Scrambled Ethics

The research described in this article has since been called into question. See C&EN's further coverage at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i03/8403stemcell.html.

I am more than a little mystified by the brouhaha over South Korean stem cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang and his team's efforts to develop a straightforward method of producing human embryonic stem cell lines. At issue is their use of eggs donated by two junior team members and eggs purchased from a number of other women at a fertility clinic.

A series of articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times over the past couple of weeks paints a bleak picture, indeed. "An ethics crisis at one of the world's most successful human embryonic stem cell laboratories has plunged the controversial field of research into a new swirl of uncertainty, with U.S. scientists nervously wondering if the scandal will grow into a new wave of political backlash," led a Nov. 20 article in the Post. In subsequent stories in the Post, Hwang has been called "an embattled Korean stem cell researcher" who is guilty of "embarrassing ethical lapses." The headline of a Nov. 25 story in the Times was, "Korean Leaves Cloning Center in Ethics Furor."

I'm sorry; I don't get it. There is more than a hint of a double standard here, when human egg "donation" firms are advertising on college campuses for suitably attractive and intelligent egg "donors" and offering them $10,000 and more for "donating."

Some background is in order. Hwang is a veterinarian by training who, until recently, worked in relative obscurity at Seoul National University. His cloning efforts originally centered on pigs, cows, and dogs. The group began working on humans a few years ago, and in 2002 and 2003, apparently without Hwang's knowledge, two junior members of his large research team donated eggs. Also apparently without Hwang's knowledge, the administrator of a hospital in Seoul paid 16 women $1,400 each to donate eggs for the research. When the journal Nature first raised questions about how the eggs were obtained, Hwang denied that they had come from members of his research team or had been purchased.

According to the news reports, there was nothing unethical or illegal about either of these transactions. There is the suggestion-an offensive one, in my opinion-that the hierarchical nature of a society such as South Korea's may have placed intolerable pressure on the young researchers to offer to donate their eggs. There is also the suggestion that international ethical standards for biomedical research would prohibit such donations.

Perhaps. But I do not see such donations to be the basis of an "ethics crisis." What I find completely outrageous is the suggestion that purchasing the eggs was somehow ethically questionable. It is acceptable in the U.S. to pay substantial amounts to young, healthy, attractive women in exchange for their eggs when treating infertility. There are companies like Egg Donation Inc. and Tiny Treasures with websites offering to broker just such transactions. Tiny Treasures offers a sample ad: "Caring woman in search of Egg Donor! Looking for attractive, intelligent, healthy, non-smoking woman between the ages of 21 and 29. Proven academic accomplishments and musical talent required. Prefer blonde hair and blue or green eyes. Compensation offered: $15K."

You may find such an advertisement distasteful. As long as such transactions are legal in the U.S., however, it is hypocritical to suggest that a Korean scientist's purchase of eggs for stem cell research is somehow unethical.

The Web is a remarkable resource. In researching this editorial, I did a search on Google on "human egg commerce." One of the first hits was a 2001 scholarly paper titled "Regulating the Market for Human Eggs," by David B. Resnik, a philosopher then at the Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University and now the bioethicist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Bioethics 2001, 15, 1). Over 25 pages of close reasoning, Resnik makes a strong case for a regulated market for human oocytes.

Resnik writes: "Although the commodification of human oocytes raises important moral concerns, these concerns do not justify laws banning commerce in human eggs. ... The most prudent course of action is to develop regulations and promote important social values, such as health, safety, liberty, and respect for human life. Other responses, such as banning the sale of eggs altogether or allowing donors to be compensated only for their services, would either create a black market or would lead to corruption and abuse." I happen to agree, regardless of the purpose to which the eggs are put.

Thanks for reading.

The research described in this article has since been called into question. See C&EN's further coverage at http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i03/8403stemcell.html.