The ethics of stem cells revisited

Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews

Volumn 82, Issue , 2015, Pages 176-180

  de Miguel Beriain, Iñigo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

Author keywords

Discarded created distinction; Embryonic stem cell ethics; Embryos; IPS cell ethics; Stem cell ethics; Therapeutic cloning

Indexed keywords

CLONE CELLS; CYTOLOGY; PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

DISCARDED-CREATED DISTINCTION; EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; EMBRYOS; IPS CELLS; THERAPEUTIC CLONING;

STEM CELLS;

BENEFICENCE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL NUCLEUS TRANSPLANTATION; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MORALITY; NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGENERATIVE MEDICINE; REVIEW; STEM CELL; TOTIPOTENT STEM CELL; BIOETHICS; CYTOLOGY; ETHICS; STEM CELL RESEARCH;

BIOETHICAL ISSUES; EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; HUMANS; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; NUCLEAR TRANSFER TECHNIQUES; REGENERATIVE MEDICINE; STEM CELL RESEARCH;

EID: 84927128965     PISSN: 0169409X     EISSN: 18728294     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2014.11.011     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Alliance for Regenerative Medicine, Regenerative Medicine Annual Industry Report (Last accessed: 28 August 2014). http://alliancerm.org/news/download-must-have-industry-report.
2. EuroStemCell Kyoto University's Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences (WPI-iCeMS), and Elsevier. Stem Cell Research, Trends and Perspectives on the Evolving International Landscape 2013, 3. Elsevier.
3. Lukovic D., Stojkovic M., et al. Perspectives and future directions of human pluripotent stem cell-based therapies: lessons from Geron's clinical trial for spinal cord injury. Stem Cells Dev. 2014, 23(1):1-4.
4. EuroStemCell Kyoto University's Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences (WPI-iCeMS), and Elsevier. Stem Cell Research. Trends and Perspectives on the Evolving International Landscape 2013, 5. Elsevier.
5. Moad M., Pal D., et al. A novel model of urinary tract differentiation, tissue regeneration, and disease: reprogramming human prostate and bladder cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. Eur. Urol. November 2013, 64(5):753-761.
6. Southgate J. Reprogramming stromal cells from the urinary tract and prostate: a trip to pluripotency and back?. Eur. Urol. November 2013, 64(1):762-764.
7. Pal D., Moad M. Reply from authors re: Felix Wezel, Jennifer Southgate. Reprogramming stromal cells from the urinary tract and prostate: a trip to pluripotency and back?. Eur. Urol. November 2013, 64(1):764-765.
8. Osborn S.L., Thangappan R., et al. Induction of human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells into urothelium. Stem Cells Transl. Med. May 2014, 3(5):610-619.
9. Goldthwaite Charles A. The Promise of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells iPSC, at:, (Last accessed: 28 August 2014). http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/Regenerative_Medicine/pages/2006chapter10.aspx.
10. Bilic J., Izpisua J.C. Concise review: induced pluripotent stem cells versus embryonic stem cells: close enough or yet too far apart?. Stem Cells 2012, 30:33-41. 10.1002/stem.700.
11. Gutierrez-Aranda I., Ramos-Mejia V., et al. Human induced pluripotent stem cells develop teratoma more efficiently and faster than human embryonic stem cells regardless the site of injection. Stem Cells 2010, 28(9):1568-1570. 10.1002/stem.471.
12. Ohnishi K., Semi K., et al. Premature termination of reprogramming in vivo leads to cancer development through altered epigenetic regulation. Cell 2014, 156(4):663-677. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.005.
13. Sachamitr P., Hackett S., Fairchild P.J. Induced pluripotent stem cells: challenges and opportunities for cancer immunotherapy. Front. Immunol. April 17 2014, (at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00176/full. Last accessed: 28 August 2014). 10.3389/fimmu.2014.00176.
14. de Wert G., Mummery C. Human embryonic stem cells: research, ethics and policy. Hum. Reprod. 2003, 18(4):672-682.
15. Alkorta I., De Miguel I., Rodriguez D. Cloning and the Oviedo convention: the socio-cultural construction of regulation. The Global Dynamics of Regenerative Medicine 2013, 150-168. A Social Science Critique, Palgrave MacMillan. A. Webster (Ed.).
