Scientists at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) had indeed issued a press release claiming they could obtain stem cells by taking only one cell from an early 8-10 cell embryo, which, the release claimed, permitted the embryos to remain viable. (Conventional ESCR is conducted upon later-stage embryos at the 100-200 cell stage, which destroys the embryo.)

But upon closer investigation, it quickly became clear that the story was mostly spin. A review of the actual paper published in the science journal Nature revealed that ACT’s scientists did derive stem cells from human embryos earlier than ever before, but also that the they destroyed every embryo in the process—just as occurs in conventional embryonic stem cell research. Thus the classic media feeding frenzy the experiment sparked was actually much ado about very little.

Still, there is actually some good news to be found in this tempest in a teapot. Before I describe it, let me explain why this exaggerated story gained such international visibility.

The most important moral question of the 21st Century is whether human life has intrinsic moral worth simply and merely because it is human. A sanctity/equality of human life ethic understands that simply being human matters morally. Otherwise, the door is opened wide to oppression, exploitation, and even killing of the weak and vulnerable. Under this view, there are just some things that should not be done to human beings—whether nascent, disabled, or elderly.

But many bioethicists and scientists disagree that simply being a member of the human species conveys moral value. In this view, only “persons,” a moral status earned by possessing minimal mental abilities, really count. Under personhood theory, as this philosophy is sometimes called, some human beings are not persons, meaning that these unfortunates do not have the right to life and can be used instrumentally as if they were mere natural resources.

And this is precisely what happens in embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. Nascent humans are destroyed and harvested for their cells as so many corn crops—which is why it is so controversial. And this is also why President Bush imposed significant federal funding restrictions on ESCR—to protect the value of nascent human life.

We can now see why ACT’s research non-breakthrough was deemed worthy of so much fuss. Most of the media hyped the ACT experiment as undermining Bush’s policy. Now, the stories reported breathlessly, scientists would be free to pursue embryonic stem cell research to their heart’s content.

Ironically—rather than toppling Bush’s policy, it instead validated it. Indeed, ACT’s attempt to create stem cell lines without destroying embryos—and the media’s hyping the story—shows precisely how successful President Bush has been in keeping the ethical focus of the science community fixed on the important moral issues involved with destructive embryonic research.

And here’s some more good news. Scientists throughout the world are working hard to develop methods to obtain cells with all the scientific potential hoped for from embryonic stem cells—and without harming embryos in any way.

One such area of investigation is Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT), currently being tested in animal studies. If ANT works, it would create stem cell lines without also bringing new human embryos into existence. [see sidebar interview with Dr. Hurlbut] Another potentially exciting avenue of research comes out of Japan where scientists have reverted rat skin cells to an embryonic-like state. And of course, adult stem cell research continues to show much promise in developing efficacious medical treatments in early human trials.

So this is the bottom line: We should never underestimate the imagination and capability of scientists to solve difficult scientific problems. That is why it is crucial that we maintain proper ethical parameters around stem cell research. So long as we continue to insist that nascent human lives matter morally, there seems little doubt that inspired scientists will be able to develop a powerful and beneficial stem cell sector without undermining the intrinsic value of human life.

Interview with William Hurlbut

William J. Hurlbut, M.D., is a member of the Stanford University faculty and was appointed by President George W. Bush to the President’s Council on Bioethics in 2001. Dr. Hurlbut, a committed Christian, is both a strong defender of the intrinsic value and innate dignity of human life and a committed scientist who strives to reconcile the ethical problems surrounding embryonic stem cell research with its scientific potential. The result is Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT), a still experimental idea being discussed around the world that seeks to create stem cells with all of the scientific potential of embryonic stem cells—but without the moral baggage. Hurlbut spoke with tothesource about his ANT proposal.

tts: Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT) has been described as an "alternative method" of deriving pluripotent stem cells without creating and/or destroying embryos as occurs in somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning and conventional embryonic stem cell research. Why is this so?

Hurlbut: Altered Nuclear Transfer is a moral alternative because it would allow us to get pluripotent stem cells (cells with the same characteristics as embryonic stem cells), but without creating and destroying human embryos. ANT involves nuclear transfer, something like the cloning procedure, but instead of creating a living embryo, a tissue lineage of a single cell type is produced. In other words, no embryo is destroyed because none has ever come into being.

tts: What is the current state of the science in the development of the ANT project?

Hurlbut: Last fall, MIT stem cell biologist Rudolf Jaenisch showed that ANT works in mice. He got pluripotent stem cells with all the same powers and potentials of embryonic stem cells, but from a laboratory construct that was dramatically different in developmental potential than an embryo. And, more recently, researchers in Germany have provided evidence that it may be possible to do ANT in an even simpler way by directly altering a factor in the egg. These are hopeful developments and give us good reason to think this project could be successfully extended to work with human cells.

tts: Some "pro lifers" as well as scientists, such as Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Nuclear Technology, have warned that rather than resulting in a non organism, ANT would actually create a doomed "disabled embryo" that is bioengineered to die early in its development. Where do these critics have it wrong?

Hurlbut: They don't understand either the scientific or moral foundations of the ANT project. The ANT alteration is at such a basic level that it prevents the biological organization essential to create an organism. It is like a model airplane kit without the glue, in ANT you only have organic parts, no capacity to create a living whole. In other words, you get cells alone, but not a living organism.

tts: Would ANT provide all of the hope for benefits of conventional embryonic stem cell research, not only the potential for medical therapies, but also the opportunity to engage in basic scientific research?

Hurlbut: Yes, because ANT would produce cells with the same characteristics as embryonic stem cells, it would offer the same scientific and medical promise---but in a way all Americans could endorse. In addition, ANT would also provide a useful tool for other research into the basic processes of developmental biology. This would allow federal funding for important studies in this young but emerging field, and that would lead to advances across a wide range of biomedical science.

tts: Some critics of ANT worry that the need to use human eggs in the procedure would lead to the same exploitation of women as could occur if human therapeutic cloning became widespread. How would ANT avoid this problem, if at all?

Hurlbut: I share their concern about the dangers of hormonally inducing the production of large numbers of eggs and I agree that a market in human eggs could lead to widespread exploitation of women in circumstances of poverty. I am on the public record in my work with the President's Council on Bioethics saying that I don't favor super-ovulation specifically for ANT (or any other research project). There are, however, scientific reasons to believe that in the near future there will be other ways of obtaining eggs that do not raise medical and moral concerns. These include the use of eggs left unfertilized in IVF, taking eggs from ovaries after surgical removal and from human cadavers. I think science will provide an answer to this issue that will satisfy legitimate ethical concerns.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.