Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

The Egg Hunt Is On

A shortage of human eggs is likely to be the biggest barrier for U.S. scientists who want to create cloned stem cells.

By Emily Singer

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Human eggs can turn back time. And that miraculous property captivates stem cell researchers, who need human eggs to make cloned stem cells. But as scientists gear up to do cloning experiments, they are worried that the ethical and medical considerations surrounding egg donation will create a formidable obstacle to their work.

"Without eggs, there's no research," says Robert Lanza, vice president of medical and scientific development at Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT), a biotechnology company in Worcester, MA, that plans to clone stem cells. "It's been a bottleneck for this research from the get-go."

Scientists want to create cloned stem cells because these cells can be turned into different cell types, such as brain cells or insulin-producing cells, to treat patients with diseases such as Parkinson's or diabetes. Because the cloned stem cells are genetically matched to the patient, they are not subject to immune rejection. Stem cells created with DNA from a patient could also be used to generate cell lines that exhibit the genetic abnormalities of these diseases, giving scientists new models to study disease (see The Real Stem Cell Hope).

To make cloned embryonic stem cells, scientists insert the DNA of an adult cell into an egg stripped of its own genetic material. The egg, by an unknown mechanism, reverts the adult DNA back to its embryonic state and develops into an early-stage embryo, much like a normally fertilized egg, eventually generating stem cells whose DNA is identical to that of the adult.

This process, known as either therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), has been the source of major ethical debates. Critics, including President Bush, oppose the creation and destruction of human embryos for research purposes, while supporters say the technology will ultimately save human lives.

But even among proponents of stem cell research, a major ethical question remains: How can scientists get enough eggs without putting women at risk?

In 2005, discredited Korean researcher Hwang Woo Suk claimed to have efficiently generated 11 lines of cloned stem cells. His research was lauded in large part because he claimed to have used very few eggs, which meant the technology might be practical for clinical use. But investigations this year revealed that Hwang's human cloning research was a massive fraud, rife with both scientific fabrication and ethical violations.

For one thing, a report released this month by Korea's National Bioethics Committee concluded that Hwang's team did not adequately inform women of the risks associated with egg donation. The report also found that he used more than 2,000 eggs in his experiments, five times as many as originally reported.

That revelation alarms stem cell researchers in the United States because it adds to the uncertainty over how many eggs are required to clone a human cell. The human embryonic stem cell lines used in current research are generated using naturally fertilized embryos discarded from in vitro fertilization clinics. But SCNT will likely require fresh unfertilized eggs, which are not available from fertility clinics and therefore must be donated specifically for research.

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • Where's the logic is the outrage?
    Guest (Peter) on 02/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Why is it so awful that Mr. Suk  destroyed 2,000 human embryos (most people call them unborn babies) when everyone was applauding his work that only required (destroyed) 400 human embryos (unborn babies)?  I don't understand this logic.  If its okay to destroy 400, what's wrong with 2,000 or even more?!  This area of research is ripe for unprecedented unethical activity because we, even the research itself, de-value human life.  I know I can't wait to have my wife go down and have our future generations "Suked" out in the tip of a syringe!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • take a deep breath
      Guest (Trish) on 02/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Not ever egg produces a baby. You know that. The article states the women were mislead. That's trickery. That's wrong. There are many women who donate eggs to help others have a baby, why not do so to save a baby?
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • All About The MONEY
      Guest (SirLanse) on 02/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The outrage is that it will cost so much more money. $4000 for say 10 eggs(lots of hormones) for 2000 eggs means $4000 times 200 women =
      $800,000 whereas 400 eggs is 40 women and only$160,000.
      $800k - $160k = PROFIT!
      It is all about the money baby.
      If you think that some life saving ethos is involved, Doh!
      It is all about the money, it is old rich people that count, not some poor embryo.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • I don't think deep breathing solves this one
      Guest (Peter) on 02/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      True, but when you successfully fertilize the egg it IS now a human embryo, more commonly known as an unborn BABY. I wonder how many of the 2,000 eggs became human embryos (unborn babies) that, whoops! --where washed down the drain.  How easily we smooth over the issue by renaming it something bland like SCNT.  Do you really think it is just the "lying and trickery" that is unethical?
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • A human life is sacred and worth $billions!
      Guest (Owen N. Martinez-Sandin) on 02/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      How much is your son or daughter's life?  How much is expended to find a person lost at sea or in a mountain peak?  What are the many efforts made by police and the government to find a murderer?  How many are waiting patiently to adopt a son or daughter, after going all over the world to do it?  These are practical but very important  truths!

