Human Cloning

FreeRepublic ^ | 4/24/2003 | Marvin Galloway

[MHGinTN]

Cloning, defined according to STEADMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 24th edition, page 289, is: “The transplantation of a nucleus from a somatic cell to an ovum, which then develops into an embryo; many identical embryos could thus be reproduced by asexual reproduction.”

Higher mammal cloning attempts have been costly and difficult, however, human cloning does represent a challenge that has never been faced before by society, and this challenge needs truthful airing, before the science is applied broadly for any and all medical marvels which may be implied from the techniques. The term ‘cloning’ may also be used to identify the process whereby only molecules are reproduced, such as DNA, as when criminologists replicate the DNA of a victim or a criminal, for molecular matching purposes; or used to describe research biologists reproducing a nearly limitless supply of a specially engineered micro-organism.

Michael Shermer, writing in his column, ‘Skeptic’, in the April 2003 edition of Scientific American magazine, offers Three Laws of Cloning: 1. A human clone is a human being no less unique in his or her personhood than an identical twin; 2. A human clone has all the rights and privileges that accompany this legal and moral status; 3. A human clone is to be accorded the dignity and respect due any member of our species.

Hold on now! Isn’t the cart before the horse? … Mister Shermer’s three laws don’t address the ‘when’ in a clone’s assumption of rights. When is the clone to be considered an individual human so that the laws can be applied from that day forward? The answer to that question may be both a scientific as well as a moral question, but our modern society is not ready to address those questions until the full truth about human cloning is revealed.

Is human life a commodity to be experimented with?

Some uses of cloning are actually cannibalism dressed up to seem like enlightened medical advances. Isn’t conceiving ‘designer’ individual humans, then killing those individuals to get their body parts for medical treatments, in actuality cannibalism?

It’s not a stretch to say that the acceptance of in vitro fertilization has propelled us down the slippery slope of dehumanizing the earliest age in the continuum of individual human beings, manipulating the amazing processes of conception and life support in order to assist in pregnancy. This earlier medical marvel often creates ‘extra individual embryonic human lives’ to be discarded, or worse, used for experimentation. Should we deconstruct such a beautiful gift by taking full technological advantage of it? Scientists involved with cloning share different viewpoints about this god-like ability we’ve developed. Many find it highly unethical, while others find moralizing the sanctity of individual human life to be only amusing.

Robert Gilmore McKinnell, a professor of genetics and cell biology, wrote that, ‘’Scientists use the cloning procedure to gain insight into biological phenomena such as differentiation, cancer, immunobiology, and aging.” [So far, so good, but the genie is not so benign when the issue of human ‘therapeutic’ cloning arises.]

The life level of that which is cloned is important to understand: a whole organism may be cloned, or only the DNA found in a part of the organism may be cloned.

With DNA cloning, the tissues need not be alive in order to harvest and replicate, or clone, the DNA of the tissue. Such molecular level cloning (called PCR) does not clone an individual (the whole organism), merely the molecular identification of the individual organism. Put another way, the term ‘cloning’ can be used to describe replicating the DNA of alive or dead tissue being tested, as with techniques used in criminology.

When criminologists do DNA replication, they are reproducing a nearly unlimited supply of the exact DNA within the tissue found at the crime scene, in order to match that DNA to the DNA of a criminal or a victim, or exonerate an accused. When Laci Peterson’s body and the body of baby Connor (found in the same waters) were tested with DNA marker technology, the goal was to discover a close DNA identification between Laci Peterson’s body, the body of the baby, and Scott Peterson’s DNA, to connect them through DNA matches, for criminal inferences.

Cloning of bacteria and fungi is used to identify characteristics of the microorganism, to amplify good characteristics or eliminate bad characteristics produced by the DNA commands on the organism’s growth and development. DNA replication and testing can identify what about a microorganism gives that particular organism the disease causing power it has in humans, in order to devise treatments for the diseases.

In modern Embryology textbooks, you will discover that the first principle of the Science of Embryology is that ‘every individual life is a continuum of unbroken processes whereby an individual alive organism is expressing its life, and that continuum has a beginning, a starting point that is that individual’s conception.’

Manipulations such as in vitro fertilization, somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), embryonic stem cell research, amniocentesis, and tests for genetic anomalies like Downs Syndrome, all are based upon this ‘first principle’ of Embryology. For these processes to have meaning, first the scientists and technicians must hold that the processes are dealing with an already alive individual’s characteristics, else the tests would be too non-specific to form medical assumptions regarding the alive individual organism tested.

