CRITICS SOUND ALARM OVER `MASTER CELL' TECHNOLOGY

PA 06.11.98 15:53


Copyright 1998 PA News. Copying, storing, redistribution, retransmission, publication, transfer or commerical exploitation of this information is expressly forbidden.


By John von Radowitz, Science Correspondent, PA News
Warnings were sounded today over the pandora's box opened by scientists who have cultivated human "master" cells, paving the way to growing any type of human tissue in the laboratory.
The breakthrough, described as the most dramatic since the birth of Dolly the sheep clone, could herald a revolution in medicine, transplant surgery and genetic engineering.
Two groups of American researchers have succeeded in growing human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory. These are the undeveloped parents of all the tissues in the body with the potential to become anything at all - including skin, bone, muscle, blood, nerves and organs.
The scientists predict that in 10 years or so spare part tissue and perhaps even whole organs will be produced from scratch from laboratory cultures of embryonic stem cells.
But critics today warned of sinister implications - such as genetically tampering with stem cells to produce "perfect" babies or human clones - and argued that research involving the dismembering of embryos was immoral.
One team, led by Dr James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in Wisconsin, isolated stem cells from early stage fertilised embryos left over from IVF treatment after obtaining written permission from the patients.
The other group led by Professor John Gearhart from Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore, Maryland, used a different technique to cultivate stem cells from the dead tissue of aborted foetuses.
Dr Patrick Dixon, author of Futurewise, which warns of the dangers of unchecked science, said that together, stem cell and genetic research could pose a serious threat if allowed to race out of control.
He said: "The question is - could you combine stem cell technology with Dolly cloning technology? - and the answer is yes.
"Theoretically you could encourage stem cells to produce an unlimited number of sperm or egg cells which could be engineered to contain supergenes and put on the market. They'd have enhanced physical, mental or other characteristics which would be carried on to the next generation.
"You could also take stem cells from the embryo, re-programme them, and then re-implant them so you end up with a genetically altered embryo.
"Master-race technology is here, and I'm saying there are monumental ethical issues involved and many questions to be answered. We have to recognise the quite remarkable speed at which all this is happening.
"Governments at the moment are like rabbits caught in the headlights. They are in a spin about how to cope with the onslaught of these different issues."
He said a biotechnology summit of world leaders was needed to establish how such research should be regulated on a global scale.
Both the anti-abortion charity Life and the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (Spuc) were wholly opposed to the stem cell research.
Jack Scarisbrick, national chairman of Life, said: "It is morally unacceptable because it involves the deliberate destruction of a human being. It's a form of cannibalism. We're not against medical advances but if you go down this path you end up in moral chaos. We don't need to go down this hi-tech Brave New World route."
A spokesman for Spuc said: "The question is not simply what is possible, but what is ethical. Although you might end up saving lives by providing people with transplant organs the end does not justify the means. The ethical price is too high."
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which governs fertility treatment and research said it was questionable whether the American research would be allowed in Britain under the current law.
For research involving the use of human embryos to be licensed it has to meet certain legal criteria which do not quite fit what the Americans are doing. A spokesman said: "I don't think it would be allowed here."
Many experts believe the current rules enshrined in the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act are out of date.
A case for widening the Act to take account of the latest developments is likely to be submitted to ministers within the next few months.

Overview