Partial Trajectory: The Story of the Altered Nuclear Transfer-Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming (ANT-OAR) Proposal

See the transcript of the 24-25 July 2003 meeting of the President's Council on Bioethics, session 3. Available at: http://bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov/transcripts/july03/session3.html Last accessed 9-17-06.

Hurlbut William President's Council on Bioethics. “Session 6: Seeking Morally Unproblematic Sources of Human Stem Cells,” transcript, December 3, 2004. Available at: http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/dec04/session6.html Last accessed 9-17-06.

Chawengsaksophak K. , de Graaff W. , Rossant J. , Deschamps J. , and Beck F. “Cdx2 is Essential for Axial Elongation in Mouse Development,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101 (18 May 2004): 7641–7645.

Hurlbut, President's Council, session 6 transcript, December 3, 2004.

Mentioned in Dong Jocelyn “The Line Between Faith and Science: Stanford Professor Hopes to Further Stem Cell Research Without Destroying Human Embryos,” The Palo Alto Weekly - online edition (26 October 2005). Available at: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weeklymorgue/2005/20051026.stemcell26.shtml Last accessed 9-17-06.

Available at: http://www.communio-icr.com/ant.html Last accessed 9-17-06.

See Melton D.A. , Daley G.Q. , and Jennings C. G. “Altered Nuclear Transfer – A Flawed Proposal,” New England Journal of Medicine 351 (30 December 2004): 2791–2792; and D. Solter, “Politically Correct Human Embryonic Stem Cells?” New England Journal of Medicine 353 (1 December 2005): 2321-2323.

Meissner A. , and Jaenisch R. “Generation of Nuclear Transfer-Derived Pluripotent ES Cells From Cloned Cdx2-Deficient Blastocysts,” Nature 439: 212–221.

For a description of this conference, see Christian Brugger E. “Ethical Commitment Stimulates Scientific Insight,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 5.3 (Autumn 2005): 445–446.

See “Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte-Assisted Reprogramming: Joint Statement with Signatories,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 5.3 (Autumn 2005): 579–583. Also available online at the Ethics and Public Policy website at: http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2374/pubdetail.asp Last accessed 9-17-06.

Articles in the continuing debate can be read at the Communio website at http://www.communio-icr/ant.htm See also the Autumn and Winter 2005 and the Summer 2006 issues of the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, and the article Byrnes W. M. , and Granados J. “ANT-OAR Fails on all Counts: Method of Harvesting Stem Cells Riddled with Scientific and Ethical Flaws,” Science and Theology News (June 2006): 23–25.

Chambers I. , Colby D. , Robertson M. , Nichols J. , Lee S. , Tweedie S. , and Smith A. “Functional Expression Cloning of Nanog, a Pluripotency Sustaining Factor in Embryonic Stem Cells,” Cell 113 (30 May 2003) 643–655; and K. Mitsui, Y. Toluzawa, H. Itoh, K. Segawa, M. Murakami, K. Takahashi, M. Maruyama, M. Maeda and S. Yamanaka, “The Homeoprotein Nanog is Required for Maintenance of Pluripotency in Mouse Epiblast and ES Cells,” Cell 113 (30 May 2003): 631-642.

Takahashi K. , and Yamanaka S. “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors,” Cell 126 (25 August 2006): 1–14.

The texts of these bills can be found online at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bil1=h109-3144 http://www/govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-1557 Last accessed 9-17-06.

See Fr. Thomas Berg's reply to Malcolm Byrnes W. “Inconsistencies on the Pro-ANT-OAR Position,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 6.2 (Summer 2006): 201–205.

This name was given by Joan Frawley Desmond in her article “Pro-Life Dream Team Confronts Embryonic Stem-Cell Juggernaut,” Crisis Magazine (January 2006): 25–31. Available at http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2006/desmond.htm

Weiss Rick “Senate to Consider Stem Cell Proposals,” The Washington Post (30 June 2006): A5.

See Novak Robert “Stem Cells: No One-Two Punch,” The Washington Post (24 July 2006): A19. Novak describes the high drama that unfolded as the “Republican high command” in the House struggled to pass H.R. 3144. He also gives the names of specific Republican congressmen who “defected,” voting against the bill.

Whitehouse Press Release on July 19, 2006, “President Discusses Stem Cell Research Policy.” Available online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/0720060719-3.html. Last accessed 7-21-06.

Or has it? ANT was moved forward in large part by the sheer strength of the personality of William Hurlbut. There is evidence that Hurlbut has no intention of being deterred by the recent defeat of ANT-OAR in Congress. Indeed, he apparently envisions an expanded role for developmental biology in medicine in the future, a role that will increasingly make use of human “partial developmental trajectories.” See Hurlbut W.B. “Framing the Future: Embryonic Stem Cells, Ethics and the Emerging Era of Developmental Biology,”’ Pediatric Research 59: 4R–12R.

Some of the ANT-OAR supporters were highly critical of human cloning researcher Woo Suk Hwang of South Korea. However, it is deeply inconsistent to condemn cloning technology on one hand, and promote it – via ANT-OAR, which uses cloning – on the other. See: Berg T. “Cloning, After Hwang.” The National Catholic Register (24 February 2006). Available at http://www.ncregister.com/aticulo2.php?artkod=MTc4

Newman Stuart “The Fall and Rise of Systems Biology: Recovering from a Half-Century Gene Binge:’ Genewatch 16 July-August 2003): 8–12.

An example of a similar proposal originating from the political left is the ballot initiative (Amendment 2) that, unfortunately, was passed by the citizens of Missouri in the recent mid-term elections held on November 7, 2006. The amendment proposes to ban human cloning, but what it actually does is to promote human cloning, making the cloning of a human embryo to obtain stem cells a constitutional right in Missouri. How can the amendment actually legalize cloning when it claims to ban it? By defining cloning in such a way that using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to create a human embryo without “implanting” it is not cloning. Specifically, according to the amendment, to “‘clone or attempt to clone a human being’ means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.” [See http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp. Last accessed 11-08-06.] As an open letter signed by more than two dozen scientists, ethicists, physicians and law experts (including this author) points out [See the Do No Harmwebsite at http://www.stemcellresearch.org/press/2006-11-01MO.htm Last accessed 11-08-06], this definition of human cloning is not the commonly accepted one, nor the one given by the President's Council on Bioethics in their authoritative report on the subject [Human Cloning and Human Dignity, Kass Leon R. , ed. (New York: Public Affairs, 2002)]. On the contrary, it is one that misleads and deceives. It serves to trick Missouri voters into thinking that they are voting against human cloning when, in fact, they are voting for it. How is this proposal similar to ANT-OAR? Both present definitions of human cloning that deny the reality of what is actually being done – creating a cloned human embryo (a defective one, to be sure, in the case of ANT-OAR). In the case of the Missouri amendment, the assumption of its supporters is “if it does not implant, it is not human.” In the case of ANT-OAR supporters, the assumption is “if it cannot implant due to an inherent defect, it is not human.” Thus, the two proposals are similar in many ways.