Harvard scientists have pledged to continue controversial embryonic stem cell research, despite the initial success of a method that produces similar cells without destroying human embryos.

The new “direct reprogramming” technique, reported last week by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Kyoto University, allows human skin cells to develop into any type of tissue.

Embryonic research, the prevailing method of producing cells with this flexibility, requires destroying embryos, a practice some consider immoral.

On the day the findings were released, Harvard issued a statement defending its continuing use of embryonic research methods.

“I’m not just holding out, but first I want to make sure they can do everything that embryonic stem cells can,” Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI) Co-Director Douglas A. Melton said in an interview.

While some researchers, including British scientist and cloning pioneer Ian Wilmut, have suggested they would focus exclusively on reprogramming, HSCI Executive Director Brock Reeve said the institute would “continue to do work on multiple fronts.”

“We don’t know enough yet to make an Ian Wilmut-like statement,” he said.

Both methods could treat conditions such as heart attacks, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease by producing specialized and patient-specific cells to replace damaged tissue resulting from such afflictions.


Scientists have not yet developed a means of producing reprogrammed cells without retroviruses, which would endanger patients if used in human treatments.

“Until we’ve figured it out, I think it would be a mistake to dry out private funds or any funds for embryonic research and nuclear transfer,” said reprogramming researcher Konrad Hochedlinger, adding that he predicted the new method would overcome those hurdles.

Anticipating a response leaning toward the “’now-there’s-no-need-for-embryonic-stem-cell-research’ school of thought,” Harvard released last week’s statement, according to science spokesman B. D. Colen.

The statement quoted Melton, Hochedlinger, and molecular and cellular biology assistant professor Kevin Eggan warning against ending embryonic research.

Last week, the White House released a statement saying “medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life” in response to the new findings.

President Bush has twice vetoed bills to expand funding for stem cell research, but Harvard has pursued embryonic research by relying on private donations to study human cells.

Though the new technique is eligible for federal funds, Melton said that a dearth of available government science grants would limit any increase in support for reprogramming.

“There will be some money,” Melton said. “But it’s not what the field deserves.”

Melton said he was unsure how the institute’s donors would react to the findings. At the time of the institute’s founding, human embryonic research was “the most promising way forward,” according to Melton.

“Now I would say the reprogramming of stem cells is equally promising,” he said.

The institute had discussed its reaction to the discoveries with some donors, telling them that it was too early to commit to one method, Reeve said. HSCI allocates nearly equal funding to embryonic stem cell and direct reprogramming methods, he added.

Despite disapproving of some reactions to last week’s discoveries, Melton’s voice radiated excitement when discussing the implications of the findings.

“Even over Thanksgiving dinner, you can explain to your aunt and your high school kids that these cells can become any type of cell in your body,” he said. “And they think it’s cool!”

—Staff writer Clifford M. Marks can be reached at cmarks@fas.harvard.edu.

For recent research, faculty profiles, and a look at the issues facing Harvard scientists, check out The Crimson's science page.