Wake Forest University

A few reactions to the news about stem cells derived from amniotic fluid:

First, there’s a lot here that looks promising. The Wake Forest University researchers who found this new type of stem cells say (Washington Post, Associated Press, San Francisco Chronicle) that they share much of the versatility and flexibility of embryonic stem cells, and have already been turned into a range of tissue types.

But unlike embryonic stem cells, amniotic fluid-derived stem cells tend not to form tumors in test animals, and not to trigger immune rejection. Perhaps even more significant is their immunity to political opposition; stem cell research sans embryos makes this virtually unobjectionable.

And, unlike stem cells derived from cloning techniques, research with these “new” stem cells won’t subject women to the risks of egg retrieval.

Stem cells from amniotic fluid also seem better than “adult” stem cells as they appear relatively easy to isolate and culture; they apparently grow as quickly as embryonic stem cells. This raises the possibility of stem cell banks with sufficient genetic variation. According to lead researcher Anthony Atala, 100,000 stem cell lines would “provide cells for 99% of the US population with a perfect match for genetic transplantation.”

But let’s resist another round of stem cell mania. Like other varieties of stem cell research, this one will require much additional effort in Petri dishes and animals before human trials can begin.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman’s recent passing marks the end of a long and productive career. As one of the most influential free market proponents since Adam Smith, Friedman greatly influenced the development of local exchanges and global economies. But markets aren’t the only things that Friedman liked “liberal”; he was a staunch opponent of the draft and thought legalizing marijuana made good sense.

But, would Milton Friedman be a transhumanist?

The Economist—the magazine of record for free marketeers—suggests that he might. Its recently published annual look at the upcoming year includes an article arguing that human biotechnologies and other medical applications that may be used for “enhancement” are not unlike other uncontroversial attempts at health and longevity such as reducing caloric intake or taking supplements. Throwing its proverbial hands in the air, The Economist implies that market forces are best suited to sort out this growing field since “one thing is certain: whatever ailment drugs may be developed to treat [illness], if they can also be used to provide someone with a competitive advantage, or prolong life, people will take them.”

This libertarian link between transhumanism and free market conservatism is certainly disturbing. They share the perspective that government regulation is bad by default and the public good is nothing more than an aggregate of individual choices. This is surely simplistic to a fault; government oversight, such as civil rights legislation, often advances individual freedoms and the public interest relies heavily upon keeping individual choices from running amuck.

Viewing transhumanism as a legitimate market endeavor also fails to consider the qualitatively different concerns that arise when biotechnology enters the fray. What’s particularly troubling is that many of these enhancement technologies are irreversible, such as the transhumanist dreams of reproductive cloning and germline engineering. Even the worse market decisions, such as the Enron debacle, can eventually be remedied or prevented from happening again. But, can we say the same about a laissez faire approach to biotechnology that creates the conditions for genetically superior classes of people that clone themselves in perpetuity?

Over at the Hasting Center's Bioethics Forum, Richard Hayes of the Center for Genetics and Society reviews a proposal for the oversight of human genetic and reproductive technologies from Francis Fukuyama and Franco Furger. Hayes describes the challenge:

Who is pushing to legalize cloned meat? Follow the money -- and there are strong connections to human genetic engineering.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s draft risk assessment leans heavily on the work of animal-cloning companies Cyagra and ViaGen. Over a quarter of the 700-page draft is a data dump from those two -- a fact that the New York Times failed to mention, even when quoting the president of ViaGen saying "I think that this draft is going to provide the industry the comfort it needs."

ViaGen is part of the Exeter Life Science Group, owned by billionaire John Sperling, who also financed the notorious Genetic Savings and Clone (GSC). Viagen's chief scientist, Irina Polejaeva, was once GSC's, and when GSC closed ViaGen took over their gene banking operation. The cloned pets were rightly described by Wired as "a footnote to John Sperling's grand plan" -- and so are the cows and pigs. The plan is people -- living forever.

Cyagra was a subsidiary of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), of press-release infamy. ACT sold Cyagra in one of its desperate grabs for cash, but chief scientist Robert Lanza and his former colleague Jose Cibelli (a co-author of Hwang Woo-suk's and a former consultant to the California stem cell institute -- it's a small universe) are cited throughout the FDA report.

The surface agenda the FDA addresses is public safety (though Stuart Newman says "it's potentially a health hazard"); the agenda hidden in plain sight is that of commercial interests; and behind that lies the specter of human genetic engineering. It's a mutually reinforcing spiral: The animal cloners have been relying on human medical research (and of course feeding the starving) to make their work seem less unacceptable -- and the human cloners rely on the animal work to make theirs seem more reasonable.

The public does not want cloned meat and certainly wants it to be labeled, which the FDA says it cannot require. All the more reason to object now. The Center for Food Safety has been opposing animal cloning for years. So has the Organic Consumers Association, which has set up a handy site for responding to the FDA's call for public comment.