Moving Toward Reproductive Cloning
Scientific American, an anything goes pro-cloning magazine, has two articles out dealing with the future of human cloning. The focus is on Ian Wilmut, who administered the team that cloned Dolly, who planned to pursue human SCNT cloning but then eschewed it in favor of iPSC research. The whole thing seems to me to be a somewhat desperate attempt to keep human SCNT research viable. You can read the article here to judge that for yourselves.
There is also a Q and A interview published with Ian Wilmut. I think this question is the most important: It seems as though there is increasing sentiment among scientists that some form of reproductive cloning would be acceptable for clinical purposes. Would you agree?
Ah, the cat is finally getting out of the bag! I have been telling anyone and everyone that the supposed agreement within the science and bioethics communities against reproductive cloning was merely an expedient. The real agenda is anything goes, with cloning for reproduction and use in genetic engineering/enhancement research definitely part of the agenda.
Here is Wilmut's answer:
In other words, Wilmut supports reproductive cloning. The limitations he specifies, even if he really believes them, would never hold if the technology were perfected. And in the past, he has been far less circumspect. Moreover, iPSCs still hold better promise for helping people with infertility.There always has been a difference of opinion about that. I think you need to define the terms very, very closely. As a way of getting people to think about things, I've asked, "Suppose it was possible to use this technique to correct a genetic error in an embryo?" You know, say, if you had a family who were inheriting one of the diseases we've already talked about. If you produced an embryo by in vitro fertilization (IVF), grew out cells, corrected the mutation, and then cloned to make a new embryo, you're using it as a tool for correction of genetic disease--and that child would not be a genetically identical twin. I personally wouldn't find anything wrong with that.
Whether it's likely to happen or not is a very different matter, simply because of the technical challenges and the costs involved. And as far as treatment for infertility is concerned, the odds are that there would be other ways of overcoming the problem. If IVF cells are equivalent in their developmental potential to embryo-derived stem cells, then it might be possible to produce gametes. So if you have, let's say, a man who has no sperm, you produce iPS cells, you produce sperm, and you can then produce babies through IVF. Naturally, it would be a much more satisfactory approach, because it is a child who is the product of both parents and is not a genetically identical twin to anybody
If you want to stop reproductive cloning, stop all human SCNT. It is the only way.
Labels: Human Cloning. Ian Wilmut. SCNT.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:02 AM
26 Comments
26 Comments:
This is all, of course, not to mention the fact that all cloning is reproductive cloning if we're to speak with absolute clarity. Just because the embryo is not gestated doesn't mean that the cloning was non-reproductive anymore than IVF is non-reproductive if the embryos produced are tossed in the bio-incinerator.
Lydia. You are right of course. I was using the term as popularly expressed.
I've been saying that for years, Lydia. If you've cloned, then you've reproduced. Of course, so many are mendacious enough to assert that "therapeutic cloning" isn't really cloning, so you never even get to the argument on the "reproductive" part of the phrase.
I think he meant to say IPSC instead of "IVF cells" in that last reference. He agrees that IPSC offer better promise (promise? who's promising?) for infertility. I think using adult stem cells to derive replacement sperm or eggs would qualify as medicine, and justly be covered by medical privacy. That doesn't require any cloning or reproducing to get the germ cells. But any modification of the DNA wouldn't require any SCNT cloning or reproducing either. Nor would "coaxing" the cells to express as opposite-sexed gametes. But they would be very unethical, and open a huge pandora's box of government regulated reproduction, even if SCNT were banned.
We need to ban creating people (or embryos) using modified genes, which means all methods that are not the union of a man and a woman. Banning SCNT isn't enough.
I truly do not understand the fear people have of reproductive cloning - if, and only if, the issues surrounding cell age become correctable. Many things have become illegal in the USA and a number of other countries due to this unscientific fear leading to making technologies that are not cloning to be cloning. (Cytoplasmic transfer - the so-called mitochondrial issues are quite correctable with research and matching in the same way blood typing works.)
Where does this fear come from?
I certainly have less of a problem with cloning for the sake of having a clone walking the earth than I do creating human embryos via cloning for the express purpose of killing them. It surprises me that so many try to mollify us on the former matter by assuring us that they "only" plan to do the latter.
Cloning is wrong on several levels, not the least of which is that it is dehumanizing and reduces reproduction to a matter of assemblyline manufacture.
But I agree with you. Creating life for the purpose of destroying it is worse than creating it to have a life. The former is crass and in principle would justify all manner of deprivations of human rights--as I have written.
But then, two wrongs don't make a right, so I say ban the whole thing. There are plenty of ethical areas of biotech in which to invest our time and money and brainpower.
