Why are Catholics Praising the Nobel Prize Stem Cell Technology?
Source: "Shinya Yamanaka - Biographical". Nobelprize.org. Creative Commons Attr. 2.0 Generic license
It’s been all over the news lately, particularly in the Catholic and conservative spheres, how Dr. Shinya Yamanaka won the Nobel Prize in medicine for reprogramming adult cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). People praised this research for creating new pluripotent stem cell lines to study without creating or destroying embryos. They claimed that the process doesn’t require any morally tainted source cells. They announced the feat as an achievement of great ethical significance, a beautiful and ethical science. They pointed out that the process does not pose ethical issues because embryos are not manipulated, and that embryonic stem cell research will soon be largely put out of business. What a moral victory!
However, digging into and decoding the scientific methodological explanations reveals that what is being praised is definitely not so praiseworthy. It reveals something quite significant, and it mostly hinges on one word — reprogramming. Did anyone notice that in all the cheering, little was explained about the method itself?
How is this reprogramming done? How did they “turn back the clock” on adult stem cells? How does a mature cell become immature again? Well, it’s not magic. The adult stem cell gets introduced to genetic material from other young cells – very young cells. Specifically, Dr. Yamanaka’s group used cells grown from the kidney of an electively aborted healthy child in the Netherlands.
The cells used are named HEK-293 (human embryo kidney), and often referred to without the HEK part as PLAT-A, PLAT-E, and 293FT cells. This Yamanaka paper in Cell journal explains how these cells were used in the methods section, Lentivirus Production and Infection, and elsewhere.
“293FT cells (Invitrogen) were plated at 6 × 106 cells per 100 mm dish and incubated overnight…”
They are purchased from Invitrogen.
“The 293FT Cell Line is a fast-growing, highly transfectable clonal isolate derived from human embryonal kidney cells…”
So, where did these 293FT cells come from again? It is instructive to read the troubling words of the doctor who collected them. In this transcript from 2001, the doctor explained their origin to the FDA because the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines has long been controversial for moral and safety reasons. See page 81 of the FDA document, beginning on line 14:
“The kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, was obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information. The kidneys of the fetus were then isolated and the kidney cells were isolated in the so-called still air cabinet. There were no laminar flow hoods at that time, and this, is simply a still air cabinet that was also used all over for tissue culture and worked quite well. There was UV lights in it just to sterilize it, and that was all.
“So as we did also for the rat kidney cells, the surrounding membranes were removed as completely as possible, and the kidneys were then minced with scissors, trypsinized, and the cells that were recovered after removing the trypsin were cultured in medium containing bovine serum, calf serum. That is what we know.” (Report to FDA, 2001, p. 81, line 14)
How’s that for moral sources? Read on, there were all kinds of questions about contamination from DNA, viruses, and mutant material, a problem that still plaques the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines because it is unknown how the contaminants affect small infants. You may also remember these fetal cell lines from the PepsiCo boycott when it was discovered they were used to develop flavor-enhancers. Same cells.
Still find this Nobel Prize winning technique praiseworthy? Yes, some still shrug at even this. They say that the use of the morally illicit materials doesn’t matter because the cures could improve so many lives. In other words, they say the ends justify the means.
What about parents who use vaccines grown in aborted fetal cell lines? Some are of the opinion that since the aborted child was killed so long ago and the researcher did not cooperate in the abortion directly, that he is justified in using these cells to try to find life-saving cures for people today. A comparison is also made to parents who allow their children to be vaccinated using vaccines grown in aborted fetal cell lines. In a 2005 statement from the Vatican to Debra L.Vinnedge, Executive Director, Children of God for Life, the President of the Pontifical Academy explained that parents may chose to use these vaccines for their children if no alternatives exist and if they are needed to protect children and pregnant women against disease, on a temporary basis, so long as faithful citizens of upright conscience (fathers of families, doctors, etc.) oppose the use of morally illicit materials by making an objection of conscience against the “ever more widespread attacks against life and the ‘culture of death’ which underlies them.”
That is, parents may use vaccines if they have no other way to protect their children, but they should demand morally licit options that do not degrade the dignity of human life.
But, do parents with no other choice and researchers fall under this same umbrella of exemption? No, not according to the instruction in Dignitas Personae from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [Emphasis added.]
“Moreover, in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision.” (section 35)
As Dr. Theresa Deisher of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), a pro-life, non-profit biomedical research organization who has been following this research closely for many years, puts it, “These investigators did not need to use any fetal or embryonic materials; they chose to.”
What does Dignitas Personae say? [Emphasis not added.]
