human cloning

The Growing Global Challenge to Egg Harvesting for Cloning Research

Diane Beeson
California State University

Looking back on 2006, one of the most significant developments related to stem-cell research was the emergence of organized global opposition to the increasingly aggressive efforts of scientist-entrepreneurs to acquire women's eggs for cloning research. Initiated by American women's health advocates, including several Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future (IBHF) fellows and affiliated scholars, to educate the public -- here and abroad -- about the ethically problematic aspects of egg harvesting and to rally support for a global moratorium on egg extraction for cloning research, this is becoming a full-fledged social movement.

Impetus for this movement was accelerated during 2006 by revelations that Korea's Dr. Hwang Woo-suk had not only wasted more than 2,000 human eggs in his fraudulent cloning research efforts, but also that he had used unethical means to obtain these eggs. Reports that he had coerced subordinates and paid "donors" belied claims that women were clamoring to donate eggs. News that a coalition of 36 Korean women's organizations was suing for damages to the health of women involved in his research -- two of whom experienced immediate serious side effects as a result of providing the eggs -- underscored the potential for exploitation of women implicit in cloning research.

One reaction was a well-timed Human Egg Procurement Consultation convened in February in Washington, D.C., by IBHF and led by Judy Norsigian, executive director of Our Bodies Ourselves and IBHF fellow. This civil society dialogue among experts and women's advocates sparked action in various arenas by many of the attendees, virtually none of whom were satisfied with the voluntary guidelines for embryonic stem-cell research issued by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) in 2005.

Two major strategies for confronting the politics of egg donation emerged during the year among women's health advocates. Although sometimes complimentary, these were distinctly different approaches. One, supported by the Center for Genetics and Society (CGS), and the ProChoice Alliance for Responsible Research (PCARR), is predicated on the assumption that research cloning will go forward and that women will be donating eggs. For them, the major issue is ensuring this is done in a regulated, safe, and ethical way. Thus, these groups actively supported legislation in California that extended restrictions on payment for eggs to privately funded laboratories, required the provision of medical care to those suffering from short-term side effects, and tightened informed consent procedures. Their efforts culminated in the passage of SB 1260. Unfortunately, this new law will not apply to research funded by the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), because CIRM is exempt from legislative amendments passed prior to January 1, 2008. Nevertheless, supporters of the bill believe it is important in setting a standard and in closing loopholes in CIRM regulation that could encourage use of non-CIRM money to obtain eggs.

Other women's health activists have adopted a different strategy, one that eschews efforts to manage egg donation for research and instead calls for a moratorium on egg harvesting for research at least until the necessary data are gathered to provide adequate informed consent. Under the banner of "HandsOffOurOvaries," several attendees at the Human Egg Procurement Consultation, along with additional allies, initiated this global grass-roots campaign with the goal of directly reaching potential donors. Officially launched on International Women's Day, it now has supporters in more than 20 countries.

The HandsOff campaign has steadily gained momentum, receiving substantial publicity in several countries during 2006. In Australia, for example, between 80-100 women's health advocates, wearing campaign T-shirts, demonstrated before the Australian Parliament on October 19th to call attention to the dangers for egg donors in light of the proposal to rescind the moratorium on research cloning. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the protest and the issues raised were widely reported by the media, and the groundwork has been laid for further grass-roots action in the coming year.

Beyond its extensive activity in Australia, HandsOff was also a major presence in formal public events, discussions, debates, and conferences in several other countries, including: a conference on "Regulating Biomedicine" at Leeds University, England, in July; a forum on "Envisioning the Human Rights of Women in the Age of Biotechnology and Science," organized by Korean women's health advocates in Seoul in September; and a public debate on "Egg Donation for Research" in Edinburgh, Scotland, in November. Closer to home, HandsOff representatives visited Missouri in October to educate voters on the risks to women's health posed by research cloning supported by that state's Amendment Two, which ultimately passed by a razor-thin margin in the November election.

