Cloning ban threatens cures, says bioethicist

Moral debate centers on when life begins, but cloning foes
also fear mass production of humans.

By MARILYN H. KARFELD Staff Reporter

In both therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell
technologies, harvesting potentially life-saving stem cells
requires the destruction of an early-stage human embryo. But
cloning takes the ethical quagmire of embryonic stem cells
one giant step further.

The deeper dread surrounding cloning results from a
"stereotypical fear" about the mass production of humans,
says Dr. Ronald Green, a Dartmouth ethicist who spoke
recently at The Temple-Tifereth Israel.

Therapeutic cloning promises to provide new therapies or
even cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's,
diabetes, cancer and stroke, he points out. Scientists would
clone an early-stage embryo from one of an individual's
cells to produce the stem cells needed for medical treatment
or transplantation.

These stem cells can be induced to become different
tissues-heart, blood, bone, pancreas, kidney, neurons - even
miniature organs, says Green, the first Jewish president of
the scholarly Society of Christian Ethics. There will be no
worry that the body will reject these tissues because they
would perfectly match the donor's DNA.

The moral debate exists because scientists must destroy the
tiny pre-embryo or blastocyst to obtain these pluripotent
stem cells. Opponents, who believe life begins at
conception, say these pre-embryos are human beings;
advocates say blastocysts are not babies.

For cloning opponents, the nightmare scenarios are even
darker, says Green, the unpaid chairman of the ethical
advisory committee at Advanced Cell Technology. The
Massachusetts company was heavily criticized last fall when
it announced the cloning of a human pre-embryo, which lived
only briefly.

These foes envision dictators like Saddam Hussein cloning an
army of superior slave warriors. Parents of dying children
may produce a DNA-matched clone for the life-saving body
parts. Donald Trump could replicate himself out of misplaced
ego. Or a plain Jane may order clones of Brad Pitt and Cindy
Crawford to impress the neighbors with her children's movie
star looks.

Those harboring such fears include the members of the U.S.
House of Representatives, who overwhelmingly passed a bill
last year to ban all human cloning. The bill made it a crime
to participate in cloning, punishable by a fine of at least
$1 million and/or 10 years in prison. It would be illegal to
import a cloned human embryo or any product derived from a
cloned embryo.

A parent, for example, could take his sick child to
Edinburgh for new insulin-producing cells. Within weeks, the
child is well, and the two return to the U.S. They could
then be arrested for importing a product obtained from
cloning, Green says.

The House passed this "ludicrous" legislation, which makes
no distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning,
after only two hours of debate, he says. The Senate will
take up the bill within the next two months.

Their decision will "set the stage for the future of
American medicine," says Green, who predicts the U.S. will
become a "medical backwater" if therapeutic cloning is
banned. All scientists in the field will move to Great
Britain, where such cloning is allowed.

Therapeutic cloning bears little resemblance to reproductive
cloning, he says. Today's technology, which has cloned
animals starting with the famous sheep, Dolly, cannot
guarantee the safe production of a human clone, admits
Green, who would support a five-year ban on reproductive
cloning. "But within five or 10 years (reproductive) cloning
will be a reasonably safe technology," he says.

Even if some renegade scientist did clone a baby, that child
will have the same rights as any other person, says Green,
who also chairs the Dartmouth department of religion. The
fear that people will create clones for spare parts for
themselves or their children is totally unfounded, he says.
"It's preposterous that society will allow a cloned child to
be cannibalized."

Cloning a human also "does not produce an instant replica
tomorrow," he says. "At best, it produces an infant who
takes 20 years to reach maturity. Saddam Hussein doesn't
need cloning. He can do it (more easily) with breeding."

In addition, Green says, "we are not our genes." Humans are
products of their environment and other random factors.
Identical twins, even though they share the same genetic
material, do not have the same fingerprints. Their disease
histories are not identical. Even when parents try to
enforce similarity, their temperaments differ.

Just as the white and black coat of C.C. (Carbon Copy), the
recently cloned calico cat, did not match the markings of
her mother, so, too, cloned humans will not duplicate their
parent. Random genetic mutations are responsible for such
things as the folds in our kidneys and in our brains, Green
says.

The related issues of stem cells and cloning speak to our
society's belief in individual freedom, Green adds. "The
burden of proof lies on those who would ban a technology.
Liberty is privileged. Society must produce a recognized
harm to offspring" before banning the medical technology.

Furthermore, he says, it's a mistake to legally prohibit
everything we believe is wrong. Just because we disapprove
of a childless couple choosing cloning over adoption doesn't
mean it should be against the law.

Such thinking would outlaw already proven technologies, such
as test-tube babies, in vitro fertilization, surrogate
mothers and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, which allows
those carrying a gene for a life-ending disease to have a
healthy baby.

Within 10 years, Green believes, someone will clone a child.
That child will "probably be no more or less harmed" than
one conceived through in vitro fertilization or through
natural conception.

Cloning will not replace natural reproduction, he says, but
will be used by a small number of people for a variety of
reasons.

"Let's not panic. It's not the most urgent problem in our
society," he says.
Bob Martone
[log in to unmask]
http://www.samlink.com/~bmartone

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn