The Niche

My sister, the stem-cell line

A front-page story in the San Francisco Chronicle describes a new service parents can opt for when getting in vitro fertilization services. Instead of storing, donating, or discarding unimplanted embryos, would-be parents can pay to have these embryos used to make stem cell lines.

This would create stem cell lines that would be the genetic siblings to any of a couple’s children.

The company offering this service, StemLifeLine, says over a dozen families have participated as subjects or paying customers.


A recent US survey found that couples who have had embryos frozen would rather donate them than discard them, but this new option, to pay big money for a very uncertain benefit, has many researchers and ethicists worried.

Though right-to-life groups spend more energy fighting embryonic stem cell research than shutting down IVF clinics, they still object to the fact that IVF clinics make more embryos (3-to-5-day-old, nearly microscopic balls of cells) than will be transferred into women’s wombs. And even those for abortion rights and ESC research don’t like the idea of cavalierly creating embryos.

Others worry that the patients-turned-customers will be mistreated or misled, as regulations that apply to research don’t apply to for-profit services. Scientists who want to make embryonic stem cell lines at academic institutions face intense ethical scrutiny. Others worry less about the impact on individuals as society: the whole notion of being able to make cell cultures that are the genetic grandfathers, cousins, and nieces of each other can upset philosophies of what it is to be a human being and recalls ancient debates confronting the Christian church. ( An issue that Shin-Ichi Nishikawa and Doug Sipp recently explored ) Yet another worry is that reserving embryos for family use means fewer for research and decreases the benefit. Cord blood provides an interesting parallel.

StemLifeLine says that it warns potential clients that it might not be able to derive lines from the embryos supplied (most attempts fail). Clients are also supposed to be aware that the stem cell line will not be a genetic match for either parent or their children, that there is currently no therapeutic use for the cells, and may never be. In fact, other work on embryonic and adult stem cells could make cells derived and stored under today’s technologies obsolete. However, according to the article, StemLifeLine has not made any of its customers available for interviews, nor has it provided a copy of the contract under which it provides the service, so it’s unclear what they do other than sign a check.

This is perhaps more troubling than the technology itself. Free societies thrive on debate and open information. A for-profit company can create and destroy embryos not to advance science but to provide an uncertain medical benefit to certain individuals who may never need treatment, but full disclosure, at least, should be required.

Comments

Comments are closed.