| |
Frequently asked Questions
1. What is a clone?
2. How is a clone produced?
3. What is meant by reproductive cloning?
4. What is meant by therapeutic cloning?
5. Is there a distinction between reproductive
and therapeutic cloning?
6. Is therapeutic cloning necessary?
Glossary
Clone Myths and Bad Conscience
April 5th 2002: A Black Day For Australia
Stem
Cell Reality Check
What
is a clone?
At its simplest, cloning is a means of asexual reproduction. In nature
this occurs with some species of plants (such as those which propagate
by runners) and some animals (including some insects, fish and lizards).
Used as a noun, the word clone can refer to the individual offspring
produced by asexual reproduction which is said to be a clone of the
parent. However it can also be applied to the offspring collectively
and the parent which are then said to be clones of each other.
The determining factor is not so much the method of reproduction but
the equivalence of the genetic material between the "offspring"
and its progenitor. In humans, clones occur naturally in the case of
identical twins who possess identical genetic material. They are effectively
clones of each other but not of their parents as they posses genetic
information from both mother and father.
How
is a clone produced?
While twinning (splitting off a cell from an embryo) is one means of
producing clones, the more common laboratory method is what is known
as somatic cell nuclear transfer. A somatic cell is simply a normal
body cell such as skin, bone, organ, nerve etc, as opposed to a germ
cell such as sperm and ova. The nucleus of a normal cell is removed
from that cell and transferred into the recipient egg which has been
enucleated (ie had its nucleus removed). The egg is then given a small
electric shock to activate it and after culturing it for a while it
is placed in the womb of the surrogate mother to gestate.
What
is meant by reproductive cloning?
Reproductive cloning refers to cloning a whole human being and has been
touted as a means of replacing deceased loved ones such as a child or
spouse. Ignoring the ethical considerations for a moment, the practicalities
are that the clone would not be the same as the person he or she was
intended to replace. While clone would be 98% or 99% genetically identical
to the original, he or she would be removed in time (and possibly space)
from the environment which nurtured the original. As anyone who knows
identical twins will attest, they are not exactly the same and have
their own likes and dislikes so it is unreasonable to expect a clone
to exactly mimic the original.
What
is meant by therapeutic cloning?
Therapeutic cloning is the process of cloning a human being without
allowing it to grow to maturity. Instead, very early in its development
the embryo is "harvested" for stem cells which are then cultured
in a suitable environment with the idea of using them to replace defective
or diseased parts of the original. The other aspect of therapeutic cloning
does not use the embryonic stem cells but rather allows the embryo to
develop to around the second trimester at which stage it is aborted
and the organs transplanted into the original.
In practice there is no difference between
therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning as both rely on the creation
of a new human being. The only distinction is that in one case the embryo
is allowed to develop to maturity whereas in the other the embryo is
destroyed in order to obtain its stem cells or organs.
Is there
a distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning?
No. Both methods involve the creation of a new human being. In one case
the embryo is allowed to develop; in the other it is destroyed to provide
stem cells or other materials.
Is
therapeutic cloning necessary?
The reason why there is such interest in embryonic stem (ES) cells is
that they are totipotent which means that they can develop into all
body cell types. To avoid ethical considerations many scientists prefer
to refer to them as pluripotent which means that they can develop into
many body cell types. By placing ES cells into a suitable environment
they can be coerced to develop into any cell type. Many researchers
saw this as a means to cure many diseases.
Until fairly recently it was thought that only ES cells possessed totipotency.
However research over the past couple of years has revealed that other
cell types including adult cells can be "de-programmed" so
that they become pluripotent if not totipotent.
Rather than continue with research which involves the destruction of
human lives, scientists should be encouraged to investigate the ethical
alternatives. In particular, cells derived from the placenta and even
fat cells have shown much promise.
Blastocyst:
an early stage in embryonic development consisting of a spherical
clump of cells with an outer layer known as the trophoblast, a fluid
filled cavity, and an Inner Cell Mass
Chromosome: a (cell's) nuclear body containing a sequence
of genes and which is composed mostly of DNA and protein
Cleavage: the process by which a zygote divides
Differentiation: the process of specialisation of cell
structure and function during an embryos development
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid; the primary genetic material
of a cell
Embryo: the developing organism between fertilisation
and birth
Enucleation: the process of removing the nucleus from
a cell
Gene: the basic unit of inheritance
Genome: the basic set of chromosomes for a particular
species
Inner Cell Mass: a group of cells found inside a blastocyst
and from which embryonic stem cells are derived
Nucleus: the structure within the cell containing the
genetic material
Nuclear Transfer: the process of removing the nucleus
from one cell and implanting it in another
Oocyte: an immature ovum in an ovary
Pluripotent: (a cell) capable of developing into many
different cell types
Somatic Cell: (non-germinal) body cells such as skin,
liver, muscle etc
Stem Cells: undifferentiated cells from which specialised
cells develop
Totipotent: capable of developing into any cell or
even the whole organism
Trophoblast: the hollow outer layer of a blastocyst
Zygote: a fertilised egg
TOP OF PAGE
Cloning
Myths
Anthony
Fisher O.P.
