OHSU Photos

Shoukhrat Mitalipov and his research team at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) are back in the news with a big announcement: They have become the first scientists to create human embryonic stem cells using a cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT. Scientists have been unsuccessfully attempting this feat for over a decade; indeed, many had given up in favor of work with induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. The success raises questions about which kind of stem cells will drive research on regenerative medicine, as well as significant concern about human reproductive cloning and the use of women’s eggs that cloning requires.

Mitalipov and his team were recently in the news for their research on mitochondria replacement techniques, which raises serious concerns because it involves a form of inheritable human genetic modification. The media however paid more attention to yesterday's announcement. The cloning paper, published in Cell on Wednesday, prompted a range of assessments. It was called a “landmark” discovery here and here, but scientists quoted here and here were far more restrained.

A stem-cell showdown

Much of the news coverage reflects surprise that scientists are still investigating cloning techniques at all, since  iPS cells appear to provide disease-specific and patient-specific lines while avoiding many of the technical difficulties and ethical quandaries of SCNT. Unlike cloning-derived ESCs, iPS cells don’t necessitate the retrieval of eggs from women, or the production of cloned embryos that could be misused in efforts at reproductive cloning. Understandably, many comparisons are now being made between the two methods (Nature called it a “showdown”).

New Scientist reported that tissues made with iPS cells have tended “to accumulate mutations and suffer abnormal patterns of gene activation.” But not everyone is convinced that making stem cells through cloning will soon – if ever – become medically useful. Carolyn Johnson at the Boston Globe commented that “the discovery would no doubt be a bigger deal if in 2007, scientists had not discovered that there was a different, simpler way to create stem cells that bear a patient’s own genome and are pluripotent, possessing the capacity to develop into any of the myriad cells and tissues in the body.” David Brown of the Washington Post also noted that “few experts think that production of stem cells through cloning is likely to be medically useful soon, or possibly ever,” and quoted MIT biologist Rudolf Jaenisch’s opinion that the study “has no clinical relevance.”

George Daley, a stem cell expert at Children’s Hospital Boston, notes that, “it’s essential to compare the cells from the two methods.”  According to Nature, Mitalipov and his team are already doing exactly that – conducting a study of comparisons between iPS and SCNT cells derived from the same donor cell. There will certainly be ongoing updates on this front.

Reproductive human cloning?

The Center for Genetics and Society raised the issue of human reproductive cloning in a press statement, and pointed out that the United States – unlike some 60 other countries – still has no federal prohibition against it. “If we're going to be having cloned embryos in laboratories around the country, said CGS’s Marcy Darnovsky, “we really need to get our act together and have a law that prohibits human reproductive cloning.” GenomeWeb picked up this argument here, and NPR looks at the prospects on the policy landscape here.

Many other news outlets also voiced concern that the SCNT work could be used to attempt reproductive human cloning. Paul Knoepfler provides a useful diagram that illustrates the “elephant in the room” of the close relationship between research and reproductive cloning. He acknowledges that cloned babies will not “be bouncing out all over the place anytime now,” but says that “yesterday’s story does of course relate to human reproductive cloning and it is a real, deeply serious concern longer term. Some crazy person will try to clone humans.” Dr David King of Human Genetics Alert raises similar points and says that the OHSU research is an "irresponsible" project that has created "the baby that would-be human cloners have been waiting for: a method for reliably creating cloned human embryos".

Mitalipov’s team is understandably eager to dissociate their work from the possibility of reproductive cloning. Nature reports, “Mitalipov has tried without success for more than a decade to produce a monkey by cloning. [Co-author] Tachibana says that an upcoming publication will explain why reproductive cloning of humans is not possible using their SCNT technique.” Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, head of developmental genetics at the National Institute for Medical Research, similarly reiterates that years of cloning work with animals has affirmed that it would be unsafe to try in humans, so: “For this reason alone it should not be attempted."

More demand for women’s eggs?

Relatively few news stories explored how the SCNT success might affect the demand for women’s eggs and the health of the women who undergo invasive procedures to provide them, though a number mentioned that Mitalipov’s work used fewer eggs than previous cloning experiments. As Chris Mason of University College London told New Scientist, "Mitalipov clearly has very high efficiency ... However, it still boils down to needing to get human eggs."

