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?

I found this and I think it applies to the discussion.

“What happens when a skin cell turns into a totipotent stem cell [a cell capable of developing into a complete organism] is that a few of its genetic switches are turned on and others turned off," writes University of Melbourne bioethicist Julian Savulescu in the April 1999 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. "To say it doesn't have the potential to be a human being until its nucleus is placed in the egg cytoplasm [i.e., cloning] is like saying my car does not have the potential to get me from Melbourne to Sydney unless the key is turned in the ignition."

Like turning the key in the ignition to begin a journey, simply starting a human egg on a particular path, either through fertilization or cloning, is a necessary condition for developing a human being, but it isn't sufficient. A range of other conditions must also be present. Those conditions include the availability of a suitable environment such as a woman's womb.

"I cannot see any intrinsic morally significant difference between a mature skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and a fertilised egg," writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give rise to a person if certain conditions obtained."

"If all our cells could be persons, then we cannot appeal to the fact that an embryo could be a person to justify the special treatment we give it," concludes Savulescu.

The DNA content of a skin cell, a stem cell, and a fertilized egg are exactly the same. The difference between what they are and what they could become is the environment in which their DNA is found. Thus, the mere existence of human DNA in a cell cannot be the source of a relevant moral difference. The differences among these cells are a result of how the genes in each are expressed, and that expression depends largely on which proteins suppress or promote which genes.

So people who oppose stem cell research must logically be committed to the notion that the only difference between your skin cell and your twin are the proteins that decorate their DNA strands. But can moral relevance really be reduced to the presence or absence of certain proteins in a cell?

You will first note that the quote you cited refers to taking the nucleus of the skin cell (a somatic cell- a cell which has differentiated as far as possible down the ladder of specification) and injecting that nuclear material into the enucleated ovum (a sex cell which has the powerful ability to begin differentiation along the long line of steps that build the body). To denegrate this injection and the very special cell that a sex cell is, to merely a location, is the reducio absurdum of apology for cannibalism ... the effort to reduce all life to chemical functions and the parts, ignoring the whole as more than the list of the parts.

Perhaps waht threw you was the following purposeful onfuscation: “What happens when a skin cell turns into a totipotent stem cell [a cell capable of developing into a complete organism]... The skin cell doesn't turn into the totipotent stem cell, and the writer knew that but chose to make the false statement as an aid in creating fertile ground for his chosen lie about to be supported (supporting a strawman is unusual, but it is still dishonest). The skin cell has the DNA removed, then the DNA of the individual from whom the skin cell came is then injected into the enucleated donor sex cell and zapped, to force cell division of a new individual human life (that's a whole new individual, not just a skin cell in different location).

As to the following, it is a clever way of wording the 'potential' life mischaracterization: "I cannot see any intrinsic morally significant difference between a mature skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and a fertilised egg," writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give rise to a person if certain conditions obtained." To save 'could give rise to a person is to have already decided arbitrarily that the embryo from whom stem cells are removed is not deemed worthy of individual living status. There is no equivalency in a skin cell, a stem cell, and an embryo, any more than there is an equivalency in your left kidney and the whole you.

There is inherent in the ovum, the machinery to do that which no other somatic cell in the female body can do ... divide and differentiate.

For now. What happens when we can extract the DNA from an existing tissue cell and trick it into beginning the developmental process all over again?

To purposely mislead readers into believing a cell from a kidney or liver (other than a stem cell) could be stimulated into repoducing a replication of the whole organism rather than 'perhaps' a whole organ, is dishonest as well.

No, it isn't, and we're not going to get anywhere if you persist in characterizing hypotheticals as falsehoods. The whole point I am trying to illuminate is to discuss what will happen when we can do such a thing - and that day will come, do not doubt for a minute.

This poster knows full well that the somatic cell, when stimulated to divide or replicate, can only replicate itself, not an entire organism, simply because the coding for an entire organism has been lost as the organism differentiated its very specialized organs and tissues. I think this poster doesn't deserve further courtesy since the agenda of the poster includes purposeful dishonesty.

