Dr. William Hurlbut, a bioethicist, is a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics (PCBE) and is staunchly pro-life, (as is Leon Kass, the head of the PCBE.) Some time ago, Dr. Hurlbut had an idea he hopes will provide a way around the controversy regarding embryonic stem cell research (ESCR.) If his idea works, it will be possible to obtain embryonic stem cells (ESCs) without harming embryos.* In and of itself, there is nothing fishy about his having such an idea.
However, when you look at it a little more closely, questions arise. One of the first that comes to mind is, why have I heard about this? Let’s face it – this is only an idea, nothing more. Indeed, in the words of the PCBE itself, in its May 2005 White Paper: Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells, Dr. Hurlbut’s idea is “as yet untested experimentally (even in animals.)” Ordinarily, we don’t hear about research until it is finished, subjected to rigorous peer review and published in a respected scientific journal. Then it hits the papers. Can you imagine what life would be like if we were informed of every idea that was born in the scientific community? There would be no room for any other news.
So the fact that Hurlbut’s idea (along with one other) was announced to the country last winter with significant coverage in at least two major papers – the Boston Globe (11/21/04) and the Washington Post (12/3/04) – and was covered again in June of this year in Wired, not to mention the 184 hits a search on “Dr. William Hurlbut” +alternative yields on Google, begs the question - why? Let’s not forget, not only has zero research actually been done on these ideas, but Dr. Hurlbut is not even a scientist. How on earth could a non-scientist with a mere idea get the kind of coverage generally reserved for huge scientific discoveries in two major media outlets?
And there is more. Since November, Hurlbut has been traipsing around the country looking for support for his idea from religious leaders and others. But…why? Ordinarily, when a scientist has an idea for a research project, she or he writes a grant, secures funding, and does the study. It couldn’t be a question of whether such an experiment would be eligible for federal funding because it would have to be done in animals, first – there is plenty of federal funding available for research on animals. So why doesn’t Hurlbut find an actual scientist to undertake his experiment, secure funding, and get to work?
The only explanation I can come up with is that Hurlbut’s goal is not, as he says, to get this research undertaken – his goal is to publicize the idea and get it onto the internet and into newspapers all over the country; plant a seed in the minds of those who are only listening with half an ear that there is an alternative, that ESCR is really unnecessary, and thereby increase the misinformed base of support for the marginalization or elimination of ESCR.
That would be one goal of Hurlbut's crusade, but it was and is also intended to lay the groundwork for a more overarching goal: to derail the votes in the House and the Senate on HR 810, a bill that would expand federal funding for ESCR. It could not possibly be a coincidence that the PCBE published its White Paper, which announced four ideas, including Hurlbut's, theorizing alternative methods for obtaining ESCs, in the very same month House Majority Leader Tom DeLay finally allowed HR 810 to come to a vote. And because of Hurlbut's crusade, the White Paper has received plenty of advance press, all over the country. This is just the next step in a long series of political moves using inaccurate and misleading information (plenty of information on that subject on my blog) to convince the public that ESCR is unnecessary in an effort to create an atmosphere that would be amenable to retaining, or even expanding, restrictions on it.
The irony is that in choosing to promote research ideas, hypotheses, as its next step, the right is fixing the searchlight full force on the hypocrisy of its own anti-ESCR soundbites, which have been repeated like mantras since 2001.
One of those mantras is “false hopes.” All those irresponsible people, goes the mantra, who are “hyping” ESCR are giving those poor sick folk false hopes by leading them to believe that cures and treatments are right around the corner
But what about Hurlbut, et. al.? When it comes to these totally hypothetical ideas, they can’t be about anything BUT hope. Hope, quite literally, is all there is, because right now there is no research at all to support these hypotheses.
Another, particularly inane, mantra is "there are no guarantees that ESCR will ever yield anything,” First of all, does it even bear saying that there are never any guarantees that any medical research will yield results? And, secondly, Hurlbut and friends' experiments would be no different from any other – i.e., no guarantees – but that is not stopping the right from shouting the “news” from the rooftops. Suddenly, who needs guarantees?
Likewise with “even if ESCR does someday yield results, it won’t be for years and years.” With Hurlbut and company's completely untested ideas, there is virtually no mention of the fact that these hypotheses are even further from fruition (if they ever come to fruition) than your average ESCR.
I don’t see myself as particularly adept at reading between the lines, but, quite honestly, such a talent would be wasted here. Hurlbut’s crusade fairly screams “propaganda,” and the PCBE’s and the right’s support of it puts their hypocrisy on parade.
Fortunately, for whatever reason, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist recently broke with President Bush and announced his support for expanded federal funding for ESCR. If enough senators follow their career compasses or their consciences now (it matters not to me which it is) we just might end up with a federal policy on ESCR that actually reflects the will of the people.
If not, the right will go on stealing hope, time, and potentially much more, from those who need them most.
This post is also available at Blogger News Network.
*please see below for a short description of Dr. Hurlbut's idea.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Dr. William Hurlbut and Altered Nuclear Transfer
This entry is sort of an appendix to the entry entitled "Hurlbut, Bioethics and Hypocrisy." If you are unfamiliar with somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), you might want to read SCNT 101 (below) before you read this.
Dr. Hurlbut’s idea would use a slightly modified version of SCNT (which they give a different name, altered nuclear transfer, or ANT) to create what the PCBE calls a “biological artifact.”
