Cloning: When word games kill
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. Professor of
Philosophy Dominican House of Studies Washington, D.C.
20017
In March 1996, the news of the birth of a fatherless sheep
affectionately named "Dolly" shocked the world. The
possibility that human beings could be cloned too - long the
subject of jokes and science fiction - began to awaken an
inner fear. A rush of commentaries, conferences, and even
Congressional debates followed - attempts to grapple
responsibly with ethical, social and legal implications before
the technology sweeps us toward some dark abyss.
Oddly, little public focus has been given to three central
issues underlying the cloning debates: First, the scientific
question, i.e., the exact physical nature and scientific
status of the immediate product of cloning; second, the
related philosophical question of "personhood", and the
ethical grounds for regulating cloning research; and third,
the legal question concerning possible bans on cloning.
The scientific question should be answered by human
embryologists, the scientists who have the required expertise
and competency. At what point during the cloning process does
a human being or human embryo physically come into existence?
The answer to this scientific question, after all, should
ground all of the other questions.
Yet answers to the scientific question emerging in the
debates have revealed a prevailing inclination to avoid the
verdict of human embryologists by the clever use of word
games. For example, in "clarifying" remarks before a recent
Congressional hearing, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), echoing the
position of many self-appointed bioethicists and others in the
pharmaceutical industry, "explained" in effect that the
immediate product of cloning is only a group of cells with two
significant "potentials". First, it is a "potential human
being", and only becomes an actual human being (and embryo) if
it is implanted in a womb. Second, it is a "potential source
of biological research material". So, as long as it is not
implanted it could be ethically used to cure diseases, and
advance scientific knowledge.
What?? The immediate product of human cloning would not
already be a whole, existing human being? Where have they
been? Such "definitions" involve a very clever misuse of human
embryological terms - an eerie echo of bioethics "language
games" which have run rampant over the last 30 years. These
games may be fun for bioethicists, philosophers, theologians
and science fiction writers so inclined, but they are not the
basis for sound public policy decision making.
The specious term "potential" applied to a human being and
embryo, and the "logic" it implies (i.e., if it is not yet a
human being or embryo, then we can use it for medical cures
and great causes, etc.), derives from the now fully
discredited term "pre-embryo". It is a scientific myth -
concocted earlier by bioethicists, who for years used the term
to justify and rationalize human embryo and fetal research,
supposedly the "only" way to cure many diseases. "Pre-embryo"
has also been used in debates about abortifacients and
abortion, invoking similar confusion as to when a "person"
begins - and thus "delaying" the human rights and protections
due every human being. If in reality there is no such "delay",
public protection for all human beings could be brought
earlier. But by obfuscation and techno-babble, the clarity of
the science has become entangled with various philosophical
constructs, precluding needed sound public policy decisions on
cloning, and more broadly, on human embryo research as well.
The real issue in cloning concerns its immediate product.
Although cloning and fertilization are different processes of
human reproduction, the immediate product of both processes is
the same!. It might surprise many that there has been an
unaltered scientific consensus for half a century that a real,
already existing, live, whole human being begins as a human
embryo (or zygote) immediately at fertilization. This is a
scientific fact - not an "opinion", or a religious or
theological belief. And public policy debates and decision
making should not continue to escape that unavoidable
scientific fact. The same is true for cloning. The immediate
product of cloning is physically the same - an already
existing human being in embryo form.
But just what is "cloning"? Cloning is any of several
techniques which may produce a new single cell female member
of a species. For example, in the "somatic cell nuclear
transfer" technique, the nucleus of a mature specialized cell
(e.g., a skin cell) is made "unspecialized" by new techniques
which restore the instructive potential of the full complement
of chromosomes in the nucleus. The intracellular DNA messages
which have selectively "silenced" the majority of chromosomes
in the cell which are not relative to skin functions, are
reversed.
The "unspecialized" nucleus is then transferred to a
recipient egg cell (ovum - from the same or another member of
the species) from which the nucleus has been removed. The
resulting single combination of parts of 2 cells is then
artificially chemically or electrically stimulated and
commences activity as a new member of the species.
If cloning is done with human cells and succeeds, the donor
cell would have 46 chromosomes in the nucleus, the number
specific to human cells, and the resulting embryonic human
being can continue to divide and develop.
To better understand this scientific fact, it might be
helpful to compare the process of cloning with that of
fertilization in normal human reproduction. Normal human
pregnancy begins at fertilization when a male sperm and a
female ovum, each containing 23 chromosomes, and neither of
which is a human being, unite to form a single-cell human
being (or zygote) with 46 chromosomes - the number specific
for every member of the human species. As in cloning, a
radical change in natures has taken place. A sperm and an ovum
have changed from being individual gametes (parts of a whole
human being) to something quite different, a whole, existing,
unique human being. This change in natures is scientifically
verified because of the extremely different kinds of functions
and activities it performs which only a complete human being
can do.
