Stem cell researchers ‘face prosecution’ // 11 Oct 2007
source: EJC
European Journal of Cancer
Issue16, 2007
by Helen Saul, News Editor
Stem cell researchers ‘face prosecution’
Issues of biomedical ethics do not fall with the competence of the EU, and until recently this was seen as a convenient way of getting round the difficulties of the varying views of member states on such things as embryo and stem cell research, and animal experimentation. Recently, however, cracks have begun to show in this approach, with scientists claiming that the lack of harmonisation can disrupt and delay research with important implications for human health.
First of all there was the narrowly averted blockade of the 7th Framework Research Programme. Failure to agree on whether or not human embryonic stem cell research should be funded looked likely to hold up the entire programme and leave the European Commission with no mechanism for supporting research at European level. Now scientists are saying that the differing legislative positions on human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) in member states are having a highly deleterious effect on collaborative research, and indeed threatening researchers from certain countries with legal action simply because they are involved in a collaboration.
On 27 July, 2007, EuroStemCell and ESTOOLS, the two major EU-funded stem cell research consortia, issued a statement to MEPS in which they highlighted potential problems. Projects that are perfectly legal in Sweden and the UK can result in a three-year prison sentence in Germany, they say. And scientists from countries with restrictive legislation might even be liable to prosecution by taking a purely administrative, co-ordinating role where other collaborators are using hESCs.
The EuroStemCell and ESTOOLs projects comprise 29 research teams from academic institutions and biotechnology enterprises active in 12 states across the European Research Area. “These projects therefore represent a significant force for integrating and advancing Europe’s R&D effort in stem cell research”, says the statement.
Professor Peter Andrews, co-director of the University of Sheffield’s Centre for Stem Cell Biology, says that he has personal experience of the problems that can arise. “German post docs in our lab are reluctant to work with cell lines derived after 2001 in case there are consequences for them when they go home. There are also two German partners in the ESTOOLS consortium who can only work on pre-2002 cell lines, whereas the rest of us are working on lines that are far more recent,” he said.
Professor Andrews is one of the few cancer researchers to be currently working in the human embryonic stem cell field. “In order to provide differentiated cells for regenerative medicine, hESCs need to be maintained in culture for long periods. We noticed that hESCs in culture underwent the same kinds of karyotypic changes as occur in germ cell tumours, and we think that these changes reflect tumour-producing events in vivo, particularly in testicular cancer. Identifying the genes responsible for culture adaptation may thus reveal those that contribute to tumour development in humans and animals.
“We therefore believe that the study of hECSs holds out much promise for the understanding and treatment of cancer, and we are unhappy that we cannot undertake this in the kind of wide-spread European collaboration that we would wish. Laws forbidding scientists to work with hESCs derived after 2001 do nothing for human dignity or for progress in research. On the contrary, they hold up the development of novel biomedical therapeutic applications for their populations.”
There are also problems in Italy, and in some of the newer EU member states. Although Italian law says that it is legal to work on already-established hES cell lines from frozen discarded embryos but that it is illegal to derive new cell lines. However, this legal research is prevented by Italian public funding agencies, who only allocate resource for work on adult stem cells. Such ‘financial punishment’ goes against scientific evidence and the view of the international community, say Italian scientists.
German researchers are also calling for changes, notably the abolition of the cut-off date, permission to import cell lines from overseas for diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic purposes, and an assurance that scientists who are involved in international collaborations, or for working in overseas laboratories with cells that are not permitted in Germany, will not be prosecuted. Such changes are necessary to keep German research internationally competitive and to encourage young researchers to work in this exciting new field, they say.
What are the real chances that any kind of harmonisation of national laws on this kind of ethical issue will ever be achieved? Practically zero, said a spokesman for DG Research; cultural, philosophical, and religious differences are so great that it would take a miracle to resolve them to everyone’s satisfaction. So in the meantime, scientific progress will be held back and researchers will have to live under the shadow of prosecution.
“Wherever such fundamental questions or moral and human values are raised, the ensuing polarisation tends to become a minefield for politicians and decision-makers. Commonly the best way to survive in a minefield is not to move. But……. not moving also has a cost. And if one is serious about the ethical appraisal of stem cell research, one should at the very least consider the ethical costs associated with delaying the fruition of stem cell research’s potential benefits”, says the EuroStemCell and ESTOOLs statement.