Bio Research - Therapeutic Cloning

Anh Pham Biology 010 (Wednesday class) Dr. Nau Dec 01, 08

ETHICAL ISSUES IN THERAPEUTIC CLONING. Ethical concerns have been, and will always be, one of the major obstacles that prevent innovative scientists from advancing their research to a higher level. Especially when sensitive topics such as therapeutic cloning are in debate, discussions regarding the future of ongoing experiments are innumerable. Whether such experiments should be aided or deterred, whether the government should encourage or ban biologists from investing further effort, etc.; all such controversies entail a fervent battle among legality, morality and science. While it is clear that therapeutic cloning promises incredible progression in biomedicine, moralists still remain unconvinced about its ethics. When viewed under a moral perspective, the whole procedure of therapeutic cloning is considered to be inhumane. Any technique employed in this procedure, in which somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT), and the extraction of stem cell from embryo can be named, is closely related to the murder of a pre-human being (Daniel Reilly, Statement on human cloning, The Diocese of Worcester, (Roman Catholic), 2001-NOV-26). In other words, moralists hold a belief that therapeutic cloning is nothing but to kill a person in order to save another; thus, it is simply not “pro-life”. Biologists and their compassionate companions, however, say differently. In April 2002, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), an avid supporter of therapeutic cloning, was attacked by some Fundamentalist Christian agency which misinterpreted his announcement into "For Hatch, location determines personhood.”(need citation) His view is that an embryo isn't a human being as long as it's in a petri dish.”

(Down the Hatch: Sen. abandons anti-cloning platform, Family Research Council newsletter, 2002-APR-30). As sarcastic as it is, this misrepresentation does make a point: the main disparity in viewing therapeutic cloning between two opponents is the way they perceive what is and what makes a human. In my opinion, this topic of ethical therapeutic cloning is critically important, given the credit of it being a phenomenal argumentation from every church to House of Senates. Moreover, the idea of replacing organs and reversing senility itself is a proof of how we human beings have evolved far from what God had “created” us to be. Changing both biologically and philosophically, we are now in the war of aggressive morality and progressive science.

SUMMARY OF ARTICLES 1.

Human Therapeutic Cloning at a Standstill by Emily Singer Tuesday, October 09, 2007, Technology Review by MIT

Kevin Eggan, a biologist at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, came to the Stem Cell Summit in Boston to admit that his highly publicized therapeutic cloning research had got nowhere near the point it should have. Due to its specific requirement, Eggan’s research could not be completed without unfertilized human eggs. Even when extensive efforts had been invested to advertise, there was no crucial resource of those for experiments. One main reason of this shortage was that egg-donation process was uncomfortable and potentially dangerous. The number of women interested in joining the program quickly diminished to null after they heard about all the risks. Furthermore, Massachusetts regulations also prohibited researchers from paying to get the needed

eggs; their excuse was that poor women might be coerced to jeopardize their health for money. Eggan obviously did not agree with this proposition, saying that women undergoing the same procedure in assisted reproductive technology (ART) did earn $3000 - $10000 legally. Other therapeutic cloning advocates such as George Daley, president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research and a scientist at Children's Hospital Boston, shared the same view. A way to get around the laws was to apply the United Kindom’s “egg-sharing” experience, in which women who volunteered in vitro fertilization might agree to donor spare eggs in exchange for subsidized medical costs. Laurie Zoloth, director of the Center for Bioethics, Science and Society at Northwestern University in Chicago, thought that this would eliminate one of the major ethical objections to egg donation. Eggan said that he was looking into trying a similar approach at Harvard but was advised that state laws prohibit it. In the meantime, scientists were exploring various alternatives, including the use of animal eggs in place of human ones. http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19488/

2. Ethics of therapeutic cloning Nature 429, 1 (6 May 2004) | doi: 10.1038/429001b It was reported that a group in South Korea had derived a line of embryonic stem cells from a cloned human embryo (W. S. Hwang et al. Science 303, 1669–1674; 2004); however, this triumph was soon enshrouded by doubts about lab practice. Moralists raised questions about how the researchers managed to recruit so many women prepared to donate their eggs for the project.

The most possible answer was the patriotism of South Koreans. In a society with such high national pride, it was understandable to see how students could be motivated, with the best of intentions, to participate in name-changing researches. They were willing to help sick patients as well as to demonstrate the strength of their country’s medical technology, and after all, to power up the whole nation as a world-leading capital. In this case, bioethicists wanted the donating procedure to be properly executed with true volunteerism, and they required principal investigators to assure vigorous, by-the-book safety policies. Matter of transparency was also taken into consideration. The local Institutional Review Board (IRB), the unit that gave ethical approval for the research project, was supposed "to assure, both in advance and by periodic review, that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of humans participating as subjects". However, it was believed that the IRB had not been forthcoming enough. This might lead to severe consequences, including the possibility of South Korean scientists being distrusted and dishonored throughout the whole history. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6987/pdf/429001b.pdf)

3. Senator Clinton says Therapeutic Cloning within Ethical framework By Steven Edwards October 05, 2007, MSNBC Categories: 2008 Presidential Election, Bioethics, Politics, Stem Cell Research Senator Hillary Clinton voiced her opinion in a telephone interview with the New York Times, stating that according to her viewpoint, therapeutic cloning was within the “ethical framework”, and that would be the guideline for her policy decisions on

embryonic stem-cell research should she be elected President. She also said that the proposal from the National Institutes of Health under President Clinton’s administration was the ethical framework she referred to. As promising as it was, this interview did not give enough information. The original guideline released in 2000 honored the Dickey Amendment, which prohibited federal funds from being applied directly to derive embryonic stem cells. However, it did not prohibit federal funds from being used to conduct research on stem-cell lines derived without federal funds. Creating embryos for research purposes was also out of the federal-funded project list, making the use of federal funds for therapeutic cloning outside of the ethical framework. In brief, whether Clinton would be more aggressive in advocating therapeutic cloning research was still in question. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/senator-clinton.html

CONCLUSION After reading these articles, I still remain with my previous proposition. Therapeutic cloning is purely a scientific progress which should and would be advanced, no matter how burdensome the circumstance is. History has observed a number of times when brave scientists were outlawed for their pioneering ideas and practices, including but not limited to Galileo with his image of a round, revolving globe. It also points out that true science will be the winner, true and true science only. I hope people may realize that ethical concerns deserve appreciation just to a certain amount; up to and beyond that

point, they are pure fictitious make-believes. In the end, there is nothing universal but science.