      But, the most important truth is that the human person or even a nearborn fetus can not be bought or sold, as if it was a chatel, because we are the image of God, and only a minority disdains this truth in this world.  Scientists should stop trying to invent a new race of Frankensteins, and keep to the straight and narrow, which guarantees them a good conscience, and that they can sleep better at night. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • True morality
        Guest (Timeless) on 02/16/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Alvin Tofler, in a book called Future Shock suggested that at some time in the future we would need to put all the people who could no longer adapt to the pace of change in special enclaves where the rate of progress would be artificially held back to what they could handle. It seems that time has come. The logic used by these religious zeolots is so suspect that we should no longer accept their veracity or integrity. Calling a fertilized egg an unborn child when it is not going to result in a baby is either a dishonest attempt to cloud the issue with emotion or an indication of such an inability to reason that such persons should no longer be allowed to interfer with the effort to save real lives. There is no good morality in putting one's comfort ahead of the real lives that could be saved by expediting research. It is time we hold people responsible for the consequences of their actions.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Consequences of actions?  No doubt!
          Guest (Peter) on 02/16/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          1) So let's just let that human embryo grow a few weeks and then we'll have more useful cells.  Why, if we wait a few months we may even have some organs we can transplant!  And as long as it's lying there in a petri dish it will never become a "baby" -right?.  Where do you draw the line?  This has nothing to do with religion.  I despise religion.  2) This research is ALL about putting one's comfort ahead of real lives.  What makes the life of someone with a disease that needs a cure any more important than the life that is just beginning.  These researches believe they "created" the life so they have the right to destroy it?  I disagree. 3) when I read "good morality" I recognize the writer is probably a typical "relative morality" thinker and understand how they justify most anything they want.  According to Webster, morality is morality, the opposite is called immorality.
          Rate this comment: 12345
        • One more thing...
          Guest (Peter) on 02/16/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Once everyone who meets "the"(whose?) definition of a religious zealot is appropriately segregated, then we could start harvesting their tissue as well!  This shouldn't be a problem for those "advanced thinkers" who now refer to conscience as just "comfort".  I see those who have been taught relative morality can easily dismiss those with a basic knowledge of right and wrong and relegate their "clear conscience" to a silly comfort.  I am all for research and advanced medicine, but don't ignore history which is repleat with examples of research crossing the line.
          Rate this comment: 12345
    • Take your head out of the clouds
      Guest (Emma) on 02/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      You people are scary.  Step off the soapbox, come down to reality, and realize that BABIES are not being murdered.  The bible itself doesn't recognize life at this early of a stage.  (The BABY has to be infused with blood, which won't happen for awhile).  I suppose you don't approve of the "morning after pill"; it's the same timeline.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • The total cost to the donor of harvesting her eggs.
    Guest (Robert Griffin) on 02/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    In addition to paying the costs of harvesting, the recipient should pay the donor for lost wages AND provide lifetime life, disability and health insurance coverage for all health risks and early death risks associated with the harvesting procedure.  In other words, the true value of the harvested egg is at least as much as the costs of the health and death risks the woman assumes by donating her eggs, plus the cost of the harvesting procedure itself.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • The Egg Hunt Is On
    Guest (JoAnn) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I have always found the process of paying a young women to donate eggs very appalling from the standpoint they are risking their own ability to bear children someday by having someone insert a device into their felopian tubes.  In the process of trying to conserve our lives, we risks the propagation of our species. 
    That is the real argument against this, not that a few cells in  petri dish are a human.  Viable life does not begin until about 37 weeks gestation.  Premies born earlier are sustained by dramatic medical intervention - that is hardly natural.
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review September/October 2008
How Obama Really Did It
Social technology helped bring him to the brink of the presidency.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology