This week, the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine was awarded to British scientist Robert Edwards, Ph.D., for the development of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Edwards, along with his colleague Patrick Steptoe, M.D., who died in 1988, perfected this laboratory technique, which allows infertile couples to have children. Since the birth of Louise Brown in 1978 in the United Kingdom, the first baby born as a result of IVF, millions of people have used the procedure to have children.
When IVF was first deemed possible, many in the U.K. feared that it would result in “test tube babies,” and the U.K.’s Medical Research Council, the U.K.’s equivalent to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), refused to fund the research. Now many groups who once opposed IVF — and a majority of the public — generally accept the procedure’s use as a treatment for infertility.
IVF involves the removal of eggs from a woman. The eggs are then fertilized with the father’s sperm in a laboratory, and implanted back into the mother. During the IVF process, several embryos are created, but typically only a few are implanted to avoid a multiple pregnancy (such as quadruplets), which is extremely dangerous to the mother and babies. The remaining embryos are frozen, and the couple later decides what it wants to do with them. Some of the embryos are used by the couple, some are adopted by other couples and some are donated to science. However, many of the embryos are thawed and discarded, particularly after several years in storage. These discarded embryos do not seem to be as controversial to the public as the human embryonic stem cell lines that could be created from embryos donated to research.
The timing of the Nobel Prize is particularly interesting due to the court case Sherley v. Sibelius, currently being ruled on in U.S. District Court. As discussed in the Aug. 31 Baker Institute blog post, “Stem cell ruling hurts Texas scientists too,” this case is determining if federal funding can be used for human embryonic stem cell research.
Currently, the NIH must approve all human embryonic stem cell lines before they can be used in federally funded experiments. (The NIH does not fund the actual creation of human embryonic stem cell lines.) One of the requirements is that the lines must be created from discarded IVF embryos with proper informed consent. These embryos are already in existence; they were not created for research purposes but for reproductive purposes.
With such wide support for IVF, it is remarkable that there is still such a public outcry in the United States over the use of leftover embryos for scientific research. From a moral standpoint, one can argue that in both cases an embryo is destroyed and the destruction of an embryo is always wrong. But isn’t it worse to discarding an embryo than to use the embryo for research and development of treatments for currently incurable diseases? Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to bring relief to people suffering from diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophy and diabetes, as well as catastrophic injuries including those to the spinal cord.
It should be unnecessary to create embryos for research purposes with the number of existing IVF embryos not being used. These embryos can provide scientists with human embryonic stem cell lines to develop cures for devastating diseases, as long as research using these lines can be federally funded.
Perhaps in 30 years, we will look back puzzled as to why the use of human embryonic stem cells was so controversial, given the extensive contributions this type of research will have made to therapies for debilitating diseases. And, when the pioneers of stem cell research win a Nobel Prize, the American public will be excited — and appreciative.
Maude Rowland is a graduate intern for the Baker Institute Science and Technology Policy Program. She is working on a Ph.D. in bioengineering with Dr. Jennifer West and plans to graduate in 2011.
Kirstin Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute. Her research focuses on the intersection between traditional biomedical research and public policy. Matthews’ current projects include the Baker Institute International Stem Cell Policy Program, the Civic Scientist Lecture Series and policy studies in research and development funding, genomics and climate change.