Critical Commentary on Summary Article

Here is the link again, for the article listed and summarized below--the pre-publication version of the President's Council on Bioethics report Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry.

(http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/073003102761698007?cookieSet=1)

Now that we've offered a summary of this article--which also serves as a recap for much of this blog--we are interested in engaging with it more fully, and examining it more critically.

This article skillfully outlines nearly all of topics important to the current debates over cloning technologies, and raises the crucial ethical questions that society and science alike must grapple with as cloning technology advances. It recognizes that we cannot separate these ethical questions and debates from cloning, or try to analyze cloning without taking them into consideration. Try as we might, it is nearly impossible to discuss the role and future of cloning in society and science, without thinking about the ethics involved: do we have the right to manufacture life, or "manipulate some human beings for the benefit of others?" Does the potential good that may be derived from therapeutic cloning techniques outweigh moral and ethical qualms? Questions such as these must always remain in the back of our heads as we take on the challenge of exploring the biotechnology of cloning in medicine.

One thing that this article failed to mention, is the notion of cloning genes and genes alone, rather than cloning for reproductive purposes or cloning human embryos for scientific purposes. Although the article distinguishes between "cloning-to-produce-children" and "cloning-for-biomedical-research" it does not make any further differentiations in the types of cloning that may be used "for biomedical research." Yes, of course, one such type of cloning is the cloning of human embryos, so that cloned stem cells may be harvested and manipulated for therapeutic uses in a patient (this is the only type of cloning-for-biomedical-research that the Council considers in this article). But there is another type of cloning, also for research and medical purposes, that is ignored. Scientists are able to clone specific genes, introduce them to a vector of some sort (a plasmid, for instance), and then insert the recombined DNA into an organism; as the inserted cells divide, the target gene will be perpetuated in the organism (see the blog posting on gene-altered goats as an example of this cloning technology). Why does the article neglect this type of cloning? Is it simply that this method is seen as less ethically problematic? Does this method border on gene therapy and DNA recombination, and fall outside the realm of what is considered 'true' cloning?

We find it problematic that the Council does not recognize this type of cloning. Perhaps, even if they did not deem it worthy of greater consideration or evaluation, they might have explained their reason for its exclusion. For instance, they decided not to examine it deeply because they believe it is less of an ethical dilemma, or they think that it is already widely accepted as a safe scientific procedure.

Additionally, in our research we found a number of recent articles on the cloning of other animals. Although the article defines the notion of animal cloning, it is no more than a passing mention of this technology. We wondered why they dismissed this form of technology so easily. True, it is not exceedingly relevant to the issues that the Council focuses on, but we think it is an important omission to acknowledge. As later articles in our blog demonstrate, companies have started saying that they will clone your pets--if this becomes a common practice, our society will slowly become accustomed to the idea of animal cloning (even if the idea is still revolutionary today). What if we become de-sensitized to animal cloning? Then, suddenly, human cloning is not such a big leap to make. We think that the article may have benefitted from delving into the issue of animal cloning a bit more.

The Council does as it promises to do, and provides sound discussions and opinions on the many ethical considerations relevant to cloning technologies. It presents both sides of each debate, even when the Council members were in consensus: for instance, the Council agrees in its position against cloning-to-produce-children, but it still lists the common arguments in favor of this type of cloning. Let us turn to the discussion on the ethics of cloning-for-biomedical-research:

Clearly, both sides of the debate have strong foundational arguments. We think that most people would agree that trying to alleviate human suffering is a noble cause, and one that is generally supported. But we also ideally want to respect all human life, no matter how young. The difference between being for or against biomedical cloning can often come down to a simple time line: at what point in development do we consider an embryo to be morally equivalent to any other human? This is a matter of personal opinion, which is why the cloning debates can be so heated. Some people believe that as soon as an egg is fertilized, it is a potential human, and deserves to be treated as any other human. Others say that an embryo has only "intermediate moral status" until it is a month old... It will always be difficult, perhaps even impossible, to come to any sort of agreement on this. We must consider what this means for cloning--if the people cannot agree, does it fall to the government to decide for us?

The Council, of course, writes this article for the purpose of recommending some course of action for the government to take with regard to public policy. What should we do about cloning? Is regulation necessary? Should cloning be banned altogether? The very fact that this is the purpose of the Council demonstrates how far we are from considering cloning in terms of healthcare. We have not even decided whether cloning should be legal. We recognize that many of the articles considered in this blog do not address cloning's position in the healthcare debates, but this is because cloning is too new of a technology, too underdeveloped and imperfect, to be considered as a viable treatment or therapy just yet. Until we understand cloning, and all its implications more fully, and until we have perfected techniques of cloning and conducted further experimentation and research, we cannot be sure that cloning will actually prove to be as useful as we currently hope.

