Thirteen Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Approved for Research by NIH

imagesbannerscp_120x1201Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

Thirteen embryonic stem cell lines were approved Wednesday for federally-funded research with assurance from the director of the National Institutes for Health that research on them is ethical and does not violate principles on human dignity and sanctity of life.

“Let me be clear, these are embryos that would have been otherwise discarded as part of in-vitro fertilization clinic activities,” Dr. Francis Collins noted during an appearance Wednesday on CNN.

The NIH director also noted that his federal agency had conducted a “very careful” review of the lines based on the conditions that were set forth in guidelines issued earlier this year and further pointed out that it was former President Bush who first approved the use of stem cell lines for federal researchers to work with.

Notably, however, taxpayer-funded stem cell research under the Bush administration was limited to about 21 embryonic stem cell lines – only those already in existence as of August 2001.

Since then, hundreds of “better lines” have come out, such as the 13 made available Wednesday.

President Barack Obama as he offers remarks Monday, March 9, 2009, in the East Room of the White House before the signing of the Stem Cell Executive Order and Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. (Photo credit: Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama as he offers remarks Monday, March 9, 2009, in the East Room of the White House before the signing of the Stem Cell Executive Order and Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. (Photo credit: Pete Souza)

The NIH’s announcement marked the first time new lines were made available since President Obama lifted the restriction set by Bush that made research on lines created after August 9, 2001, ineligible for federal funding.

According to Collins, another 96 embryonic stem cell lines are currently undergoing NIH review, and 20 or more could get a decision by Friday. Researchers have also notified the NIH that they may apply for approval of another 250 stem cell lines.

Though embryonic stem cells have been highly touted for their potential to lead to breakthroughs in curing diseases such as Parkinson’s, cancer, and paralysis, among others, critics of embryonic stem cell research say lifting the ban on their federal funding could open the door to future abuses and paste “a veneer of ‘ethics’” on unethical experiments.

Critics also point out that embryonic stem cell research has yielded no cures to date. Adult stem cells and neonatal stem cells, meanwhile, have been used in successfully treating over 100 diseases without controversies and have been hailed by some as having many superior qualities to embryonic stem cells.

In his appearance on CNN, Collins acknowledged the lack of progress in the relatively new field but noted that it’s partly because of the limits that have been placed on the research.

“We really don’t know what the potential is here,” he reported. “And I want to be clear that we should be careful not to overstate the likelihood that this approach is going to result in breakthroughs in those diseases. But it is certainly an exciting new pathway.”

Despite the uncertainty, Collins made clear that he believes that it’s far more beneficial to utilize what would otherwise be discarded.

“The embryos are being created anyway with a benevolent purpose to try to give a childless couple a chance to have a baby. It does seems to me, as a believer, as a Christian, that it’s more ethically acceptable – as long as the consent process was carefully followed and it’s clear that no payment was involved, there was not coercion involved. It was the free gift of the donors to make this available for research. That seems to me to measure up to ethical standards that are quite defensible from whatever your worldview,” he stated.

In continuing, Collins said: “The question that many ethicists have posed and people both of faith and people who come at it from a different perspective have concluded that in fact, ethically, isn’t it more justifiable if those embryos that have been created to use them for a purpose that might help someone with a disease as opposed to simply discarding them?

“It seems to me with that kind of argument, even those who feel strongly about the sanctity of life, when asked to balance the pros and cons of discarding versus trying to do something useful to honor that particular source of human material would say ‘Maybe we’re better off doing what we’ve done,’” he added.

With Wednesday’s announcement, researchers who were awarded $21 million in stem cell research grants earlier this year can start using the approved lines immediately. Millions more in stem cell money, meanwhile, is due out later this winter.

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • WXRGina
    I'm sick of this disgusting argument that, "these are embryos that would be discarded anyway, so why not experiment on them?" We have fallen to the point that people's minds are so blinded to truth that this pathetic and evil argument actually makes sense to many. Just the fact that they say the tiny babies would just be "discarded anyway" is wretched; each little embryo person should be given a proper burial, not end up in a biohazard bag.

    And, Dr. Theo is right, here is another corrupt governmental cash cow being spawned.

