This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by [log in to unmask]


And a NYTimes op ed piece from a respected source...
Kathleen

[log in to unmask]


All Clones Are Not the Same

January 2, 2003
By GREGORY E. KAEBNICK






Distinctions that require explanations tend to get lost in
public debate, and the controversy over cloning is a
perfect example. There are two fundamentally different
types of cloning - "reproductive cloning" and "therapeutic
cloning" - but the distinction between them is in danger of
getting lost. And if it does, it could be a severe blow to
science.

The press and scientists have been careful in every report
to explain that reproductive cloning refers to the creation
of an embryo using a technique known as somatic cell
nuclear transfer. In this process, the nucleus of the cell
from an adult is transferred into an egg whose own nucleus
has been removed. The goal is to bring the embryo to term
and produce a live baby.

The explainers of science have also been careful to spell
out the ways in which therapeutic cloning differs from its
counterpart. In this process, an embryo is created through
the same technique, but with the goal of extracting stem
cells from it and producing - someday, hopefully - new
medical therapies.

Of course, the fact that these explanations must be given
over and over only shows how badly the distinction has
failed to take root with the public.

As the controversy has heated up with the claim of the
first human clone, the word cloning has come to mean, in
the public's mind, the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer
for artificial, asexual reproduction; to make a biologic
copy of an existing organism. Scientists themselves often
use the word "cloning" casually to refer to any use of
somatic cell nuclear transfer. But elsewhere in science,
cloning refers to outcome rather than process: it denotes
replication of some biologic entity - perhaps an organism,
but perhaps only one cell, or perhaps just a stretch of
DNA. This reproduction might involve somatic cell nuclear
transfer, or it might use some other technology.

The difficulty in making a distinction between reproductive
and therapeutic cloning is showing up most evidently in two
competing Senate bills. One, supported by Senator Bill
Frist, the new majority leader, would ban all cloning
research. The other, with bipartisan support, views cloning
via its end result, and would allow therapeutic cloning
while banning reproductive cloning.

Words are not always content with scientists' definitions
of them. What percentage of Americans actually think of a
tomato as a fruit rather than a vegetable? How often are
bison called buffalo? In general, we can live with that
sort of confusion - but when it comes to a politically
charged issue like cloning, we can't.

So it might make sense for scientists to restrict their use
of the word cloning to the reproductive type. This is
exactly what Stanford University did when it denied that
studies it planned to sponsor on somatic cell nuclear
transfer would be cloning research. Scientists would only
be creating stem cells, said university officials, not
doing cloning. The claim was preposterous by scientific
standards - that is, if cloning is defined by a laboratory
technique. But if by "cloning" we mean a form of
reproduction, it was exactly right.

Of course, only scientists themselves can decide how they
will use their terms of art. A more vexing problem is what
the rest of us should do. Even if the public understands
the scientific differences between types of cloning, I have
my doubts that it will be enough. People are still likely
to see therapeutic cloning as derivative from reproductive
cloning: it starts the same way, although the process is
interrupted and the new organism is put to other uses. Thus
we will view therapeutic cloning with a tinge of the
apprehension that reproductive cloning arouses in us, and a
total ban on cloning correspondingly will grow more
attractive.

Perhaps in the end scientists should let the public use the
word cloning in the sense it wants to and focus instead on
making the distinction between cloning and stem cell
research. Both processes can, at certain stages, employ the
same laboratory techniques, but then they follow different
paths and have different outcomes. And in this case, it is
outcomes, not laboratory techniques, that matter.

Gregory E. Kaebnick is a research associate at The Hastings
Center, a research institute in bioethics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/opinion/02KAEB.html?ex=1042830484&ei=1&en=e89e0e4376b9e5c6



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
[log in to unmask] or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
[log in to unmask]

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

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