16. Casabona Carlos María Romeo La cuestión jurídica de la obtención de células troncales embrionarias con fines de investigación biomédica: consideraciones de política legislativa. Rev. de Derecho y Genoma Humano 2006, 24:75-128.
17. European Court of Justice Case C-34/10 2011, Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace.
18. Suarez A., Lang M., Huarte J. DIANA anomalies: criteria for generating human pluripotent stem cells without embryos. Nat. Cathol. Bioeth. Q. 2007, 7(2):315-336.
19. Suarez A. Is this cell entity a human being? Neural activity, spiritual soul, and the status of the inner cell mass and pluripotent stem cells. Is this Cell a Human Being? 2011, 171-192. Springer. A. Suarez, J. Huarte (Eds.).
20. Devolder K., Savulescu J. The moral imperative to conduct embryonic stem cell and cloning research. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 2006, 15(1):7-21.
21. Green R. Benefiting from "evil" an incipient moral problem in human stem cell research. Bioethics 2002, 16(6):544-556.
22. Devolder K. Against the discarded-created distinction in embryonic stem cell research. Stem Cells. New Frontiers in Science & Ethics 2012, 137-162. M. Quigley, S. Chan, J. Harris (Eds.).
23. Commission of the European Communities. Report on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research 2003, 9. European Commission, Brussels.
24. National Advisory Bioethics Commission (NBAC) Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research 1999, 52. NBAC.
25. Fletcher J.C. NBAC's arguments on embryo research: strengths and weaknesses. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate. Science, Ethics, and Public Policy 2001, 61-72. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. S. Holland, K. Lebacqz, L. Zoloth (Eds.).
26. Outka G. The ethics of embryonic stem cell research and the principle of "nothing is lost". Yale J. Health Policy Law Ethics 2009, 9(3):585-602. (Article 7).
27. Ramsey P. War and the Christian Conscience: How shall Modern War be Conducted Justly? 1961, 171-191. Duke University Press, Durham, N. C.
28. Williams B. A critique of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism: For and Against, 24th printing 2005, Cambridge University Press, London. J.J.C. Smart, B. Williams (Eds.).
29. Pennings G., Van Steirteghem A. The subsidiarity principle in the context of embryonic stem cell research. Hum. Reprod. 2004, 19(5):1060-1064.
30. Pennings G., Van Steirteghem A. The subsidiarity principle in the context of embryonic stem cell research. Hum. Reprod. 2002, 19(2):1060-1064.
31. Prieur M.R., Atkinson J., Hardingham L., et al. Stem cell research in a Catholic institution: yes or no?. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 2006, 16(19):73-98.
32. Zoloth L. Jordan's Banks, a view from the first years of human embryonic stem cell research. Am. J. Bioeth. 2002, 2(1):3-30.
33. Brock D.W. Creating embryos for use in stem cell research. Law Sci. Innov. Embryonic Stem Cell Controversy Summer 2013, 229-237.
34. Robertson J.A. Ethics and policy in embryonic stem cell research. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 1999, 109:109-136.
35. Kass L.R. A Way Forward on Stem Cells July 12 2005, The Washington Post.
36. Devolder K., Ward Christopher M. Rescuing human embryonic stem cell research: the possibility of embryo reconstitution after stem cell derivation. Metaphilosophy 2007, 38(2-3):245-263.
37. Rodin S., Antonson L., et al. Clonal culturing of human embryonic stem cells on laminin-521/E-cadherin matrix in defined and xeno-free environment. Nat. Commun. January 27 2014, 5(3195). (at: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140127/ncomms4195/full/ncomms4195.html Last accessed: 8 May 2014). 10.1038/ncomms4195.
38. Tachibana M., Amato P., et al. Human embryonic stem cells derived by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell 2013, 153(6):1228-1238.
39. Saunders R., Savulescu J. Research ethics and lessons from Hwang gate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?. J. Med. Ethics 2008, 34(3):214-221.
40. Gottweis H., Triendl R. South Korean policy failure and the Hwang debacle. Nat. Biotechnol. 2006, 24(2):141-143.
41. Kakuk P. The legacy of the Hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2009, 15(4):545-562.
