< Changing Worldviews.Commentary >

Words are powerful - Thoughts shape - Ideas have consequences

Lawrence Roberge

Author, Bioethicist, Biomedical Researcher
Posted January 17, 2004

Cloning: Scientific, Technological, and Ethical Considerations
Part III

6. HUMAN CLONING

Human cloning has already been done at the embryonic level. As previously mentioned, Drs. Stillman and Hall of George Washington University (GWU) used defective human embryos created using IVF methods, which were destined for disposal. The research team used embryo-splitting techniques to split the embryos at the 2-cell stage (1, 4). Once the blastomeres were separated, the cells were encased in a seaweed-derived material which acted as a synthetic zona pellucida. Some of the developing cloned human embryos reached the 32-cell stage of development. The researchers reported that they had created 48 cloned embryos using this technique. None of these embryos was implanted into a human womb and the cloned embryos were subsequently discarded.

Subsequent investigation by the GWU Institutional Review Board (IRB) discovered that the researchers failed to obtain permission with the IRB until after the experiments had been performed (28). The IRB granted permission with the stipulation that informed consent was to be obtained from the donors of the embryos. Since the embryos were from anonymous donors, and the experiments were already completed, obtaining permission was not possible. In the IRB inquiry, IRB concluded that the research team had submitted their work without full disclosure of the facts. For violating the IRB policy, the researchers were ordered to destroy all data from the experiments and Dr. Stillman's research was to be monitored for a period of 2 years. Dr. Hall had left GWU in the fall of 1994 (28).

More recent news media attention has focused on Dr. Richard Seed, the Harvard-educated physicist, who announced in January of 1998 that he was setting up a clinic to clone human embryos for infertile couples (29, 31). Dr. Seed, who is neither a biologist nor physician, announced that he has located the infertile couples and the research staff to perform the experiments. Dr. Seed is still looking for investors. Dr. Seed boasted that he will produce a human clone within 18 months and predicts that 200,000 human clones a year would be produced once the technique is perfected (30, 31). In light of President Clinton's federal funding ban on human cloning research, Dr. Seed has stated that if he was banned from doing the research in the United States, he will set up the facility in Mexico or the Caribbean islands (31).

When the issue was raised of the high failure rate from such cloning attempts as Dolly and thus how could human cloning be attempted at this point, Dr. Seed stated that science would still benefit from their research, even if it fails (32). It must be noted that the "failed" experiments in the attempt to obtain Megan, Morag, and Dolly resulted in birth-deformed, spontaneously aborted (AKA miscarriage), or stillborn lambs. (7, 8). The failure rate was very high and this raises the question as to how will the deformed and stillborn clones be treated-as merely "scientific datapoints" or deceased human beings.

Finally, at a recent meeting (September 1998) of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, Dr. Seed announced his first clone would be of himself. He further announced that his "post-menopausal" wife would be the surrogate mother for the clone of Dr. Seed (56).

7. PROSPECTS OF HUMAN CLONING IN OTHER NATIONS

Human cloning research has been limited, but the promise of human cloning does exist. In January 1998, 19 European nations (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Moldavia, Norway, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Macedonia, and Turkey) signed a protocol to ban human cloning, even in the extreme case for a completely sterile couple (30). It must also be noted that Germany did not sign the ban as German law, which it believes is much tougher than the cloning ban protocol, forbids all research on human embryos (30). Also, Britain has not signed the ban and thus it appears research on human cloning is a distinct possibility.

China has banned all human cloning research, but it is open to use of cloning technology to clone the panda bear, an endangered species (24, 33).

South African physician, Dr. Mohamed Cassim, has announced that he and his research team are applying for permission to begun human cloning experiments. Dr. Cassim will use a fertility clinic in Johannesburg and he is applying for permission from the University of Witwatersrand. Four South African women desperate to have children have volunteered to create clones of themselves or their husbands (34, 48). Later, Dr. Cassim stated that the initial news report was inflated and denied that his team was working on human cloning (35).

