Human Cloning

Cloning, defined according to STEADMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 24th edition, page 289, is: “The transplantation of a nucleus from a somatic cell to an ovum, which then develops into an embryo; many identical embryos could thus be reproduced by asexual reproduction.”

Higher mammal cloning attempts have been costly and difficult, however, human cloning does represent a challenge that has never been faced before by society, and this challenge needs truthful airing, before the science is applied broadly for any and all medical marvels which may be implied from the techniques. The term ‘cloning’ may also be used to identify the process whereby only molecules are reproduced, such as DNA, as when criminologists replicate the DNA of a victim or a criminal, for molecular matching purposes; or used to describe research biologists reproducing a nearly limitless supply of a specially engineered micro-organism.

Michael Shermer, writing in his column, ‘Skeptic’, in the April 2003 edition of Scientific American magazine, offers Three Laws of Cloning: 1. A human clone is a human being no less unique in his or her personhood than an identical twin; 2. A human clone has all the rights and privileges that accompany this legal and moral status; 3. A human clone is to be accorded the dignity and respect due any member of our species.

Hold on now! Isn’t the cart before the horse? … Mister Shermer’s three laws don’t address the ‘when’ in a clone’s assumption of rights. When is the clone to be considered an individual human so that the laws can be applied from that day forward? The answer to that question may be both a scientific as well as a moral question, but our modern society is not ready to address those questions until the full truth about human cloning is revealed.

Some uses of cloning are actually cannibalism dressed up to seem like enlightened medical advances. Isn’t conceiving ‘designer’ individual humans, then killing those individuals to get their body parts for medical treatments, in actuality cannibalism?

It’s not a stretch to say that the acceptance of in vitro fertilization has propelled us down the slippery slope of dehumanizing the earliest age in the continuum of individual human beings, manipulating the amazing processes of conception and life support in order to assist in pregnancy. This earlier medical marvel often creates ‘extra individual embryonic human lives’ to be discarded, or worse, used for experimentation. Should we deconstruct such a beautiful gift by taking full technological advantage of it? Scientists involved with cloning share different viewpoints about this god-like ability we’ve developed. Many find it highly unethical, while others find moralizing the sanctity of individual human life to be only amusing.

Robert Gilmore McKinnell, a professor of genetics and cell biology, wrote that, ‘’Scientists use the cloning procedure to gain insight into biological phenomena such as differentiation, cancer, immunobiology, and aging.” [So far, so good, but the genie is not so benign when the issue of human ‘therapeutic’ cloning arises.]

The life level of that which is cloned is important to understand: a whole organism may be cloned, or only the DNA found in a part of the organism may be cloned.

With DNA cloning, the tissues need not be alive in order to harvest and replicate, or clone, the DNA of the tissue. Such molecular level cloning (called PCR) does not clone an individual (the whole organism), merely the molecular identification of the individual organism. Put another way, the term ‘cloning’ can be used to describe replicating the DNA of alive or dead tissue being tested, as with techniques used in criminology.

When criminologists do DNA replication, they are reproducing a nearly unlimited supply of the exact DNA within the tissue found at the crime scene, in order to match that DNA to the DNA of a criminal or a victim, or exonerate an accused. When Laci Peterson’s body and the body of baby Connor (found in the same waters) were tested with DNA marker technology, the goal was to discover a close DNA identification between Laci Peterson’s body, the body of the baby, and Scott Peterson’s DNA, to connect them through DNA matches, for criminal inferences.

Cloning of bacteria and fungi is used to identify characteristics of the microorganism, to amplify good characteristics or eliminate bad characteristics produced by the DNA commands on the organism’s growth and development. DNA replication and testing can identify what about a microorganism gives that particular organism the disease causing power it has in humans, in order to devise treatments for the diseases.

In modern Embryology textbooks, you will discover that the first principle of the Science of Embryology is that ‘every individual life is a continuum of unbroken processes whereby an individual alive organism is expressing its life, and that continuum has a beginning, a starting point that is that individual’s conception.’

Manipulations such as in vitro fertilization, somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), embryonic stem cell research, amniocentesis, and tests for genetic anomalies like Downs Syndrome, all are based upon this ‘first principle’ of Embryology. For these processes to have meaning, first the scientists and technicians must hold that the processes are dealing with an already alive individual’s characteristics, else the tests would be too non-specific to form medical assumptions regarding the alive individual organism tested.