Focused on the single issue of egg extraction, HandsOff adopts the successful-but-controversial IBHF strategy of uniting women's health advocates from across the political spectrum as a way to help move the public discourse on embryonic stem-cell research forward in the public sphere. Women's health has been the focus, and public receptivity to the well being of potential egg donors has grown dramatically since the first largely unsuccessful efforts to introduce the issue into the political arena in 2004 during the campaign against California's Proposition 71.

The contrast between the media's virtual silence on the issue of the risks to women's health implicit in cloning research in 2004, and the attention given to the subject in 2006 is striking. And, while significant victories remain elusive, battles on the issue are becoming much less one-sided. Missouri's Amendment Two narrowly succeeded, despite the millions of dollars poured into the campaign by cloning advocates. The University of Edinburgh group that sponsored the "Egg Donation for Research Debate" followed up with a written response to the Human Embryology and Fertility Authority (HFEA) Consultation stating that women should not be able to donate their eggs for research as non-patient donors or through egg-sharing arrangements, and other such egg-donor-oriented positions are increasingly being voiced in the UK and elsewhere.¹

It is not surprising that the risks of egg harvesting are finally coming to public attention. In 2002, in the context of opposing reproductive cloning, NAS warned that egg extraction for this purpose "could subject more women to adverse health effects -- either from high levels of hormones used to stimulate egg production or because more women overall would be sought to donate eggs, which involves surgery with its own inherent risks."² Even though this statement was signed by leading stem-cell research advocates, including Committee Chair Irving Weissman, such concerns did not dampen their enthusiasm for research cloning. By 2006, however, with the research cloning bandwagon moving full speed ahead, proponents were finally compelled, partly by their own success, to address the egg procurement issue directly.

In September, CIRM and the Institute of Medicine convened a one-day conference, led by a group of experts, on the risks of egg donation. Unfortunately, most, if not all, had significant conflicts of interest due to personal involvement in cloning research, profiting from the IVF industry, or representing institutions committed to cloning research. Nevertheless, presenters acknowledged the risks to egg donors from: anesthesia (required for this procedure); the attendant surgery, from drugs used (e.g., OHSS and long-term cancer risks); and unexamined psychological consequences. Not surprisingly, however, they defined these risks as small -- although, at the same time, they acknowledged the need to track donors over time to gather more adequate information.

Clearly, women's health advocates and cloning enthusiasts are moving toward more intense confrontation. On February 1st, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), a self-appointed group of stem-cell researchers, issued international guidelines taking a permissive position on egg procurement that undermines even the weak NAS guidelines by failing to oppose payment for eggs for research and by not proposing barriers to international trafficking in human eggs. The report from the ISSCR renews the need for continuing public attention to the question of whether we will proceed to needlessly expose large numbers of young, healthy women to heavy doses of hormones and other drugs, and to invasive medical procedures in the absence of adequate data from independent studies on the side-effects.

Research cloning advocates can continue to dismiss sporadic reports of strokes and deaths in young women that happen to make it into the press or medical journals, but that are not required to be reported to any central registry. They can neglect the thousands of complaints against Lupron on file with the Food and Drug Administration. They may even ignore the historical lessons on the harms cause by the use of exogenous hormones provided by decades of experience with diethylstilbestrol and hormone replacement therapy. But the voices of advocates for women's health are growing stronger and uniting globally. If the events of 2006 are any indication, the coming year will bring greatly intensified debate on these issues.

Diane Beeson is an IBHF affiliated scholar and is chair of the Board of Directors of Every Woman First, Inc., which has organized the international campaign "HandsOffOurOvaries.com."

¹ It is unfortunate that, even before the public consultation was closed, HFEA had granted a license to the Newcastle NHS Fertility Centre to begin recruiting female donors who are not already having medical treatment. Nevertheless, a growing number of voices critical of such decisions, including those of some scientists and fertility specialists, provide evidence that a strong critique of egg donation for research is emerging.
² National Academies of Science, Press Release (Jan. 18, 2002), available at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10285.