    There is nothing in any of this embryonic stem cell research but infernal darkness, and cursed is the country that embraces it.
  • Your point is spot on, Gina, and trumps any of the scientific arguments on either side of the issue. God bless you.
  • WXRGina
    Bless you and thank you, Dr. Theo. Your words mean very much to me.
  • brianrutledge
    Gina I respect your anti-abortion stance, but don't understand why you would say the 'discarded' embryos should be given a proper burial and just leave it at that. I would think you would consider the entire process of in vitro-fertilization murder, as you do abortion, and take the absolute stance that anyone involved in it, is committing murder just as in abortion, since embryos are killed each time IVF is done. . I would think you would always mention abortion and in vitro fertilization in the same breath, because murder is murder. If you feel abortionists are murderers, then you must also feel all doctors performing IVF murderers as well. Do you ?
  • WXRGina
    Yes, Brian. I am pretty much a "purist" when it comes to messing with embryos in any way. Just because I haven't mentioned turkey baster fertilization, and all the "extra" tiny babies it produces, doesn't mean I approve of it. My thoughts on this are quite consistent.

    It may be time for us to re-read "Brave New World," if we haven't lately. That work of prophetic fiction was all about "test tube babies" and the evil results of social engineering.
  • brianrutledge
    Gina I appreciate your honesty in saying that you do feel all IVF doctors are murderers, just like abortionists, because very few will just come out and say it. They will use euphemisms like 'they don't approve of it' or that 'they have a problem with it also', but won't call them murderers like they do the abortion doctors.
  • ESC will soon become a protected area of research and another rat hole for dumping buckets-full of tax dollars and that benefit only a few elite. We'll see a lying mess of corruption just like we are seeing in the AGW expose. Any safe-guards now in place will be thrown aside at the first opportunity.

    I'll predict that ESC will result in no medical therapies that can't be done more safely and inexpensively with ASC.
  • julien
    hESCs have only been obtained about 10 years ago (Thomson et al., 1998). If you only consider the pharma industry, in which 15 years of R&D are necessary between the discovery of a new drug and its FDA approval (that sometimes is not even given) one can not say that hESC are useless. Maybe there are, maybe not, more time is required to judge it.
    In addition, hESC research has already provided hiPS, which are one of the most promising way currently for application in human health.
    Recently, a study in The Lancet indicated that functional human skin had been produced from hESC and could constitute an interesting substitute for people sufferfin from burning injuries. They have passed pre-clinical studies and will enter clinical tests within the next year...
    Clinical test are also ongoing regarding hESC to cure spinal cord injuries.
  • The first embryonic cell lines were developed at the University of Wisconsin in 1998, and that used information from earlier research dating back into the 50s. I think we should have expected some major therapeutic breakthroughs in hESC since that time, especially since most of the major drug companies have bases outside the US and have been free to pursue this very promising line of research [sarc].

    The study discussed in Lancet and referenced above, used five "immunodeficient" mice to grow skin from ESC over twelve weeks. This might be good news to rodent burn victims with immunodeficiencies who are not expected to live long but hardly a breakthrough for ESC therapies in general.

    Human induced pleuripotential stem cells (hiPS) are derived from human ADULT stem cells, the most promising from skin. This is a very good reason to invest further in ASC research, but doesn't do much for the ESC camp.

    Can you tell us the status of the ongoing clinical tests using hESC to cure spinal cord injuries? Do you know of any human clinical tests, or is it only in mice and rats?





  • julien
    Dear Theo,

    To what informations from the 1950s are you refering precisely for hESC?

    The lancet study was preclinical, as I said, so performed on mice. However, skin cells from hESC could still be used on human because of their reduced expression of MHC antigens, for short term treatment following burning, before autologous grafts (as you are a scientist, you can find more details in the discussion part of the article).

    Actually you are a bit wrong with iPS, they can be obtained from pretty much every type of cells, even fully differentiated ones such as mature lymphocytes or pancreatic beta-cells (Hanna et al., Cell, 2008; Statdfelf et al., curr Biol, 2008).

    Now, you say gvt should keep investing in ASC research, and I totally agree with you.
    However, please tell me how could have ASC research end up finding the way to reprogram a differentiated cells into a pluripotent one (ie into hiPS)?

    By definition, ASC are NOT pluripotent, hESC are. And the deep understanding Yamanaka and others gained on what is required for a human cell to be maintained in a pluripotent state came after years of research on hESC by scientists all around the world.
    hiPS are currently a very promising approach in cell therapy, and their discovery was build up on previous work with hESC...not with ASC...

    In addition, hESC are not only useful for cell therapy. Currently they are also increasingly being used by pharma industries (Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Pfizer...) to modelize human tissues in drug screening.

    Finally, I think either you have left-over embryos after in vitro fertilization, and it is still better to use them to potentially save life than discard them. Either it seems logical to think that these embryos should not be produced in the first place, and then you should also oppose ART clinics, and in vitro fertilization...
  • brianrutledge
    dr theo What you say may or may not come to fruition. No matter, Dr. Collins genuine plea, that rather than to dump the 16 cell embryos in the trash, as opposed to at least seeing if ESCR has a future at all, makes a point that should be discussed..
blog comments powered by Disqus