Takes a mighty big pair to out and out lie in your accusations of the dishonesty of others. For you to assert that "the coding for an entire organism has been lost as the organism differentiated its very specialized organs and tissues" is either abjectly ignorant or purposefully mendacious. There is no difference whatsoever between your DNA now and your DNA as it was first conceived in your mother's womb - to assert such suggests that you desperately need a refresher in basic human reproductive biology.

The coding has not been "lost", it has merely been rendered latent, and lies unused as its purpose has long ago been fulfilled. That does not obviate the point that someday someone will discover a way to reactivate those genes and use ordinary adult cells to create new life, and then where will you be? Stuck asserting the magic specialness of liver cells, I'll wager. You're building your house on sand, and yet you accuse me of dishonesty. Classic.

There is no equivalency in a skin cell, a stem cell, and an embryo, any more than there is an equivalency in your left kidney and the whole you.

yes there is an equivalency. A one celled conceptus isn't a "whole" anything. Both contain the complete recipe for making a human being, the only difference between a somatic cell and an embryo are the suppressor and promoter proteins that decorate the DNA strands. A single cell embryo isn't profoundly different but merely further along a sequence of potentiality than are somatic cells. Each cell has the entire DNA code; it has become specialized as muscle or whatever by most of that code being turned off. In cloning, those portions of the code previously de-activated are re-activated. Everything is turned on, but that step isn't sufficient. What makes a human being whole and distinct human organism is a more or less working body combined with a more or less working brain.

Conception is being named as an artificial moral line in the continuum of potential development. It is wrong to draw the line here in my opinion.

A one celled conceptus isn't a "whole" anything. Actually, according to science, the conceptus is the whole individual human being newly cocneived. Umless you are trying to assert that because the single cell conceptus when it makes its first division doesn't end up with ten toes, ten fingers, etc, after the first division. As you know, the human body continues to develop for decades even after birth. Both contain the complete recipe for making a human being, the only difference between a somatic cell and an embryo are the suppressor and promoter proteins that decorate the DNA strands. No there is a lot more to it, which you would no doubt like to explain to us now, with regard to why a sex cell is very different from a typical skin or brain cell. A single cell embryo isn't profoundly different but merely further along a sequence of potentiality than are somatic cells. Each cell has the entire DNA code; And there it is, the supposition upon which you want to arrange all your logic. You've made the pre-determination that the embryo is nopt an individual human being, so you twist everything confronting you to fit that preconceived assumption. You and the general have a lot in common. You both have closed your minds to anything that would argue for the embryo being a complete individual human being at the earliest age of an individual human being. You don't like the fact that once conception (via sexual or cloning fecundation, or parthenogenesis) occurs, a continuum has begun that is an individual human being of unique quality all along the many stages of change the individual life will undergo, but the original individual will be the same from the beginning else there is no continuum even testable for Downs syndrome or tests like amniocentesis which have efficacy for the individual life being tested.

BTW, since you're in an argumentative mood, I give you the floor to address the general's baiting. enjoy

What makes a human being whole and distinct human organism is a more or less working body combined with a more or less working brain. Whole and distinct for the age of the individual once the organ that is the brain is developed. Would you like to excplain to me at what stage of brain development you choose to arbitrarily assign wholeness? Is it at day 40 following conception, when brain waves can be detected? Is it at six months, when most of the brain body connections have been secured? Is it at birth? Is it at age two, post-natal, when the brain is getting a good hold on co-cordinating the many complex regions which are yet to be cognitively functional? If it the magical organ called brain that makes you an individual human being, would you be the same if science could lift you brain from your body and sustain the organ that is your brain, existing as just a brain in suspension?

