Woo Suk Hwang, the leader of the team of disgraced South Korean researchers who claimed to have produced the first stem cells from a cloned human embryo, had, in spite of everything, achieved a significant first. Recent analysis by Children’s Hospital Boston and the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts reveals that the cell line Hwangs’ team created represented the first example of parthenogenetic human embryonic stem cells. These type of cells have since been created in several countries and might represent a significant alternative to regular embryonic stem cells, so why aren’t we hearing more about them?

Parthenotes are eggs that divide without sperm, sort of a virgin birth. In some lizards and fish they may produce viable offspring, but not in mammals. Parthenotes typically result in embryos that survive for only a few days or weeks. That still makes them a potential source of embryonic stem cells, and because human parthenote embryos can’t develop to term, this could potentially raise fewer ethical issues around destroying potential life in working with stem cells. The Washington Post goes so far as to say that “embryonic stem cells derived through parthenogenesis cannot develop normally, so they are free of ethical objections.”

After initial genetic analysis on Hwang’s stem cells were inconclusive, Kitai Kim and George Daley of Children’s Hospital and the other Boston scientists got involved. They compared the genetic signatures of mouse embryonic stem cells made through nuclear transfer and those made from parthenogenetic embryos. The pattern seen in the Hwang cell line matched that seen in the mouse parthenote-derived cell lines.

Here’s the kicker– the U.S. prohibits federal funding for working with parthenogenetic embryos. It has been proven that work with parthenotes is much more efficient at producing stem cell lines than the more common nuclear transfer method, and one would think that using parthenotes should be a more sought-after method as we aren’t killing a viable embryo. So where is the hue and cry for this research? Is it too early in the research to know? Does it seem like farming embryos? If so where should humanists come down on this technique?