Human whole organism cloning is accomplished by ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’, taking a living cell from a donor human, removing the nuclear material--the DNA/genes--and inserting that nuclear material into an ‘enucleated’ (nuclear material removed) female gamete, or sex cell, ovum, then zapping that combination with an electrical charge that stimulates cellular replication, expressing an individual human organism. The female ovum from which the 23 chromosome nuclear material has been removed, receives the 46 chromosome nuclear material for a ‘complete human organism’, thus the newly conceived individual life has the theoretical ability to then go through the entire series of cellular divisions (mitosis) which give rise to the amniotic sac and the growing individual human body, complete with all the normal organs and tissues.

‘Reproductive cloning’ conceives via somatic cell nuclear transfer and sustains that individual being all the way to 40 week developmental age and birth.

So called ‘therapeutic cloning’ utilizes in vitro conception and growth of an individual human being, but the new individual will not be allowed to live and grow to the full 40 weeks and be born. Instead, the newly conceived individuals will be killed and their body parts--from cells to organs--will be harvested for use in treating diseases of or injuries to older individual humans (older than embryos). In truth, both ‘types’ of cloning are reproductive, but the end use of the newly conceived individual human determines which name to give the process.

Will individual human life continue to have sanctity or be reduced to mere utility?

Perhaps some believe it isn’t so wrong to conceive embryos and kill them for their body parts, their stem cells, but the processes will not stop there, with that level of cannibalism. There is ongoing effort--well underway--to build an artificial womb, and then conceive and gestate an individual alive human being all the way to the full 40 weeks of development and birth. This marvel will also allow the scientists to stop at any age along the continuum of the lifetime begun at conception and harvest the individual’s body parts … and it will be the owner of the conceived individual and the life supporting machinery that will determine when to kill and harvest, or support for birth!

Why is human cloning bad? … There are many reasons cited by opponents, but it is wrong primarily because the manipulation of individual humans in their earliest age as individual embryonic beings is dehumanizing … dehumanizing for the individuals so conceived for their utility and dehumanizing for the society, which embraces such cannibalism.

The moral ‘line in the sand’ ought to be determined by whether an individual human being is maimed, killed, or discarded in the process of manipulating that individual human lifetime begun at conception. Answer to that question is what our society is not being given in the current debates. And when some portion of the truth regarding these manipulative processes arises, the deeper truth--that even the embryo is an individual human being at its earliest age along its unique continuum of life--is obfuscated, dismissed, ignored, or denied.

Science may one day be able to reproduce a part of the whole organism, as in growing only a kidney that is a perfect tissue match for the individual from whom the genetic nuclear material is taken; that would be an embraceable medical miracle. But as it’s now undertaken, with ‘therapeutic cloning’, an alive individual being very closely matched genetically to the donor of the nuclear material is given life support until the organs of that individual (embryonic stem cells are the organs of the embryo) differentiate sufficiently to be harvested for use with an older individual being treated for a disease or injury. That is, in all truth, cannibalism as surely as if the medical personnel instructed the person being treated to eat the parts taken from the clone in order to treat the disease or injury.

[ To cannibalize, according to NEW WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY, is : to repair (vehicles or aircraft) by using parts from other vehicles, instead of using spare parts.]

Are humans now to be reduced to the utility of aircraft or vehicles, to be cannibalized for their living parts?

Good Link - Thanks

There are some interesting points buried in it -
"The immediate intention of transferring the nucleus is precisely to produce just such an entity: one that is alive (rather than nonliving),"
According to this the unfertilized ovum is non-living -
which makes sense to their argument-
If the ovum were to be considered living - then it would be just an earlier stage of human life, would it not ?

"What do you suppose is common to the embryo age of an indivudal and the toddler age of that same individual, for instance?"
I don't suppose - enlighten me - and please take it from the single cell stage.

"How many attributes do you require?"
I don't require - If you have any, let me know

"Human parentage" - I suppose that follows the DNA, but DNA is not "alive"

We have mapped the human genome, and can cut and paste DNA -Is it so far fetched that in the future we will be able to construct DNA from the ground up ?

If we build one that duplicates a human, will it BE human ?

How close to human does it have to get before we allow testing on it ?
A being with no higher brain functions perhaps ?

Will the US refuse to use the fruits of these experiments and become the 22nd century equivalent of the Christian Scientists ?

"What do all the ages of the individual lifetime continuum share?... The very proteins that organ transplanting tries to deal with and leads some scientists to want a blanket approval for therapeutic cloning. But I suspect you knew that."