In the lead up to the COAG Meeting about human cloning and embryo destruction
a number of myths have been doing the media rounds of late.
The first has been that the Feds are caving in to some
minority group and banning just about everything in the field. The fact
is: cloning and destructive embryo experimentation are already banned
across half of Australia - Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia.
All the Federal Cabinet is proposing is that this 'ethical best standard'
be applied uniformly in Australia. IVF would continue. Research on existing
stem cell lines would continue. The medically and ethically best forms
of stem cell research - on adult and placental stem cells - would not
only continue, but be encouraged.
The second myth has been that we need to destroy 'surplus'
IVF embryos so as to get our hands on their stem cells to get all sorts
of cures. The truth is that embryonic stem cells have not helped a single
human patient. And stem cells taken from surplus IVF embryos will never
have medical application. Why? Because tissues from embryonic stem cells
are terribly unpredictable, may well develop into tumours, and will
in any case be rejected as foreign tissue by any body they were transferred
to. If embryonic stem cells are to be used, we will have to manufacture
new 'designer embryos' - perhaps several - for each and every patient
we treat, embryos who are the patient's own identical twins, and then
'cannibalise' those embryos for the parts we want.
Why on earth would we do that if we can get even better stem cells from
other sources? Adult stem cells and other ethically acceptable alternatives
have helped thousands of patients, and new clinical uses are being found
all the time. New Scientist reported on 23 January this year [2002]
that the "ultimate stem cell" had been discovered in adult
bone marrow. No human cloning. No embryo destruction. No ethical problems.
And much more likely to work.
So what's the obsession with using embryos? Is it because we now have
the embarrassment of tens of thousands of 'surplus' IVF embryos in lab
freezers around Australia which we know we should never have created?
And are feeling so bad about that, that we think we've just got to find
some 'use' for them, something 'therapeutic' that will mean our consciences
will prick us a little less?
Which brings us to a third deception: that scientists
only want to make use of a few embryos who are going to die anyway.
A few years ago Victoria's IVF guru Alan Trounson was insisting he would
never contemplate cloning a human embryo: now he says he wants to. Just
a year ago Trounson swore to the Federal Parliamentary Committee that
he does not want to go fishing for stem cells from embryos, because
the cells lines he had brought in from overseas are enough for endless
research. Now he says he wants to use a few embryos. Why should we believe
the 'few' promise? Or the 'surplus embryos only' promise? Or the 'no
cloning' promise? Every time we give in he moves the goal posts.
But why, in any case, would we want our IVF scientists to be in the
business of killing embryos? And why would we want to unravel the 'social
compact' in Victoria that has required both sides of this debate to
compromise. Victoria allows AI, IVF, ICSI, experimentation on imported
ES cells, and much else besides. That might not satisfy some Christian
leaders and others, but that's our compromise. What Victoria does not
allow is killing embryos for experimental purposes, cloning human beings,
and crossing animals and humans. That might not satisfy some scientists.
But that's the deal that's worked pretty well in this state, with the
unanimous support of all parties and factions in our Parliament. Those
who want Victoria - either alone or as part of some national deal -
to buy into embryo destruction are really proposing that we acquiesce
to the extremists on one side. That is bound to cause enormous division
and political disruption. All for what?
Then there's the linguistic rather than genetic engineering. All our
scientists want to do, we are told reassuringly, is 'therapeutic' (=
nice) cloning, not that 'reproductive' (= nasty) kind they are trying
in other places. But let's be honest with each other and with ourselves.
To produce an embryo is always 'reproductive'; to destroy an embryo
is never 'therapeutic'. The European Parliament has declared the distinction
to be a "sleight of hand" and the Australian Health Ethics
Committee described it as "lacking transparency" and "concealing"
the truth. So why keep using this language? Why are we trying so hard
to repackage and re-label this stuff? Is it because in our heart of
hearts we know there is something terribly wrong with manufacturing,
killing and using human embryos as if they were lab animals?
