Juan Ameen
The EU Council of Ministers recently approved funding for embryonic stem cell research under the seventh framework programme.
On ethical grounds, Malta, along with Austria, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia were against the controversial research and voted against it. Germany, Italy and Slovenia had a change of heart and decided to vote in favour.
The stand taken by the Maltese government is that it is against “any form of human embryonic stem cell extraction from live, even frozen embryos” and “firmly believes that all research should be subject to the necessary ethical approvals”.
However, the Maltese government does not find any ethical problems in using adult or cord blood stem cells for research.
Research involving the use of embryonic stem cells should not be included in the scope of EU publicly funded research programmes.
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 and not those procured medically or left over from in-vitro fertilisations, even if frozen.
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.
Even though funding for embryonic stem cell research was approved, the large majority of experts here are against the ruling.
Expert in biomedical ethics Pierre Mallia said he agreed on the whole with the position taken by the Maltese government.
“However, one must realise that what is wrong is not embryonic stem cell research per se, but the killing of embryos to obtain those stem cells,” he said.
Dr Mallia said that certain issues needed to be considered. “The first is encouraging people to adopt the existing frozen embryos which are awaiting their destination to be used either for research or killed.”
He pointed out that everyone is responsible for the fate of frozen embryos. “Certainly adopting these frozen embryos instead of allowing them to die cannot be morally wrong.”
Dr Mallia suggested using research funds to resolve issues of ownership by labs and parents for the release of frozen embryos.
“Secondly, I had suggested to the government the plausibility of studying the technicality and morality of using stem cells obtained from frozen embryos after they have been killed.”
He said that while freezing embryos might be wrong, “studying the fate of existing ones is another matter.”
Dr Mallia explained that during the thawing phase, there may be a time when the embryos are not longer viable, but the stem cells are. “This would not entail condoning the freezing of embryos.”
However, he admitted that it is a double-edged sword, as “one has to strongly believe that at the end of the day, one is not favouring or hastening the killing of these embryos.”
“My position as a Catholic bio-ethicist, is that while I may not eagerly wait for someone to decide to kill frozen embryos and certainly will do all in my power to prevent this from happening, once it does happen I do not see anything wrong in using the remaining stem cells,” he said. “Certainly one cannot be held morally responsible for their death, as it is different from creating embryos for the sole purpose of creating embryonic stem cells.”
Social Affairs Committee chairman Clyde Puli pointed out he does not agree with funds used for stem cell research, as “it is an imposition of values on countries which have different values”.
“After all, an embryo is a life – it cannot be used in stem cell research.”
An expert in biotechnology pointed out that researchers are not yet sure that embryonic stem cells can be used as a cure and that the funding could be diverted elsewhere. In fact, he pointed out that in a recent article published in the medical journal Scientific American, stem cells were a possible cause of cancer.
“It is better if the funding used for embryonic stem cell research is used for organ stem cells instead of pluripotent stem cells,” he added. Organ stem cell is more successful than pluripotent stem cell research.
Professor Emmanuel Agius said that while he agrees with the use of cord and adult stem cells, he is against the use of embryonic stem cells.
“It is the destruction of human life and it is quite clear that research has prevailed over the value of human life,” he added. “I am all in favour of research but the end does not justify the means.”
A life cannot be used, even in its early stages, to improve the life of others, he said.
Commissioner for Children Sonia Camilleri said the compromise recently passed at EU Parliament on embryonic stem cell research could not be accepted as one can never justify destroying a child to help another person.
Everyone is committed to defending the life of children and providing all that is “in our power to fight any health risks they might come across,” she said.
Mrs Camilleri pointed out that Maltese law includes provisions in the Commissioner for Children Act and the recently enacted Domestic Violence act for the equal protection of the child, even at the embryonic stage.
Continues on page 7
Continued from page 6
“In this light, the best proposal remains that of increasing funding for human adult stem cell research with the aim of procuring further therapeutic results,” she said.
Many countries are opposed to research, but scientists say the cells are key to treating diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potocknik said that although the EU will not fund the research itself, the destruction of the embryo was an inevitable phase in the process. The EU will finance the “subsequent steps to make use of the cells,” said Mr Potocknik.
