Monday, May 20, 2002; Page A20
The Washington Post

In denouncing "research cloning" [op-ed, May 10], Charles Krauthammer said, "It does no good to change the nomenclature."

How about his choice of the word "dismemberment" for the phrase to which he objected -- somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT is the term used in this debate by most scientists. Certainly, Mr. Krauthammer's word is more dramatic and horrific, although it is profoundly less exact.

Mr. Krauthammer's conundrum seems to be with another term he used repeatedly: "the human embryo," as in, "for the first time it [SCNT] sanctions the creation of a human embryo for the sole purpose of using it for its parts."

The implication is that a human embryo, no matter how it is created, is a human being and sacrosanct. But is an egg taken from a donor in a lab and subsequently fused with the nucleus of, say, a paraplegic's skin cell a "human" embryo? Is a one-cell embryo in a petri dish at that moment a human being?

In a word, no. Such an embryo is incapable of life. Although created by combining human elements, it is impossible for such an embryo to live outside a female womb. No slippery slope here; the law prevents such implantation.

A one-cell embryo made by nuclear transfer is artificially created and sustained; its future without the ministrations of the lab is nil. Of course, what it can do if allowed to develop for five days to the 150-cell blastocyst stage is provide stem cells that might cure the paraplegic donor without the need for him to take immuno-suppressive drugs for the rest of his or her days. Some of us believe this might be a miracle of life for millions right up there with organ transplants, in-vitro fertilization and the rest of modern medicine.

Mr. Krauthammer, with his hyperbolic nomenclature, seems determined to suppress such opportunity.

WILLIAM KINSOLVING
Bridgewater, Conn.