Spring 2002
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ARTIFICIAL HUMAN UTERUS
By Fr. Joseph Howard
Many attacks and assaults on innocent human life continue
to be perpetrated today under the guise of a possible medical
treatment or "cure." Issues of human cloning as well as human
embryonic stem cell research are of paramount importance
throughout the world, given the current climate of modern
society that has refused to recognize that the human embryo at
fertilization is indeed a human being. Now appearing on the
scene is the attempt to construct an artificial uterus in
order to "gestate" a child for the nine months of pregnancy.
The world first heard of an attempt to construct an
artificial uterus for a fetal goat in 1999. Yosinori Kuwabara
and his colleagues at Juntendou University in Tokyo began this
experimental procedure. They designed a clear acrylic tank
that was the size of a large toaster oven. In the tank were
eight quarts of amniotic fluid kept at the appropriate
physiologic temperature. The umbilical cord was threaded into
two machines that jointly perform the task of a placenta —
pumping in blood, oxygen and nutrients and cleaning out
wastes. In this case, the fetal goat was 20 weeks old, weighed
six pounds and lived in the artificial uterus after being
removed from its mother by Caesarean section. The creature
behaved like any other fetal goat — it blinked its eyes and
kicked its limbs around. The goal was to have the fetal goat
survive for a 21-week period at which point the goat would be
"born": it would be lifted out of the tank and its umbilical
cord cut.
Application in humans
Now move from the realm of fetal goats to fetal human
beings. The goal of Kuwabara and his colleagues is clear: to
design an artificial uterus that will sustain a developing
infant when a mother's uterus either "will not" or "cannot" do
the necessary job of gestating her "fetus" for a nine-month
period. Imagine that with such perfected technology, a woman
could in theory conceive her child in a glass dish — in vitro
fertilization — and come back in nine months and pick her
child up from an incubator and bring the child home. There
have been significant problems developing this technology, as
the artificial environment has eventually failed. It is clear,
however, that key scientists expect to work out these problems
within a decade. Research moves along while the attacks and
assaults on innocent human persons grow ever worse in the name
of medical science.
Eugenic selection
We should first examine the psychological issues
surrounding such a technology. One question that must be asked
is, can one love a child who is a genetic stranger to them?
The processes of in vitro fertilization, along with surrogate
parenting and cloning, have already raised this question. The
artificial uterus is, in fact, the ultimate attempt to control
gestation, which translates into controlling the lives of
human persons who begin their existence at the moment of
fertilization. This technology will be deeply rooted in
eugenics — the process in which parents and scientists
"select" and "reject" children in their embryonic stage of
development for their children whose particular genetic traits
match pre-conceived subjective criteria. Those who carry
"defective" genes for disorders such as cystic fibrosis,
sickle cell anemia, etc., will have their lives destroyed at
the very start. Of course those involved in creating this
technology believe that this could easily solve the problem of
prematurely born infants, giving them a greater chance of
survival. Authors of this technology, however, have already
gone on record stating that what begins as a response to
illness will in all probability become a lifestyle choice. In
other words, it is already acknowledged that eugenics will
play a central role in the use of the artificial uterus. What
effects will be observed in destroying the maternal-fetal bond
that naturally exists during the nine months of gestation? Can
we really believe that severing the maternal-fetal bond will
have no pronounced effects on both mother and child?
Surplus children
We should also carefully examine the moral issues that are
at stake here with this technology. We have already seen the
attacks that exist upon innocent human life from in vitro
fertilization, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
There are at least 100,000 human embryos who are alive, yet
frozen in liquid nitrogen from the process of in vitro
fertilization. Today, many erroneously refer to these human
embryonic persons who are alive as "surplus material" to be
disposed of in any manner researchers deem suitable. How can
we be surprised that at present, utilitarianism has once again
taken over with the proposal to extract stem cells from human
embryos, even though removing those stem cells kills a living
human embryonic person each and every time?
These technologies are immoral for several reasons: they
fail to recognize that no one — not even a married couple —
has a moral right to a child. This mistaken notion leads to
manipulation, exploitation and destruction of innocent human
persons who are embryonic. The disassociation of the unitive
and procreative aspects of conjugal intercourse is a violation
of the natural right of each and every human being to be
conceived and gestated in his mother's body for the nine-month
period. This disassociation is what allows innocent human life
to be assaulted and destroyed. It fails to recognize each and
every human life as a gift that no person has a moral right
to, regardless of the circumstances. In vitro fertilization
opened the pathway for such attacks to occur as long as one
successfully achieved one's goal: delivery of the desired
child of choice. The extraction of stem cells from human
embryos that results in their death and human cloning have
furthered the attacks upon innocent life. Now more radical
attacks upon innocent human persons come to light with the
planned construction of an artificial human uterus. This
technology is something that we must both individually and
collectively denounce, regardless of how tempting its results
may seem. How many more innocent lives will be destroyed
before we say that enough is enough?
PARTHENOGENESIS
By C. Ward Kischer Ph.D.