The eight countries could have blocked adoption of the EU’s €54 billion-research budget, of which stem cell research forms a very small part.
The Maltese Church also expressed its “dismay” at the decision taken by the European Parliament, “which promotes the instrumentalisation and destruction of human embryos”.
Similar research “is not acceptable for ethical and moral reasons which touch on the protection of life and human dignity”. Funding should not only be prohibited, but totally excluded, the Church added.
According a Eurobarometer survey published last month, only two per cent of Maltese replied they were familiar with the stem cell research, while 49 per cent said they were not at all familiar with the issue.
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.
Sweden, Finland, Greece, The Netherlands and the UK allow stem cells to be harvested from “spare” IVF embryos.
Stem cell research would receive only a small fraction of the EU science budget of some e56 billion for 2007–2013.
Stem cells: the debate
As the EU approves funding for research in the use of stem cells to develop cures for diseases such as motor neurone disease, we take a look at the history of stem cell research and the controversy that surrounds it.
The reason why scientists are so eager to research stem cells is because, in the human body, these cells have the ability to mutate and divide to replace dying cells and regenerate dying tissue. This obviously offers the possibility of changing the face of medicine forever, with the potential to grow new organs and repair specific tissues. They have also been cited as possible cures for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and diabetes.
Stem cell research is known to have started as early as the 1960s, when Canadian scientists Ernest McCulloch and James Till injected bone marrow into irradiated mice. After finding nodules had formed on the mice’s spleens, they ascertained that each nodule had arisen from a single marrow cell – a stem cell.
Later, as scientists found adult stem cells were difficult to find and even harder to work with, preference was given to using embryonic stem cells. These are cultured cells obtained from an early stage embryo, sometimes called a blastocyst, which is made up of between 50 to 150 cells.
In 2003, a Korean team took several egg cells and the cells that surround them (cumulus cells) from 16 women. The nucleus (where all the information about a cell is contained) was extracted from the egg cell and was replaced with the nucleus of the cumulus (or stem) cell. The egg cell was activated using a small electric shock and a chemical reaction to start it growing, as if fertilised by a sperm cell. This growth and reproduction is called a stem cell line, a family of constantly dividing cells, the product of a single parent group of stem cells.
The Koreans stopped the line after five to seven days, when it had reached the blastocyst stage. They then removed some of the stem cells and proceeded to grow these even further, giving the scientific community hope that one day medicine might be able to grow these cells into tissues.
British scientists carried out similar experiments in 2005, but the procedure was stopped after five days without removing any cloned cells from the blastocyst.
Obviously the controversy over this research arises over the use of human embryos. With the present state of technology, a human embryo has to be destroyed before a stem line can begin. Pro-life movements have asserted their opposition to this procedure, stating their concerns over the rights of embryos as early-human life. Other groups are also fearful that this technology could lead to cloning.
In the recent EU debates over funding, Germany, whose Chancellor, Angela Merkel, chairwoman of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), pushed for a total ban on EU funding for embryonic stem cell research. They were supported by Poland, Austria, Malta, Slovakia and Lithuania, typically Catholic countries.
Eventually a compromise was reached after it was decided that no EU funding would go towards any research where human embryos were destroyed.
In the United States, George Bush, also used his personal veto recently to stop a controversial bill that would have seen a ban on US federal funding for stem cell research lifted. Instead, strict new measures were brought in to protect human embryos. This is in keeping with George Bush’s track record of introducing legislation that has sparked debate, such as blocking federal aid to foreign groups offering counsel or any other assistance to women in obtaining abortions and channelling more federal aid to faith-based service organisations.
However, this move by the President could be beneficial for the EU, as many people have speculated that scientists, “disillusioned” by the US system of regulation, could move to the old continent because of its more liberal laws regarding stem cell research. Leading experts regard Bush’s stance on this subject as “very negative” and have welcomed Europe’s “move forward”.
The EU’s decision to go ahead with partial funding has also been criticised. Prof. Stephen Hawkings, a renowned scientist at Cambridge University, who has motor neurone disease, called the compromise a “fudge”. He pointed out that many unused embryos are thrown out in IVF treatment and that these embryos could be used “to save lives”. He expressed the hope that these regulations would “place no practical limits on stem cell research”.