禁锢犹在 干细胞的春天在哪里?

【字体: 时间:2009年03月27日 来源:生物通

编辑推荐:

  生物通报道,关注再生医学的读者都知道近期奥巴马政府解开了人类胚胎干细胞研究的限制,就在科学家们和支持干细胞研究的人们欢欣鼓舞的时候,而另一群干细胞研究反对者心理却不是滋味,不怀疑某些极端主义者可能采取过激的行为。

  

生物通报道,关注再生医学的读者都知道近期奥巴马政府解开了人类胚胎干细胞研究的限制,就在科学家们和支持干细胞研究的人们欢欣鼓舞的时候,而另一群干细胞研究反对者心理却不是滋味,不怀疑某些极端主义者可能采取过激的行为。

 

本周的Nature在最新的社论栏目中发表了一篇社论文章,文章指出干细胞知识大众教育亟需开展。尽管奥巴马政府已经准许科学家研究胚胎干细胞,但是科学家们的一举一动落在民众眼中,如何在民众的关注中协调好科研与伦理的关系,值得当局关注。

 

文章报道,新的政策解开了干细胞研究的禁令,却没有提及Dickey-Wicker amendment

 

关于Dickey-Wicker amendment

Dickey-Wicker amendmentJay Dickey等人提出的一个议案,1995年被国会通过并年年延续,该法案明确禁止美国支持任何其过程中有创建或毁灭胚胎的研究。

 

由于Dickey-Wicker amendment的存在,任何有价值的研究项目都可能在申请联邦基金时遭遇滑铁卢,尽管奥巴马已经签署解禁决议,可是有Dickey-Wicker amendment的限制,这也白搭。比如说,斯坦福大学与生殖研究临床中心合作,在体外胚胎经过检测扫描没有遗传疾病后再植入母亲的子宫中,因此在这一过程中有的带有遗传疾病的胚胎就不能植入子宫,通常接受服务的夫妻愿意将这些胚胎捐赠给斯坦福大学做研究。这为很多严重遗传疾病患者带来希望,因为这种胚胎将是最好的研究模型。尽管,加州政府基金支持这项研究,但是加州基金数目有限,并不能给研究者提供充足的经费,还需要联邦基金的资助,但是Dickey-Wicker amendment议案的限制使得研究者无法获得联邦基金。因此说,虽然奥巴马解禁干细胞研究,没有改变Dickey-Wicker amendment对科学家来说帮助不大。

 

可以说Dickey-Wicker amendment已经不再适应现在的研究环境了。政府应该与民众对话,放宽法律禁令,以适应新的研究形势。

 

英国在这方面带了个好头。25年前,英国政府就与民众开通了对话平台,民众参与讨论,哪些胚胎是符合大众伦理要求适合用做研究的。这一举措取得了空前的成功,民众与科研工作者间的对话加深了民众对科研的理解,让科研工作者获得民众的支持。

 

文章认为,美国政府应该开展类似的对话,让民众、科研工作者和反对干细胞研究的团体等人员有一个交流沟通的机会,共同扫清干细胞研究道路上存在的障碍。进一步制定一个研究框架。

(生物通 小茜)

 

生物通推荐原文阅读:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7237/full/458385a.html

 

Editorial

Nature 458, 385 (26 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/458385a; Published online 25 March 2009

Embryonic education

Now that the US federal funding ban on human embryonic stem cells is lifted, scientists must engage the public's concerns about embryo research.

 

When US President Barack Obama lifted the funding ban for research on human embryonic stem cells earlier this month, he did not mention the Dickey–Wicker amendment — legislation that forbids the use of federal funds for research that destroys or creates embryos. It was a missed opportunity to begin a necessary conversation.

 

Because of this law, worthy projects will still be barred from federal funding despite Obama's action. Stanford University, for example, collaborates with fertility clinics that work with couples who have their embryos screened for genetic diseases. If pre-implantation embryos are identified with genetic mutations, the prospective parents can donate them to the research project, allowing stem-cell lines to be derived from them. This way, embryos unsuitable for implantation would become cell lines for studying diseases afflicting the donors' families. Although the programme has California state funding, this does not cover the costs of deriving lines from all the embryos donated, which in turn restricts the research.

 

In force since 1996, the Dickey–Wicker amendment badly needs updating to fit the current research reality, if not outright repeal. But because it affects fewer researchers than did the funding restrictions on stem-cell research, scientists who spent hours in public outreach trying to overturn the stem-cell ban may well want to return to their labs, leaving this lower-profile law's implications unquestioned.

 

Such attitudes are understandable, but wrong. Both the Dickey–Wicker amendment and the new guidelines on human embryonic stem-cell research being drawn up by the National Institutes of Health merit an intense national conversation. In particular, that dialogue should thoroughly explore attitudes towards studying different types of embryos — not just those left over from fertility procedures, but also those that might be specially created for research.

The United Kingdom set a good example. More than 25 years ago, the government began supporting a series of public dialogues about what sorts of embryo research would be deemed acceptable. This helped breed a trust and openness between the general public and the scientific communities that has permitted the scope of allowable research to expand over time.

In the United States, scientists should likewise highlight the restrictions they have already imposed on themselves — especially their use of ethical oversight committees, which bring together scientists, members of the local community and ethical expertise to ensure that research falls within established guidelines and has scientific merit. Scientists should also describe how they balance the status of human embryos with the potential benefits of research. And they should listen carefully to non-scientists' objections, hopes and concerns.

A key requirement for productive dialogue is a common frame of reference. Here, the word 'embryo' is a stumbling block. This term refers to everything from a newly fertilized single-celled egg to millions of cells organized into eyelids, ears, genitals and limbs. Yet the latter form, which is present some eight weeks after fertilization, is not only ethically unacceptable for research but also far too old to yield embryonic stem cells.

Multiple sets of widely accepted guidelines from, for example, the US National Academies, the International Society for Stem Cell Research and Britain's Warnock Report agree that the first sign that cells for the future body are starting to specialize — the glimmer of a structure known as the primitive streak at about 14 days after an egg begins to divide — marks the end of when any laboratory research on human embryos should be considered. To discuss this responsibly, scientists should insist on precision, specifying an embryo's developmental state in terms of its age, for example, or the number of cells.

In the United Kingdom, a broad consensus on stem-cell research began with long, ongoing consultations with the public. That discussion — using the appropriate language — must now begin in earnest in the United States.

相关新闻
生物通微信公众号
微信
新浪微博
  • 搜索
  • 国际
  • 国内
  • 人物
  • 产业
  • 热点
  • 科普
  • 急聘职位
  • 高薪职位

知名企业招聘

热点排行

    今日动态 | 人才市场 | 新技术专栏 | 中国科学人 | 云展台 | BioHot | 云讲堂直播 | 会展中心 | 特价专栏 | 技术快讯 | 免费试用

    版权所有 生物通

    Copyright© eBiotrade.com, All Rights Reserved

    联系信箱:

    粤ICP备09063491号