“…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…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.” (section 35)
Researchers have a choice, and there are morally licit choices available, such as stem cells from cord blood. However, these source cells are not as economical or convenient; nor do they win patents and Nobel Prizes.
Catholics are instructed to oppose this research. The ends do not justify the means. Just as we are instructed to demand morally licit choices for vaccines, we are also not to praise morally illicit research just because we hope something may someday come of it.
Further, there are still significant questions about the safety of these iPSCs. Some have suggested they do not form tumors as ESCs do, but that is not true. Search “tumor” in the Cell paper. Although some work in solving this problem has been done, it is not solved. If they are trying to make cells that behave like embryonic stem cells (ESCs), then of course they are going to have the same problems that ESCs have. Actually the induced pluripotent stem cells carry added risks due to the questionable contaminants in the aborted fetal cell lines.
Some even still praise this research because it might provide a way one day for us to create embryonic-like stem cells, and they hope for this even though embryonic stem cells still have not produced any cures. Does that make much sense?
Finally, what about destroying embryos? This technique has also been praised because no embryos are destroyed, but that’s not true either. While it is true that in Dr. Yamanaka’s ground-breaking work he did not destroy embryos because he used data from a database of previously destroyed embryos as comparisons to know whether his cells were in fact embryonic-like, that isn’t the case in more recent work in cell reprogramming. Researchers do destroy embryos to use the stem cells as controls in their data.
See this recent report from August of 2012, work funded by the National Institute for Health and the National Cancer Institute. In the Ethics Statement they state that human embryonic stem cells are used.
“The hESC lines used in this proposal served as controls for hiPSC experiments…”
The bottom line: This technique for iPSCs 1) uses cells grown from electively aborted children, 2) has just as many, if not more, health risks for patients hoping for cures derived from them, and 3) still involves the killing of human embryos to complete the research.
It is worth noting that we already have many cures using cord blood, and before closing, it is also worth reading the 2008 prediction of Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of American biotechnology company Advanced Cell Technology.
“At this point there are no laws or regulations for this kind of thing and the bizarre thing is that the Catholic Church and other traditional stem-cell opponents think this technology is great when in reality it could in the end become one of their biggest nightmares,” he said. “It is quite possible that the real legacy of this whole new programming technology is that it will be introducing the era of designer babies.”
What’s the real motivation for this research? The reader can decide, but if you are Catholic, or at all concerned about the dignity of human life, stop praising this practice as moral, safe, and the heroic end of research that manipulates and destroys human life. It isn’t.
—–
*I would like to thank the American Life League and the Children of God for Life for the lead on this information.
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
… Well, this stinks
I have used HEK-293s.
I understand that you don’t think the ends justify the means, but you do believe that good can come of evil. You would not, for instance, ever say that rape is justifiable, but you would recognize that good (a person) can come of it. Why condemn a cell line that, while (to you) a product of a one-time sinful action, is now helping to advance research?
Michelle,
First, there is no good coming from this. Just as with ESC research, there are only hopes and promises, fame and money.
Second, these cell lines have many unanswered questions about contamination and safety. These cell lines are convenient and economical, but not necessarily safe or healthy.
Third, the faith that good can come from evil depends on an act of the will. It doesn’t happen if one is living in sin intentionally and choosing to do evil; it happens when one turns away from sin, toward God, and seeks to do what is good.
Stacy,
First, there is no good coming from this. Just as with ESC research, there are only hopes and promises, fame and money.
I was talking about all research using HEK-293s – not all of it is stem cells and product testing. They’re used for all sorts of research, including basic science research (research done without a specific application in mind). Unless you’ve done a thorough literature review and can say with reasonable certainty that nothing good has or ever could come of the research done using them, then you can’t write it all off as people seeking glory by using aborted babies. That is totally ridiculous.
Second, these cell lines have many unanswered questions about contamination and safety. These cell lines are convenient and economical, but not necessarily safe or healthy.
This is not a reason to write off their use entirely – certainly, safety and prevention of contamination has to be a priority in research that will result in a product (like a vaccine). But in research studying, say, protein signaling sequences, safe or healthy is not a concern. The cells are just a tool for understanding a facet of cell biology better.
Third, the faith that good can come from evil depends on an act of the will. It doesn’t happen if one is living in sin intentionally and choosing to do evil; it happens when one turns away from sin, toward God, and seeks to do what is good.
Honestly not quite sure what you’re saying here. Is a researcher using HEK cells “living in sin”? How so? To me, your condemnation of the cell line is no different than condemning all interactions with children conceived in rape, because that would be like endorsing rape.