Human whole organism cloning is accomplished by ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’, taking a living cell from a donor human, removing the nuclear material--the DNA/genes--and inserting that nuclear material into an ‘enucleated’ (nuclear material removed) female gamete, or sex cell, ovum, then zapping that combination with an electrical charge that stimulates cellular replication, expressing an individual human organism. The female ovum from which the 23 chromosome nuclear material has been removed, receives the 46 chromosome nuclear material for a ‘complete human organism’, thus the newly conceived individual life has the theoretical ability to then go through the entire series of cellular divisions (mitosis) which give rise to the amniotic sac and the growing individual human body, complete with all the normal organs and tissues.

‘Reproductive cloning’ conceives via somatic cell nuclear transfer and sustains that individual being all the way to 40 week developmental age and birth.

So called ‘therapeutic cloning’ utilizes in vitro conception and growth of an individual human being, but the new individual will not be allowed to live and grow to the full 40 weeks and be born. Instead, the newly conceived individuals will be killed and their body parts--from cells to organs--will be harvested for use in treating diseases of or injuries to older individual humans (older than embryos). In truth, both ‘types’ of cloning are reproductive, but the end use of the newly conceived individual human determines which name to give the process.

Will individual human life continue to have sanctity or be reduced to mere utility?

Perhaps some believe it isn’t so wrong to conceive embryos and kill them for their body parts, their stem cells, but the processes will not stop there, with that level of cannibalism. There is ongoing effort--well underway--to build an artificial womb, and then conceive and gestate an individual alive human being all the way to the full 40 weeks of development and birth. This marvel will also allow the scientists to stop at any age along the continuum of the lifetime begun at conception and harvest the individual’s body parts … and it will be the owner of the conceived individual and the life supporting machinery that will determine when to kill and harvest, or support for birth!

Why is human cloning bad? … There are many reasons cited by opponents, but it is wrong primarily because the manipulation of individual humans in their earliest age as individual embryonic beings is dehumanizing … dehumanizing for the individuals so conceived for their utility and dehumanizing for the society, which embraces such cannibalism.

The moral ‘line in the sand’ ought to be determined by whether an individual human being is maimed, killed, or discarded in the process of manipulating that individual human lifetime begun at conception. Answer to that question is what our society is not being given in the current debates. And when some portion of the truth regarding these manipulative processes arises, the deeper truth--that even the embryo is an individual human being at its earliest age along its unique continuum of life--is obfuscated, dismissed, ignored, or denied.

Science may one day be able to reproduce a part of the whole organism, as in growing only a kidney that is a perfect tissue match for the individual from whom the genetic nuclear material is taken; that would be an embraceable medical miracle. But as it’s now undertaken, with ‘therapeutic cloning’, an alive individual being very closely matched genetically to the donor of the nuclear material is given life support until the organs of that individual (embryonic stem cells are the organs of the embryo) differentiate sufficiently to be harvested for use with an older individual being treated for a disease or injury. That is, in all truth, cannibalism as surely as if the medical personnel instructed the person being treated to eat the parts taken from the clone in order to treat the disease or injury.

[ To cannibalize, according to NEW WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY, is : to repair (vehicles or aircraft) by using parts from other vehicles, instead of using spare parts.]

Are humans now to be reduced to the utility of aircraft or vehicles, to be cannibalized for their living parts?

[MHGinTN]

Your aside had no meaning if not directed at the parthenogenesis discussion we were having on other threads. Now that you've read what was reported in the BBC article regarding parthenogenesis, is it still not evident to you that obfuscation is precisely what is being attempted, trying to characterize the embryos so conceived as something less than individual human life?

[general_re]

What I'm saying is that the notion that the product of hukan parthenogenesis is an embryo is hardly as clear as it's being made out to be. This is an area, IMO, still open to discussion, and simply asserting that it is an embryo without supporting that assertion does not advance the discussion.

[general_re]

"hukan". Good one - one of my better typos ;)

[MHGinTN]

I trust you would admit that if even one parthogenesis conceived embryo has gestated to being born, the parthenote has to be an embryo else not one would ever make it to birth. That self-evident fact argues for the inclusion of parthenotes in the category of 'embryo', albeit that most are severely deformed and do not make it to birth in higher mammals. But some have, as you have noted on other threads.