TOP OF PAGE
A fifth myth that has had been promulgated - most loudly
in the Melbourne Age - is that there is no real ethical issue here,
just the Catholic Church imposing its dogmas on every-one else. But
sectarian vilification and conspiracy theories miss the point: it is
not just bishops and not just Catholics who are deeply disturbed by
human cloning and embryo destruction.
Whatever their views on IVF or abortion, ordinary Australians don't
like the idea of treat-ing early human beings as 'spare parts'. Ordinary
Australians see a big moral difference between letting someone die -
whether its an old person being removed from a ventilator or an embryo
being removed from storage - and killing them to get their organs.
In a recent open letter leaders of practically every major religion
here in Australia, as well as civic, scientific and professional authorities
of all persuasions, united in their opposition to cloning and embryo
destruction on ethical grounds. So to blame one church in particular
suggests, once again, more than a little bad faith on the part of some
media pundits.
A sixth myth has been that the Federal Cabinet decision, if followed,
would put us out on a limb internationally. Yet many countries such
as Germany and Spain have already banned these practices, and others
such as the European Union as a whole, Canada and the United States,
are moving in the same direction.
Then there's the threat that if we don't let our scientists do their
own thing, unimpeded by law and ethics, they'll take their lab buckets
and spades and go and play on another beach. And that will cost us not
only kudos and cures, but investment and jobs too. The Victorian IVF
lobby have been running this threat for years. Yet despite years of
'terribly restrictive' laws against cloning and embryo destruction in
Victoria, that state leads the country in artificial reproductive technology
- Victorian scientists being well ahead of their counterparts who enjoy
the free-for-all on the other side of the Murray.
Indeed it might be argued that it is pre-cisely because of Victoria's
'restrictive' laws that its scientists have been the most creative in
Australia. It has helped to keep them focussed on doing their best within
the bounds of ethical best practice. It has certainly not meant that
they took their labs or themselves or their investors off to less restrictive
pastures. For all the talk, Wood, Trounson, Pera, McBain and the rest
stay put in Victoria.
One last myth-if only it were the last in this debate-has been the thought
that there's really nothing to worry about, ethically speaking, because
early human lives are not yet persons. "A potential person, perhaps,"
wrote Margaret Wertheim in the Age, "but surely not an actual person."
No, she continued, embryos are more like sperm or hair clippings or
nail parings.
No woman grieving a miscarriage will accept it was "nothing more
than hair or nail clippings". Nor will even the most elementary
biology student. No sperm, no ordinary body cell, nothing other than
human embryos can do what human embryos do: develop into media commentators,
feminists, scientists and the like. What is so special about human embryos
is this potential they have, which nothing else has, to continue to
develop as each of us developed from our own conception. The first page
of every biography is conception.
But, continues Wertheim, "no blastocyst is viable on its own -
it needs a healthy womb, proper nourishment, and a lot of luck".
True enough. But so does an older embryo or a fœtus. No newborn
child can survive without a sympathetic environment, nourishment, luck.
Nor can older people. Is none of us a person then?
No end of myth-making is going to take away that dull pang of conscience
in the stomachs of ordinary Australians that says you can't treat human
beings like lab animals, even very early human beings. They are more
than gametes or hair or nails. More than products to be manu-factured
and used up in pharmaceutical laboratories. Humanity deserves more respect.
*Anthony Fisher is Professor of Bioethics in the John Paul II Institute
for Marriage and Family, Catholic Chaplain to the Victorian Parliament,
and was until recently a member of the Infertility Treatment Authority
of Victoria.
TOP OF PAGE
April
5th 2002: A Black Day For Australia
The pro-life movement's hopes of halting human cloning in its steps
received a big setback on the 5th April when the Prime Minister met
with the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to discuss a united
approach to embryonic stem cell research.
Late last year, subsequent to the release of the Andrew's Committee
report on stem cell research, Mr Howard had given Mr Andrews the task
of advising Federal Cabinet on the legal framework to ban the use of
"excess" embryos. Initially Mr Andrews secured the support
of the Cabinet. However, unity was lost due to continued pressure from
vested scientific and commercial interests.
Professor Alan Trounson influenced the debate by declaring his belief
that there were insufficient human stem cells available to researchers
without access to the frozen embryo banks. This seems to have influenced
Mr Howard greatly. However he consulted widely before deciding on a
Federal policy which he believed would satisfy the interests of science
and prevented confrontation with several state premiers including Queensland
Premier, Mr Peter Beattie.
