ABAC Quarterly
Winter 2002
Human cloning: Reproductive vs. therapeutic
By Fr. Joseph Howard
Many people think today that cloning a human person, even
at the embryonic stage, is science fiction-it is not. Even
under the Clinton Administration, federal tax dollars were
used for the "clone and kill option" where human embryonic
persons were generated by cloning and then killed since they
would not be implanted into the uterus. Why is there such an
interest in human cloning? Reproductive cloning seeks to bring
a human embryonic person generated by cloning to birth.
Imagine that with this technology a woman can be the twin
sister of her mother, lack a biological father, and be the
daughter of her grandmother. Therapeutic cloning, however,
does not seek to bring a human person to birth. Its goal is to
generate a human embryonic person in order that the stem cells
be isolated-which results in the death of that individual
human being. Then they are used, purportedly, to treat
diseases in the person from which the clone was derived. The
hope is that the treated body's immune system would not reject
the cells or tissues that would be transplanted, and they
probably would not. The only distinction between reproductive
and therapeutic cloning is that the former seeks to generate a
human person that will result in a live birth while the latter
seeks to generate a human person at the embryonic stage who
will be killed in order to obtain stem cells. Both
reproductive and therapeutic cloning launch grave attacks upon
innocent human life and are hence gravely immoral and must,
therefore, be rejected.
Cloning: Experiment 1
In November of 2001, Advanced Cell Technology announced
that it had generated human embryonic clones using two
different procedures. First, a procedure known as somatic cell
nuclear transfer was used. Human oocytes were obtained and
their nuclei removed. The nucleus of a donor cell was then
isolated and injected into the cytosol of the oocyte. This
cell was then stimulated to divide by the use of two
chemicals-ionomycin and 6-dimethylaminopurine. In this
experiment, a total of 19 oocytes were reconstructed. Twelve
hours later, it was reported that seven of them had each
developed a large pronucleus similar to what is seen in
oocytes fertilized by sperm; all four of them developed a
pronucleus from which three cleaved to four or six cells.
There was no evidence reported of an inner cell mass, which is
the desired "stage" from which the stem cells are to be
isolated for use in "therapeutic" procedures. Clearly, what
were generated in this first experiment were human embryos who
contained the ordinary complement of maternal and paternal
homologous chromosomes.
Experiment 2
The second experiment involved obtaining 22 oocytes and
activating them to divide with the same two chemicals used in
the first experiment. Twelve hours after activation, twenty
developed one pronucleus and cleaved to the two-to-four cell
stage. On day five of culture, it was reported that there were
blastocoele cavities observed in six of them. A discernible
inner cell mass was not present. It is critical to note that
what was generated in this experiment appeared to be a human
embryo that did not contain both maternal and paternal
chromosomes. Further investigation is needed to examine the
karytope which is present-the complete chromosomal complement.
The human cloning process perverts the basic relationships
of the human person: filiation, consanguinity, kinship, and
parenthood. While in vitro fertilization has already
splintered parenting, human cloning will mean the radical
rupture of these bonds. This is a type of eugenics heretofore
unknown. Rather than eliminating born people who are deemed to
be inferior, the new eugenics pre-selects specific biological
qualities that can be appraised, monitored, selected or
rejected. Nuclear transfer and parthenogenesis, as well as
attempts at other types of human cloning such as "blastomere
splitting" and de-individuation, must be opposed on both the
private and federal level.
Halting the human cloning project (reproductive and
therapeutic) is a moral duty each of us must accept; it is a
responsibility that must be translated into cultural, social
and legislative terms. It is never ethically acceptable to
kill one innocent human person to save the life of another at
any stage of biological development.
More on stem cell research
By C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of
Anatomy University of Arizona College of
Medicine Tucson, Arizona
On August 9, President Bush announced two decisions. With
the first decision there would be no NIH funding for human
embryonic stem cell research (HESCR) in which stem cells were
obtained from any more "spare" human embryos (from IVF
laboratories). This, Bush said, was based "on a moral
(ethical) reason." It was a good and proper decision. With the
second decision, Bush approved the NIH funding of already
existing human embryonic stem cell lines, and declared he knew
of "60" of them. He denied that this decision was a political
one. Secretary of HHS, Tommy Thompson, said this decision by
Bush was made "in an ethical and morally sound manner."
But, this decision smacks of complicity in an unethical
action, that is, profiting from "ill-gotten goods." Bishop
Fiorenza, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, seemed to defend complicity in the case of using
chickenpox vaccine (developed from cells derived from aborted
human embryos) by saying: "there were no other options." In
the case of HESCR, the option is adult stem cell research.
But suppose adult stem cell research proves to be a bust.
Would it then be licit to use the "spare" embryos?
The battle over stem cell research using the "spare"
embryos is far from over. If any significant results are
obtained from research on existing cell lines, the clamor for
full scale, widespread funding for use of the "spare" embryos
will reach fever pitch. Thus, we need to revisit the core
issue related to those "spares."
In feature in the Wall Street Journal on the pros and cons
of HESCR, Robert George of Princeton University gets to the
heart of the issue by stating, "The embryo is...a living human
being." However, in the discourse surrounding the issues
involving the beginning of human life, the science of human
embryology has been virtually forgotten. Every human
embryologist acknowledges that the life of the new individual
human being begins at fertilization. However, the liberal
mantra has promoted a new weltanschauung1
(conception of life).