[MHGinTN]

When I'm doing my writing, upon editing for errors in various strictures of grammar, syntax, and plain old fashioned typos, I am afforded some of my best belly laughs. [I used to create typos here at FR, as a means to toss in subtle barbs. I now makes so many unintended typos, I've had to quit playing with them.]

[MHGinTN]

I thought you'd unintentionally reavealed some new lifeform you'd discovered! : {)

[general_re]

Well, but for me, the "making it to birth" part is important. Some animals reproduce through parthenogenesis - most people don't know that male honeybees (drones) come about through parthenogenesis. But in higher animals, it's almost uniformly a disaster, and so far, the closer one gets to humans on the old phylogenetic tree, the more and more that it appears that parthenogenesis cannot result in viable organisms.

Now, for me, an embryo is something that at least has the potential to become a fully-fledged human being - by that standard, clones, for example, would fit the definition of "embryo", since it's entirely possible that we could develop a fully-fledged human being from a clone. But if the chances of human parthenotes developing into actual human beings are so remote as to be essentially non-existent - or just plain non-existent, period - then there's not even the theoretical potential for new life. So what purpose does it serve to call something that has basically a zero chance of ever becoming human an "embryo"?

And the second problem - with my own rendering of "potentiality", no less ;) - is that if cloning advances to the point where we can create clones from any given adult cell, then clearly any given adult cell has the "potential" to become a new life, in the same sort of theoretical way that a parthenote might be considered a new life. But does that mean that my liver cells have to be held as sacred, and rendered off-limits to medical investigation?

[MHGinTN]

In my lexicon, an embryo is not a 'potential' individual human being, it IS an actual individual human being. To conceive severely handicapped individual human beings, then claim that since these are so severely deformed they will never make it to birth so let's experiment with them, is the chilling dehumanization of which I wrote in the essay. Have we come full circle now?

[general_re]

I trust you would admit that if even one parthogenesis conceived embryo has gestated to being born, the parthenote has to be an embryo else not one would ever make it to birth.

This deserves a bit more elaboration, so bear with me. Yes, I might have to reconsider if it turns out that human parthenotes could potentially become an actual new, independent life. Of course, as in my other post, the notion of theoretical possibility has its own problems - like I said, if it becomes theoretically possible to create new life by cloning my liver cells, my liver cells become off limits to investigation if this is our standard.

Now, on the other hand, what if the opposite turns out to be true, and it can be shown that for some reason no parthenote can ever be born as a human - perhaps because there is some universally unavoidable and fatal developmental flaw at some point in their division and differentiation, or something along those lines. Would that cause you to revise your opinion on the use of parthenotes in research? Clearly, this is still a hypothetical question at this point, but I'm curious to discover if there is some way where you might ever consider the use of human parthenotes to be acceptable...

[general_re]

To conceive severely handicapped individual human beings, then claim that since these are so severely deformed they will never make it to birth so let's experiment with them, is the chilling dehumanization of which I wrote in the essay. Have we come full circle now?

Close to it. ;)

Let's suppose for a moment that we're not talking about constructs that are intentionally screwed up such that if they are allowed to develop, they become horrendously deformed monsters for us to experiment on. Suppose for a moment that it turns out that there is something wrong with parthenogenesis in humans, such that any parthenote that is implanted in an attempt to develop is so developmentally flawed that it is spontaneously aborted. IOW, there is no chance, zero chance, that a parthenote can ever be born, due to some inherent problem (not one that was intentionally introduced) within parthenotes. Does that still make them human embryos, if that turns out to be the case?

[MHGinTN]

Yes. Still looking for some exception clause to 'It's not nice to try and fool Mother Nature' I see. Go look up the dictionary definition of embryo, specifically 'human embryo'. Try Steadman's, Taber's, and Webster's.

[syriacus]

I was specifically talking about James Trefil, who is a noted science writer who confused eggs and embryos. He had decided "humanness" begins at 24 weeks and was so interested in mocking those who believe humanness begins at conception, that he pretended eggs and embryos were the same thing. He got a good chuckle at the thought of pro-lifers trying to save the (unfertilized) eggs that women shed monthly.

