Therapeutic cloning: Researchers back bid to pay egg donors

The California scientists most likely to receive grants for making new cell lines were those who proposed comparing embryonic stem cell lines and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell lines, says Nature Reports Stem Cells in a piece dated 2 July (“What got funded: statistics on California’s new stem cell line grants”).

None of the grant applications submitted to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) that sought to make lines using human eggs were funded, including three applications that proposed SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer), also known as therapeutic cloning. For SCNT applications, reviewers worried that researchers couldn’t get enough human eggs. (SCNT involves transferring the nucleus from an adult human cell into a human egg with the intent of creating stem cells from the resulting embryo. Such cells could potentially serve as a therapy genetically matched to the person who donated the adult cell.)

Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer illustrated

On 11 June, Nature reported in an article (“Egg shortage hits race to clone human stem cells: Researchers back bid to pay donors”) that US stem cell researchers are calling for changes to state laws that prohibit compensating women who donate eggs for research. It took Kevin Eggan and Douglas Melton, of the Harvard University’s Stem Cell Institute, two years and US$100,000 in local advertising to secure a single egg donor for their attempt to develop embryonic stem cell lines to model diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Eggan says that although Harvard's highly publicised egg-donation programme received plenty of responses, many women decided against donating for research when they were informed that a fertility clinic would compensate them for the same procedure. Currently, laws in California and Massachusetts – two leader states in stem cell research – prohibit compensation for eggs. But with a shortage of available human eggs for research purposes, the issue remains a national sticking point to the progress of stem cell research and cloning science. (Time published an article dated 6 June 2006 titled “Why Harvard is Recruiting Egg Donors for Stem Cell Studies” which can be read here.)

The Scientist also took on this pressing issue when it reported on 27 March that the CIRM may be looking for ways to pay women for their eggs for stem cell research. The article (“CIRM to pay for eggs?”) says one idea that arose at a meeting of CIRM’s Standards Working Group on 28 February was to subsidise the cost of fertility treatment for women donating eggs, as is currently done in the UK. However, Eggan, a member of the CIRM standards group, told The Scientist that he doubts that CIRM can do much in its role as a regulatory agency within the existing legislation. He called on the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - which in 2005 recommended in its "Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research" that no payments should be provided for donating eggs, sperm, or blastocysts for research - to revisit the issue, stating that women should be compensated for providing eggs for stem cell research, just as they are for donating eggs to treat infertility and as they were in the early days of IVF research. "Clearly that's the expectation of these women for egg donation," he said. "Human research donors, which is what these women are, should be compensated for their time, their effort, and any duress they incur."

On 26 January 2006, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that Jonathan Moreno, the cochair of the National Academies committee and a professor of biomedical ethics at the University of Virginia, said in an interview that the NAS recommendations were justified by the sensitivity of egg donation for stem cell research and by uncertainties about the actual risk of severe complications in donors; but that John Robertson of the University of Texas School of Law at Austin (and currently chair of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine) said the committee "made a political choice to get the field moving, not an ethical one grounded in sound analysis". Nature points out that Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison (and a member of the CIRM standards group), who liaised with the NAS committee that set the donor-compensation guidelines in 2005, says the move “was as much political as ethical”.

A Nature Special Report dated 10 August 2006, titled "Ethicists and biologists ponder the price of eggs", reveals that on 30 June 2006 the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) task force released draft guidelines at its annual meeting in Toronto. The guidelines embrace most of the principles proposed by the National Academies in 2005. But differ on the issue of egg donation. The task force leaves the door open for a more liberal policy on compensation by stating simply that stem-cell research projects should be reviewed by a local oversight body, which must ensure "there are no undue inducements or other undue influences for the provision of human materials". What constitutes 'undue' is left to the local oversight bodies. (The ISSCR Guidelines for the Conduct of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research can be read here.)