Michelle,
“I was talking about all research using HEK-293s…”
I already have the wiki linked in my article. As far as nothing good, it is clear that I was referring to ESC and iPSC research.
“…people seeking glory by using aborted babies…”
Please, if we are going to discuss this like adults, don’t resort to outlandish misquotes. You and I both know I didn’t say that. I do realize some people, like yourself, intend to do good and are not “seeking glory by using aborted babies.” But I also see that there is a reason, in the bigger picture, why the ends don’t justify the means. It’s a slippery slope.
“This is not a reason to write off their use entirely…”
Donald McClarey and a commenter named “cmatt” made an analogy that is very useful.
There is a concept in criminal law that evidence obtained from information gathered illegally taints the entire related body of evidence. Courts are skeptical of information acquired under compromised integrity.
It is a reason to oppose the research.
“Is a researcher using HEK cells “living in sin”?”
Yes, if he knows their origin and still doesn’t care.
“To me, your condemnation of the cell line is no different than condemning all interactions with children conceived in rape, because that would be like endorsing rape.”
Then you don’t understand what an act of the will is. The children conceived in rape are innocent, they conducted no act of the will to commit an evil act. The rapist did commit a willful evil act. Huge difference. If a research chooses to use morally illicit materials, he commits an act of the will. This is one reason I suspect atheists are fond of saying that we have no free will. Free will makes us culpable if we choose to do wrong.
“Honestly not quite sure what you’re saying here.”
Michelle, let me try.
The end product intended by the rapist is not a child, it is satisfaction from the act for the rapist. The child is an unintended and not that common consequence. Therefore the promotion of rape itself has no intrinsic good result and no suffering would occur if it was stopped entirely except perhaps by the rapist.
The intended end of this research is to produce a good product that will help mankind and in return give reward to the researchers. A loss-win-win situation; Intentional loss of human life prematurely, win for other humans, win for the researcher. Clearly a case of “The Ends Justify The Means”. A policy that has plagued mankind and needs it’s own research on how to stop it.
See, I don’t understand how the cells themselves are a morally illicit material. A researcher using the cells is not harming anyone – they’re not even creating a demand for abortions, because the cell line already exists.
Michelle,
Extreme examples are good to demonstrate the principle.
Would you have accepted tissue from one of Josef Mengele’s twins and then used it to try to find a cure for a disease?
Basically, if someone said to me “we obtained this tissue in a really horrible way, but it could be useful, here, take it” I would not see the problem with accepting it unless by doing so I was creating demand for the really horrible method to happen again. Does that make sense?
I’m still not seeing why the rape analogy doesn’t work here. The child was created in a really horrible way (analogous to abortion), but they themselves are innocent (the cells themselves are not evil), and accepting them and being good to them (using the cells) is not an endorsement of or demand for more rape (you’re not creating a demand for abortion, because the cell line was made 40 years ago and isn’t being constantly remade).
“accepting them and being good to them (using the cells) is not an endorsement of or demand for more rape (you’re not creating a demand for abortion,…”
This sounds correct but is a rationalization.
It is not the cells or the child of rape it is the act itself. Any perceived good result that comes directly from a bad act no matter how long ago can join in the encouragement of the bad act. If I found out that my (theoretical) heart transplant came from a man it was found later was murdered, I would be devastated that I am benefiting from such a gross evil. If the heart was willed by the man for this use it would be by his consent and I would not feel that the evil that befell him was the direct benefit to me, it was his desire – no more so than an illness would be. The problem with embryos is that it is not widely enough believed that they are human beings with a right to life and decision making for that life and of equal worth to the self.
Michelle,
How do you know you are not creating a demand? You don’t. If enough people think the way you do, a demand will be created. It’s basic supply/demand reasoning. You make a vote with your choices.
You are not seeing why the rape analogy doesn’t work, perhaps, because you don’t see a difference in a commodity and a child.
Do you mean I’d be creating a demand for other cell lines derived from embryos? Possibly. But considering that researchers aren’t saying “pssst, guys, go abort more fetuses, we need cells” (once the cells are obtained and transformed, they will grow indefinitely), I still fail to see how the act of culturing and using the cells is immoral. I can understand where the abortion would be immoral, but obtaining cells and using them is an amoral act.
“I can understand where the abortion would be immoral, but obtaining cells and using them is an amoral act.”
It is a morally tainted source, things are right and wrong for a reason, not just arbitrarily. It supports an attitude in medicine that ends do justify the means.