8. HUMAN CLONING REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES

In response to the research announcement of the birth of Dolly, in March 1997, President Bill Clinton banned the use of all federal funds (including National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institute of Health (NIH)) for use in human cloning research (36). In response to a request by President Clinton, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) in June 1997 recommended that Congress ban human cloning for the purpose of creating a baby (37). In June 1997, President Clinton proposed legislation to ban the cloning of human for at least five years so as to give the NBAC time to study the risks and ethical and social impact of cloning humans (38). Unfortunately, as of the date of this publication, no legislation has been passed. Even if such legislation is passed, scientists who wish to continue human cloning research may follow Dr. Richard Seed's threat and move to Mexico, the Caribbean islands, or other nations that do not have such legal bans on human cloning research.

Finally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed that it does have the authority at present to regulate human cloning (40). The FDA has determined that human cloning presents "serious health and safety issues" for the fetus and the mother. Potential cloning researchers would have to proceed through a formal process that includes filing an Investigational New Drug (IND) application. IND's are usually filed by drug companies to test new drugs on people. FDA has also stated that it would initiate legal action against anyone who fails to file (40).

9. WHAT MAKES A CLONE?

One question raised at this point regarding human cloning is "What makes a clone?" For this aspect, one must really ask, what makes a human being who they are? The problem with understanding the issue of human cloning is that many people may mistake biological cloning with creating a virtual duplicate of that person.

Briefly, this can be clarified by understanding the concept of nature verses nurture. Each process helps to shape who and what the human person becomes. Nature is what is the genetic makeup of a person. This is programmed into the person by their genes. Cloning technology works to make a copy of another organisms genetic makeup by using a small piece of tissue (embryo or cell nucleus) as a starting material. Yet, the human individual is not merely a product of their genes.

The other aspect that makes up a human person is nurture. Nurture is the influence of the environment on the person. Thus, environmental factors play a role in the development of the person, both physically and psychologically. Examples of nurture include: nutrition, education, parental guidance and affection, exercise, presence or absence of role models, morality, opportunities for development of skills, etc. The presence or absence of any of these nurture factors (and there are others) can play a powerful role in the development of psychological and physiological factors. The best studies on separated identical twins demonstrate that nurture has some effect even though the subjects are genetically identical to each other (39). Also, temporal factors must be considered when examining the influence of nurture. The "timing" of some select environmental influences maybe just as important as the presence or absence of the environmental influence.

Also, it must be noted that nurture factors can even influence gene expression. As such, the role of nurture can influence nature perhaps as much as nature influences nurture. For example: a corn plant genetically designed to attain a height of ten feet will by its nature grow to ten feet. BUT, if the corn plant is grown on nutrient poor soil, the absence of nutrients will only allow the plant to grow four feet. As such, nurture influenced the genetic design (nature) of the plant and thus limited the true potential of the corn plant.

An example that I give to my students is the thought experiment to clone the action hero actor, Arnold Schwartzenegger. If we tried to clone Arnold, but deprive him of an Austrian upbringing and instead raise him in Brooklyn; do not encourage any athletic activity and yet encourage sedentary interests like computer hacking; and discourage social interaction and encourage social isolation, what would we have? We would have a person who looks a little like Arnold Schwartzenegger the actor, but would be thin, weak, with a Brooklyn accent, and would be shy and withdrawn (a nerd!).

Cloning of humans would only guarantee the creation of a genetic copy of the donor human, but it would be next to impossible to replicate the exact series of environmental experiences, in the proper amount, AND in the proper timing to create an identical person, both body and personality. In short, a human clone would be genetically identical, but lack the exact nurture of the original donor.

Although the debate continues over the amount of influence that each aspect, nature and nurture, shapes the development of the human person, it is clear that nurture will play a role. Furthermore, society must be educated in how cloning of a human BODY will not necessarily lead to the creation of an identical human PERSON.

© Lawrence Roberge 2004 Reprinted with Permission

LAWRENCE F. ROBERGE M.S.is a biotechnology consultant, college instructor, bioethicist, and biomedical researcher. He is the author of the new book, THE COST OF ABORTION (Four Winds Publications, LaGrange, GA, 1995). He has consulted for pharmaceutical, medical, and biotechnology corporations across the United States, Canada, and Europe. He has published research on neuroscience, biomedicine, abortion vaccine technology, and the adverse effects of abortion on women.