Recently in Bioethics (Cloning) Category

Last week Story Landis, the interim chair of the National Health Institute’s stem cell task force, testified before the U.S. Senate on President Bush’s policy restricting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Landis opposes the current policy and declared that “science works best when scientists can pursue all avenues of research.”

If the cure for Parkinson’s disease or juvenile diabetes lay behind one of four doors, wouldn’t you want the option to open all four doors at once instead of one door?

Landis' utilitarian view of ethics--the dominant view in the biomedical research community--seems to be some sort of "Monty Hall morality": If the potential for a cure lies behind any door, then we not only should open that path of research but should have the government fund it to the full satisfaction of the grant-writing researchers. Even if, like embryonic stem cell research, the potential for cures is more science fiction than science fact, we should throw open all doors – even if it means throwing obvious moral intuitions out the window.

Landis would, I presume, disagree with my moral qualms about killing human embryos since such entities are human beings but not human persons. Very well. Perhaps I should set aside my moral repugnance, follow the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning, and concede that we should follow all "avenues of research", including the one in which we harvest the organs of non-person clones.

If embryos (and certain fetuses) are not persons, and therefore are not entitled to either legal rights or moral concern, then we can use them in potentially creative ways. For example, in his forthcoming book, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, Francis Beckwith asks a question that logically follows from this view:

[W]hat would be wrong in a developmental biologist manipulating the development of an early embryo-clone in such a way that what results is an infant without higher brain functions, but whose healthy organs can be used for ordinary transplant purposes or for spare parts for the person from which the embryo was cloned?

For a supporter of abortion or embryo-destructive research* the only logically consistent conclusion is that there is nothing inherently immoral about creating human clones for spare parts. In fact, we could argue that we have a moral obligation to create organ-donating humans clones.**

[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:

Last week the South Korean stem cell pioneer Hwang Woo-Suk publicly apologized after an official investigation found two female scientists in his laboratory donated their own eggs for his research on cloning. Woo-Suk was not in violation of any legal or ethical guidelines in his own country but violated a international consensus against using eggs bought or donated from women who might be �coerced.� The scientific community was shocked to find that one of their own would resort to unethical means in order to conduce unethical research. As Ronald Bailey writes, �Ultimately, Hwang's ethical offense is not using purchased eggs for his research. Hwang's real scientific crime is that he lied about it.� Apparently, international bioethics has adopted the Watergate Standard � the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

Bailey worries that this scandal could derail the creation of the World Stem Cell Hub that was announced just last month. But such fears are unfounded. Biotech researchers are not about to let ethics stand in the way of their research and as long as they can convince governments to fund their projects they will find ways to circumvent the ethical concerns raised by their work.

I work for a bioethics think-tank whose mission is to provide a Christian perspective on the murky questions about healthcare, stem cells, cloning, and the other issues that we must fact as we move into the 21st century. Unfortunately, our task is mostly in vain for even Christians are willing to reject Biblical-based moral reasoning in favor of a bottom-line utilitarianism. �Sure, we�re destroying embryos and yes they are human beings but what if cloning can lead to cures for diseases?� No moral argument is likely to change the opinion of someone who clings to such hypothetical pragmatism.

If ethical arguments aren�t persuasive, what else is left to do? How do we convince people to change their beliefs about such issues? Economist David Cox may have the answer. �Economics provides a simple, almost trivial sounding, answer,� says Cox. �Believe something when the benefits of believing outweigh the costs, otherwise don't.�

"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:

"This is powerful stuff. If anyone ever accused me of playing God, this is as close as you can get,� says American scientist Dr. Panos Zavos. "I am not God, I play no God, I just do God's work.�

What Zavos considers �God�s work� is his claim to have succeeded in taking DNA from two dead people - an 11-year-old girl called Cady and a 33-year-old man, both of whom died in road accidents - and implanted it into living eggs which subsequently divided in the laboratory to form embryos. The purpose, claims Zavos, is to help three families to create a genetic replica of loved ones who have died.

The scientific community is, as could be expected, rather skeptical.

According to an article by the Associated Press, Sarah Bianchi, national policy director for the Kerry campaign, claims that the Senator is "absolutely not'' suggesting creating embryos for the sole purpose of research. This statement is evidence of:

a) Kerry�s latest flip-flop on a policy issue.
b) An intentionally misleading statement.
c) Proof that even his own advisors don�t know what the Democratic candidate believes.

While you can never underestimate Kerry�s ability to waffle, I don�t think it's (a). I also don�t think Bianchi would risk her credibility by telling a lie that would so easily be rebutted, so I don�t think (b) is the answer either. That leaves us with (c).

Perhaps Bianchi is unaware that last month Kerry signed on as a co-sponsor of a bill that, among other actions, supports creating embryos for the sole purpose of research (though you would expect a national policy director to know that sort of information). It�s especially odd considering that Kerry has long been a supporter of therapeutic cloning.

There is something oddly disconcerting about the way modern life has begun to resemble Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. Take, for example, the 2000 sci-fi thriller 'The Sixth Day" which featured a pet cloning company called RePet in which customer’s could graft their animal companion's DNA onto a pre-grown biological blank and within a matter of hours, have an exact replica of Spot or Fluffy. RePet promised pet owners: 'Should accident, illness or age end your pet's natural life, our proven genetic technology can have him or her back the same day, in perfect health, with zero defects, GUARANTEED."

While same-day service is not yet available, a California company has begun taking orders for clones of pet cats. According to the BBC, five customers have already plunked down $50,000 a piece to have Genetic Savings & Clone perform the cloning procedure. CEO Lou Hawthorne assembled a team comprised of scientists who were involved with Texas A & M University in creating the world's first cat clone, Cc, short for "Carbon Copy." Hawthorne claims that Cc is now a 'healthy and adorable two-year-old."

Customers may be disappointed with the results, though, since what they'll be getting for their money is not the pet they lost but a genetic replica. As Hawthorne notes,