Payments to women who provide eggs for research are controversial because of concerns that they encourage women to overlook the significant health risks of egg retrieval. Many women’s health advocates point out that because follow-up studies on egg retrieval have been so inadequate, getting “informed consent” to take the risks is challenging if not impossible.

Another troubling aspect of the OHSU study is that at least five of the authors of the Cell article work as practicing reproductive endocrinologists, raising concern that some may have themselves overseen the egg retrieval procedures. It is therefore unclear whether the study followed the recommendations of the International Society for Stem Cell Research that in order to avoid conflicts of interest, “wherever possible, the treating physician or infertility clinician should not also be the investigator who is proposing to perform research on the donated materials” [pdf].

The OHSU study reports some troubling findings about egg retrieval protocols, including the fact that one of the hormonal drugs typically used for ovarian stimulation results in “sub-optimal quality oocytes,” and that “premium quality” eggs are produced when fewer are retrieved in a stimulated cycle. This suggests that the hyper-stimulation protocols frequently used in fertility procedures are not only dangerous for the women who undergo them, but may also be hazardous to the health of their prospective children.

As the CGS press statement points out, these adjustments to standard IVF protocols “were made in order to obtain ‘optimized’ eggs for research, not to protect women from adverse effects” of egg retrieval. The focus, ironically, is “on the quality of the eggs, not on the well-being of the women.”

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

• Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and Germline Engineering
• Gallup Poll: Cloning Still Unpopular
• George Church on Neanderthal Clones and Designer Babies

Jason Richwine & Zhao Bowen

Jason Richwine was forced to resign from the Heritage Foundation by a media storm about his offensive comments on race and IQ. That's remarkable, and perhaps significant, but there are likely more and bigger headlines to come.

The background in brief: Richwine co-authored a Heritage position paper titled "The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer," clearly published to oppose immigration reform.The paper was unwelcome to all but right-wing extremists, for various reasons, and it soon came out that Richwine's 2009 doctoral thesis included such statements as (on p. 66):

No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.

His dissertation proceeded to explore "the proposition that immigration policy should select for IQ" (p. 123). That wasn't explicitly in the Heritage study, but it certainly provided a handy cudgel. The report was released on Monday May 6, his thesis was reported on Wednesday, and he "resigned" on Friday. One of Richwine's mentors was Charles Murray, of The Bell Curve infamy, who promptly tweeted:

Thank God I was working for Chris DeMuth and AEI, not Jim DeMint and Heritage, when The Bell Curve was published. Integrity. Loyalty. Balls.

From Murray's perspective, he has a point. For the rest of us, it's actually heartening that such opinions have become toxic. And the dust-up has provoked some insightful commentary (e.g., Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic, Ari Rabin-Havt at Media Matters, Diego von Vacano at The Monkey Cage).

However, it's also important to note that "respectable" politicians have always been willing to jettison those that go too far. William Shockley, for instance, was effectively shunned in the 1970s, but Murray and Richard Herrnstein had no trouble putting their work into the public sphere in the 1990s. And indeed the backlash to the backlash may already be starting, as Andrew Sullivan (who, as editor of The New Republic, published excerpts from The Bell Curve) detects "red flags about intellectual freedom."

Race and IQ may now be a dangerous combination, but the combination of genetics and IQ is definitely on the rise. China's BGI has for a while been running a research project on "genius genes," headed by Zhao Bowen, who claimed in February that it would produce results in three months. That would be now. Well, we don't have the data or the analysis, but we are seeing a burst of publicity.

An article in the London Times on May 14 (unrelated to the news about Richwine) includes more caveats than previously:

"The reality is that the genomics of IQ will be much more complex than saying: 'Look, here are the genes for genius.' We will be talking about hundreds, possibly thousands of genes and mutations, each with a tiny effect on IQ. Will someone somewhere want to try to engineer intelligence in embryos? Will someone claim they can make your unborn child more intelligent? Of course they will. But it's not technically possible now and won't be for decades," Zhao says.

