Cloning, stem cell research and some
historic parallels
C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D.
The public has not had an equitable distribution of the
arguments against using human embryonic cells for stem cell
research, whether the stem cells would be obtained from
"therapeutic" cloning, or from "spare" embryos. These clones
and "spares" are equivalent examples of early embryos. Too
many scientists have called for "therapeutic" cloning, and for
use of the "spare" embryos, without thinking through the
several consequences, some of which could be devastating. For
example, Humpherys, et al., have shown in mice that cloning by
nuclear transfer is so inefficient that most clones die. Those
that survive often display growth abnormalities. They also
examined the embryonic stem cells and found their genome to be
"extremely unstable." The question then becomes: does this
suggest a similar result in human cloning, and one which could
be transferred to patients receiving stem cell therapies?
Despite this, the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB) and the American Association of
Anatomists (AAA), two prominent scientific organizations,
advocate their use without ever allowing debate or votes by
their membership.
A memo of 16 February, 2000 by Robert Yates, then President
of AAA, and speaking for the membership, stated that the
guidelines for the AAA will "ensure the necessary privacy and
dignity of stem cell donors by carefully addressing the
ethical issues associated with [stem cell] research." Yates
further stated: "Human embryo donation must be voluntary and
not recompensed" and, "donated embryos must be frozen."
Clearly, this refers to frozen "spare" embryos. The testimony
by Mary Hendrix, then President of FASEB, and speaking for all
of that membership, before Senator Harkin's Committee on 18
July, 2001, clearly endorsed the use of "spare" embryos and
therapeutic human embryo clones. First, she stated: "embryonic
stem cells of the inner cell mass cannot form a human being,
not even when implanted into a woman's womb." Clearly, she is
wrong. It is known in Human Embryology that the inner cell
mass divides in the case of identical (monozygotic) twins to
produce two or more individuals. Second, she stated: "the
ability of adult stem cells to replicate is not as robust as
embryonic stem cells". Hendrix cannot know this. The evidence
is simply not there at this time for any conclusion such as
that. Third, she stated: "The potential of adult stem cells
remains only a hope, and that's why federally-funded embryonic
stem cell research, which is far more likely to lead to new
knowledge and therapies quickly, must be allowed to proceed."
Actually, the opposite is true. To date virtually no
"therapies" have come from human embryonic stem cells;
whereas, there are many reports of promising results from
adult stem cell lines. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the
AAA, and FASEB, endorse the use of early embryos for stem cell
research, whether it be by creating human embryonic clones, or
using "spare" embryos. In subsequent issues of the FASEB News
and the AAA Newsletter, there is an endorsement for a ban on
reproductive cloning, but total support for therapeutic
cloning. In fact, in the June, 2002 issue of FASEB News, the
current President, Robert R. Rich, writes an article entitled:
"Therapeutic Cloning" Shows Great Promise. Rich makes an
astounding statement: "The creation of a human being by
performing nuclear transplantation and then [my
emphasis] implanting that clone into a woman's womb is morally
wrong . . . But in its rush to ban human reproductive cloning,
the Senate may also ban the use of nuclear transplantation to
produce stem cells and all of its therapeutic and scientific
promise." The same identical process is used for both
reproductive and therapeutic cloning to produce "blastocysts"
(the source for the so-called "stem cells"). Here, Rich admits
that human beings are created for therapeutic cloning, then
to be killed in order to obtain "stem cells." Thus, his
rationale would squarely fall to moral relativism of
"therapeutic and scientific promise." Not all members of FASEB
and AAA agree on the endorsement of their organizations. There
is another opinion of the issue. In fact, a dissenting opinion
by a member of the AAA, put in the form of a letter to the
editor, to the AAA Newsletter last fall, was summarily
rejected for publication, via a letter by President John
Fallon.
Yates states in his memo concerning the NIH Guidelines:
"The unique ability of stem cells to form any cell type makes
them an invaluable tool in the treatment of cancer,
Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and spinal disorders". This
is soundbite hype. The truth is no one knows this. It might
have merit someday, but, presently, it is theory. In fact, the
testimony of John Gearhart, stem cell biologist, before the
President's Council on Bioethics, clearly records great
difficulties in obtaining any useful cell lines from human
embryonic cells already in existence. Whereas, Dr. Catherine
Verfaille, a specialist in stem cells at the University of
Minnesota has isolated special stem cells from the bone marrow
of adult humans, which have the potential to differentiate
into many different types of body tissues. She has
demonstrated this plasticity in her experiments and claims
these cells do not seem to form tumors when injected into
adults, contrary to human embryonic stem cells which have
shown this very disturbing result. Further, M. Quinn Wickham,
a member of a Duke University research team, recently reported
that fat cells could be reprogrammed to turn into bone or
cartilage cells. Clearly, the direction of research should be
accelerated toward adult stem cells.