Parthenogenesis has become a rather popular topic within
the scope of human embryology in the public discourse in
recent years. This is a phenomenon whereby cell division
(cleavage) of an unfertilized oocyte occurs, either naturally
or because of an external stimulus. Parthenogenesis occurs
naturally in some lesser species, such as bees and in one
breed of turkeys. It is not known to occur in the human.
This phenomenon may be induced artificially in certain
amphibians and rabbits. In fact, inducing artificial
parthenogenesis in amphibians is a routine laboratory exercise
for graduate students studying experimental embryology. This
is done in one of two ways: by simply pricking the animal pole
of the frog oocyte a needle, or by applying a chemical, such
as butyric acid, to the animal pole. It does not always work,
but when it does, one can observe cleavage planes form under a
dissection microscope.
In terms of development, the problem with artificially
induced parthenogenesis is that it produces only half the
required number of chromosomes in the dividing oocyte.
The development process
If this is the case, and no further development can occur
beyond one or two divisions, how might bees or turkeys develop
through this process in a natural way? For that answer, we
must look at how the oocyte matures. The sex cells, commonly
called gametes, oogonia and spermatogonia, are diploid cells;
that is, they have the full complement of chromosomes: 44
autosomes and two sex chromosomes (XX or XY). The oogonia
always have two XXs; but the spermatogonia always have an X
and a Y During maturation of the oogonia (cell division), the
chromosome number is reduced to half of the adult complement:
22 autosomes and 1 sex chromosome (an X). During one of these
divisions, one daughter cell is destined to become a viable
oocyte while the other daughter cell will become a "polar
body." This polar body has very little cytoplasm and will
ultimately degenerate and die. However, if the polar body is
retained, we call it "captured": the full, adult chromosome
complement is restored. Can development thereby proceed? It
occurs only in a few rare cases, and the explanation is not
really known. For those that proceed through any extent of
development, the chromosomes are all maternal; such an embryo
would also have many lethal genes and therefore, would likely
not survive. No verified case of parthenogenesis in humans has
been reported.
However, a 1991 report in Fertility and Sterility claims
human parthenotes were developed from artificial activation
and completed divisions to the eight-cell stage. It is clear
that such "embryos" could never implant in the uterus as they
lack paternal chromosomes responsible for forming the bulk of
the placenta.
The question arises: are human parthenotes properly
regarded as "embryos"? Although they have been called
"embryos" in this article, human embryology textbooks and
scientific literature only refer to them as "embryos" in the
broadest sense of the term. The oocyte from which they are
derived is a human germ cell, but technically, they are not
true embryos because the chromosome complement is abnormal.
Although they mimic cleavage in a normal human embryo, they
cannot (as far as we know now) proceed beyond two of three
division stages.
Human parthenote research
In 1938, E.B. Harvey demonstrated in sea urchins that
non-nucleated fragments of ova could be treated with
parthenogenetic agents and would divide several times and even
form blastula-like structures. The identical processes were
subsequently shown in amphibian species, too. One could hardly
refer to these cells/entities as true "embryos." In addition,
the question must be asked if a cell without a nucleus is
truly a cell. There are some ambiguities in biology. Blood
platelets, for example, have no nucleus and are usually
referred to as "bodies"; and they do not divide. Yet,
erythrocytes are red blood cells and are commonly referred to
as "cells." But neither do they have a nucleus, and they do
not divide. Therefore, common sense and propriety should
prevail.
The 1993 NIH Human Embryo Research Advisory Panel found
that the creation of human parthenotes for research purposes
ethically acceptable, and they determined that this research
should be funded by tax dollars. One must question the common
sense and propriety of such a venture, considering that
abnormal chromosomal makeup of the cells.
The idea of creating parthenotes, this time for obtaining
"stem cells," has surfaced again. ACT (Advanced Cell
Technology), headed by Michael West, has published a one-page
article in the "Brevia" section (it is doubtful it was
peer-reviewed) of Science in February, 2002. The authors, 17
in all, claim to have produced parthenogenetic stem cells from
monkey oocytes. From 4 out of 28 "eggs" stimulated, one cell
line was obtained. They claim that from that one cell line,
more than four definitive tissues were formed in culture.
The authors from ACT state that an alternative to human
therapeutic cloning may be parthenogenetically derived
"embryos."
Again, common sense and propriety beg the question as to
whether or not such cell lines would even be useful
considering their abnormal character.
The ABAC Quarterly is a newsletter of the American
Bioethics Advisory Commission, a division of American Life
League. The purpose of the ABAC Quarterly is to provide
ethical analysis on a variety of bioethical issues and
technologies, grounded in both valid science and moral
analysis showing respect for all human life from fertilization
until natural death.
Manuscripts submitted for publication should examine
biomedical technology as related to the innate dignity of the
human person. Manuscripts submitted for publication should
include the original and 3 copies, be double-spaced, and 2-4
pages in length. The credentials and current position of the
author(s) should also be included. Please address all
correspondence to:
Fr. Joseph
Howard
Editor-in-chief
The ABAC Quarterly
P.O.
Box 1350
Stafford, VA 22555