42. Baker M. Stem cells made by cloning adult humans. Cell lines made by two separate teams could boost the prospects of patient-specific therapies. Nature April 28 2014, 10.1038/nature.2014.15107.
43. James J., Chong H., Yang X., et al. Human embryonic-stem-cell-derived cardiomyocytes regenerate non-human primate hearts. Nature 2014, (Published online 30 April 2014, at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13233.html. Last accessed: 8 May 2014). 10.1038/nature13233.
44. European Society of Human Genetics Abstracts of the European Human Genetics Conference. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2010, 18. (Suppl. 2) (2001).
45. Hansen J.E. Embryonic stem cell production through therapeutic cloning has fewer ethical problems than stem cell harvest from surplus IVF embryos. J. Med. Ethics 2002, 28(2):86-88.
46. Kiessling A.A. In the stem cell debate, new concepts need new words. Nature 2001, 413:453. (currently removed due to a copyright infraction).
47. McHugh P.R. Zygote and "clonote" - the ethical use of embryonic stem cells. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 351(3):209-211.
48. Dickenson D. Commodification of human tissue: implications for feminist and development ethics. Dev. World Bioeth. 2002, 2(1):55-63.
49. Alpers A., Lo B. Commodification and commercialization in human embryo research. Stanf. Law Policy Rev. 1995, 6(2):39-46.
50. Murray T.H. The Worth of the Child 1996, 30-40. University of California, Berkeley.
51. Devolder K. Entry Cloning, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2013, (Edition).
52. Kang E., Wu Guangming, et al. Nuclear reprogramming by interphase cytoplasm of two-cell mouse embryos. Nature 03/26/2014, (Advance online publication, at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13134.html. Last accessed: 8 May 2014). 10.1038/nature13134.
53. Cook M. "Therapeutic cloning" back on the boil, Bioedge available at:, (Last accessed: 8 May 2014). http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/10910.
54. Aznar J. Could iPS cells be clinically useful?. Med. Morale 2010, 2:227-239.
55. Neri D. The race toward 'ethically universally acceptable' human pluripotent (embryonic-like) stem cells: only a problem of sources?. Bioethics 2011, 25:260-266.
56. Suarez A. Is this Cell Entity a Human Being? Neural Activity. Spiritual Soul and the Status of the Inner Mass and Pluripotent Stem Cells. 2011, 171-192. Springer. A. Suarez, J. Huarte (Eds.).
57. Brugger E.C. Parthenotes, iPS cells and the product of ant-Oar: a moral assessment using the principles of hylomorphism. Natl. Cathol. Bioeth. Q. 2010, 10:123-142.
58. Denker H.-W. Human embryonic stem cells: the real challenge for research as well as for bioethics is still ahead of us. Cells Tissues Organs 2008, 187:250-256.
59. Power C., Rasko J.E. Will cell reprogramming resolve the embryonic stem cell controversy? A narrative review. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011, 155:114-121.
60. Magill G., Neaves W.B. Ontological and ethical implications of direct nuclear reprogramming. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 2009, 19:23-32.
61. Condic M.L., Patrick Lee Patrick, George Robert P. Ontological and ethical implications of direct nuclear reprogramming: response to Magill and Neaves. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 2009, 19(1):33-40.
62. Condic M.L. Totipotency: what it is and what it is not. Stem Cells Dev. 2014, 23(8):796-812.
63. Kang L., Wang J., et al. iPS cells can support full-term development of tetraploid blastocyst-complemented embryos. Cell Stem Cell 2009, 5:135-138.
64. Zhao X.Y., et al. iPS cells produce viable mice through tetraploid complementation. Nature 2009, 461:86-90.
65. Sagan A., Singer P. The moral status of stem cells. Metaphilosophy 2007, 38:264-284.
66. Devolver K. To be or not to be?. EMBO Rep. 2009, 10(12):1285-1287.
67. Watt J.C., Kobayashi Nao R. The bioethics of human pluripotent stem cells: will induced pluripotent stem cells end the debate?. Open Stem Cell J. 2012, 2:18-24.
68. Lee P. Distinguishing Embryos from Non-embryos. Is this Cell a Human Being? 2011, 77-95. Springer. A. Suarez, J. Huarte (Eds.).
69. Abad M., Mosteiro L., et al. Reprogramming in vivo produces teratomas and iPS cells with totipotency features. Nature 2013, 502:340-345.
70. Meskus M., de Miguel Beriain I. Embryo-like features of induced pluripotent stem cells defy legal and ethical boundaries. Croat. Med. J. 2013, 54:589-591.