In respect of the UK, in July 2006 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) granted the North-East England Stem Cell Institute (Nesci) - a collaboration between Durham and Newcastle universities - permission to recruit human egg donors; the donated eggs are being used in SCNT experiments to derive embryonic stem cell lines from patients with incurable diseases such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Women donate eggs in return for cut-price in-vitro fertilisation treatment at the Newcastle Fertility Centre. The egg sharing programme has been criticised by opponents of embryonic stem cell research for creating disparity in the quality of care available to people who don’t have the money to undergo fertility treatments; but its supporters say it provides access to such treatments for more people. Alison Murdoch, who is leading the project at Nesci (and is a signatory to Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning), said: "Nobody has done nuclear transfer and successfully made stem cell lines yet because of the difficulties of getting hold of human eggs." Nature Reports Stem Cells says Murdoch has so far collected more than 100 eggs.

As Declan and I have been sleeping in the same porch since 3 November 2006, despite that every night now we are under threat of arrest (see blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”), I probably sound too confident but I believe that our international campaign on therapeutic cloning and human embryonic stem cell research is in a unique position to call on the US National Academy of Sciences to revisit the issue of egg donation for research: the justification being that the NAS donor-compensation guidelines have a negative impact at an international level on progress in the field; and can be used by opponents to further restrict and prohibit this life-saving medical research – never mind the Centre for American Progress reporting on 16 July that “80 percent of the public wants medical researchers to have significant influence (39 percent “a great deal”/41 percent “a fair amount”) on stem cell research decisions”. My model for this letter will be a letter to the British Government dated 21 January published in The Times (“Stem cell research is vital and can save lives: The use of lawfully-obtained, anonymised cells must be permitted”), which was signed by almost 60 biomedical researchers and administrators, including four Nobel laureates (many of whom have also signed Declan’s petition).

Washing in the street

All this week Declan has been walking for almost five hours with his bags. A round walk of over two hours to the Manna Centre to get some free lunch – where last Saturday, a big homeless Pole booted him hard in the calf. Then two or three times to his Big Issue pitch where he attempts to sell a couple of Big Issues (a magazine sold by homeless people) – on Tuesday afternoon he shouldn’t have bothered: the Big Issue vendor he found on his pitch informed him he was working on it. And he also meets me in the Idea Store Whitechapel library – the same place we regularly run into difficulties with internet access (see previous blog for Declan’s email to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council). It is quite exhausting for him but it has kept us in the game.

In my blog of 26 March “We are seeking to raise £4,000” I wrote that on 17 March Network Rail effectively barred us from the public toilets in Liverpool Street Station (we had been forced to wash there after we were barred in June from the Methodist Church-run Whitechapel Mission due to concerns about our safety), and that Declan would have to further bullfight the homeless in the men's washroom of the Sister of Mercy-run Dellow Centre. Well, he is getting so much hassle there that this morning he had to shave in a park – last week he experienced serious harassment from one homeless and had to inform staff that he was on the verge of calling the police, and two days ago another homeless was shouting so loud while shadow boxing and kicking about the place that twice staff had to put in an appearance.


Human-animal embryos have caused controversy in the UK

The Christian Legal Centre (CLC) and Comment on Reproductive Ethics (Core) launched a legal challenge yesterday against the legality of licences granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) that allowed the creation of Britain’s first human-animal hybrid embryo. It wants the licences granted to scientists at Newcastle University and King’s College London to be revoked so that no further experimentation is carried out. They made the move after Prime Minister Gordon Brown was forced last month to give Labour MPs a free vote on the Government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (legislation currently going through Parliament), which has faced condemnation from Catholic Church leaders. According to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, the bill would lead to the endorsement of experiments of "Frankenstein proportions".

