The Erasure of Egg Providers in Stem Cell Science

Introduction

According to many accounts stem cell science is the Holy Grail of medicine, promising new and effective ways to treat dreaded diseases and to rejuvenate failing organs.¹ Stem cells’ pluripotency—their ability in response to chemical signals to become any of the many cell types in the human body—is believed to be their key to reversing the profound conditions of aging that limit people’s independence and mobility. Praise for stem cell research has come from diverse quarters, most prominently the medical and scientific research professions, which have vowed to influence the political debate in favor of increased public funding for this work.² Recent developments indicate some success in this direction. In March of 2009 President Barack Obama lifted Bush-era restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research, and individual states continue to invest heavily in this area. There is optimism that a better understanding of stem cell science will provide enormous clinical benefit to all.

Although stem cells originate from three sources—adult cells, fetal cells, and embryos—some scientists believe that embryonic stem cells hold the most promise because of their superior clonality and plasticity, that is, their ability to “divide and multiply in [their] undifferentiated state” and to “give rise to more specialised differentiated cells.”³ Embryonic stem cells come from four different sources: embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (ivf), embryos from miscarriages and abortions, stem cell lines derived originally from embryos, and cloned embryos.⁴ There is currently little public support for creating fertilized embryos solely for research purposes.⁵

As is the case with many technological innovations in medicine, disputes have arisen over what limits should be placed on stem cell research. The most salient point of disagreement exists between those who support expansive public funding of all forms of this research and those who oppose embryonic stem cell research because the removal of stem cells from human embryos renders them incapable of gestation. Since most embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are left over from infertility treatment and would otherwise remain frozen or be discarded, critics of this research object most strenuously to using cloning technology in stem cell research, since it “requires the deliberate creation and disaggregation” of human embryos.⁶ Proponents of research cloning not only emphasize its potential to lead to cures for disease but extol especially its unique promise of improved organ transplantation therapies: “By creating cells or tissues for which the recipient provides the somatic cell nucleus for the cloning procedure, it is possible to generate immunologically compatible tissue or organs.”⁷

Concern about the treatment of embryos in stem cell research led former President George W. Bush in 2001 to restrict federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Bush had limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to a small number of cell lines created before August 9, 2001, the date of his announcement. Bush’s policy was guided by the perspective that the embryo is sacred. In a related initiative some four years later Bush decided to fund embryo donation awareness campaigns.⁸ The use of the term embryo adoption in this context is of concern to many who fear that anti-abortion politics lie behind positions against embryonic stem cell research.⁹

After federal monetary support for embryonic stem cell research became unavailable, and Congress legislated restrictions on federal funding for it, several states made public funds available for embryonic stem cell research.¹⁰ The articulated rationale for such funding has been primarily the fight against disease, but states funding stem cell research also hope to attract industry, generate new business to help prop up ailing economies, and be at the forefront of scientific breakthroughs.¹¹ Arguments for funding stem cell research have in part, then, a patriotic aspect, warning against falling behind in the global race for supremacy in stem cell science.¹²

The federal government has now reversed course. In lifting the Bush-era restrictions, President Obama expressed his view that scientific decisions should be based on facts instead of ideology.¹³ He did, however, strike a note of...