Initially Mr Howard insisted that only embryos already frozen could
be used, provided that "consent" of the parents was obtained.
This would prevent the creation of embryos surplus to the need for infertility
treatment. There would be a 3-year "moratorium" on using other
embryos.
While this position pleased some states, others were already saying
that there would not be enough frozen embryos to maintain research.
At the COAG meeting, the Prime Minister and the Premiers agreed upon
the following proposals:
(a) Research be allowed only on embryos in existence at 5th April 2002
that would otherwise have been destroyed. Donors of these embryos, if
they wish, will be able to specify restrictions on the research uses.
If they don't, researchers will not have to seek specific instructions
on their use.
(b) The regulation restricting use of embryos made after 5th April will
cease to have effect in three years unless an earlier time is agreed
upon. An Ethics Committee will be formed to report to COAG within twelve
months with a view to reviewing the necessity for retaining restrictions
on embryos yet to be made "surplus". It will also examine
protocols to exclude the creation of embryos specifically for research
purposes (so-called therapeutic cloning).
(c) The National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is
to report to COAG within a year on the adequacy of supply and distribution
for research (of excess embryos). The NHMRC will also be the regulatory
body for the ethics committee which will be approving research projects
on particular embryos.
Predictably the most aggressive states in this debate, Victoria and
New South Wales came away pleased with the results. Mr. Carr personally
believed that they will have access to "new" embryos
by the time the one year has expired.
The Commonwealth, States and Territories will now introduce nationally
consistent legislation to ban "reproductive" cloning and to
allow research on excess embryos as agreed upon. For some definitions
to be used in the legislation, particular wording must be used such
as that describing "embryo", "human clones", and
"human embryo clone". However, different procedures may be
used by states to enforce compliance with the legislation.
In Queensland, the government will revamp the legislation which was
held over from last year. The expectation is that it could be passed
by the end of June, the target date for all legislation to be completed.
The media has played a significant role in this debate by virtually
excluding the truth from the public. This truth can be summarised by
the following points:
1.Embryonic stem cells cannot be used directly. They are likely to be
rejected, and have been shown to be prone to produce tumours. To acquire
stem cells which won't be rejected an "embryonic clone" from
which to take stem cells, has to be made of that person. Stem cell research
on frozen embryos is the first step to embryonic cloning.
2.If this legislation succeeds, there is no logical opposition to creating
embryos for their cells. The decision has already been made that embryos
can be killed for their cells.
3.There is absolutely no evidence that ESC's are able to fulfil the
expectations created by the media and related interests. Adult stem
cells are already in use and have recently been shown to be capable
of restoring heart muscle, helping regain spinal cord function, and
have helped in the treatment of juvenile diabetes and corneal repair.
TOP
OF PAGE
Stem
Cell Reality Checks
Myth
"Embryonic stem cells are the most effective for treating disease"
Reality:
Actually, they're not. Embryonic stem cells have not helped a single
human patient or demonstrated any therapeutic benefit. By con-trast,
adult stem cells and other ethically acceptable alternatives have already
helped hundreds of thousands of patients, and new clinical uses expand
almost weekly.
Consider:
Juvenile diabetes:
Adult Pancreatic Islet Cells: 15 people with serious Type I (juvenile)
diabetes became "insulin free" after adult pancreatic islet
cell transplants; 9 still need no insulin injections. - American Diabetes
Assoc. Report, 24 June 2001
Embryonic Stem Cells: No person has benefited...
Spinal Cord Injury:
Adult Immune-System Cells: A young woman rendered paraplegic by a car
accident can move her toes and legs after injection of her own im-mune-system
cells into her severed spinal cord. - Toronto Globe and Mail, 15 June
2001
Embryonic Stem Cells: No person has benefited...
Immune Deficiency:
Adult Bone Marrow Stem Cells: 2 children born without immune systems
("bubble boy" syn-drome) have left their sterile environment
and lead normal lives after bone marrow stem cell treatment. - Science,
The Washington Post, 28 April 2000
Embryonic Stem Cells: No person has benefited...
Corneal Repair:
Adult Corneal Stem Cells: Several legally blind people can now see more
clearly after their cor-neas were reconstructed with corneal stem cells.
- New England Journal of Medicine, 13 July 2000
Embryonic Stem Cells: No person has benefited...