(Cardinal O'Brien doesn’t mind to disagree with many eminent scientists, including Lord Naren Patel of Dunkeld, chairman of the UK National Stem Cell Network and chancellor of Dundee University, who has said that the legislation would improve regulation of research that could help diabetics and those with Parkinson’s. He probably wasn’t impressed either with the headline on the front page of today’s Times “Scientists win public support on embryo research”: a poll for the newspaper reveals that the creation of human-animal embryos enjoys broad public approval, with 50 per cent backing new laws that would permit it and only 30 per cent opposed.)

Unlike Gordon Brown, President George W Bush scored points with the Christian Right in his final State of the Union address on 28 January. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC) stated: “A high mark came when the President explained how advances in science have made embryonic stem cell research obsolete and then called on Congress to pass a comprehensive cloning ban, ensuring as he put it, ‘that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves’.” Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the US bishops' Office of Pro-Life Activities: "We certainly welcome the president's emphasis on increased funding for ethical stem-cell research, and we agree that passage of a ban on human cloning is long overdue." In response to the speech, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (established in 2004 with the passage of Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act) promptly disagreed with President Bush’s stance: “Tonight, in his State of the Union address, President Bush distorted the scientific facts on stem cell research and did a disservice to the millions of patients suffering from chronic disease and injury for whom stem cell research holds great promise for future therapies and cures.”

Begging for over a week

Less than two weeks before the European Court of Human Rights “possibly” examines Declan's application of 8 September (Declan received a letter from the Registrar turning down his request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court – see previous blog), things couldn’t be much rougher for us. Since 10 January, I have been forced to go into the local train station early in the morning and ask people for some spare change in an attempt to get £4 or £5 so Declan and I can get by for the day.

The last time I had to beg was on 20 November when, as result of all the problems we were having with street distributors while attempting to sell The Big Issue (a magazine sold by homeless people on street pitches), I also had to go into the train station to get some money to be able to buy a few Big Issues for the week. (While trying to make some money from selling this magazine, we have run into all kinds of difficulties, some of which I have reported throughout this blog, and others which I have written up in the diary I have been keeping since 19 November in the event I am prosecuted for begging – see entry titled "Defence for a court”. Among other things: we have been threatened and insulted by other Big Issue vendors; our pitches have been taken over by distributors of The London Paper, London Lite, Sport, ShortList, etc on countless occasions, and sometimes for long periods; and Declan has to travel to the Big Issue head office every Monday to ensure the proper registration of our pitches because of repeated “administrative errors” in respect of same. It doesn't seem to matter that Declan has done everything possible to amend our situation – all of his many emails to the Big Issue from 10 September to 10 January seem to have fallen on deaf ears.)

The reason why I have now been reduced to begging for food is because for the last two weeks we have sold almost no Big Issues at all due to bad weather (although I am sure that our pitches wouldn't make it into The Big Issue top 200 London pitch list): since New Year, Britain has been hit with freezing Siberian winds and the Met Office warned on 17 January that this month is on course to be the wettest on record, and that the country faces its wettest year ever. I tried to postpone the begging for as long as possible – it’s illegal in England and I already had two police tickets for begging (13 and 14 November) – and since the end of December I have almost exclusively been eating the bit of grated cheese and two white sandwich bread that the nuns from the Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre give the homeless “for later”, but on 10 January I had to choose between starvation for the weekend or beg (we could get some cheap breakfast in the Methodist Church-run Whitechapel Mission on Saturday and Sunday, but we were barred back in June due to concerns about our safety).

My luck ran out on Friday at 7.52am when I was stopped by a police officer as I was about to leave the station. “Maria, isn’t?” he asks. I recognise him too. He was the officer who issued me my first ticket, as his partner proceeded to call me “the scum of the earth”, and then forcibly threw me out of the station. “You have been seen in the station this week asking for money and stuff,” he says, as he is writing my details to issue me a ticket, “and you can’t do that. Next time, you will be arrested.” Well, that is some advancement. The last time, as he and his partner were pushing me into the wet street, he told me I wouldn’t be so lucky as to be arrested – adding that why would they arrest me, to be able to get warm and be given a hot cup of coffee and some food?

