[Note: Because I’m in Springfield, IL preparing to provide testimony on human cloning before a state legislative committee, I didn’t have time to write a new post. Under the circumstances I thought it would be appropriate to recycle this brief primer.]
"Humankind has now embarked into the 'Age of Therapeutic Cloning,” announced Bernard Siegel, executive director of pro-embryonic stem cell research at the Genetics Policy Institute, “This is a huge step forward on a par with the first isolation of human embryonic stem cells in 1998.” Siegel’s enthusiasm was sparked by two recent developments in the area of human cloning. In South Korea, scientists announced that they have developed stem cell lines from human embryos cloned from the body cells of patients with certain genetic diseases. On the other side of the globe, a team of scientists from the University of Newcastle has also cloned a human embryo, the result of limited licenses recently given by the British government.
Siegel is not the only one that is excited by the prospects of creating humans for research. Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine, hopes the news will affect Congressional efforts to expand funding for embryonic stem cell research. And Glenn Reynolds, showing once again that he is woefully ignorant about bioethical issues, thinks that, “The Bush Administration is wrong on [the effort to ban cloning], and they're likely to get politically steamrollered if they make a fight of it, once people realize that they, or their family, are at risk of dying from otherwise curable diseases if this kind of legislation passes.” Chris Nolan even goes so far as to claim that President Bush is "un-American" for not supporting cloning.
It is astounding that reasonable and intelligent men like Bailey and Reynolds would believe such nonsense.* But it goes to show that the public is often more aware of the propaganda than the facts on such issues as stem cell research and cloning. While legitimate differences in opinion certainly exists, they should be based on an awareness of the science and ethics that underscore the issue rather than the false promises of "miracle cures" or silly notions that it will lead to "entire organs...grown in laboratories."
A suitably thorough examination of the subject is beyond the scope of a blog post. But I hope the following brief primer on the issues and ethics of therapeutic cloning will help seperate some of the fact from fiction:
What is cloning?
Cloning is a form of reproduction in which offspring result not from the chance union of egg and sperm (sexual reproduction) but from the deliberate replication of the genetic makeup of another single individual (asexual reproduction). Human cloning, therefore, is the asexual production of a new human organism that is, at all stages of development, genetically virtually identical to a currently existing or previously existing human being. (1)
How does therapeutic cloning differ from reproductive cloning?
The use of the term “therapeutic” and “reproductive” in reference to cloning is misleading. All cloning produces a human embryo and is therefore reproductive in nature. The President’s Council on Bioethics uses the more accurate phrasing “cloning-to-produce-children” and "cloning-for-biomedical-research” to make a distinction between cloning that results in the creation of an embryo for subsequent destruction and one that is created in order to continue the normal process of human development.
What is the process of human cloning?
Cloning is achieved by a technique referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The process involves introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell (donor) into an oocyte (egg cell) whose own nucleus has been removed or inactivated, and then stimulating this new entity to begin dividing and growing, yielding a cloned embryo.
Does cloning produce an exact genetic replica of the donor?
No. All human cells, including eggs and sperm, contain small, energy-producing organelles called mitochondria. Mitochondria contain a small piece of DNA that specifies the genetic instructions for making several essential mitochondrial proteins. SCNT transfers the nucleus into the oocyte which contains mitochondrial DNA of the egg donor. Just as in sexual reproduction, the embryo produced by cloning contains genetic material from two different individuals.
How do the harvested cells from a cloned embroyo differ from those produced by IVF or sexual reproduction?
Due to missing, but crucial interactions between the sperm and egg, genetic reprogramming errors' are inherent to cloning. This leads to random, widespread genetic 'imprinting' and 'epigenetic' defects that are both known causes of cancer. In addition to the 'epigenetic' defects, cells derived from cloning that are injected back into the donor are rejected because of epigenetic mis-expression, genetic differences due to mitochondrial DNA, and the incompatibility of cells too immature in development to interact with adult tissue environments. This is the major stumbling block for using material from cloned embroyos for the treatment of diseases.
What are the ethical problems concerning human cloning?
