Abstract
“Artificial” Life?
On May 20, 2010, scientists announced that they had created a synthetic cell. 1 Researcher Craig Venter and team synthesized the more than one million base pairs that compose the genome (genetic code) of the Mycoplasma mycoides (a parasitic bacterium that thrives in the lungs of animals such as cattle and goats). They then transplanted the artificial DNA into a recipient cell, which self-replicated. The artificial DNA controlled the cell's development and reproduction, and all the reproduced cells contained copies of the man-made DNA.
This scientific breakthrough was broadly depicted as the first-ever production of “artificial life.” Given the fact that the entire experiment began with a living organism (from which its own DNA was extracted), such an assertion is nothing less than hyperbolic. Considered in itself, the breakthrough is, nonetheless, scientifically fascinating and, in principle, ethically neutral. I would have to agree with the initial reaction of Msgr. Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who observed that “If it is used toward the good, to treat pathologies, we can only be positive…. If it turns out not to be … useful to respect the dignity of the person, then our judgment would change.” 2
While this new technology could be used for any number of beneficent purposes—including use in biofuels, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and clean-water projects—it does not present itself free of potential moral hazards, however. Indeed, we must question whether there has been anywhere near sufficient time and effort dedicated to discerning the myriad ethical questions this advance occasions. As with all double-edge sword technologies, the age of synthetic DNA could have a very dark side. Self-replicating synthetic organisms could hold unknown hazards for the environment, or even presage the deliberate creation of the ultimate biological weapon. It could also be part and parcel of a broader project to genetically alter the human genome and take the age of “designer babies” to a whole new and depraved level. Catholic bioethicists and moral theologians will need to watch the progress of this new technology with great care.
In Vitro Fertilization–Why Not?
The recent faceoff between the Catholic Healthcare Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops over abortion in the health-care bill underscored the reality of deep-seated disagreements and confusion over Catholic teaching on key moral issues. 3 Of the many we could list, perhaps no other has been so under-taught and consequently misunderstood than the Church's stance on in vitro fertilization (IVF).
The Catholic Church teaches that IVF is morally illicit without exception, even when the couple uses their own egg and sperm, and without super-ovulation of the mother or the creation of multiple embryos for implantation. The 1987 instruction Donum vitae by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith contains the Church's most complete articulation to date of the reasons against IVF. 4
At the core of this teaching is the Church's consistent affirmation of the meaning and value of human sexuality. Undergirding that teaching is the insistence that the unitive and procreative dimensions of marital intercourse may never be intentionally separated. 5 Consequently, as explained in Donum vitae, it is morally wrong for married couples or anyone to attempt to generate human life outside of, or apart from, the act of marital sexual intercourse, because to do so severs those dimensions. In IVF, procreation takes place in a petri dish, apart from the unitive dimension of the conjugal act.
A second argument is based on considerations of the dignity of the child conceived by these means. Donum vitae argues that bringing a child into existence as a product of a technique is to render that child an object. Children brought into the world through IVF are arguably not generated, but manufactured. While the couple provides the “materials” (ovum and sperm) for the creation of the child, it is a laboratory technician who brings about a new human life in a laboratory dish. The Church further teaches, that in light of this same human dignity, every human being possesses a right to be “conceived and born within marriage and from marriage.”
A further argument against IVF has to do with the consequences of the procedure. There are well-documented health risks—which have on occasion been lethal—to women who undergo super-ovulation for the retrieval of their eggs for IVF purposes. 6 Add to this mounting scientific evidence that points to the troubling fact of genetic abnormalities in children born through recourse to IVF. 7 At present, some three million IVF children have come into the world since the procedure was first used in 1978. While most are healthy, studies indicate that they are at increased risk for certain kinds of birth defects and for the onset later in life of obesity, hypertension, and type-2 diabetes. Even if these risks were nonexistent, IVF still normally brings about the grave injustice of leaving an orphaned population of unwanted embryos to the absurd fate of frozen storage and eventual destruction.
The Church fully supports the endeavors of physicians such as Dr. Thomas Hilgers, director of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction. His natural methods of overcoming infertility, known as NaPro Technology, have helped hundreds of couples to achieve a pregnancy without recourse to illicit means. While no couple has a “right” to a child, they should be afforded all the means licit and available to help them achieve a pregnancy.
The Current Direction of Stem-Cell Research
For the better part of the past two years, scientific attention has focused on comparing the traits and capabilities of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) with the putative “gold standard” human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). Unlike hESCs, which are obtained by destroying live embryos, iPSCs are made directly from adult cells—such as skin cells—by adding a small number of factors to these cells in the laboratory. These factors remodel the mature cells and convert them into stem cells that appear to share important properties with stem cells obtained from embryos. No human eggs are required, and no human embryos are generated or destroyed in the process.
Several recent side-by-side comparison studies of both hES cells and iPS cells have brought to light significant differences between the two stem-cell sources. They have also revealed potential, but perhaps not insurmountable, hurdles in the use of iPS cells.
On the one hand, because iPS cells are derived from adult—which is to say, fully determined—cells, they often “remember” their cell-type of origin and may even revert back to it. 8 Another recent study suggested that iPS cells may actually have an entire series of genetic switches turned off and that this might explain why they sometimes fail to robustly generate more specific types of tissues. 9 While not conclusive, these findings suggest that iPS cells retain some “memory” of their origin, thus requiring researchers to develop more thorough methods for reprogramming.
Since 2007, there has been steady progress in using iPS cells as models for the study of diseases. 10 iPS cells derived from both animals and human adults have been isolated which bear the phenotypes (structural characteristics) found in several diseases including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Huntington's, multiple sclerosis, type-1 diabetes and sickle cell anemia. Because these lines of cells exhibit disease-specific phenotypes, researchers may be able to use them to study disease mechanisms and for drug screening.
Another important inroad in iPS research has been continued confirmation by independent teams of scientists that the reprogramming of adult cells can be accomplished without having recourse to viruses as vehicles for transporting the reprogramming agents into the cells. 11 Rather than having to manipulate the genome itself by inserting viruses into the cells to be reprogrammed—hazardous to humans—researchers have identified ways to turn on the pluripotency genes in those cells simply by manipulating the chemical environment of the culture surrounding the cells. In 2009, researchers were also able to reduce the number of reprogramming factors necessary for accomplishing the task down to only one from the original four used by Shinya Yamanaka in 2006. 12