I can't retrieve his old NYT op-ed article, but you can get more of an idea of his interest in determining the moment at which human life begins from this....Facts of Life: Science & the Abortion Controversy

Here is an excerpt from the Amazon editorial review of Trefil's book -- Facts of Life

Reviewing the latest advances in molecular biology, evolutionary biology, embryology, neurophysiology, and neonatology--fields that all bear on this question--the authors reveal a surprising consensus of scientific opinion; that humanness begins around the twenty-forth [sic] week of gestation when connections needed for brain function are finally made. A fascinating inquiry, moving across various scientific disciplines, The Facts of Life makes a valuable contribution to the continuing abortion controversy, and offers a fascinating glimpse of what makes us uniquely human.

---

Trefil seems to have thought a consensus of scientists could find the answer to when human life begins. But he got so lost in his details while trying to win his argument that he confused eggs and embryos in his op-ed piece. I may be incorrect, but I think it's obvious he was not a dispassionate scientist seeking facts, but a man looking for evidence to bolster an opinion close to the one he already held.

Consensuses are nice collections of various scientists' ideas. The "true" or "factual" or "real" answer may be located somewhere in a consensus. But a consensus is not the "true" answer.

I thought scientists are most happy when they find elegant and simple answers to their questions. The opposite seems true among pro-choice scientists, who keep snuffling around for excuses to kill embryos or fetuses.

[general_re]

Still looking for some exception clause to 'It's not nice to try and fool Mother Nature' I see.

Try to resist the temptation to assume that anyone who doesn't automatically fall into lockstep with you on every single point has some secret anti-life agenda - I'm looking for a solution that will satisfy everyone involved, not trying slip one over on anybody ;)

[general_re]

....he pretended eggs and embryos were the same thing.

:^)

Consensuses are nice collections of various scientists' ideas. The "true" or "factual" or "real" answer may be located somewhere in a consensus. But a consensus is not the "true" answer.

Well, to be fair, the consensus view may actually be the true answer. Unfortunately, we aren't privy to Truth-with-a-capital-T in this life, so all we can do is use what limited tools we have in order to try and approximate the truth - reasoned discourse and consensus being two of those tools.

The opposite seems true among pro-choice scientists, who keep snuffling around for excuses to kill embryos or fetuses.

All I can say is to reiterate that, while people may do things that are objectively evil, nobody has ever set out to do evil for its own sake - everyone believes that they are serving some good in what they do. If you have had a chance to follow the discussion that MHG and I have been having, I hope that it is at least clear that the notion that parthenogenetic organisms, for example, are in fact embryos in the truest sense is at least open for discussion among reasonable people - along with thinking that they're doing good, everyone on any side of any issue tends to think that the truth of what they believe is very nearly self-evident. Would that it were so - there'd be no disagreement at all that way ;)

[MHGinTN]

This is tripping the alarm with me: ... could potentially become an actual new, independent life. I've addressed the poor reasoning of 'potentil life', so I'll merely state that conceiving a so severely handicapped individual life that it cannot survive beyond designated threshold is perhaps even more abhorrent for a target of research.

[MHGinTN]

if it becomes theoretically possible to create new life by cloning my liver cells, my liver cells become off limits to investigation if this is our standard. Nonsense. You're purposely obfuscating the difference between organ and organism. As stated previously, IF stem cells from XBob's body could be removed and coaxed into growing a new panceas for XBob, then that organ implanted into XBob, to cure his dibetes, I would welcome such as a medical miracle worthy of society's hearty embrace.

[MHGinTN]

Trefil had already decided that the functioning brain would be the threshold of personhood, of the 'beginning of ondividual life in humans. The very same science of Embryology that he speciously cited holds the conception of the individual to be the beginning of individual life, and they have devised ingenius tests on that embryonic individual to determine whether that individual is a Downs Syndrome being, etc.

[MHGinTN]

wow, so many typos! : {O

[MHGinTN]

.

[syriacus]

the consensus view may actually be the true answer

Yes.
Like I wrote, too... the consensus may contain the truth. But unless a consensus is completely unanimous it is usually has some (at least subtle) variations, not all of which are true.

All I can say is to reiterate that, while people may do things that are objectively evil, nobody has ever set out to do evil for its own sake - everyone believes that they are serving some good in what they do

In reality...

• Some people do things they know are wrong in order to help themselves get a promotion or an award or some other good.
• Some people have an ability to delude themselves into thinking that the wrong they are doing is not wrong.

Just think of the corrupt business big shots who have been in the news the last few years...the politicians on the take...the people who have murdered their spouses, children or lovers... the athletes who deliberately hurt opponents...the hospital nurses who serially kill patients, etc, etc, etc.