And at what stage does the protein production become differentiated enough to be able to deam it an "individual" ?

But I suspect you know that and really don't want to use that as a starting point.

The paragraph doesn't say the oocyte or the donor cells are not living cells. The authors are contrasting the desired outcome with other possibilities in three different qualities, in three different phrases.

""It would seem, then, that – whatever the reason for producing it – the initial product of somatic cell nuclear transfer is a living (one-celled) cloned human embryo. The immediate intention of transferring the nucleus is precisely to produce just such an entity: one that is alive (rather than nonliving), one that is human (rather than nonhuman or animal), and one that is an embryo, an entity capable of developing into an articulated organismic whole (rather than just a somatic cell capable only of replication into more of the same cell type). This is the intended primary product of performing SCNT, whether the ultimate motive or purpose is producing a live-born child from the cloned embryo or conducting scientific research on the cloned embryo. Also, the blastocyst stage that develops from this one-celled cloned embryo will be the same being, whether it is then transferred to a woman's uterus to begin a pregnancy or is used as a source of stem cells for research and possible therapy for others.""

Human parentage or origin is the only fact that I require of an organism to qualify as human. The DNA is a functioning component of the organism, but it is not *the* organism. Even if the DNA is manipulated, the organism would still be of human origin, and is human.

Your question doesn't make sense. The zygote is an idividual. It produces human proteins in an organized manner in such a manner to maintain homeostasis and growth in the form of cell division then *cell* differentiation.
I think you may be mixing up the concepts of "potential" (dependent on environment) and "what it is" (genetics). The Bioethics Council link also discusses this: there is no difference between the cloned human embryo that is implanted in the uterus and the one that is harvested, just as there is no difference between the embryo that is wanted and the one that is not.

I'll get back to the other points, but I just wanted to note that the Bioethics Council has a point of view that they were selected to express.
I have no reason to believe that they would taint the facts of the scientific methodology, but from the ethics standpoint, they will come up with the results that are required of them.

"... but I just wanted to note that the Bioethics Council has a point of view that they were selected to express. Prove that assertion, oh omnipotent 'elder'."

Presidents are elected to bring their own personal qualities to the office they hold.
Bush was elected because he explained who he was and what he wanted to do.
If he did not bring his own moral compass with him and did not select those with compatible leanings to be in positions of power or advisement, he would be guilty of ignoring the very reasons he holds the office.

I'm sure you do not think that Bill Clinton would have selected the same experts to be on HIS bioethics council.

You're so full of sh!t, it's amazing! An ovum is alive as a cell. Only God derives life from the lifeless. What a Maroon you're proving yourself to be ...

Glad I'm bringing a little glee into your life.

And I appreciate the chance to reply, again, with what I really said

An embryo is not the same as a skin cell

How very clintonesque of you, to assert that the Council is merely appointed to create a rubber stamp for the President's moral compass, then use as your 'proof' a repeat of your opinion that the Council is the rubber stamp for the President's moral direction. You are now so translucent, I won't bother responding to your shallowness further, in this 'RS' incarnation or the others you use at FR.

That was directed toward RS, not the honorable syriacus. I'm sorry for the mix-up.

I should be the one to apologize.

I made the mistake when I went from the "Comment" page to this thread and then read the wrong post.

"How very clintonesque of you, to assert that the Council is merely appointed to create a rubber stamp for the President's moral compass, then use as your 'proof' a repeat of your opinion that the Council is the rubber stamp for the President's moral direction."

First, I did not say that they were rubber stamps - simply that Bush or any politition would not, and should not appoint people to positions of power or advisement that oppose his moral standards.
It appears you disagree with this and feel that the President should appoint people that are at odds with his stated ideals and goals.
Hopefully, when Supreme Court appiontments come open he will follow my concepts, not yours.

"You are now so translucent, I won't bother responding to your shallowness further, in this 'RS' incarnation or the others you use at FR."

This is the most intriguing statement you have made !! Please tell me, who else am I ?

That's not a valid argument in this case. Unlike the previous Bioethics Commission, this one has members who dissent from the viewpoint of the Chair.

If you read the reports, at least 3 of the members see nothing wrong with killing humans for their stem cells. However, the Council all agreed that the result of SCNT is the equivalent of a zygote and is a cloned human embryo.

"If you read the reports, at least 3 of the members see nothing wrong with killing humans for their stem cells."

No problem... at least 3 of 18 to an advisory commision which has no real power.
As you say, much less slanted then the previous administration - but slanted none the less - as it should be.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.