At conception, all the coded changes to direct your cellular construction are active for use. As each stage is followed, that coding turns off; as cellular construction proceeds from single celled conceptus to body and placenta, the ability of the codes to direct construction of a whole system ends with each successive finished organ and tissue system. Every cell of your body has the exact same DNA that the conceptus started with. But each coded step in the process of the continuum of your individual lifetime gets turned off as you go through that developmental stage. Is the newborn able to have sex, get pregnant? No,and that doesn't mean that the newborn is not a whole human being at that age for the continuum just because someone like you would only convey completeness if the sexual organs are operational ... just like the organ called the brain must be operational in your arbitrariy designation of wholeness. The individual human being has many changing characteristics along the continuum that is its individual lifetime begun at conception. You may choose to arbitrarily weigh one stage more important than another, but the continuum begins for that individual at that individual's conception. even before the brain is formed, science can test the individual and discover whether later on Downs Syndrome will occur, and the high degree of correctness in diagnosis rests upon the first axiom, that an individual unioque individual begins at conception and is 'there' all along the continuum of its lifetime, as long as it is alive.

Sorry I'm so late in answering, I've been out of town.

RS, the cell lines weren't chosen because they were infected, they were chosen because the researchers were trying to find cell lines that would grow in a vat, and these lines grew. Now, they're used because they're cheaper.There are two lines used today, and a few other cell lines are being experimented on by Merck and other pharmaceutical companies for the AIDS vaccine and even influenza vaccine.

The cells grow, are capable of being infected and produce the desired antigen (viral part or live virus) for the vaccine. The cells are killed and processed to produce the vaccine. They are cheaper than using live animals or cell lines from animals or recombinant DNA. (bacteria grow the vaccine antigens for Hepatitis B.)

But, human cell lines are not the only option. For instance, there is a vaccine for rubella that is not grown in the human cell line.

http://www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccines.htm

While the cell lines W-38 and MRC5 have been sustained for years, the researchers do continue to look for new cell lines, to harvest new lines from ongoing abortions. This is proven by the appearance of Per C 6 and 238.

As far as cloned lungs. The child who may be killed for his or her fetal or embryonic lung cells may not be large, but he or she is just as human as you or I. Is she or he *human enough* to be protected from legalized homicide?

The connection is human rights. Once dead, neither the cadaver of the person who died of natural causes or the embryo or fetus who is killed by abortion has any human rights. (Although most societies have a tradition of respect for the body of dead humans)

Whether a newborn baby, a toddler, cloned human embryo, a "spare" embryo in a freezer, or an "unwanted" unborn child, humans are endowed with the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness/property as long as they are alive.

How do you feel about using Mengele's research on twins for your benefit?

According to the President's Bioethics Council,
http://www.bioethics.gov/
the results of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning, are "cloned human embryos." Parthenogenesis would be no different, in my opinion. The embryos develop into blastocysts, and on through development.

As to the "potential" of a being defining that being: poor logic. The embryo is genetically human and alive or it's not. Any discrimination between whether it's human enough to experiment on and kill is not scientific - it's a personal bias.

The diffenence is in stimulating the skin cell so that it begins to differentiate and develop as a new individual (assuming that it's possible, some day). That is creating a twin or a clone.

The ethical delemma come in when the oocyte and the sperm do not unite, if the nucleus in the emptied oocyte is not stimulated in such a way as to begin development, or if the skin cell is not stimulated to de-differentiate. It is wrong to cause any of these actions with the intention of killing the new human life.

"RS, the cell lines weren't chosen because they were infected, they were chosen because the researchers were trying to find cell lines that would grow in a vat, "

Then I guess these anti-abortion groups have their info wrong -
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/May2002/VaxMadeAbortedBabies.htm

"How do you feel about using Mengele's research on twins for your benefit?"
Probably the same way that I feel about the soldiers who were killed in the wars to protect my "right to life, liberty ...."

"... there is a vaccine for rubella that is not grown in the human cell line."
True now, but it came out 20 years after the original - 20 more years of infected babies - .
If the research on cells from aborted babies had not been done, how can you be sure that Japanese would have ever come up with their technique ?

"humans are endowed with the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness/property "

Do these rights also involve the "right" to force someone else to provide you with them ?

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.