Has Robert Lanza Solved the Embryonic Stem Cell Research Dilemma?

By Barrett Duke - Aug 25, 2006 - 3

In the recent volume of the journal Nature, researcher Dr. Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technologies proposes a process for deriving totipotent stem cells from 8-celled human embryos that does not harm the embryo1. While we appreciate Dr. Lanza’s effort to find a way around the unacceptable destruction of human embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells, we do not consider his solution to be viable. We raise the following objections to his efforts:

  1. The embryo could be destroyed in the process, and currently embryos are being destroyed in this process.
  2. If one implants an embryo that has had a cell removed at its 8-cell stage, which is what Dr. Lanza proposes, the embryo is absent about 12% of its original genetic material as it divides to form a mature human being. No one knows yet the consequences of this loss. The process is the same that occurs in preimplantation diagnoses for genetic defects. In that process, a cell is removed at around the 8-cell stage to determine whether or not there are indications of genetic problems, like Downs Syndrome. The cell-depleted embryo can then be implanted if desired. This testing and subsequent implantation has been occurring for about 10 years, and apparently healthy babies have been born. But the effects of the loss of 12% of their genetic material may not show up until the person becomes much older. Consequently, we cannot know the effects on humans who have had a cell removed at this early stage of development.
  3. It is believed that sometimes a single cell does separate at this early stage naturally and creates a twin. Because these are totipotential cells, twinning will occur when a single cell is removed surgically as well. The single totipotential cell will begin to form an embryo but that process will be disrupted by the researcher, essentially destroying the twin.
  4. Dr. Lanza suggests that his proposed procedure can be conducted on cells that have been removed previously from an 8-cell embryo. Cells are removed at this stage in IVF clinics to conduct preimplantation diagnoses for certain genetic defects or diseases. He argues that these cells were already extracted and therefore were going to be discarded anyway. However, the cells are destroyed when their genetic material is extracted to test for genetic defects. The only way a stem cell line could be derived from these cells is for them to be coaxed to divide, yielding a cell for genetic testing and a cell for embryonic stem cell research. Since these new cells are totipotential, they create the same dilemma as before—they will begin to form an embryo. When one dismantles these cells or interrupts their development, they are killing a newly-forming embryo.

The promise of stem cells is vast. God has put at our discretion the ability to develop a set of tools to help us fix some of humanity’s most devastating maladies. We must remember, however, that we must not sacrifice our humanity in order to achieve these great advances. To sacrifice the most vulnerable of our species for the benefit of the rest is too high a price to pay. Today’s scientists must move forward on a solid ethical footing or they risk falling into the same pit that doomed many of Nazi Germany’s scientists to a legacy of disgust and moral outrage. We do not need to destroy, or even put at risk, human embryos in order to achieve the wonderful promise of stem cell therapy. Stem cells derived from non-embryonic sources are already being used to treat and cure more than 70 human maladies. We applaud those scientists who are determined to advance our knowledge and our ability to assist our fellow humans in a way that respects all life, regardless of its age or condition. May God grant them great wisdom and success in their efforts.

1 Some describe this early stage as a pre-embryonic stage, however, this distinction merely confuses the issue. From the moment of conception, a human being is developing. We have chosen to continue to describe this 8-cell stage as an embryo in an effort to retain the sense of this person’s humanity.

Special thanks to ERLC Research Institute Fellows Dr. C. Ben Mitchell and Dr. Don Buckley for their expertise and counsel in the development of this response.

Also, please view the related NY Times and Washington Times articles.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Stem-Cell Research, Citizenship, Social Issues, Science, Issues

3 comments (post your own) feed

1 On Oct 24th, 2006, at 9:14am, Kerri wrote:

Why not allow science to use the embryos stored in freezers across the country, since they will be discarded and destroyed anyway?  Since I don’t see droves of SBC women lining up to emplant these ‘babies,’ I don’t understand why they can’t be used for some good.

Secondly, as Mr. Duke closes out his article (above) with the statement that we must not sacrifice our humanity in order to achieve these great medical advances, it would seem that the SBC’s stance on fertility treatment (clinics, drugs, etc.) would be just as firm as its stance on stem cell research, as several potential lives are often destroyed for the sake of one viable pregnancy.

2 On Oct 24th, 2006, at 2:39pm, Arden wrote:

Kerri, your first point/question makes an assumption that is not true.  The frozen embryos have NOT been thrown away, because the parents want to keep them, or have not signed off to have them destroyed.  Secondly, there is another alternative for these embryos, now dubbed “snowflakes”: adoption.  There is a growing effort to find parents for these embryos, and indeed many have been implanted and given life.  There are many women who want to adopt them; they only lack the opportunity. 
Your second point is well-taken.  While I cannot speak for the SBC, I am not in favor of the fertility treatment methods that caused this backlog of fertilized eggs. Many infertile couples were not adequately informed by their doctors of the implications of their choices.  That does not make it right to destroy these fertilized embryos, when there are many willing to welcome them into their homes.  I wonder, Kerri; do you have room in your heart to give life to one of them?
God be with you.

3 On Oct 25th, 2006, at 11:41am, Conan wrote:

Arden,

Are you boycotting these fertilization clinics, since they accomplish the same end result as an abortion clinic ?

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com