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research have created a false impression
that these cells have a proven therapeutic use. In fact the embryonic
cells have never helped a human patient; any claim that they may someday
do so is guesswork. Adult stem cells have proven benefits, and new uses
are constantly being found:
Current Clinical Use of Adult Stem Cells to Help Human Patients
>Multiple sclerosis
>Lupus
>Juvenile and other rheumatoid arthritis
>Stroke
>Immunodeficiencies
>Anaemia
>Epstein-Barr virus infection
>Corneal damage
>Blood and liver diseases
>Osteogenesis imperfecta
>Brain tumours
>Retinoblastoma
>Ovarian cancer
>Solid tumours
>Testicular cancer
>Multiple myeloma, leukemias
>Breast cancer
>Neuroblastoma
>Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
>Renal cell carcinoma
>Cardiac repair after heart attack
>Type I diabetes
>Cartilage and bone damage.
(For details and citations for all these uses of ADULT stem cells,
see http://stemcellresearch.org/currentaps.htm)
Conditions for which Embryonic Stem Cells have Helped Human Patients:
NONE: These cells have never helped a human patient.
Two quotes from a workshop sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences'
Institute of Medicine in Washington DC, Stem Cells and the Future of
Regenerative Medicine (22 June 2001):
"There is no evidence of therapeutic benefit from embryonic
stem cells."
- Marcus Grompe, MD, PhD, Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics,
Oregon Health Sciences University (an expert in cell transplantation
to repair damaged livers)
"There is no experience with embryonic stem cells in humans,
and very little in mice… all claims of therapeutic benefit from
embryonic stem cells are conjectural."
- Bert Vogelstein, Professor of Oncology and Pathology at Johns Hopkins
University and Chairman of the Institute of Medicine's committee studying
stem cell research
Myth
"Most people support stem cell research"
Reality:
Of course they do - but what type of stem cell research do they support?
Stem cells that come from adult tissue, placentas, or umbilical cord
blood can be re-trieved without harming the donor. The only way to obtain
embryonic stem cells, however, is to kill the living human embryo. Typically,
poll questions do not make this distinction. When Americans are asked
if the government should fund stem cell research which requires destroying
human embryos, 70% of Americans say "NO." And when choosing
between funding stem cell research including embryonic stem cells vs.
stem cell research without embryonic stem cells, Americans support the
latter ap-proach 67% to 18%. (International Communications Research,
June 8, 2001. See http://www. usccb.org/comm/archives/2001/01-101.htm.)
TOP OF PAGE
Are Australians so different?
Myth
"Excess embryos are going to be discarded anyway"
Reality:
Not necessarily. Today, parents can preserve "excess" embryos
for future pregnancies as well as donate them to other couples. In a
recent study, 59% of parents who initially planned to discard their
embryos after three years later changed their minds, choosing another
pregnancy or donation to infertile couples. (New England Journal of
Medicine, July 5, 2001) The Australian experience has been that couples
are very reluctant to consent to their embryos being used for destructive
research.
What's more, we now know that the scientists have themselves moved on
to creating human embryos solely to destroy them for stem cells. So
much for the "discarded anyway" argument.
But what scientists or parents might do with the embryos is not the
issue.
The issue is: Should the government allow
(and allow the use tax-payers' money for) research which requires destroying
human embryos?
Myth
"Human embryos aren't really human beings yet"
Reality:
The testimony of modern science is clear on this point:
"At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum
of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a
new life has begun."
- Douglas Considine (ed), Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia (5th
ed, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976), p. 943. See Keith
Moore, Essentials of Human Embryology (Toronto: Decker, 1988), p.2;
Ida Dox et al, The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary (New
York: Harper, 1993), p. 146; T W Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology
(7th ed, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995), p. 3; Bruce Carlson,
Patten's Foundations of Embryology (6th ed, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996),
p. 3.
The
issue is not whether human life is present, but how society ought to
treat it. All our Government reports on this matter have agreed that
human embryos deserve special respect as a form of human life.
The only way to obtain embryonic stem cells, however, is to kill the
living human embryo. The embryos killed for their stems cells are about
a week old and have grown to about 200 cells. But there are other ways
of doing stem cell research. We can use adult tissue, placentas, or
um-bilical cord blood. They are much more likely to work. And it would
be ethical.
Embryonic stem cells have not helped a single human patient. By contrast,
adult stem cells and other ethically acceptable alternatives have helped
hundreds of thousands of patients, and new clinical uses expand almost
weekly.
Let's promote promising medical research that everyone can live with.
Australian revision by Anthony Fisher OP of "Stem Cell Reality
Check" (c) Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, US Conference of
Catholic Bishops, 2001.
TOP
OF PAGE
|