There actually is a demand for fetal tissue from aborted babies. No one is asking for them to be killed for that purpose because so many are already killed.
Your definition of right and wrong depend on whether there’s a demand for it or not.
By your reasoning, using fetal tissue of aborted children directly is even amoral, since there is no greater demand than current supply.
Also by your reasoning, child pornography is fine as long as the videos are just reproduced and no new children are exploited.
That’s not an entirely accurate assessment of my definition of right and wrong in this case – I was trying to address what I thought would be one of your concerns. To use a hypothetical, if HEK-293 cells would never generate any demand for abortions, I can’t quite wrap my mind around what your objection to them would be. They exist already – they are (to you) the product of an immoral act, but I can’t see where they are themselves immoral. It’s a leap of logic I’m not quite making, possibly because beyond items that are intended to be used for harm (like guns), I can’t bring myself to see objects as immoral. You can use them for immoral ends, but if the intent is only to do good (research), I’m just not getting where the objection to the cells themselves would be.
Alright, I don’t know that we’re going to come to a mutual understanding here, and I have work that needs to be done. I’m out!
The technology itself is not immoral. There are some moral issues with the tools that researchers have used, but those objections can be eliminated. We should not condemn a technology that could be free of moral stain if researchers stopped using cell lines of illicit orgin to grow the viruses used in reprogramming. My understanding is that researchers are trying to get away from using viruses altogether. And there is the choice not to use ESCs as controls. As iPSCs become better understood and more standardized the use of ESCs alongside iPSCs may become a thing of the past.
I think Catholic moral theologians are praising this because it does give scientists the option of creating embryonic-like stem cells without destroying embryos. We should be careful to separate the moral issues associated with corollary techniques from the actual iPSC technology.
It is true that reprogramming techniques maybe someday used to clone embryos (creating totipotent cells as opposed to pluripotent) but as of now its seems that this technique is creating pluripotent cells because researchers are needing to further modify the iPSCs so that can create placenta in mouse models. We need legislation that prevents the creation of totipotent cells by SCNT or reprogramming.
Also the safety issues are a concern, but so far iPSCs are being used to create models of disease for research and not for treating patients.
Of course there are moral issues to object to and we should object to them, but I think that they are not with the actutal iPSC technology itself but with the tecniques that surround some of the research and these can be addressed.
I think that the Nobel Prize is deserved. The scientists have invented a technique that could be used to create useful stem cells from licit or illicit material. That is both a scientific and a moral advance over the previous technique which can be used to create useful stem cells from illict material only.
The theological contortions can only increase though. We have a tendancy to view iPSCs as an alternative to ESC. But of course as the science of re-programmibg improves we will be able to create IPSCs that are not just “like ESC” but are *identical* to ESCs. The current theology teaches that embryos are special and due more protection that other cells of the body because embryos /have the potential/ to become a human being. But the science of re-programming seems to be suggesting that all cells have the potential to become a human being if only we can find the appropriate conditions to put them into.
I think the danger is not using reprogramming to create cells that are identical to ESCs because ESCs are pluripotent cells, not complete embryos. The danger is modifying the technique to create complete organisms, namely embryos capable of implanting into a uterus. That is cloning by a route other than somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Which is why legislation against creating human embryos by SCNT or reprograming is sorely needed. Many other countries already have such legislation in place and the US does not.
Stacy, Catholics are not silent even if some are praising. Check out
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/a-triumph-for-ethical-stem-cell-research/
especially what Leslie Tignor posted today. A different explaination that may help Michelle to understand better the official Catholic objection.
Howard,
I saw that you (I think?) posted that under this NCR article. I was disappointed in the article, but pleased with the comments. Thank you Howard!
I still don’t get why moral theologians are praising this. I could understand, perhaps, if they said, “Some aspects of this research could become steps in the right direction, if the researchers stopped using morally illicit materials and were clear about the goal of the research.” But to praise it? Doesn’t make any sense. There’s nothing to praise.
The other Howards that post comments like to use ficticious names. It’s time they “came out”.
Everything is very open with a very clear clarification
of the issues. It was definitely informative. Your website
is very helpful. Thank you for sharing!
heу theгe and thank you fоr
your info – I’ve certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise several technical points using this web site, as I experienced to reload the site lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and could damage your quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and could
look out for much more of your respective exсiting content.
Μakе sure you updаte this agaіn verу soоn.
Veгy good infο. Lucky me I camе acrоss yоur website by chancе (stumbleupon).
I have booκmarκed it foг later!
Watch American Dad! Season 8 Episode 3 Can I Be Frank With You? Online Free Stream