 |
 |
BostonHerald com It's difficult to argue against genetic progress by Bonnie Erbe Monday, February 5, 2001 It is with a stomach-churning combination of excitement, horror, fascination and fear that we greet the news of Britain's decision to legalize the ``therapeutic'' cloning of human embryos. Odd, isn't it, that Britain's House of Lords should act to do so in the same week when President Bush signaled opposition to stem-cell research? One wonders what impact these two events will have on each country's position in the race for global prominence in the scientific arena. To some, Britain's highly controversial move propelled that nation into first place. To others, it thrust the United Kingdom ever closer to the borders of hell. Scientists predict within a matter of months or years, British researchers will create human embryos primarily for extraction of their nascent stem cells. But lest we horrified Americans be left with freakish images of hundreds of full-term fetuses living in man-made placentas, we need to take into account that the new British law specifically forbids the research of cloning technology to reproduce full humans. ``Therapeutic'' cloning only allows the use of a patient's DNA to create an embryo of no more than two weeks gestation. The stems cells are usually harvested in the first few days of development, ending the embryo's existence. Doubtless, however, those who believe that life begins at conception will still view Britain's research as murderous, a point which will be endlessly debated in this country. Meanwhile, British researchers will be working to discover whether they can use these ``unprogrammed'' master cells to cure Parkinson's patients or diabetics. Stem cells are at such an early point of development they can become nearly any type of cell in the body. Scientists plan to ``train'' these cells to replace the defective pancreatic cells of diabetics, replace tissue damaged by cancer, fix spinal cord injuries or allow Cystic Fibro sis patients to breathe normally. As an aside, an American fertility doctor has announced he is forming an international team to attempt to clone a human as well. But other private doctors have made similar announcements, and without government backing they have been unable to succeed. While such advances are so futuristic as to flabbergast, they come with profound ethical questions. Will scientific renegades clone babies and ``sell'' them on the Internet (as we saw with the American twins from St. Loui s)? Worse yet, will babies be cloned for the purpose of removing their organs for resale? One need not possess the imagination of a science fiction writer to envision the creation of a class of cloned ``serfs.'' Wealthy b ut terminally ill patients could clone themselves just to take the clone's kidney or heart. Such scenarios are not so daft in a world driven by market demand. Then there are the more mundane and practical questions about America maintaining its scientific prominence. We lead the world in technology development. Yet the research community fears a massive brain drain of top biologists leaving the United States for the United Kingdom. There's already talk of the European Community replacing the United States as the world's economic engine. Britain's move could leave us trailing badly in one significant scientific arena as well. Who's to say which side is wrong or right here? It is clearly troublesome to watch mankind play God. At the same time, imagine the hope such research can inspire for those afflicted with disease or injuries, and we see Britain's move from a very different perspective. Americans can (and surely will) debate the morality of cloning humans. As we debate, others proceed and the future could be passing us by. Bonnie Erbe hosts the PBS program ``To the Contrary.'' http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/erbe02052001.htm