01-26-2002

SCIENCE: Changing the Cloning Debate

In mid-January, two groups sought to redirect the contentious debate over
cloning and stem-cell research. President Bush's newly minted bioethics
council tried to put the focus on the long-term impact of the research,
which is promising more control over human diseases and traits. Also, the
chairman of a prestigious panel declared that cloning's most important
purpose is to create human embryo "models" for laboratory
study.


The President's Council on Bioethics, which met in Washington on January
17 and 18, plans to debate the core societal issues raised by the new
cloning technology. The panel intends to conduct the debate in a way that
transcends existing political divisions, such as the disagreement over
abortion, said council Chairman Leon Kass. "This is an argument
between powerfully compelling goals ... and it is unlikely that we will
find a position in which something is not sacrificed to something
else," he said.


The initial reaction was mixed. One advocate of stem-cell
research-Elisabeth Bresee Brittin, the executive director of the
Parkinson's Action Network and a board member of the Coalition for the
Advancement of Medical Research-said the council lacks representatives of
millions of sick patients. Concerns that the panel was stacked against
cloning were partly assuaged by the group's open discussions, said Sean
Tipton, spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
Cloning opponents said they worry that the panel's majority-especially its
scientists-may oppose curbs.


Anti-cloning groups on the right and left hope that the presidential
panel's prestige and Bush's public support for the panel will help them
showcase their arguments to the media, to think tanks, and to liberal
advocacy groups that generally support stem-cell and cloning research.
These anti-cloning groups oppose the destruction of embryos and say that
social inequality could be the result of a biotech marketplace in human
characteristics such as intelligence. The anti-cloning coalition includes
left-of-center groups such as the Council for Responsible Genetics in
Cambridge, Mass. These groups are trying to win support from such
Democratic allies as the Sierra Club in time for an important Senate
debate on cloning that is scheduled for March.


However, panelist James Wilson, a retired professor of public policy at
UCLA, is skeptical of the panel's ability to get its complex debate into
the media. Television wants soundbites, not arguments, he said, and some
reporters show "appalling" bias in favor of cloning advocates.
Kass said whether the panel can get its debate publicized "is a
significant question."


On January 18, the private-sector panel on reproductive cloning, which was
established by the National Academy of Sciences, cited the importance of
embryo research in a report that also urged a temporary ban on
"reproductive cloning." "The greatest benefit we see as
scientists ... is to get [human] research models who have real
diseases," said the panel's chairman, Irving Weissman. "We are
stymied as scientists in trying to study these diseases on mouse
models."


"Model" is the term used by scientists to refer to living
organisms, such as mice and monkeys, that are the subjects of laboratory
experiments. Discoveries made with such models are routinely
patented.


Weissman's panel, which consisted of biology experts from academia and
business, also recommended a temporary ban on the birth of a cloned human
until the technology is reliable. The ban should be reconsidered every two
to five years, said Weissman, a biology professor at Stanford University
and the founder of StemCells Inc., a biotech firm. Currently, there are no
restrictions on cloning in universities or in the private sector.


In research cloning, each cloned embryo would be used to produce millions
of diseased stem cells for study. Although tens of thousands of human
embryos have been used in research in the United Kingdom since 1991,
Weissman said that perhaps 10 embryos would be needed to study
Alzheimer's, and perhaps 15 to study Lou Gehrig's disease. Embryos could
also be used in the testing of possible therapies, and in the study of
desirable biological attributes, Weissman said. Since early last year,
however, scientists have greatly increased their estimates of the number
of embryos required for research. Other researchers say that cures can be
developed without embryos.


Weissman's emphasis on cloning for research complements efforts by cloning
advocates to highlight the cloning of embryos as a potential source of
stem cells for possible transplantation into ill patients. Transplant
cloning, sometimes referred to as "therapeutic cloning," may
provide a cure for patients with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes,
many research advocates have said.


But such transplant cures are "at the very top of the [research]
tree," according to Michael West, chief executive officer of Advanced
Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, Mass. In November, ACT announced that
it had cloned several patients but the resulting embryos died before they
produced stem cells. Instead of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, West said,
his company now hopes to develop treatments for bone- and
intestine-related maladies, which he described as "the low-hanging
fruit."


Some advocates for stem-cell transplants, such as Brittin, acknowledge
that the debate over stem cells may have built up "expectations that
can't be fulfilled." However, she said, patients want the research to
continue, "to see if it does offer the hope" of a cure, even
though they may not benefit from the work.


Neil Munro

National Journal