Sure. But the caption to one of the accompanying photos reads:

If Zhao Bowen discovers the intelligence gene, he may be able to determine a baby's IQ from a blood sample

A simultaneous article in Nature News says that the project "is slated to begin data analysis in the next few months." It reports that BGI is "halfway through its sequencing" but the rest of the work might take as long as a year. It also includes a noteworthy comment from Harvard geneticist Daniel MacArthur:

If they think they're likely to get much useful data out of this study, they're almost certainly wrong.

That's likely true—but no real reason for comfort. The researchers will find something. And someone will abuse the findings. History tells us that's a given. The fallacy may not be that Hispanics (who, ahem, are a cultural community not a race) are dumb, or Jews (essentially a religious group) are smart, or Asians (a broad geographical set) are good at math, or any such nonsense. But suggesting that this embryo has brilliance while this one does not … that could become a very significant problem.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

• "Genius Genes" to be Named in Three Months, Says Chinese "Wunderkind"
• Genes of the Week: Inborn Talent Genetic Test
• What's in a Name?
  
• Neo-con logic: Designer babies for all
  

Talking Biopolitics began in 2011 with webinars on synthetic biology and assisted reproductive technologies. It continued in 2012 with interviews of Bill McKibben, Dorothy Roberts, and Harriet Washington. We are excited to announce that Talking Biopolitics is back for 2013, featuring conversations with Miriam Zoll, George Estreich, Ruha Benjamin, and Donna Dickenson that are open and free for everyone.

Each of these cutting-edge thinkers has recently published a book that engages with different facets of the challenges raised by human biotechnologies. They  address provocative questions about assisted reproduction, personalized medicine, prenatal gene sequencing, stem cell research, and much more. Their work provides invaluable insights into the new biopolitics we need.

The 2013 series kicks off on May 21 with a live web interview by the Center for Genetics and Society’s Associate Executive Director Diane Tober of Miriam Zoll, award-winning writer and international public health and reproductive rights advocate. Miriam’s new book, Cracked Open: Liberty, Fertility and the Pursuit of High Tech Babies, gives a moving and unblinking account of the emotional anguish, health complications, ethical quandaries and financial costs of her own fertility journey. She also delivers vital insights into the consequences of our failure to adequately understand and regulate the business of assisted reproduction. Find more information and RSVP here.

The second event on June 3 features George Estreich, who will be interviewed by the Longmore Institute on Disability’s Emily Beitiks. George’s book, The Shape of the Eye: A Memoir, is an award-winning account of his family and life with daughter Laura, who has Down syndrome. He asks how the new non-invasive fetal gene tests are affecting women’s experiences of pregnancy and childbearing, and how they might change our personal and social feelings about disabilities such as Down syndrome. The Shape of the Eye is a powerful and moving contemplation of what it means to be human and what it means to be different. Find more information and RSVP here.

In the third event on June 25, CGS Executive Director Marcy Darnovsky interviews Ruha Benjamin, assistant professor of Sociology and African American studies at Boston University. Ruha’s new book, People’s Science: Bodies and Rights on the Stem Cell Frontier, delves into stem cell research, arguing that public engagement must be considered in controversial scientific advances. She particularly advocates for the voices of people with disabilities, African Americans, and women, showing that citizens have the power to influence science, and not merely the other way around. Find more information and RSVP here.

On July 16, we hear from author, activist and scholar Donna Dickenson, interviewed by Osagie Obasogie, Senior Fellow at CGS and Associate Professor of Law at the University of California, Hastings. Donna’s new book, Me Medicine vs. We Medicine: Reclaiming Biotechnology for the Common Good, is an essential read for anyone trying to make sense of personalized medicine. She makes a powerful case for taming "me-centeredness" and market domination of medicine, and for renewing our commitments to public health and the common good. Find more information and RSVP here.

Looking forward to the conversations!