Genomic modulations of the kind cited above in mice
resulting in early death and abnormalities are not the only
problems associated with using therapeutic clones or "spare"
embryonic stem cells. If not used autologously, there is the
problem of rejections and subsequent immunosuppressive
therapy. Further, little is known about the possibility of
carrier viruses, which may be transferred from donor to host.
Advocates for the use of therapeutic clones and "spare"
embryos mostly discuss the relevant value of the early
embryo. David Baltimore, President of Cal Tech, and a Nobel
Laureate, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, 30 July, 2001: "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."
Let's consider an analogy to that: A prisoner in Schutzhaft
(protective custody), that has no chance of ever becoming free
is hardly a human being - even if he exhibits the biological
qualities of one. Schutzhaft was applied to unwanted persons
in the Third Reich in the 1930s and 1940s. Because those in
custody (just as the "spare" embryos and therapeutic clones
would be in custody) were decided to be "spare" persons, any
liberty could be taken with them. Medical experiments were
performed on them, presumably for the benefit of others more
worthy (as experiments on the early embryos are so described);
but, mostly, they were barbaric and cruel beyond
comprehension. In fact, there was virtually no application
made in a beneficial way towards medical science. Yet, the
experiments were performed under the aegis of "therapeutic and
scientific promise."
They were also sanctioned under the rubric of the Aryan
concept, to which Hitler and his underlings subscribed. This
was to be his "culture", the preservation of which "was bound
up with the rigid law of necessity". Scientists who advocate
destroying human embryos for "medical benefits" to others are
in parallel with those who were acting out of "necessity" for
their culture.
The refusal by Baltimore (and so many others) to recognize
the earliest stages of the human embryo, and to parse the
meaning of "human being" is a parallel to the Aryan concept of
the Third Reich. The Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and others
(including Germans) were considered to be Untermenschen, that
is, "sub-human." They were Lebens unwertenleben, lives
unworthy of life. Unbelievably, we find another parallel of
history amongst the early embryos, 65 years later. These
embryos have been devalued via an argument of reductio ad
absurdum.
Mary Hendrix, as President of FASEB, and a member of AAA,
said in her testimony before Senator Harkin's committee: "this
very early embryo, called the blastocyst, is so small it
can fit on the tip of a sewing needle." Does this mean
that small people are less significant, or less human, than
big people? Not only are human beings reduced to
insignificance by race and ethnicity, but, now, by size!
Notably, Dr. Hendrix has recently been elected to a three year
term on the Board of Directors of PRIM&R (Public
Responsibility in Medicine and Research).
Every human embryologist, world-wide, states that the
life of the new individual human being begins at
fertilization. Thus, obtaining stem cells from "spare"
embryos, or a therapeutic clone, kills that human life.
However, the liberal mantra has promoted a new Weltanschauung
(a conception of life). This was Adolph Hitler's favorite
word. Embodied within this word was his concept of racial and
ethnic purity, and his mission to purge the unwanted.
Recently, President Bush's Council on Bioethics held its
first four meetings. At those meetings, the Chairman of the
Council, Leon Kass, and member Rebecca Dresser, described the
early embryo as "potential" human life. No human
embryologist has ever described human life as "potential." Nor
would they ever do so. In spite of multiple appeals to Leon
Kass to appoint a human embryologist to the Council, he
refused to do so. Cloning, stem cell research, and all of the
issues involving embryos are core issues of Human
Embryology.
What Yates, Baltimore, Hendrix, and Kass, and so many
others, have forgotten is that at any point in time, in the
existence of a life, there exists a whole, integrated human
life. This is true at fertilization, before birth, and
after birth, until death. This is what is called the
continuum of life. Within this continuum,
over time, the fundamental characteristics of life change:
size, form, content, function and appearance. We can
reduce any point in time to a trivial value by comparing that
point to any other reference point one might choose. But,
assigning relative values at any time points is simply
arbitrary and not scientifically grounded.
President Bush got it right by refusing to destroy innocent
human life, or to create life for the purpose of destroying
it. President Bush has had no training in Human Embryology;
however, he obviously understands the continuum of
human life. He is able to do this, as most others do, through
common sense.
The final argument against the biological continuum
of human life is clearly stated by John Gearhart, stem cell
pioneer from Johns Hopkins, as follows: " The future
therapeutic benefit of the human pluripotent stem cell (hPSC),
however, must be balanced against a necessary respect for the
moral relevance of the human embryo and fetus"
(Fert.Ster., 74:1-7, 2000). I would ask Gearhart: Whose
moral relevance are we talking about?
I still hear clearly, but swiftly fading in the distance,
the words expressed from Nuremberg: "Never again!"
C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D. is professor emeritus of anatomy
(specialty in Human Embryology) at the University of Arizona,
College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona 85724. He is the chairman
of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission. |