Ethical concerns over research with stem cell lines in the US

A recent review that revisits the ethical issues surrounding the use of embryonic stem cell (ES cell) lines in the US has thrown the use of almost a quarter of the lines currently available into question.

US President George W Bush in 2001 restricted the federal funding of stem cell research by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to the 21 stem cell lines that had already been derived by that time. These 21 lines are routinely used by researchers across the US, without further requirements other than the informed consent forms originally completed by the donors.

Bioethicist Robert Strieffer, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, carried out an analysis by comparing copies of the informed consent forms signed by the donors of the stem cell lines with the guidelines set by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). His report, published in the journal The Hastings Center Report, concluded that none of the forms met the guidelines exactly, but five of the forms attached to five cell lines raised major ethical concerns.

The five lines were derived by two biotechnology companies, BresaGen in Georgia, US, and Cellartis in Sweden, both of who claim that the consent given was adequate at the time. Under the current legislation, however, it is not, as they do not state explicitly that the embryos would be used for scientific research and that viable embryos may be destroyed.

In response to the report, the John Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Stanford University, California, are considering prohibiting their researchers from using the cell lines in question, and other universities may follow suit. Despite the findings, Story Landis, head of the NIH's Stem Cell Task Force, says that none of the stem cell lines will be taken off its registry.

Streiffer hopes that his report will highlight what he believes to be the unreasonable nature of the Bush Administration's policy. His view is shared by Jonathan Moreno, a medical ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress, who says that the study 'points to the fact that this policy is not tenable anymore'.