How does the stem cell debate affect the debate about human cloning? And what should be done with all of those frozen embryos?
This paper was prepared by Dr Megan Best, member of the Social Issues Executive, medical doctor and qualified bioethicist. It exposes the method involved to reach the therapeutic benefits science has promised in embryonic stemcell research. Only through human cloning will such benefits be achieved.
April 2002
While Australian media has been enthusiastic in its support of the benefits of embryonic stem cell research in recent months, it has not always spelt out the route by which such research would yield therapeutic benefits. This paper will explain why human cloning is required for the full therapeutic benefits of embryonic stem cell research to be realised and why it is unethical.
Background
Approximately 70,000 frozen embryos are currently in storage after implantation has been ruled out for them in assisted reproductive procedures such as IVF. We have been encouraged to support the use of these so-called ‘spare’ embryos for stem cell harvest. Such a procedure will kill the embryo involved, but it has been suggested that this is a small price to pay for the proposed scientific benefits.
We suggest that human embryos should not be the subjects of experimental research aimed at benefiting someone other than the embryos themselves. We believe that human embryos are just that: human. Therefore they should be given the chance of life through adoption to infertile couples, or allowed to die with the respect due to their humanity. While not all Australians agree on the moral status of the embryo, most agree that it is worthy of respect and dignity, as is suggested by the resources currently invested in the storage of the embryos in question.
We also object to development of embryonic stem cell research because of the implicit endorsement of human cloning involved.
Use of cloning in embryonic stem cell research
If destructive research is allowed, embryonic stem cells will be extracted and grown as cell lines for research. These cells can reproduce indefinitely. The aim will be to refine the procedures which can direct and control the metamorphosis of stem cells into other body tissues.
While stemcell lines may be useful in themselves for research in areas such as pharmaceutical treatments, the therapeutic goal as presented by proponents of embryonicstem cell research is much more ambitious. With the development of procedures to push stem cells into various tissue pathways, it is suggested that we will be able to inject specific cells into patients to replace malfunctioning or absent cells. For example, nerve cells may mend a severed spinal cord, insulin-producing cells may cure a diabetic.
However, should the methods required to control these transformations be understood, in order to inject stem cells into a human subject, the problem of rejection by the body’s immune system needs to be overcome. In order to make stemcells compatible with a patient, it is proposed that a human clone of the patient be created and grown to approximately a 6-day stage, at which time the stem cells will be harvested and therefore the embryo killed. The stem cells will be transformed into the required cell type before injection into the patient. The stem cells harvested from IVF embryos will not be suitable for this stage of treatment as they will have different genetic makeup from the patient, and if injected will therefore be identified by the body as foreign and attacked by the immune system, probably rendering them useless. While some biotechnology companies have allegedly considered alternative methods of genetic engineering to overcome the immune rejection, nothing has been published on this subject.
The procedure used to create a patient clone will be somatic cell nuclear transfer—the method used to create Dolly the sheep. A body cell other than an egg or sperm will have its nucleus removed. That nucleus will be placed in a human egg which has had its nucleus removed. This egg is then subjected to electrical impulses which will stimulate growth of the embryo.
Prior to actual treatment of patients, it is probable that scientists will want to clone humans by this technique to allow the improvement of the cloning procedure before patient trials begin.
The announcement last November that an American biotechnology company, Advanced Cell Technology, had created the first cloned human was received with alarm by the Australian public. While scientists have attempted to alleviate these concerns by distinguishing ‘therapeutic’ from ‘reproductive’ cloning, we believe that this terminology is unhelpful. While there is widespread abhorrence at the thought of reproductive cloning, the public has been told that therapeutic cloning holds no such risks. We believe that therapeutic cloning is dangerous and should be banned along with reproductive cloning for the following reasons.
Why ‘therapeutic’ human cloning is unethical
- Therapeutic cloning can only be justified by the utilitarian calculus that values potential medical treatments over the lives of the embryos who would be destroyed in order for the research to proceed. However it is not ethical to sacrifice one human life for the real or potential benefit of others.
- It is unethical to view a human being—regardless of its age—as a means to an end. Creation of human embryos specifically for destructive research is opposed by our community, and this is what is involved in therapeutic cloning.
- Therapeutic cloning will undoubtedly lead to exploitation of women. In order to create human clones for stem cell therapy, an enormous number of women’s eggs will need to be donated. To do so, women may be treated with superovulatory drugs and must undergo an invasive procedure. Complications may occur. Advanced cell technology paid up to $4,000 to each woman who donated eggs for their cloning experiments. It is likely that women of lower economic status will be exploited in this way.
- In addition to the ethical concerns above, therapeutic cloning should be banned because it increases the likelihood of reproductive cloning. Preventing the implanting and subsequent birth of cloned embryos once they are available in the laboratory will be impossible. Already Dr Severino Antinori of Italy has plans to produce the first cloned human. The most effective way to prevent reproductive cloning is to stop the process at the beginning, with the creation of cloned embryos. Since the overwhelming community consensus is that reproductive cloning should be banned, steps must be taken to ban therapeutic cloning as well.
Embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning should also be banned in view of the existence of other promising and ethical treatment options such as adult stem cell therapy (which has already been successfully used in patients).
In conclusion, if destruction of excess embryos is allowed, does this just apply to the embryos currently in storage, or to future ‘excess’ embryos as well? The blatant irresponsibility of IVF clinics that have allowed the accumulation of approximately 70,000 embryos to date will have no incentive to change if future excess embryos are also fodder for the laboratory.
Dr Megan Best, MA (Appl. Eth.), BMed., ATh. April 2002
This article was originally published at SydneyAnglicans.Net
