Copyright 2002 Star Tribune Star Tribune
(Minneapolis, MN)
June 3, 2002, Monday, Metro Edition
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 1A
LENGTH:
1353 words
HEADLINE: U.S. Senate to discuss how
to keep tabs on a taboo: human cloning; Medical
potential creates division
BYLINE: Sharon
Schmickle; Staff Writer
BODY: In the
latest "Star Wars" movie, a bizarre factory creates an army of cloned storm
troopers.
Call something
a clone _ at least in the movies _ and it's almost certain to be seen as
evil.
That's the semantic
and political reality facing the U.S. Senate this week as it moves toward
debates on bills to restrict human cloning.
Americans overwhelmingly tell pollsters
that cloning is taboo. But leave the word cloning out of the description, and
they tend to favor some aspects of the research that the Senate is expected to
debate.
"When people
hear the word cloning, they think of two Hitlers or two Michael Jordans, and
it's scary," said Ellen Murray, who has helped organize hearings on the issue
for a subcommittee chaired by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
Whether the outcome would be another
Hitler or the far more pleasant prospect of a second Michael Jordan, there is a
consensus in the Senate that such cloning should be banned. The division begins
with questions of how far to extend a proposed ban.
Scientists draw a sharp distinction
between cloning to create a person and cloning to create cells that could help
cure diabetes, Alzheimer's disease or some other illness.
The rub is that the first few steps in
both procedures are similar. In a process called nuclear transplantation, DNA
from a person's cell is transplanted into an egg whose nucleus has been removed.
Then the package is stimulated to prompt it to begin dividing and forming an
embryo.
Now begins the
difference.
If the intent
were to make a baby, the embryo would be implanted in a uterus and nurtured to
grow into a nearly identical genetic copy of the person who donated the original
DNA. This is reproductive cloning, which most Americans and most senators are
prepared to ban.
If,
instead, the goal was medical therapy, stem cells could be isolated from the
early embryo. Such cells have the natural versatility to develop all of the
body's specialized tissues _ from heart to skin. Scientists hope to harness that
ability to help patients.
At the University of Wisconsin in
Madison, for example, scientists have coaxed human embryonic stem cells to
function in mice as brain and spinal-cord cells. The research improves prospects
for cell transplants that could repair spinal-cord injuries and reverse the
ravages of Parkinson's disease.
The Wisconsin cells were isolated from
embryos created in a fertility clinic, not from clones. If the cells could be
created from a patient's body through cloning, the process might reduce chances
a cell transplant would be rejected.
Even though the technology is nowhere
near ready for the neighborhood clinic, dozens of groups representing patients
who could benefit from the research have joined scientists in lobbying against
banning such therapeutic cloning.
Opponents of the research, including
President Bush, are fighting to slam the door on the studies before they go
further.
"Science has set
before us decisions of immense consequence," Bush said in urging the Senate to
ban all human cloning. "We can pursue medical research with a clear sense of
moral purpose or we can travel without an ethical compass into a world we could
live to regret. . . . How we answer the question of human cloning will place us
on one path or the other."
The bedrock argument for the opposition
is that destroying an embryo is killing a potential person.
"The key moral issue in research
involving cloned embryos is the creation and destruction of a human life," said
the Rev. Kevin Fitzgerald of Georgetown University Medical Center when he
testified at a Judiciary Committee hearing in February.
Tissue already cloned
Beyond arguments of when life begins,
opponents express revulsion at the notion of growing cells for medical repair
work. "Allowing cloning would be taking a significant step toward a society in
which human beings are grown for spare body parts," Bush said.
But scientists already clone human
tissue. Tumor cells have been cloned for years in cancer studies. Human DNA
routinely is cloned for criminal investigations and for research.
Many Americans seem less
squeamish than cloning foes on Capitol Hill about the scientific use of cloning.
In a Gallup Poll conducted in May, 51 percent favored cloning cells from adults
for medical use.
But
overall, "the word cloning sets off alarms for Americans," said the Gallup News
Service. Gallup found strong opposition to cloning not only humans but also pets
and endangered animals. When the pollsters asked about stem-cell studies without
using the word cloning, they found stronger support than when they referred to
cloning in similar questions.
The political question before the Senate
is whether most voters will make a distinction between types of cloning. All of
the several bills that the full Senate is expected to consider in June would ban
cloning to create a person.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is the leading
sponsor of a bill that would allow therapeutic cloning and require federal rules
to ensure that it is done in a way that protects the rights and safety of people
involved.
Neither
Minnesota senator has decided which bill to vote for, but Democrat Paul
Wellstone favors this general position, his spokeswoman said Friday.
Leading the other side is
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., whose bill would ban the creation of a cloned human
embryo for any purpose. It proposes criminal penalties of up to 10 years in
prison for anyone who participates in any attempt at human cloning and who ships
or receives cells or other material taken from a cloned embryo.
A nearly identical bill passed the House
last July.
Dayton undecided
Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said he has
promised to meet with Brownback and listen to arguments for that bill, but he is
keeping his options open.
"This obviously is very sensitive and
highly technical," Dayton said. "I certainly oppose any cloning for reproductive
purposes. And I would like to leave a very narrow window for medical and
scientific research. So [the question is] where to draw that line. I want to
know as much as I can before I decide."
Because other countries allow cloning for
medical uses, scientists have warned that Brownback's bill would make criminals
of patients who travel to other countries to receive transplants of cells
developed through the research.
"If a cure or a treatment for Parkinson's
disease or Alzheimer's disease were developed in another country using nuclear
transplantation, Americans would be alone in being unable to take advantage of
that treatment," said Dr. Gerald Fischback, dean of the faculty of medicine at
Columbia University in testimony before Harkin's subcommittee.
Brownback disputes that scenario. The
bill leaves plenty of room for scientists to develop therapies using other
techniques, he said. "We simply recognize that the creation of cloned human
embryos is not a necessary part of the equation," he said.
With a large block of senators undecided
on the issue, neither side was ready to declare victory last week.
_ Sharon Schmickle is at
sschmickle@startribune.com.
More information
American Association for the
Advancement of Science's policy briefing on human cloning:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/ issues/cloning.htm
President Bush's statement urging the
Senate to ban all forms of human cloning:
American Society for Cell
Biology's letter signed by 40 Nobel laureates urging the Senate not to ban
therapeutic and research cloning: http://www.ascb.org/
publicpolicy/Nobelletter.html
National Academy of Sciences report, "The
Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning":
http://www.nap.edu/
catalog/10285.html
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
statement urging the Senate to oppose human cloning for research:
Document 250 of 494. 