The primary moral objection to cloning for research is that it creates human life solely for the purpose of destroying it; using a human embryo merely as a means to an end. In order to justify the killing of these human beings for their “spare parts”, we have to ignore the scientific understanding what makes a member of the human species and argue on the metaphysical definition of what constitutes “personhood.” But as Richard Doerflinger, deputy director for pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, notes, “You can’t point to many instances in human history where that process of dividing the human species came to any good.”
Isn’t concern about the “moral status” of the embryo based on religious premises? Why should someone who doesn’t agree with that position reject cloning?
While it is true that many social conservatives oppose the cloning of human embryos for religious and ethical reasons, the issue is not divided along the typical left/right political spectrum. Even pro-choice advocates and others who hold liberal and progressive political views find sufficient ethical concerns for opposing the procedure.
The progressive International Center for Technology Assessment, for example, highlights the concerns that cloning will lead to the exploitation of women:
In recent testimony, one researcher stated that stem cells might be able to provide up to 1.7 million therapies per year. This would require a minimum of 5-8 million human eggs per year - assuming a very optimistically high success rate of 1 stem cell culture out of 3-5 clonal embryos. Where will researchers get these millions of eggs? From women in this country or abroad, and it is highly likely that many of these women will have to become repeat donors. Egg donation can have significant health impacts on women. Of particular concern are (1) the super-ovulating drugs that women are given in order to provide the eggs for embryo cloning, (2) numerous hormone treatments given to ease egg extraction, and (3) the extraction process itself. Risks to women from egg donation include a potential link to ovarian cysts and cancers, severe pelvic pain, rupture of the ovaries, bleeding into the abdominal cavity, acute respiratory distress, pulmonary embolism, and possible negative effects on future fertility. Most women who are lured into this process are economically disenfranchised and perform this operation because they are in financial need and seek payment for their eggs.
Doesn't a ban on therapeutic cloning remove a promising venue for biomedical research?
Currently, the primary justification for therapeutic cloning is as a means of harvesting embryonic stem cells. Any therapies that would result from the technique would likely come from that use. Cloning, however, not only compounds the ethical concerns of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research but adds a significant number of other moral problems. This Machiavellian approach would be difficult to justify even if ESC research were to lead to miraculous cures. But ESC appears to be an unnecessarily speculative undertaking. Even pro-cloning scientists like Janet Rowley, who compares the timeline for finding cures using cloning to the “war on cancer", admit that we are at best decades away from using such research for therapeutic purposes. At worst, it would be a complete waste of valuable resources.
The use of adult stem cells, however, has none of the ethical problems and far fewer of the biomedical complications of ESC research. In fact, the list of benefits of adult stem cells to human patients includes:
1. Brain Cancer
2. Retinoblastoma
3. Ovarian Cancer
4. Merkel Cell Cancer
5. Testicular Cancer
6. Lymphoma
7. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
8. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
9. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
10. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
11. Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy with Dysproteinemia
12. Multiple Myeloma
13. Myelodysplasia
14. Breast Cancer
15. Neuroblastoma
16. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
17. Hodgkin's Lymphoma
18. Renal Cell Carcinoma
19. Various Solid Tumors
20. Soft Tissue Sarcoma
21. Scleromyxedema
22. Multiple Sclerosis
23. Crohn's Disease
24. Rheumatoid Arthritis
25. Juvenile Arthritis
26. Systemic Lupus
27. Polychondritis
28. Systemic Vasculitis
29. Sjogren's Syndrome
30. Behcet's Disease
31. Myasthenia Gravis
32. Red Cell Aplasia
33. Autoimmune Cytopenia
34. X-Linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
35. X-Linked Hyperimmunoglobuline-M Syndrome
36. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome-X1
37. Sickle Cell Anemia
38. Sideroblastic Anemia
39. Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
40. Aplastic Anemia
41. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
42. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
43. Fanconi's Anemia
44. Diamond Blackfan Anemia
45. Thalassemia Major
46. Stroke
47. Osteogenesis Imperfecta
48. Sandhoff Disease
49. Corneal Degeneration
50. Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis
51. Primary Amyloidosis
52. Limb Gangrene
53. Surface Wound Healing
54. Heart Damage
55. Parkinson's Disease
56. Spinal Cord Injury
57. Scleroderma
58. Hurler's Syndrome
The number of treatments derived from ESC research: Zero.