The print edition of the May 4/5 issue of the Wall Street Journal devoted almost two full pages to a piece by Sarah Elizabeth Richards, author of the new book from Simon & Schuster, Motherhood Rescheduled, published May 7. They also ran an accompanying piece by Christine Rosen, senior editor of the New Atlantis, on "The Ethics of Egg Freezing," but gave it so little space it seemed like an afterthought. (The online versions are here and here.)

Richards' piece, accompanied by a huge photograph, spanned the whole front page of the Review section, and most of page 2. The visual rhetoric suggested nothing so much as triumphalism: Richards is posed in ¾ frontal position standing against a black background wearing a scarlet sweater and camisole set matched by her fingernail polish. On her face is a look of either bemusement or smugness, or maybe both. She's looking offstage with steely eyes and the fingers of her left hand clutch a white stuffed lamb by the belly—rather too tightly for the lamb's comfort, it seems to me. In white type, the caption reads, "It was the best investment I ever made.” That investment was having her eggs retrieved and cryopreserved.

The headline is pure sales: “Why I Froze My Eggs (And You Should, Too),” while the pull quote under it invokes both present and past discourses regarding working women: “Amid the talk of ‘leaning in,’ and ‘having it all,” we’ve ignored the most powerful gender equalizer.” The first allusion suggests that Richards thinks she can go Cheryl Sandberg one better. The second allusion seems dated, but introduces the essential element of childbearing, which is, after all, Richards’ paramount goal.

Now, Richards says, women can achieve biological parity with men by using technology to provide themselves with the reproductive equivalent of a time machine: their bodies might be old, but their frozen eggs will be forever younger. The implication is that in the business arena, the only thing that matters is being able to compete in one's youth—to fight it out on the lower corporate rungs, where the battle is most intense, in order to rise in the ranks. Only then can one take a breath and think about one's personal life. Richards buys into this world view, and in the process, renders motherhood just one more CV item.

The lack of sentimentality in Richards’ whole description of the enterprise of freezing eggs is pronounced: that cuddly little lamb, clutched so tightly, seems to advertise that a desire for motherhood should not be confused with having warm and fuzzy feelings (those might render one vulnerable in the workplace, after all). Richards discloses some emotional responses regarding her quest to freeze her eggs, but they have mostly to do with control: when she awakes from an egg retrieval procedure she feels heartened, but she also feels empowered, freed of the "punishing pressure to seek a new mate." (At least in this piece, Richards never mentions the possibility of single parenthood and frequently invokes online dating.) The tales she recounts of other women who have also frozen their eggs read like descriptions of partners in some supply chain relationship ensuring that a product moves to market.

At the same time, Richards is singularly naïve in her acceptance of the rationales and arguments offered by the industry. She cites the American Society of Reproductive Medicine’s recent recategorization of egg freezing as non-experimental without mentioning that ASRM is referring to medical applications (such as chemotherapy) and explicitly disagrees with her:

“Marketing this technology for the purpose of deferring childbearing may give women false hope and encourage women to delay childbearing. Patients who wish to pursue this technology should be carefully counseled.”

Richards deploys straw men, such as an argument supposedly advanced by "critics of 'social freezing' ... that biological deadlines serve a purpose in life: Without them, a woman would have little incentive to sit through dozens of Match.com dates to find a partner and father for her children.” Surely, no reputable critic of egg freezing has suggested that oocytes evolved the way they have in order to ensure that women would get with the program and take mating seriously.

In fact, critics have challenged the procedure on numerous grounds, including risks involved in egg retrieval, side effects from the drugs used to stimulate the ovaries to produce multiple eggs, potential complications from the surgical removal of the ripened eggs, and possible development of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Christine Rosen mentions other legitimate criticisms in her piece on ethics, including the ways in which “egg freezing could undermine arguments for greater workplace accommodation and flexibility for women and children,” and the ways in which egg freezing furthers the march toward ever more manipulation of human eggs, sperm, and embryos under the neo-eugenic banner.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

• The Limitations of Voluntary Guidelines
• Frozen Egg Banks – A “Paradigm Shift” for the Fertility Industry?
• Egg Freezing: Why “Would-Be Grandparents" Should Know All the Facts Before Investing
• Egg Freezing: Risks to Women and Children Unknown