 |
 |
This is another of Murray's articles - which gives the scientific opinions on both sides of the issue. Linda The Denver Post Scientists divided over human cloning By Allison Sherry Denver Post Medical Writer Sunday, December 02, 2001 - Curt Freed has studied cloned cow embryos before. He has taken the tiniest of samples and successfully injected them into mice with Parkinson's disease. And the only thing keeping Freed from acquiring cloned human embryos in his quest to stamp out the crippling disease is a ban on using federal money for human-cloning research. But just a building away, most of Freed's colleagues who are working on stem-cell research are distancing themselves from human cloning, which returned to the limelight last week with the announcement by Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology that it had cloned a couple of dozen human embryos. The announcement clearly rekindled the division within the worldwide scientific community about the supposed benefits of cloning human beings. "I don't think society should be afraid of research," said Freed, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. But Ronald Gill, director of the University of Colorado Hospital's transplant immunology program, says he knows precisely where he'd "draw the line in the sand." "You can't create a human being for science," he said. Some see cloning as a step toward finding an alternative to organ transplants. Transplants work when a patient can find an organ that matches, but that happens only 20 percent of the time. If patients with chronic heart disease could receive a cloned heart made from cells with their own DNA, scientists like Freed say that would be ideal. No chance of rejection. No more long waits for a donor. Others see cloning as a dangerous road to a mad-science world where babies are spawned just for the parts. Clones fatally flawed Some researchers argue that no one yet knows whether cloning will benefit science and medicine. So far, cloned pigs, cows, mice and sheep are fatally flawed. Some scientists ask that since humans are more complicated, genetically, than other animals, what is the likelihood of hatching a healthy human clone? Wouldn't energy and private money be better served in another arena? The U.S. Senate, meantime, is under growing pressure to consider legislation, similar to a bill passed by the House in July, that would ban human cloning either for reproduction or to create tissue for treating disease. Congress has barred all federal funding for any research that involves the destruction of human embryos, including cloning. For Gill, last week's announcement by Advanced Cell Technology was scary, he said. Gill is trying to discover a cure for diabetes from embryonic stem cells as part of his work at CU's Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes. He hopes that someday healthy insulin cells taken from a stem-cell line could be given to diabetics, curing them of the disease. Cloning hurts his cause, he said. "I don't think the average person can differentiate between stem-cell research and cloning. The danger is it gets lumped together, and people will think we have all these amoral scientists getting together doing their thing and they don't care. "That is not the case." Research shows promise Stem-cell research shows promise in helping most degenerative diseases. President Bush gave a limited nod to it in August, declaring federal funds can be spent only o study 64 existing lines. Researchers hope that an embryonic stem cell could produce endless healthy cells for whatever the malady - Parkinson's, diabetes, burn victims. All cells have different jobs. For the stem-cell research to work, the necessary cells - like ones in charge of skin production - would have to be isolated, replicated and injected into the patient. But what stem cells don't have is the capability to match the DNA of the patient, which is troublesome if that person needs a whole heart or a large sheet of skin. With no DNA match, the patient could reject an organ grown from an embryonic stem cell. With cloning, however, the organ would be genetically tailored to fit the patient. None of this has happened yet. Which is why Ian McNiece, director of research for the bone-marrow transplant program at CU, shies away even from embryonic stem-cell research. His alternative is mining bone marrow from healthy donor adults, and giving it to his patients. "(Cloning) is a big step," McNiece said. "It will not solve all our problems. Are you going to have factories where we make people and take what you need and throw the rest away? I don't think that should happen." "Baby factories' Neither does Freed. He doesn't believe that anyone thinks "baby factories" are the answer, which is why he is not afraid of what the Massachusetts scientists have done so far. Often, he argues, biological innovations make politicians and the public squirm before they become mainstream. And often it is private money - like that given to cloning and embryonic stem-cell research - that is spent for the initial breakthroughs, he said. Even the first kidney taken from a cadaver 40 years ago for transplant was greeted with shock and ire, and now organ transplants are mainstream. Artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization suffered the same mad-science reputation at one time. Now the discipline of helping infertile couples reproduce is well respected. But cloning crosses the line, said Susan Klock, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and psychology at Northwestern University. The controversy surrounding in-vitro fertilization 20 years ago existed only because people didn't understand the benefits, she said. "People were worried: Would these moms be OK? Would these parents be OK?" she said. "Once people found out everyone was OK, it was fine." SOURCE: The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E248951,00.html * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn