The debate over the medical merits versus the ethical pitfalls of stem cell research, particularly when involving human embryos, has raged since the technology first came to the fore, while the regulation and use of stem cells in research has been the topic of heated debate in countries across the globe, many of which struggle to formulate their stances on the sensitive issue.
Scientists advocating the use of stem cells in research – be they adult, umbilical cord blood or embryonic – believe the research holds the potential to change the face of disease as we know it, alleviate human suffering and extend longevity. Researchers believe the ramifications of stem cell research hold the potential to treat hundreds of diseases – such as cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s – spinal cord injuries resulting in paralysis, repair muscle damage or even grow new organs genetically – identical to damaged ones.
The technology’s detractors, particularly when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, argue that notwithstanding the potential benefits, such research is tantamount to the instrumentalisation of human beings and should, as such, be unconditionally prohibited.
While the use of adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells is more or less widely accepted, it is in the area of embryonic stem cell research that moral battle flags are waving. But it is in this very area that scientists see the greatest potential. The area is also comparatively new, with adult stem cells having been studied since the 1960s, while human embryonic stem cells were first isolated and put under the microscope in 1998.
Around the world there is an overall agreement that research on adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells are legitimate practices, while embryonic stem cell research has come in for strong opposition, particularly from religious groups, which argue that the technology necessitates the destruction of an embryo.
It must, however, be pointed out that the term human embryonic stem cells is, depending on one’s ethical standpoint, is something of a misnomer. As opposed to an actual embryo or foetus, what is involved is a blastula – a group of 50 and 150 cells created during the first two weeks of pregnancy.
This, however, leads to the seemingly endless argument over the sanctity of human life is established from the moment of conception or at some other point in the development of a human being – ground which has been well-traversed by decades of debate on abortion laws.
Malta’s stance and voting record
Replying to questions forwarded to the Office of the Prime Minister, which holds Science and Technology Policy under its remit, an OPM official confirmed that Malta finds no ethical problems involved in using adult or cord blood stem cells in research.
Nor does Malta have any objection to using embryonic stem cells and stem cell lines derived from naturally aborted embryos or foetuses – as in the case of miscarriages.
Malta, however, firmly opposes “any form of human embryonic stem cell extraction from live, even frozen embryos” and that “Malta firmly believes that all research should be subject to the necessary ethical approvals. In particular, Malta reiterates its position that research involving the use of embryonic stem cells should not be included in the scope of EU publicly-funded research programmes”.
Malta is also opposed to experimentation on existing cell clone lines, available on the market, of human embryonic stem cells.
“In other words,” the OPM explains, “Malta is opposed to research involving embryonic stem cells even if they are cultured clones except if, and only if, the embryonic stem cells or their clones were obtained from embryos or foetuses which have miscarried naturally but not those procured medically or left over from in-vitro fertilisations, even if frozen.”
The question over what research activities will be funded by the EU has arisen, both in terms of EU-wide funding through research protocols, as well as regards individual research programmes and Malta’s voting record on the issue has been consistent.
When the subject was discussed in the Council Research Working Party of 10 November 2005, Malta was one of the member states that voiced its official position on the issue.
Shortly afterward, during the Competitiveness Council meeting of 28-29 November 2005, Italy, Austria, Germany, Malta, Poland and Slovakia endorsed a declaration calling on the Commission to abandon any plans regarding the eligibility for funding of research activities which involve the consumption of human embryos.
The OPM explains: “The delegations also expressed the opinion that such decisions should be left to individual member states and that the EU should fully abide by the principle of subsidiarity and abstain from financing project activities on matters of fundamental ethical principles which differ among member states. Through the declaration the delegations reserved the right to return to Article 6, following the opinion of the European Parliament and the work carried out on the specific programme.”
Yet another prolonged discussion on ethical issues took place at the Council Research Working Party of the 18 January, but the talks had failed to produce an agreement. At the meeting, Malta was again one of the member states that expressed its opposition to research involving embryonic stem cells.