Of course, tomorrow morning I have no choice but to go back into the train station, although for a shorter period, just to raise enough money to keep Declan alive for the day. The problem now is that we won’t have the money to spend Friday nights in the internet café in Leicester Square when things are hot: Friday
night appears to be the time of the week when I am at most risk back at the porch (I sleep on the outside so that Declan can sleep with our well-tied bags): I was repeatedly kicked in the chest and shoulders on a Friday; dragged out of the porch by the ankles and, a few hours later, kicked in the back on a Friday; and on an additional two Fridays we have had beer thrown all over us as we slept.

We won’t have the money either to go to our local internet café (£3 for seven hours) when things take another turn for the worse in the Tower Hamlets Council-run Idea Store Whitechapel (the borough’s flagship library, learning and information service), with its 3-hour limit on internet access, save computer availability. Only this afternoon Declan had to email the manager:

Subject: Internet access

Dear Mr Abidin,

I wish to confirm, as verified by your supervisor Asab Ali, that my wife (card no. D000350314) booked computer 14 on floor 1 in Idea Store Whitechapel between 2.00pm and closing time at 4.45pm today. At 3.00pm, she was unable to log in due to another card holder’s name appearing on the monitor for the hour, thereby reducing what was a booking for 2 hours 45 minutes to 1 hour 45 minutes.

I reconfirm that on 10 January my wife’s 2-hour booking on computer 15 on floor 1 was reduced to 45 minutes when she again lost her booking to another card holder in similar circumstances; that on 7 January, in the middle of a 1-hour session on computer 5 on floor 1, she was unable to open any web page (while all other computers around her appeared to function as normal) for a reported 10 minutes; that on 4 January, in the middle of a 1-hour session on computer 15 on floor 1, she once again lost her booking to another card holder; and that on 14 November, in the middle of a 1-hour session on computer 15 on floor 1, she was unable to open any page from the internet or send an email.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey
Card no. D000355837

Last Thursday the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) here in the UK offered year-long licences to two teams of scientists who want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with cow or rabbit eggs, in the hope that they will be able to extract valuable embryonic stem cells from them. The cells are expected to lead to revolutionary therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and even spinal cord injuries. The Department of Health initially decided their use would be banned, but changed its position after lobbying from scientists - in January 2007, 45 scientists, ethicists and politicians, including three Nobel Laureates, wrote to The Times to support the hybrid embryo work.

In this regard, the papers have been carrying quotations by Dr Robin Lovell-Badge, head of Developmental Genetics at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research in London, Sir Richard Gardner, chairman of the Royal Society's stem cell working group, and Lord Robert Winston, one of the world's most respected medical academics and researcher of the human reproductive system (all three distinguished scientists are signatories to Declan's petition to the UN in support of research cloning of embryos and stem cells).


Christian Concern for our Nation protest at Westminster

Needless to say, Christian groups – who represent a small minority albeit loud religious voice – were voicing their total opposition to it. On Tuesday, campaigners from the group Christian Concern for our Nation demonstrated outside Parliament as the peers began their consideration of the Bill. And in the papers, there were all kinds of fantasy statements from organisations like the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the Christian Medical Fellowship, Comment on Reproductive Ethics, and Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics, the UK's Christian bioethics institute, claiming that the research would blur the boundary between humans and other species. Meanwhile, a pastoral letter sent to all 500 Catholic parishes in Scotland this week by the Bishops' Conference of Scotland describes the fusion of animal and human material as a "monstrous act against human dignity".

HFEA approval comes as innovation secretary John Denham called for greater respect for science in public policy in a speech to the Royal Society on Thursday. But in an article that appeared in the Telegraph on 26 March 2007, Professor of Philosophy AC Grayling states that “all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain”. NAC, of course, seeks to accord a more balanced framework for decisions on the important issues associated with cloning for reproductive and therapeutic benefits.