Looking closely at this "zygotic" human being or embryo, we
know that it is already a girl or boy, and that he/she is
genetically different from his/her mother or father. This tiny
girl or boy (we will refer only to the girl for convenience)
is quite a marvel. She is totipotent, i.e., this single-cell
can produce all of the different kinds of cells a bigger, more
complex human being ever needs. She contains all the genetic
information needed for all the processes of her growth and
development. Under her own direction, this tiny single-cell
human zygote immediately produces specifically human proteins,
enzymes - and soon specifically human tissues and organs (not
cabbage or giraffe ones). This is accomplished by turning her
genes on and off as needed by continually blocking and
unblocking the genetic information in the DNA - thus sending a
"cascade" of molecular information throughout her growth and
development. Her development, then, does not involve a change
of nature - as does fertilization or cloning - but is rather
simply a physically continuous process of growth and
complexity, which continues until death.
Lets watch this little girl grow! Generally the "embryonic
period" extends from the single-cell zygote formed at
fertilization (or cloning) to the end of the eighth week,
during which she is called an embryo. Next, the "fetal period"
extends from the ninth week to birth - during which she is
called a fetus.
After fertilization, as the single-cell human zygote
travels along the fallopian tube, she begins to divide
asynchronously, e.g., first into 2 cells, then one of those
cells divides, giving 3 cells, then the other divides, giving
4 cells, continuing on in staggered fashion. About the fourth
day the growing embryo begins to compact into two layers (now
called a blastocyst) as she enters the uterus. By the fifth
day the outer protective membrane begins to disintegrate so
that she can implant into the uterus wall at about 5-7 days
(called implantation). At about 14-days, the embryo begins to
form three layers with the formation of the primitive streak -
the beginning of the nerve net, future brain and spinal cord.
By three weeks the heart begins to beat, the major divisions
of the brain appear, as well as beginnings of the spinal cord,
internal ears, eyes, face, body cavity and skeleton. By five
weeks the face is continuing to take shape, forehead, eyes,
nostrils and mouth are evident, external ears are beginning,
and hand and foot plates appear in limb buds.
This provides some context for a closer look at the
distorted understanding of the developing human being in the
earliest weeks, since most of the misinformation and
misunderstanding in the cloning debates centers on this early
period of growth. The discussion has been confused by the use
of the now-discredited term "pre-embryo" and the incorrect
science (often "frog" rather than "human" embryology) used to
describe it - and its relevance to the "personhood" arguments.
In earlier bioethics debates on human fetal research, the
term "pre-embryo" was coined by theologian Richard McCormick,
S.J., and Clifford Grobstein - a frog embryologist. They
acknowledge that there is a human being prior to 14-days, but
agree that there is no human individual there yet (and
therefore no "person" there yet), because before 14-days it
may become twins (two individuals). Also, they say, only the
inner layer of the 4-7 day blastocyst will become a human
adult, because its outer layer is "all discarded" after birth.
Therefore, they assert, before 14-days there is only a
"pre-embryo", or a "pre-implantation embryo" (a "potential
person"); after 14-days twinning cannot take place, and only
then is there definitely an "individual", and therefore an
existing "person" entitled to ethical and legal rights and
protections. Congressman Waxman here takes an extra mis-step
and denies there is a human being or embryo during this
period.
The term "pre-embryo" has already been rejected by human
embryologists as "inaccurate and unscientific", according to
Ronan O'Rahilly, one of the international "deans" in this
scientific discipline. O'Rahilly developed the "Carnegie"
stages which classify human embryology, and he sits on the
international board (Nomina Embryologica) which determines the
terminology to be used in this field. In his book, the leading
text on human embryology, he repudiates the term "pre-embryo".
Others have also have brought it under criticism, and lately
its use is avoided, though the damage has been done. What was
meant to be conveyed - that the product of fertilization or
cloning is not yet a human being or embryo, and therefore it
is OK to use it for biological research material, or even
cloning - is still too naively accepted.
One also now hears substitute phrases such as
"pre-implantation embryo" (the embryo up to implantation at
5-7 days), or claims that "the human embryo does not begin
until two weeks (sometimes three weeks) after fertilization".
Whatever arbitrary label is used, the aim is to convince us
that there is only a "potential" human being or embryo there.
But these claims are scientifically and absolutely wrong.
As already stated, the authoritative scientific conclusion
is that a human embryo is a human being, beginning at
fertilization (or cloning). In response to McCormick and
Grobstein's "frog" science", it is a scientific fact that,
unlike frogs, human embryos do not divide synchronously, and
the two layers of the blastocyst are in fact interactive. Nor
are all the cells of the outer layer discarded after birth; in
fact some of the blood cells and tissues of the adult human
being are derived from that outer layer. The whole blastocyst
is a human being, not just the inside part.