When time and money are limited it's not only irrational but immoral to divert funding and attention from promising areas of research to ones that have absolutely no evidence of producing results.
(1) "Frequently Asked Questions about Human Cloning and the Council's Report", The President's Council on Bioethics
*I'm not familiar with Chris Nolan but if his post is any indication, I don't think he warrants the adjective "intelligent."
Related posts:
Stem Cell Research and Policy: A Primer on the Issues
See Also:
CloningInformation.org
StemCellResearch.org
The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
1
First of all, I am suspect of some of the claims written above... more beloww...but that said...
Allow me, as somebody who's in the center -progressive end of the spectrum, and a non-Christian to set you straight about what would be some ethical difficulties with human reproductive cloning...and reproductive cloning in general:
1. It's costly compared to other therapies which might help more people more profoundly...
2. It has the potential to alter the "DNA ecosystem" in ways that are un-predictable and thus potentially injurious to human and non-human life.
But as for "therapeutic" cloning, I must say this looks an awful lot like "born people" = zygotes, and that's a pretty moral repugnant stance.
posted on 01.12.2006 8:32 AM2
A few clarifications:
Since the obvious intent of "cloning-for-biomedical-research" is the development of clinical therapies, it would be more correct to refer to it as "cloning-for-biomedical-research-and-therapy". The difference between this and "therapeutic cloning" is not great (especially when, eventually, the actual therapeutic use of such clones overtakes their use for research) - making the objection on this score more an issue of propaganda than of exactness in phrasing.
The "scientific understanding of what makes a human being" has nothing to do with the morality of cloning, since scientific facts do not dictate moral conclusions. The claim that the fact that clones are "human beings" means something about whether they can be used for research or therapy is an absolutely classic example of what is often called "the naturalistic fallacy": the belief that some particular natural fact logically requires some particular moral conclusion. Moral conclusions rest on moral values (in light of facts, but not dictated by facts). The question of "personhood" is precisely a moral question - a moral question that must be answered in order to determine the moral status of any putative person such as a scientifically human being. Ironically, Richard Doerflinger rejects the moral issue in favor of a bare factual issue while trying to answer a moral question - unusually bad thinking even for him. The "human being" argument would make a good trick question on an elementary ethics exam, but it's embarrassing to see it arise in a serious discussion of a practical issue.
Also ironically, Doerflinger claims that personhood is irrelevant in spite of the fact that the Catholic church has an explicit, official position on what defines moral personhood, and has, in fact held many - logically inconsistent - positions on that issue over the centuries. The fact that Catholics can't work out a reasonable answer to that question hardly means that there is no answer, or that we can substitute a categorically inapposite scientific question for the moral question at hand. The fact that they have had, and still have, official positions on personhood is acknowledgement that species membership is not the central issue - something Doerflinger surely ought to know.
Finally, as to: "You can’t point to many instances in human history where that process of dividing the human species came to any good." - does he really mean to suggest there are no moral distinctions at all to be made between categories of human beings? That's an even odder position for a Catholic to be taking.
Note that you don't answer your own question about religious objections to cloning - you merely point out that some liberals also have objections. On that logic, the fact that many conservatives support cloning must prove that it's acceptable. More to the point, religious beliefs on the part of some people are no basis for policy-making for all people. Against cloning? Don't have one. But that gives you no standing to dictate your position to others who disagree.
