Debunking the Egg-Farming Myth
Apart from moral quandaries surrounding the use of viable fertilized human embryos as the source of embryonic stem cells, stem cell research has also been a magnet for controversy due to fear and misinformation surrounding the creation of a human egg-farming industry. A number of women’s rights organizations warn against the potential exploitation of poor, minority women, students, and/or women from developing countries, for the purpose of egg harvesting.
The worry is that in the quest for human eggs for stem cell research, women who would not otherwise run the risks of ovarian stimulation will be induced to undertake potentially dangerous procedures. The belief that the creation of embryonic stem cells requires the need for large numbers of human oocytes is largely attributable to a technology called SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) that was unsuccessfully used in early attempts to create human embryonic stem cells in Korea.
The fear that viable human embryos are being created solely for research purposes or that women are being exploited for their eggs simply does not apply to parthenogenesis. First, parthenogenesis does not lead to the creation of viable human embryos. No potential human life is destroyed. Second, parthenogenetic stem cell lines are created from excess eggs donated by women with the primary intent of undergoing IVF, and donation does not pose any additional risk to the donors.
Further, parthenogenesis may actually reduce the number of donors required because it allows for the creation of single lines of pluripotent stem cells that can be immune-matched (similar to how bone marrow is matched between donors and recipients) to large population groups. In other words, once a stem cell bank of perhaps 50–100 parthenogenetic stem cell lines is established, the need to continuously seek more eggs to match a population group may be greatly reduced or eliminated. The resulting immune-matched stem cell bank could become a valuable medical resource for regenerative medicine.
In July, the NIH finalized its guidelines for the federal funding of stem cell research. While the revamped guidelines expanded the scope of research into human stem cells eligible for federal funding, parthenogenetic stem cell research is not yet eligible for such government support.
We hope that appropriate review and approval of this burgeoning branch of stem cell research will come soon enough so that American researchers are not deprived of the benefits.
Already international researchers are using parthenogenetic cell lines to study the ways in which they may be more useful than embryonic lines, and there is a risk that if foreign researchers get too much of a head start, the U.S. could suffer in the long run as jobs and revenue follow the funding.
Given that parthenogenic stem cell lines behave just like embryonic stem cells but with the added advantages of solving certain moral dilemmas and addressing patient immune rejection issues, we believe that patients, practitioners, and politicians alike might some day agree that this new stem cell research technique represents a revolutionary way forward.