Sure, ban the whole thing, including unethical conception that is not SCNT. The only way to create embryos that should be allowed is joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman. Is there a problem with banning all other methods?
And I think if someone does go and make a cloned or GE'd embryo, it should not be implanted and brought to life (which I believe and the Bible agrees happens when blood develops, at about five weeks), it should be destroyed. And given that putting a nucleus from a sick person's skin cell into an evacuated egg cell could cure that person, it is hard to justify banning SCNT, and politically difficult. There is so much to be gained from banning non egg and sperm conception right away, and no reason to believe it will be harder to ban therapeutic cloning if we have already banned reproductive GE. It'll be more honest and useful to ban TC on its own, with out relying on the specter of creating cloned people.
Any ban of this technology is likely to be found unconstitutional by SCOTUS on the grounds that it conflicts with SCOTUS's 1948 ruling that reproduction is an unfettered right.
There are organizations prepared to file an injunction against any such ban (passed by congress) until it undergoes SCOTUS review.
Kurt: We have been through this, but many states, e.g. CA, MO ban cloning and gestation to birth and no lawsuits yet.
I think the lawsuit would be to create a constitutional right to conduct scientific research under the First Amendment. As I have written here, the intellectual groundwork is already being prepared in the journals for that one.
Woe betide us if it won because then the govt. would have to show a compelling state interest to even regulate research parameters.
Kurt, are you taking about Skinner v Oklahoma (1942)?
At any rate, the whole point of it was to protect the right to use your own genes, not the right to create children from modified genes or substitute genes. That's why states can't sterilize "unfit" people. They certainly knew that it was possible to substitute someone else's "fit" sperm for an unfit person's, but that wouldn't have passed muster, because it isn't a right to create people however you want using whatever DNA you want, it is a right to create people from your own genes, even if they are unfit. It is a direct ruling against the idea of eugenics and genetic engineering.
John, could you modify your own genes (in every cell in your body), and then have children (by your modified gametes)?
I'm pretty sure that's not possible, but I guess doing that would be a way around the ban, at least as I think it should be worded, because once a person has entirely replaced their genes, then their gametes would be genetically modified and yet still represent an actual person.
The language I am pushing for is to prohibit conceiving children by any means other than combining the egg of a human female with the sperm of a human male. The word "of" means that it is completely derived from that person and represents that person's genes (or rather, randomly contains one haploid chromosome of each of that person's diploid pair, like all natural gametes do, allowing for 23! combinations that are "of" that person).
Wesley, have you settled on what wording your ideal law would have? Please share!
If you want to stop reproductive cloning, stop all human SCNT. It is the only way.
The best model for legal rights to allows science to flourish is in Missori which outlaws reproductive cloning while adding legal protection from zealots who want to stop scientists from understanding the process and development of pre implantation Embryonic Stem cells by protecting SCNT through Constitutional Amendment. Yeah Mizzou!
Missouri has the strongest law against creating designer babies in the nation, too. They didn't only outlaw pure SCNT like many states, or outlaw asexual reproduction like many states without defining "egg" and "sperm", they are the only state that specifies that only the product of "sperm of a human male" and "egg of a human female" can be implanted. All other states allow the use of modified gametes to make designer babies.
Yes, it would be a stronger law if it prohibited creating GE'd and cloned embryos rather than only implanting them, but that would be impossible to get passed, given the strength of the medical research position.
Is it any harder to stop embryonic research in Missouri after they have already banned reproductive cloning? I don't think that is the case. Instead, it seems to make the anti-cloning arguments in Missouri stronger and purer emphasizes the deeper issues.
Wesley, could you please try formulating your model federal legislation for us? Would it include Missouri's "egg of a woman" and "sperm of a man" language that prevents genetic modification, or would it allow genetic modification, like 49 states do?
Dark Swan, aren't you opposed to laws prohibiting GE'd designer babies?
Im not aware of how it's possible to engineer a baby, can you provide an example?
Its safe to say I haven't really formed an opinion on something I know little about.
Any method of creating a baby's genome that is not from a real living woman's unadulterated, unmodified egg fertilized by a man's unadulterated, unmodified sperm. By "unadulterated, unmodified" I mean the DNA has not been altered, it is formed by the random process of meiosis and represents that parent's DNA.
Surely you have heard of the concept of genetic engineering. The essential tenet of Transhumanism is that humans will have engineered genes that are not simply the genes of the mother and father, but have been enhanced to make them better.
Well I've heard of the concept, I just have yet to see a specific example of it. The info I've seen has been rather vague.
Can you be more specific as to how its being applied in a clinical trial or therapeutic environment?
