaves W, Teitelbaum S 2007 Adult versus embryonic stem cells: treatments. Science 316:1422–1423; author reply, 1422–1423 [PubMed]
- 2004 Monitoring stem cell research. Washington, D.C.: The President’s Council on Bioethics
- 1994 Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health
- July 17, 2001. Statement of Senator Orrin G. Hatch on stem cell research. Available at: http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id=fca0c5e3–40c8–4cd3- 822e-efff0f2633de&suppresslayouts=true&IsTextOnly=True. Accessed December 18, 2008
- Streiffer R 2008 Informed consent and federal funding for stem cell research. Hastings Cent Rep 38:40–47 [PubMed]
- Alanso-Zaldivar R, Kaplan K 2007 Loosening of stem cell limits backed. Los Angeles Times, March 20, 2007; A1
- Dawson L, Bateman-House AS, Mueller Agnew D, Bok H, Brock DW, Chakravarti A, Greene M, King PA, O'Brien SJ, Sachs DH, Schill KE, Siegel A, Solter D, Suter SM, Verfaillie CM, Walters LB, Gearhart JD, Faden RR 2003 Safety issues in cell-based intervention trials. Fertil Steril 80:1077–1085 [PubMed]
- 2009 Stem cell bill is reintroduced. The New York Times, February 27, 2009; A15
- Hulse C 2009 Democrats debate methods to end stem cell ban. The New York Times, January 3, 2009; A11
- Lyerly AD, Faden RR 2007 Embryonic stem cells. Willingness to donate frozen embryos for stem cell research. Science 317:46–47 [PubMed]
- Lo B, Chou V, Cedars MI, Gates E, Taylor RN, Wagner RM, Wolf L, Yamamoto KR 2003 Consent from donors for embryo and stem cell research. Science 301:921 [PubMed]
- Radin MJ 1996 Contested commodities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
- 1998 Assisted reproductive technologies. New York: The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law; 165–169
- 1999 Research on human stored biologic materials. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission
- Kalfoglou AL, Geller G 2000 A follow-up study with oocyte donors exploring their experiences, knowledge, and attitudes about the use of their oocytes and the outcome of the donation. Fertil Steril 74:660–667 [PubMed]
- National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2005 Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press
- Lomax GP, Hall ZW, Lo B 2007 Responsible oversight of human stem cell research. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine’s Medical and Ethical Standards. PLoS Med 4:e114 [PMC free article][PubMed]
- Lo B, Zettler P, Cedars MI, Gates E, Kriegstein AR, Oberman M, Reijo Pera R, Wagner RM, Wuerth MT, Wolf LE, Yamamoto KR 2005 A new era in the ethics of human embryonic stem cell research. Stem Cells 23:1454–1459 [PubMed]
- Levens ED, DeCherney AH 2008 Human oocyte research: the ethics of donation and donor protection. JAMA 300:2174–2176 [PubMed]
- Holden C 2006 Korean stem cell scandal. Schatten: Pitt panel finds ‘misbehavior’ but not misconduct. Science 311:928 [PubMed]
- Chong S 2006 Scientific misconduct. Investigations document still more problems for stem cell researchers. Science 311:754–755 [PubMed]
- Chong S, Normile D 2006 Stem cells. How young Korean researchers helped unearth a scandal. Science 311:22–25 [PubMed]
- National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2007 Assessing the medical risks of human oocyte donation for stem cell research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press
- 2001 Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission
- Spar D 2007 The egg trade—making sense of the market for human oocytes. N Engl J Med 356:1289–1291 [PubMed]
- 2007 Donation. Chap 8. Fertil Steril 87:S28
- Hyun I 2006 Fair payment or undue inducement? Nature 442:629–630 [PubMed]
- Holland S 2001 Contested commodities at both ends of life: buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 11:263–284 [PubMed]
- Steinbock B 2004 Payment for egg donation and surrogacy. Mt Sinai J Med 71:255–265 [PubMed]
- Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW 2008 The therapeutic misconception. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 633–644
- Woodsong C, Karim QA 2005 A model designed to enhance informed consent: experiences from the HIV prevention trials network. Am J Public Health 95:412–419 [PMC free article][PubMed]
- 2002 Human cloning and human dignity: an ethical inquiry. Washington, D.C.: The President’s Council on Bioethics
- 1997 Cloning human beings. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission
- McHugh PR 2004 Zygote and “clonote”—the ethical use of embryonic stem cells. N Engl J Med 351:209–211 [PubMed]
- Jaenisch R 2004 Human cloning—the science and ethics of nuclear transplantation. N Engl J Med 351:2787–2791 [PubMed]
- National Research Council and Institute of Medicine 2002 Scientific and medical aspects of human reproductive cloning. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press
