Stanford experts, responding to a newly published method of generating embryonic stem cells that does not destroy embryos, expressed doubts about whether the technique will be able to placate opponents to stem-cell research. They also emphasized that it is too soon to gauge the method’s impact on the field.

The new method was published by Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), a biotechnology company based in Alameda, Calif., in the Aug. 24 issue of the journal Nature.

“From the ethical perspective, the thing that gets everyone excited is the fact that ACT claims that the method could take embryonic stem cells without harming embryos,” said Christopher Scott, executive director of Stanford’s Program on Stem Cells in Society.

The technique extracts a cell from an embryo in a very early stage, developing it into a stem-cell line while preserving the embryo’s potential for development.

“I don’t think the announcement in Nature is groundbreaking,” Scott said. “I do think it moves stem-cell research a step forward.”

He mentioned two important scientific features of ACT’s results. First, they apply a technique perfected in animals to a human cell system, “a pretty significant result.”

Secondly, “ACT claims to have made a line of embryonic stem cells using a different cell type called a blastomere, one of the eight or so cells in a two-day-old embryo,” Scott said. “That’s also interesting, because if those cells are like embryonic stem cells, then they may be as powerful or as useful as embryonic stem cells.”

Prof. Hank Greely, director of Stanford’s Center for Law and the Biosciences and chair of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics’ steering committee, agreed that the technique was a step forward.

“It is always a good thing to get more ways to accomplish something, and this seems inherently plausible as a way of making embryonic stem cells, more so than some of the other methods,” he said.

“If it works, it gives us another set of possibilities, both scientific and ethical,” Greely added. However, he emphasized that ACT’s results are not to be trusted until they can be reliably replicated.

Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the Stanford Institute for Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine, said he was unsure whether ACT’s process would become more widely used in the future, even if replicated successfully.

“It depends on how efficient it is compared to other techniques,” Clarke said.

The inefficiency of the technique was emphasized by Scott. “Not all of the blastomeres make it,” he said. “Efficiency is very low.”

Scott, as well as Clarke, both expressed further concerns and questions about ACT’s results.

“If you look closely at the data, the actual result doesn’t prove that embryos survive the procedure,” Scott said. “In fact, they actually destroy the embryos to get to the blastomeres.”

“How robust is the technique?” Clarke asked. “Can it be used to develop a diverse pool of embryonic stem cells? Finally, will it be useful for establishment of embryonic stem cell lines from embryos that have serious genetic defects?”

Outside the scientific, unanswered questions have arisen in the ethical realm as well.

Scott said that he did not think ACT’s new technique would resolve ethical debates about embryonic stem cell research.

“It’s just an interesting scientific result,” he said. “It doesn’t actually go after the moral question.”

Greely agreed, adding that, again, only time will provide answers.

“I think some of the people who are opposed will be mollified by this technique, but others won’t,” he said. “As for how that divides, it’s too soon to tell. Most importantly, what Bush thinks about it is unknown at this point.”

Last month, on ethical grounds, President Bush vetoed a bill to expand funding for stem cell research.

“For those that believe that the embryo at whatever stage — one cell, two cells, eight cells, 100 cells — is a human being, then anything that treads on the rights of the human being is regarded as immoral,” Scott said.

“Already, it’s clear that some of the opponents of embryonic stem-cell research continue to be opposed to this method,” Greely said. “In particular, the Catholic Church’s official position is quite negative. They view this into turning one human being — one embryo — into two human beings, and then killing one of them.”

Scott said that scientists are unclear as to whether a blastomere has the potential to develop into a human being.

“So this doesn’t resolve any kind of major moral point for those of us who believe that the embryo at two days, four days, six days, or later, is actually a person,” he said.

Scott added that there may be methods yet to be discovered that would be morally acceptable to all.

“There are many labs that are approaching this problem from different perspectives,” he said. “Some labs are trying to reverse-engineer older cells to act like stem cells. The question is: will these cells act the same as the cells taken from the embryos?”

Greely also cited this reverse engineering approach as the one with the most hope for satisfying moral qualms. However, he said that it was not clear that any method or technique of generating stem cells would eliminate all opposition.

As for whether the new method will affect the funding Stanford receives for embryonic stem-cell research, “it’s hard to tell,” Greely said.

“The big question buried in that is, will this change President Bush’s mind [about the research]?,” he continued. “I am clueless as to that. If it does, it could increase the total amount of funding that comes to Stanford as well.”

Scott said that he does not think ACT’s method will change Bush’s opinion on stem-cell research.

“If history gives us any lesson on this, I think Bush will come down against it,” he said. “He views the embryo as the earliest form of a human person, and I would imagine that he would look at this and oppose it.”