It's a general question, dark swan: should we prohibit genetic engineering or allow it? The idea is to prevent specific examples of it from happening before it happens, and to stop wasting time researching it, and to reap the benefits that would come from preserving natural conception and banning genetic engineering. Even with genetic engineering only a concept, it has bad effects and should be banned.
I think there is a basic difference in philosophy between those of us who believe that genetic engineering - not transgenetics (introducing animal genes into humans) - is a thing God would want us to do because he gave us the tools to do it and those who believe otherwise. In my mind, the parable of the talents say to waste ANY resource at your disposal - including one's brain and science - is anathema to the service of God, the good, or whatever.
Thus, I do not believe we will reach consensus if the start of the argument is that manipulation of reproduction is always wrong or right. My hope, and my colleagues hope, is that eventually such thinking will disappear from rational minded people.
Of course, everyone has the right to their opinions as long as they do not force their views on others.
Our brains might decide that the benefits of banning genetic engineering outweigh the benefits of allowing anyone to do it. God wouldn't have given us the power to force our beliefs on others if he didn't want us to.
It's a general question, dark swan: should we prohibit genetic engineering or allow it?
Ok I Wont ask you more than 3 times to formulate a cohesive example for your assertion, you keep moving back to a over simplified, non realistic, totalitarian mindset.
How about this for an example..
What are you reasons for banning a family from correcting a mutation for cranial facial disorders by altering a single gene?
If the defective gene can easily be corrected what are your reasons to stop a family from choosing to do so under the supervision of a medical professional?
I think I can finally derive your answer from that question: you would allow genetic engineering, not ban it. That's what i thought was your position, but you confused me when you said: "The best model for legal rights to allows science to flourish is in Missori which outlaws reproductive cloning while adding legal protection from zealots who want to stop scientists from understanding the process and development of pre implantation Embryonic Stem cells by protecting SCNT through Constitutional Amendment."
Missouri, by my reading, actually prohibits implanting a genetically engineered embryo, even if it was to "correct a mutation of crainial facial disorders", because such a "corrected" embryo would not be created by the "egg of a woman" fertilized by the "sperm of a man". Even if they corrected the mutation in the gamete, the corrected gamete would not be "of" the person, since the person carries that mutation. It would be based on, or derived from, but it would be "of" no human, no human exists which that gamete would be "of."
To answer your question, the reasons to prohibit that family from correcting a mutation are general reasons that would apply to all situations where a family or a scientist wanted to genetically engineer a person. It's a bad use of energy and effort and medical resources, would lead to broad government administered eugenics, coarsen society towards existing people with birth defects and reduce efforts to cure them or look for environmental causes, lead to gene-rich and gene-poor countries and communities, and threaten everyone's individual conception rights to use their genes anyway, even if it might have a mutation. It shouldn't be wrong to have children, but if we allow doctors to offer fixes, it will be wrong not to pay them for it. And, even if it works, it won't necessarily improve the world or anyone's quality of life, since the life who would have benefited won't exist, only some other life which won't know what it doesn't suffer from, and will suffer from things anyway.
And, the improvements to the world and people's quality of life that would emerge from a ban are plenty. I would be happy to know that I had a right to use my unmodified genes to have children, and that I, like everyone, wasn't substandard and shouldn't breed. Living people would benefit from redirecting research money into cures rather than figuring out how to stop birth of people that have their disease. We'd all benefit from fewer cars driving to fewer labs and government agencies and lawyers offices, and more people turning toward local sustainable human-scale industries instead of waiting for technology and Giant scale science to fix us for us.
John -
First off, thanks for responding with an actual answer that seems genuine and direct - that is a rare courtesy on this forum for an opposing opinion.
As I initially stated, I have not completely formed an opinion as I am still ascertaining the facts and possibilities.
My instinct would be to allow a family with a fetus with known cranial facial disorder in vivo to correct the issue through some genetic modification. but that opinion could change with a convincing argument that I have not yet heard here or anywhere else.
So what would you say to a cancer patient who alters their DNA in order to correct apoptosis caused by natural mutations in cells?
Should we not cure cancer because we have to genetically modify cancer cells?
I assume you give an in vivo baby the same level of personhood as an elderly cancer patient. So where is the difference?
Thanks
DS
Missouri, by my reading, actually prohibits implanting a genetically engineered embryo, even if it was to "correct a mutation of crainial facial disorders", because such a "corrected" embryo would not be created by the "egg of a woman" fertilized by the "sperm of a man".
I'd be very surprised if that were the case. The lawyers who drafted Amendment 2 were being funded by the scientific community. You may hope they shot themselves in the foot, but as long as the gamete was initially formed via sperm and egg it would seem viable for implantation. I'd wager that Amendment 2 would not prohibit GE on sperm/egg gametes, but that may depend on what your definition of "of" is.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home