- 2005 White paper: alternative sources of human pluripotent stem cells. Washington, D.C.: The President’s Council on Bioethics
- Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 2007 Hybrids and chimeras: findings of the consultation. Available at: http://www. hfea.gov.uk/en/1581.html. Accessed September 22, 2007
- Robert JS 2006 The science and ethics of making part-human animals in stem cell biology. FASEB J 20:838–845 [PubMed]
- Baylis F, Robert JS 2007 Part-human chimeras: worrying the facts, probing the ethics. Am J Bioeth 7:41–45 [PubMed]
- Clinical trial overview: neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (NCL, often called Batten disease). Available at: http://www.stemcellsinc.com/clinicaltrials/clinicaltrials.html. Accessed March 4, 2009
- 18 December 2008 StemCells, Inc. receives FDA approval to initiate clinical trial of HuCNS-SC cells in a myelin disease. Available at: http://www.stemcellsinc.com/news/081218.html. Accessed March 3, 2009
- Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, Narita M, Ichisaka T, Tomoda K, Yamanaka S 2007 Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131:861–872 [PubMed]
- Park IH, Arora N, Huo H, Maherali N, Ahfeldt T, Shimamura A, Lensch MW, Cowan C, Hochedlinger K, Daley GQ 2008 Disease-specific induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell 134:877–886 [PMC free article][PubMed]
- Kaji K, Norrby K, Paca A, Mileikovsky M, Mohseni P, Woltjen K 1 March 2009 Virus-free induction of pluripotency and subsequent excision of reprogramming actors. Nature 10.1038/nature07864 [PMC free article][PubMed]
- Woltjen K, Michael IP, Mohseni P, Desai R, Mileikovsky M, Hämäläinen R, Cowling R, Wang W, Liu P, Gertsenstein M, Kaji K, Sung HK, Nagy A 1 March 2009 piggyBac transposition reprograms fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature 10.1038/nature07863 [PMC free article][PubMed]
- International Society for Stem Cell Research 2008 Endorse the open letter. Support all forms of stem cell research. Available at: http://www.isscr.org/ScienceStatementEndorsers.cfm. Accessed January 7, 2009
- Aalto-Setala K, Conklin BR, Lo B 24 February 2009 Obtaining consent for future research with induced pluripotent cells: opportunities and challenges. PLoS Biol 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000042 [PMC free article][PubMed]
- Korobkin R 2007 Stem cell century. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
- Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, Buchanan JA, Burgess MM, Danilczyk U, Diaz CM, Fryer-Edwards K, Green SK, Hodosh MA, Juengst ET, Kaye J, Kedes L, Knoppers BM, Lemmens T, Meslin EM, Murphy J, Nussbaum RL, Otlowski M, Pullman D, Ray PN, Sugarman J, Timmons M 2008 Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol 6:e73 [PMC free article][PubMed]
- McGuire AL, Caulfield T, Cho MK 2008 Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 9:152–156 [PMC free article][PubMed]
- Lowrance WW, Collins FS 2007 Ethics. Identifiability in genomic research. Science 317:600–602 [PubMed]
- McGuire AL, Gibbs RA 2006 Genetics. No longer de-identified. Science 312:370–371 [PubMed]
- Greely HT, Cho MK, Hogle LF, Satz DM 2007 Thinking about the human neuron mouse. Am J Bioeth 7:27–40 [PMC free article][PubMed]
- Greely HT, Cho MK, Hogle LF, Satz DM 2007 Response to open peer commentaries on “Thinking about the human neuron mouse.” Am J Bioeth 7:W4–6 [PubMed]
- Hyun I, Lindvall O, Ahrlund-Richter L, Cattaneo E, Cavazzana-Calvo M, Cossu G, De Luca M, Fox IJ, Gerstle C, Goldstein RA, Hermerén G, High KA, Kim HO, Lee HP, Levy-Lahad E, Li L, Lo B, Marshak DR, McNab A, Munsie M, Nakauchi H, Rao M, Rooke HM, Valles CS, Srivastava A, Sugarman J, Taylor PL, Veiga A, Wong AL, Zoloth L, Daley GQ 2008 New ISSCR guidelines underscore major principles for responsible translational stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell 3:607–609 [PubMed]
- Lo B, Kriegstein A, Grady D 2008 Clinical trials in stem cell transplantation: guidelines for scientific and ethical review. Clin Trials 5:517–522 [PubMed]
- Olanow CW, Goetz CG, Kordower JH, Stoessl AJ, Sossi V, Brin MF, Shannon KM, Nauert GM, Perl DP, Godbold J, Freeman TB 2003 A double-blind controlled trial of bilateral fetal nigral transplantation in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 54:403–414 [PubMed]
- Freed CR, Greene PE, Breeze RE, Tsai WY, DuMouchel W, Kao R, Dillon S, Winfield H, Culver S, Trojanowski JQ, Eidelberg D, Fahn S 2001 Transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurons for severe Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 344:710–719 [PubMed]
- Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC 2001 Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 358:1772–1777 [PubMed]