Send
In The Clones
by James Hall
November 28, 2001
"Leaning Left"
-sm.jpg)
A small piece of a story, nearly buried by the news in Afghanistan and anthrax
attacks, has the potential to grow. A private biotech company, Advanced Cell
Technologies, announced that it had developed two methods to clone cells. Both
methods are different from traditional or in vitro fertilization, and the purpose,
according to ACT, is to create stem cells capable of conversion to organs and
other body systems in order to cure a range of diseases from diabetes to cancer
to paralysis.
The announcement caused lot of confusion, including an eruption of concern from right to life organizations who used ACT's accomplishment as excuse to push a ban on all cloning. A bill to completely ban cloning has already passed the House of Representatives, where it was rushed through quickly without any scrutiny. But it languishes in the Senate, a more deliberative body, and gives us all a chance to examine it. What is cloning after all, and why should it be banned?
The idea of the "clone," a physically identical copy of another human being, has long been the stuff of science fiction villainy, undoubtedly the reason for the negative connotations the term has developed. Clones have been monsters or copies created for sinister purposes, as in the "Boys From Brazil," a popular 1976 movie where a fictional Dr. Mengele attempts to create another Adolph Hitler. Other works have portrayed clones as alike in mind as body, a race of beings lacking individuality, a potential danger to normal humans.
But these views of clones are the stuff of science fiction, not fact. The reality is that nature already clones humans--identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc., are essentially natural clones. We already know from experience that twins develop individual personalities all their own, and don't necessarily become villains or monsters.
Cloning nature's way is a relatively easy thing to do. In the first two weeks of life, an embryo that is divided, either naturally or unnaturally, grows into two or more identical embryos. This often happens accidentally in in-vitro clinics when the embryo is handled, accounting for the high proportion of twins and triplets born to couples who use in-vitro methods to have children.
The natural or accidental form of cloning, however, is quite different from the methods Applied Cell Technologies publicized. One method they used was to take an egg and remove its genetic code--its DNA--from the nucleus. Then the DNA from a mature, adult cell is added, and the egg treated to begin dividing as though it were a natural embryo. But ACT halts the process after several days and then harvests the stem cells, which have the same genetic code as the DNA in the adult cell, and can potentially be used to create any cell or groups of cells in that human's body, without fear of rejection by the body's immune system. This kind of cloning is called "therapeutic cloning" for its potential value in healing.
Though ACT denies wanting to, it's possible to let the embryo continue to grow and develop, plant it in a woman's uterus, and then produce a baby identical to the donor of the adult cell. There are many concerns that a cloned child would have many of the genetic defects or other problems that have been associated with cloned animals like sheep or cattle. For that reason, most nations, private companies, and most people would ban cloning for reproduction, or "reproductive cloning," at least until it has been perfected in animals.
The House bill would ban both types of cloning, therapeutic and reproductive, without distinguishing between the great potential benefits of therapeutic versus the potential harm of reproductive cloning. The Senate should make that distinction, and while concern for public health can logically cause it to ban reproductive cloning, that same concern should make it approve therapeutic cloning.
Stem cell research is one of the most promising lines of research in medicine, with the potential to cure many diseases. Adults produce stem cells too, which have been used in some cures already, but most researchers agree that adult stem cells aren't as flexible as embryonic stem cells and don't adapt to all parts of the human body the way that embryonic cells do. Stopping the production of embryonic stem cells, therefore, would preclude promising lines of research, slowing cures for many diseases.
The harvesting of embryonic stem cells causes concern among those who believe an embryo, even an artificially created one, to be a human being. The Bush administration had limited the federal funding of stem cell research to the 71 viable stem cell lines created from embryos before last August. But ACT is a private company that isn't taking federal funding, and the religious beliefs of a minority shouldn't preclude research on artificially created embryos when the law of the land, Roe v. Wade, clearly indicates that 14-day old embryos aren't human beings.
ACT's announcement makes therapeutic cloning is a reality. Should America, which has long led in the fields of biotechnology, give up a promising line of treatment that will be researched in Europe, Asia, or other places where a fundamentalist religious ethic doesn't hold sway? Scientists in Britain, Israel, and Australia are already moving ahead with therapeutic cloning, and banning it here only means that a promising American biotech industry dies stillborn. The Senate should ban any bill that bans therapeutic cloning. ***
© 2001 James Hall
COPYRIGHT © 2001 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.