The twinning argument, supposedly "delaying" personhood for
14 days, is likewise scientifically flawed. It proves too
much; twinning can take place after 14-days. It is a straw-man
argument. In identical twinning, one individual human being
(the early human embryo) divides, asexually. (As involving
asexual reproduction, there is some analogy to cloning.) Thus
from one individual, another individual splits off, resulting
in two individuals (twins). The second twin is physically
continuous with the original individual embryo which has
split, and which also continues as an individual.
McCormick and Grobstein also use other unfounded science in
their arguments, but these are the major mistakes. Since the
science they use to ground their position is wrong, their
"scientific" conclusion that before 14-days there exists only
a "loose collection of cells" called a "pre-embryo", a
"pre-person", is also wrong. Similarly, any implication that
before 14-days, or before implantation, there exists only a
"pre-human being" is also wrong. Scientifically, a human being
and embryo begins immediately at fertilization or cloning;
after that, there is no point along the continuous line of
human embryogenesis where only a "potential" human being can
be posited.
Any philosophical conclusion, legal opinion, or political
agenda cannot escape this objective scientific fact. There can
be no such thing as a "pre-embryo" or a "pre-person", other
than as an illusion in someone's prejudiced or self-serving
thinking. Yet efforts continue to co-opt and corrupt the
actual scientific facts to fit them into someone's
philosophical, theological or political presuppositions.
"Markers" - which are admittedly arbitrary, e.g.,
implantation, 14-days, brain formation, post-birth - will
continue to appear in these debates.
"When does a human person begin?" is essentially a
philosophical question, not a scientific one. Several "ways to
go" in these debates have long been offered by bioethicists -
all building on wrong science in order to expand the
time-frame for interventions, experimentation and
"treatments". Most of the "philosophy" used is faulty as well.
Some, using a sort of Cartesian mind/body split, consider a
human person as having two different natures, e.g., an
immaterial mind (or soul), and a physical body. But they have
not been able to explain interaction between these two
different natures. Most "rationalists" define a person in
terms of mind (or soul) only; most "empiricists", in terms of
body only.
All these consider a person only in terms of exercising
"functions", rather than in terms of his/her nature. The
rationalist says a person does not begin until he/she can
exercise "rational attributes" (self-consciousness, choosing,
willing, relating to surroundings, etc.). Empiricists say a
person does not begin until he/she can exercise "sentience"
(feel pain or pleasure). Virtually none of these bioethics
positions match the scientific facts, and verge on the
ridiculous. There is no scientific correlation between any
physical development of the brain in the womb or later, and
the psychological states claimed to relate to that
development. In fact, science indicates that neither "rational
attributes" nor "sentience" can be fully exercised until early
adulthood, when the brain is fully developed!
If philosophy must be invoked at all, then a philosophy
which at least matches the correct scientific facts is
imperative. For example, in philosophical realism, a human
person is defined as one living composite of body and soul
together - that is the human nature present. Thus a "person",
differeing from the other definitions, would include the
mentally ill, the frail elderly, the comatose, paraplegics
such as Christopher Reeves, and human infants in the moment of
"partial birth", or human zygotes produced by cloning or by
fertilization. Scientifically, there is no point from
fertilization (or cloning) to death when the human nature of
that human being changes at all; it keeps on continuously
creating specifically human enzymes, proteins, tissues and
organs - which only a human being can do. Adherence to science
will preclude denial of humanhood and personhood to this
marvelous creature.
Public policy should reflect accurate science - not myths
or biased verbal gymnastics; otherwise they can literally
kill. Scientifically, the immediate products of human cloning
and fertilization are the same - an already existing, living,
unique, individual, embryonic human being. It is not a
"pre-embryo", or a new drug which might fall under the aegis
of the FDA. Cloning is harmful destructive human embryo
research - research which is already banned in the use of
federal funds.
Research that is truly ethical can not be justified simply
by having laudable goals (like curing diseases, etc.). The
means used toward those goals must be good as well. Since the
immediate product of human cloning is a human being, cloning
uses that human being as a mere means to someone else's goals.
Therefore human cloning is unethical, and should be banned
both publicly and privately.
With better insight into cloning, the "ban" on human embryo
research should be revisited, since even federally funded
human embryo research is presently going on, e.g., in stem
cell research, funded by NIH, which obtains stem cells by
exploding (and therefore killing) innocent developing human
embryos. State and federal regulations should be extended to
ban any human embryo research. Public and private authorities
should pursue similar proscriptions within their scope of
jurisdiction.
In a strange way we may thank "Dolly" for bringing more
light upon practices which for some time have been growing
with alarming speed, yet with almost no public - or
legislative - attention.
_______
The author is very grateful for important and significant
editorial suggestions by Mr. Curran Tiffany, who helped me
considerably in translating scientific jargon into readable
English. |