Most recently, at the Council Research Working Party on 19 June convened specifically to discuss the European Parliament amendments on the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), Malta again reiterated its official position on the issue.
Malta’s strong stance was shared at EU level by Germany, Austria, Poland, Slovakia and Italy at a recent meeting of the EU’s 25 science ministers last month in Brussels. The six-nation stance could effectively force countries to eliminate funding for embryonic stem cell research from the EU’s next budget, even with respect to countries, such as the United Kingdom, where such research is legal.
Fifteen other member states are said to have agreed with the motion to fund embryonic stem cell research, while another four remain neutral. Italy’s new Prodi-led centre-left government, however, is considering changing its stance.
Although the coalition of six failed to win enough backing to institute a funding ban, they do hold enough joint voting power in the Council of science ministers to form a ‘blocking minority’. This means they could put the stops on the enactment of the FP7, unless wording is added into the final FP7 document that would ban EU funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Under the previous FP6, eight projects involving human embryonic stem cell research have been funded and nearly 100 involving human adult stem cells have received funding approval.
But for embryonic stem cell research to be funded in the FP7, a final plan must be approved by a qualified majority of the Council’s 25 science ministers and also by the European Parliament.
And although the motion for funding has passed the EP test, the stiff resistance put up by Malta and another five countries could see the funding being permanently blocked.
The European Parliament debate
The EU itself has been, at times, bitterly divided on the issue – both at ministerial level and in the European Parliament.
The debate was highlighted recently in the European Parliament’s discussions on funding for the EU’s next science funding programme for 2007-2013, known as Framework Programme 7 (FP7), where a motion to include funding for embryonic stem cell research within the programme narrowly passed through.
The European Parliament last week backed EUR50 million for research and development between 2007 and 2013 for the EU’s 7th Framework Programme – a highly debatable portion of which will go toward the financing of embryonic stem cell research.
The EP narrowly adopted amendment 66 – 284 votes in favour 249 against and 32 abstentions – which stipulates that financing for research on adult and embryonic stem cells is permissible, depending on the contents of the scientific proposal and the legal framework of the member state where the research is proposed to be carried out.
Malta’s five European parliamentarians all voted against amendment 66.
Another amendment that would have seen financing being limited to embryonic stem cell lines (a family of constantly dividing cells produced from a single embryo that can replicate for long periods of time in vitro, or out of the body) created before 31 December 2003 was rejected by the EP with 255 in favour, 274 against and 35 abstentions.
Yet another amendment calling for a ban of financing via the FP7 of the use of embryos and embryonic stem cells for scientific research was rejected with 238 votes in favour 287 against with 40 abstentions.
The EP, however, made it clear that the FP7 must not finance research aimed at human cloning for reproductive purposes, research intended to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such changes inheritable, or research intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Asked for its reaction to the EP vote’s outcome, the OPM replied that it has noted the EP vote “with regret”.
“Notwithstanding this,” the OPM adds, “Malta intends to retain its firm position on the issue during the discussions to be held in future in the Council, both at Working Party level, as well as at Council level. Malta will continue to follow the matter very closely, and will consider the possibility of a compromise text on the subject, as long as those issues which are considered of fundamental importance to Malta are included.”
Maltese perceptions – two per cent feel informed on the subject
According to an EU-wide survey published by Eurobarometer – the EU’s public opinion agency – just this week, only two per cent of Maltese replied they were familiar with the stem cell research, while nearly half (49 per cent) said they were not at all familiar with the issue. This corresponds with respective EU-wide replies of four per cent and 32 per cent.
Focusing on the embryonic stem cell research aspect, nine per cent of Maltese said they would approve of such research with the usual level of government regulation, while 29 per cent said they simply did not know.
Asked whether “Immediately after fertilisation the embryo can already be considered to be a human being,” no less than 42 per cent of Maltese agreed with the statement, 27 per cent tended to agree, while two per cent totally disagreed.