In the same Wall Street Journal feature, David Baltimore,
President of Cal Tech and a Nobel Laureate, writes in favor of
HESCR saying: " To me, a tiny mass of cells that has never
been in a uterus is hardly a human being-even if it has the
potential to become human." Analogously, we could say that a
prisoner in schutzhaft2 (protective custody), that
has no chance of ever becoming free is hardly a human
being-even if he exhibits the biological qualities of one.
The Holocaust revisited
In other words, the embryo, especially when residing in a
petri dish, is the new untermenschen3 (sub-human).
What Baltimore and others like him deny is the reality of a
life continuum. Virtually every quality of biological life
changes with time with regard to its size, form, function and
appearance. To attach varying degrees of value at different
points along the continuum indicates the employment of
arbitrary moral relevance, not science.
William Safire, syndicated columnist, points out that the
"spare" embryo "is no bigger than the period at the end of
this sentence"; and, prominent scientist Dr. Mary Hendrix,
President of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB), states that "spare" embryos are
"so small they can fit on the tip of a sewing needle." Does
this mean that small people are less significant, or less
human, than big people?
I hear clearly, but swiftly fading in the distance, the
words expressed at Nuremberg: "Never again."
Footnotes
- Weltenschauung: This word was a favorite of Adolph
Hitler. He used it to convey his concept of racial and
ethnic purity.
- Schutzhaft: The Nazis used this word to describe those
who were mentally and physically defective, and other
unwanted persons, who, after they were placed in such
custody, would never be made free.
- Untermenschen: means The Jews and the Slavic people were
referred to as "sub-humans." They had no right to live,
except those needed to toil in the fields and mines as
slaves of their Nazi masters. They were denied all but what
was necessary to keep them healthy enough to work and grow
food for all others.
Who is the ABAC?
The American Bioethics Advisory Commission was formed by
American Life League in 1997 at the same time President
Clinton established the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission. Under the Clinton Administration, the NBAC
completely supported research on human embryonic persons and
sanctioned the obtaining of stem cells from these tiny human
persons, which results in their death. Under President Bush,
the NBAC has been dissolved and the President is in the
process of creating a bioethics council to be chaired by Dr.
Leon Kass, M.D., Ph.D., of the University of Chicago.
It is our hope that the American Bioethics Advisory
Commission will be able to engage in dialogue with the new
bioethics council. There are critical issues which must be
discussed, including issues such as abortion,
physician-assisted suicide, human cloning, gene therapy, adult
and embryonic stem cell research and much more. The American
Bioethics Advisory Commission exists to ensure that the full
and inviolable dignity of the human person is always defended
from the moment of fertilization until natural death.
The following members of the ABAC, representing a wide
variety of fields, contribute to the Commission in a number of
ways including issue analysis, media representation, and
consultation with policy makers.
The American Bioethics Advisory Commission consists of
twenty-one scholars living across the United States in various
fields of academic expertise.
- C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D., is Chairman of the American
Bioethics Advisory Commission and is Professor Emeritus of
Human Embryology at the University of Arizona School of
Medicine at Tucson.
- Raymond Gasser, Ph.D., is Professor of Human Embryology
at LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans.
- Michael Behe, Ph.D., is Professor of Biochemistry at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
- Donald De Marco, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at
St. Jerome's University in Waterloo, Canada.
- Catherine Dowling, M.D., is former Professor of
Anesthesiology at the University of Michigan.
- Eugene Diamond, M.D., is Professor of Pediatrics at
Loyola University School of Medicine in Chicago.
- Robert Fastiggi, Ph.D., is Professor of Theology at
Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit.
- John Grabowski, Ph.D., is Professor of Theology at
Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
- David Hargroder, M.D., is a transplant surgeon in
private practice in Joplin, Missouri.
- Stephen Hollingshead, Ph.D., is a political philosopher
who resides in Houston, Texas.
- Christopher Kahlenborn, M.D., is an internist who
resides in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
- Judith Hughes, M.D., is a psychiatrist, residing in
Worcester, Massachusetts.
- Nicoleta Manciu, M.D., is an anesthesiologist residing
in St. Paul, Minnesota.
- Bernard Nathanson, M.D., is an obstetrician-gynecologist
who resides in New York City.
- Professor Charles Rice, J.D., is Professor Emeritus of
Law at Notre Dame University.
- Philippe Schepens, M.D., is a surgeon residing in
Belgium.
- Frank Schmidt, M.D., is Professor of Cardiothoracic
Surgery at LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans.
- William Toffler, M.D., is Professor of Family Medicine
at Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, Oregon.
- Thomas Warner, M.D., is Professor of Pathology at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
- James Williams, M.D., is a family practitioner in
Northern Virginia.
- Fr. Joseph Howard, Jr., M.Div., Executive Director of
the American Bioethics Advisory Commision, has degrees in
Biology and Theology and is pursuing graduate studies in
Moral Theology at Catholic University.
The ABAC Quarterly is a newsletter of the American
Bioethics Advisory Commission, a division of American Life
League. The purpose of the ABAC Quarterly is to provide
ethical analysis on a variety of bioethical issues and
technologies, grounded in both valid science and moral
analysis showing respect for all human life from fertilization
until natural death.
Manuscripts submitted for publication should examine
biomedical technology as related to the innate dignity of the
human person. Manuscripts submitted for publication should
include the original and 3 copies, be double-spaced, and 2-4
pages in length. The credentials and current position of the
author(s) should also be included. Please address all
correspondence to:
Fr. Joseph Howard Editor-in-chief The ABAC
Quarterly P.O. Box 1350 Stafford, VA
22555 jchoward@all.org
|