Hurlbut theorizes that it might be possible to make genetic alterations in the somatic cell before it is transferred into the egg such that the resulting entity would not have the ability to form past a certain point, and therefore would never have had the potential to become a fully formed human being. For example, “the altered nucleus might be engineered to lack a gene or genes that are crucial for the cell-to-cell signaling and integrated organization essential for (normal) embryogenesis” PCBE White Paper, May 2005.
The resulting “biological artifact” would never have been a living organism, says the PCBE, and therefore its destruction by the extraction of stem cells would be perfectly acceptable. The genetic alteration would then have to be reversed in the extracted cells, but after that, they would be normal, pluripotent stem cells – or so says Hurlbut’s hypothesis.
For a full description of this idea, along with three others, along with analysis of the ethical questions surrounding each idea, please read the PCBE’s May 2005 White Paper entitled Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells.
Dr. Hurlbut’s idea would use a slightly modified version of SCNT (which they give a different name, altered nuclear transfer, or ANT) to create what the PCBE calls a “biological artifact.”
Hurlbut theorizes that it might be possible to make genetic alterations in the somatic cell before it is transferred into the egg such that the resulting entity would not have the ability to form past a certain point, and therefore would never have had the potential to become a fully formed human being. For example, “the altered nucleus might be engineered to lack a gene or genes that are crucial for the cell-to-cell signaling and integrated organization essential for (normal) embryogenesis” PCBE White Paper, May 2005.
The resulting “biological artifact” would never have been a living organism, says the PCBE, and therefore its destruction by the extraction of stem cells would be perfectly acceptable. The genetic alteration would then have to be reversed in the extracted cells, but after that, they would be normal, pluripotent stem cells – or so says Hurlbut’s hypothesis.
For a full description of this idea, along with three others, along with analysis of the ethical questions surrounding each idea, please read the PCBE’s May 2005 White Paper entitled Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells.
DNA Cloning and Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer – a.k.a. SCNT 101
It might be surprising to some to learn that there is more than one kind of cloning. That is why it is important to differentiate between them by referring to them by their actual names rather than the umbrella term “cloning.”
DNA cloning, recombinant DNA, gene cloning – these all refer the “the production of many identical copies of a specific DNA fragment.” merckmedicus.com
However, when the word “clone” in any of its forms is used these days, what is being referred to is another kind of cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT.
All of the cells in the body, with the exception of one type of cell, contain two strands of DNA – one from each parent – they are thus known as diploid (they are also known as somatic.) The exceptions are gametes, also known as germ cells, i.e., egg and sperm cells. They are haploid, i.e., they only have one strand of DNA, so that one day, when the egg and sperm merge, they will form a single cell, known as a zygote, with precisely the desired number of strands of DNA - two.
With SCNT, there is no sperm involved. Instead, the haploid nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced with a diploid nucleus taken from any other cell in the body, resulting in an unfertilized egg that nonetheless has diploid DNA. If, then, a little bit of electricity is applied to the unfertilized, diploid egg, that somehow jumpstarts the same chemical reactions that are triggered by the completion of the union of egg and sperm, and the egg begins to divide like an embryo would.
Barring any unforeseen difficulties, this entity will continue to divide like an embryo, and on the fourth or fifth day, it will be possible to extract stem cells from it, as would also be possible with an embryo. At this point in time, it is not possible to perform the extraction without destroying the entity or embryo. Alternatively, as with an embryo, in the absence of any interference, and with the provision of a suitable environment, the entity could go on dividing and potentially grow into a fully formed adult. SCNT has been used to produce many animals, including Dolly the sheep and Snuppy the dog. However, at this time, the failure rate on producing animals via SCNT is extremely high – for example, Snuppy was the only success out of 1,000 implantations.
That is a summary of SCNT in my words. NIH says it much more succinctly:
Somatic cell nuclear transfer —The transfer of a cell nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed.
DNA cloning, recombinant DNA, gene cloning – these all refer the “the production of many identical copies of a specific DNA fragment.” merckmedicus.com
However, when the word “clone” in any of its forms is used these days, what is being referred to is another kind of cloning called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT.
All of the cells in the body, with the exception of one type of cell, contain two strands of DNA – one from each parent – they are thus known as diploid (they are also known as somatic.) The exceptions are gametes, also known as germ cells, i.e., egg and sperm cells. They are haploid, i.e., they only have one strand of DNA, so that one day, when the egg and sperm merge, they will form a single cell, known as a zygote, with precisely the desired number of strands of DNA - two.
With SCNT, there is no sperm involved. Instead, the haploid nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced with a diploid nucleus taken from any other cell in the body, resulting in an unfertilized egg that nonetheless has diploid DNA. If, then, a little bit of electricity is applied to the unfertilized, diploid egg, that somehow jumpstarts the same chemical reactions that are triggered by the completion of the union of egg and sperm, and the egg begins to divide like an embryo would.
Barring any unforeseen difficulties, this entity will continue to divide like an embryo, and on the fourth or fifth day, it will be possible to extract stem cells from it, as would also be possible with an embryo. At this point in time, it is not possible to perform the extraction without destroying the entity or embryo. Alternatively, as with an embryo, in the absence of any interference, and with the provision of a suitable environment, the entity could go on dividing and potentially grow into a fully formed adult. SCNT has been used to produce many animals, including Dolly the sheep and Snuppy the dog. However, at this time, the failure rate on producing animals via SCNT is extremely high – for example, Snuppy was the only success out of 1,000 implantations.
That is a summary of SCNT in my words. NIH says it much more succinctly:
Somatic cell nuclear transfer —The transfer of a cell nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)