Finally, the "scorecards" many conservatives like to keep on adult vs. embryonic stem cell therapies are idiotic. Of course an older technology - and one not crippled by backward regulations and a reactionary political climate - has more applications than an experimental one . . . now. That has nothing to do with whether either is more promising scientifically. As you point out, the barely-begun embryonic stem cell research is decades away from application. But by your logic no invention that is decades away should be pursued, since preceding inventions can already serve the same purpose. Thomas Edison went through literally thousands of unworkable filament materials before inventing the electric light bulb - that obviously proves it can't be done, and candles are better. The Wright brothers tested over 200 wing shapes and built 7 full-scale aircraft - none of which worked well, or at all - before their famous Flyer; they crashed dozens of times in test flights. Obviously, airplanes are impossible - hot air balloons are the wave of the future. Almost 150 of the first 170 heart-transplant recipients died within a few years - some a few hours - of their operations, and a worldwide moratorium was declared on the surgery. That's why we don't have heart transplants today. Obviously, all research is pointless - anything that doesn't work at a certain time will never work, so continuing research on it will only divert resources from the older technologies that are clearly better. Obviously.
posted on 01.12.2006 10:09 AM3
First of all, I am suspect of Mumon's claiming a centerist postition, gave me a smile though.
"Follow the money" is a popular line these days. How much money do big drug companies spend in research dollars on ESC and how much on ASC research?
4
Mike O:
I'm with the majority of Americans on the most important issues...
How much money do big drug companies spend in research dollars on ESC and how much on ASC research?
Compared to what? Have you any idea how much they spend on advertising? R&D of drugs to prove safety and efficacy?
There's lots to complain about Big Pharma, but what I think you're driving at is in the noise. Way down in the noise.
posted on 01.12.2006 11:59 AM5
Hey mumon, or John Kowalski or whoever you are. You are in no way part of the mainstream. Maybe in Washington state, but not in the real world.
posted on 01.12.2006 2:38 PM6
Mumon.
My point was that the R&D done by profit driven big drug companies are a good indication of the promise they see and they see a lot more in ASR than ESR by their spending.
7
Kevin,
Since the obvious intent of "cloning-for-biomedical-research" is the development of clinical therapies, it would be more correct to refer to it as "cloning-for-biomedical-research-and-therapy". The difference between this and "therapeutic cloning" is not great (especially when, eventually, the actual therapeutic use of such clones overtakes their use for research) - making the objection on this score more an issue of propaganda than of exactness in phrasing.
I disagree. In fact, the only reason for using the term "therapeutic" is for propaganda purposes. The intent to use them in that manner really doesn't matter. When cloning can be used for therapies then we can justify the usage of that term. But until then I have to agree with Stamford bioethicists David Magnus and Mildred K. Cho:
The language used to describe scientific experiments also makes a great deal of difference in how accurately we convey the nature of stem cell research. We argued, for example, that referring to the process of deriving stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer as “therapeutic cloning” reinforces the mistaken impression that experiments are therapeutic in nature. In fact, there is no therapy currently associated with SCNT.
"A Commentary on Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research in South Korea." The American Journal of Bioethics 5(6):WXX
posted on 01.12.2006 5:35 PM8
"Miracle cures from Embryonic Stem Cells and ONLY Embryonic Stem Cells! The Blind See! The Lame Walk! We Will Live Forever!" makes the most sense if you assume they read Orson Scott Card's fantasy novel Hart's Hope and glommed onto the magic system Card came up with for the background world.
As explained in his non-fiction Writing Science-Fiction and Fantasy, Hart's Hope magic came from an idea that magic was powered by life-force; i.e. convert part of a soul to energy that is consumed to fuel the magic. When Card brainstormed this idea in a creative-writing class he taught, the idea came out that the younger the soul used to fuel the magic, the more powerful the magic could be as the soul had more unlived-life in its future. The most powerful magic would come from sacrificing a newborn and consuming its soul for magic power -- which was how the novel's main villain set herself up in power.
It appears ESC-only advocates have taken Hart's Hope another step further. Doesn't an unborn fetus have more life ahead of it than even a newborn?
posted on 01.13.2006 12:55 PM9
Few therapeutic cures have been found through embryonic stem cells, but adult stem cells show great promise. (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith042302.asp) Why is it that the thing people don't want us to do is always the thing that "must be the answer to life, the universe, and everything"?
posted on 01.13.2006 7:12 PM