Fertility Researchers Fear Taint From UC Scandal

What renowned University of California fertility specialist Ricardo H. Asch allegedly handed to a Wisconsin zoologist was, by any measure, a precious gift.

In a country where relatively few couples donate reproductive tissues for experiments, Asch bestowed 21 freshly inseminated eggs and three frozen embryos on Gerald Schatten from 1993 to 1994, UC San Diego officials say. The well-known scientist used them to probe the mysteries of why some fertility treatments fail.

There was just one problem: The eggs and embryos were stolen, UC San Diego officials say. Last month, the university announced that, unbeknown to Schatten, Asch had not obtained patients’ consent to give away their viable eggs and embryos. Nor had he obtained university approval.

Whatever promise the tissues held for science, some researchers fear that Asch’s alleged gift will best be remembered for the taint that it brought to the entire field of embryo research.

Worse, the accusation--the latest development in a long-running UC fertility scandal--has heaped more controversy on a scientific enterprise imperiled by political opposition. Some worry that it has given fresh ammunition to abortion foes who object to tampering with incipient human lives.

“This is the last thing we want, to have this [Asch’s case] reflect on all the clinical and basic research that is being done,” said Dr. Mitchell Karlen, a Beverly Hills surgeon who is part of an American Medical Assn. task force now establishing guidelines on assisted reproductive technology.

Through his attorney, Asch has denied that he gave any embryos to Schatten and has blamed any mishaps at clinics where he worked on university employees.

UC San Diego’s accusations against Asch came just days after Congress passed a law virtually banning federal funding for research on human embryos for the rest of the fiscal year. Though research on embryos created outside the womb has not been federally funded since the 1970s, the formal action sent a chilling message to scientists who had been hoping for federal dollars under a Democratic administration.

Critics argue that the ban, ultimately, is counterproductive.

The UC fertility scandal--which also involves allegations that Asch and his partners implanted stolen embryos in scores of patients--has raised a cry for a greater level of scrutiny in the field. In the research arena, federal funding brings federal oversight. Yet the government has stepped back just when circumstances suggest that it should take a leadership role, some critics charge.

“Private researchers can do whatever they please . . . and it can go on anywhere,” said Dartmouth College ethicist Ronald M. Green. “You can do it in your kitchen.

“In the absence of federal funding,” he cautioned, “the research goes on anyway . . . without review.”

Even if the government funded such research, officials still could not exert control over those who rely on private dollars, countered Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), who sponsored the virtual ban.

“It starts out with a base of respect for the sanctity of life,” Dickey said. “We’re just saying we don’t want federal funds to go to experimenting with that life, terminating it, or causing risk or harm to it.”

Most embryo research in the United States takes place in a few dozen centers and is privately funded. The portion done at universities is sometimes--but not always--reviewed by internal boards, with varying degrees of vigilance.

UC San Diego alleges that Asch skirted the university’s oversight process. University officials assert that the doctor failed to get approval from patients or the university’s review board, as required, then lied to Wisconsin researcher Schatten, in writing, saying that he had. A board at the University of Wisconsin approved Schatten’s research based on those misrepresentations, officials there said.

For his efforts, Asch got his name on two research papers in scientific journals, officials said.

Many research advocates argue that if Asch was so unethical as to sacrifice patients’ rights for scientific glory, no law or regulation was going to stand in his way.

“The solution . . . is not just to ratchet up the regulations,” said Norman Fost, who heads the review board at the University of Wisconsin but stressed that he was expressing his personal views. “Every time you do that, you inhibit good researchers. . . . More regulation doesn’t prevent somebody from lying or cheating.”

Others say that more self-policing within the field is a must.

“The $64,000 question is: How rapidly does this area of research have to move?” said Dr. Joseph Gambone, director of the fertility program at the UCLA School of Medicine. “People in science tend to want zero regulation so science can move along as rapidly as possible. . . . But this . . . has enormous ethical and moral and legal considerations. Maybe it’s good to take pause.”

While the debate rages, the country is building up a huge store of frozen embryos. But relatively few are available for research.

“It’s very hard to obtain eggs for experimental purposes because women pay a large price in terms of time, effort, risk and expenditure to have eggs available so they can try to achieve a pregnancy,” said Dr. Joseph Massey, a fertility specialist in Atlanta.

Arthur Caplan, an ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, speculated that the shortage of embryos for research has created a small black market among researchers.

At the same time, he said, the store of embryos is growing because not enough research is being done to make the fertilization process more efficient.

For a while, researchers’ hopes were high. In 1994, a year after a two-decade moratorium on federal funding for embryo research was quietly lifted by Congress, the National Institutes of Health convened a panel--including Dartmouth’s Green--to develop detailed recommendations for projects.

In 1994, the panel endorsed limited research for purposes such as improving the likelihood of pregnancy, identifying genetic abnormalities and developing contraceptives. The panel termed unacceptable such endeavors as mixing human and animal reproductive materials and combining material from two human embryos into one.

But, to the disappointment of panel members, the recommendations were swept aside. In late 1994, President Clinton banned funding for research on embryos created exclusively for research purposes. Last month, Congress approved--and the president reluctantly accepted--the more sweeping ban in a concession to conservative Republican legislators.