Many researchers and scientists claim that cloning holds great promise: that some cloning techniques may help to develop treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's, or may lead to a huge leap forward in regenerative medicine. But for now, we do not know. We do not know if we will ever succeed in these ventures, or if we will ever be able to clone safely enough. There are many hurdles to overcome before cloning will be considered in the formal healthcare debates.

For now, we, the people of America, must engage in these debates on cloning technologies. We must decide whether we believe that cloning is ethically wrong, or whether we think potential benefits outweigh known costs. We must show our support of cloning, or we must petition for a ban on this technology. But first, we have to make sure that we have all the facts straight.

Summary Article

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/073003102761698007?cookieSet=1

In 2002, the President's Council on Bioethics published the results of their discussion on the issue of cloning technologies. This article is the "Pre-Publication Version" or outline of their report, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. It summarizes clearly and concisely many of the issues that we have presented in this blog, regarding the technology of cloning, both for reproductive and therapeutic purposes. The Council strives to answer some of the important questions that we also have been exploring: what is cloning, and what does it mean? Where does it now stand in society and in science, and how do we think about it? How should we deal with cloning? Do we accept and embrace it as a potential therapy, or do we reserve such positive judgment because of the many ethical dilemmas it entails?

In this article, the President's Council tackles the problem of cloning, and seeks to offer advice about what the public policy regarding cloning should be. Why? Because, they claim, cloning has broad implications in both science and society, and we have now reached the point where we must address the issues it raises, rather than trying to ignore them. The article starts off by asking, "Human Cloning: What is at Stake?""The notion of cloning raises issues about identity and individuality, the meaning of having children, the difference between procreation and manufacture, and the relationship between generations. It also raises new questions about the manipulation of some human beings for the benefit of others, the freedom and value of biomedical inquiry, our obligation to heal the sick (and its limits), and the respect and protection owed to nascent human life."

These are, in a nutshell, the big ethical questions surrounding both reproductive and therapeutic cloning technologies. They are also the many reasons why such a careful examination of cloning is necessary. The authors recognize that in general, "people do not regard it [cloning] as just another new technology." Along with the fact that cloning as a technology is still underdeveloped and far from the perfection that we require of our medicines and therapies, this is perhaps the biggest reason that cloning has not factored into healthcare debates at all. People are scared of cloning. Cloning cannot be accepted as simply as prosthetics or biopharmaceuticals; it is far too personal, and "touches fundamental aspects of our humanity" in ways that other biotechnologies do not. We are not ready, as a society, to think about cloning in terms of healthcare just yet.

The Council describes the common methods of cloning, including somatic cell nuclear transfer. It also recognizes the proximity of cloning to stem cell research, and differentiates between 'regular' human embryonic stem cells (and the discovery of multipotent cells, which are "currently being studied intensely for their possible uses in regenerative medicine") and stem cells from cloned embryos, which may overcome the problem of transplant rejection (i.e, the implantation of foreign tissue triggering the immune system; note that if cloned cells are used, these cells may not be perceived as "foreign"). The article also distinguishes between what is widely termed reproductive cloning, or "cloning-to-produce-children," and therapeutic cloning, or "cloning-for-biomedical-research." It explores each technology separately, and analyzes each one (in terms of ethical dilemmas) on its own.

After offering such background information, the Council begins to discuss the ethics of cloning-to-produce-children. It acknowledges that this technology may serve positive purposes, but goes on to say that arguments in favor of reproductive cloning "pay insufficient attention to the well-being of the cloned child-to-be." It also states that the cloning technologies currently available have rates of morbidity and mortality far too high to be considered acceptable--the procedure is unsafe for both parent and child, and there is no plausible way to conduct research in an ethical way in order to determine whether the technology may be improved to make it unquestionably safe. Five main other objections to this type of cloning are presented:

1. Problems of identity and individuality: wouldn't a cloned child be overshadowed throughout his or her life by memories of the original person? How well could he or she develop a sense of identity, knowing that someone identical has already lived a life and established an identity?

2. Concerns regarding manufacture: cloned children would be the first "designer babies" and might "contribute to increased commercialization and industrialization of human procreation."

3. Prospect of a new eugenics: who will be cloned and who will not be? Will parents opt for cloning a child to avoid the possibility of having a baby with some genetic defect? Will parents clone if they believe that they possess some "outstanding genetic traits"?

4. Troubled family relations: what happens when a child is also his mother's brother, or a grandparent is also a parent to their grandchild? How do family systems still function?

5. Effects on society: if people know that there are cloned children out there, how will attitudes towards children as a whole change? Might this type of cloning "set the precedent for future nontherapeutic interventions into the human genetic endowment"?

The Council offers this conclusion.

"For some or all of these reasons, the Council is in full agreement that cloning-to-produce-children" is not only unsafe but also morally unacceptable, and ought not to be attempted."

Although the Council is able to come to this strong conclusion concerning cloning-to-produce-children, they are somewhat more divided on the issue of ethics of cloning-for-biomedical-research. "On the one hand," the authors note, "such research could lead to important knowledge about human embryological development and gene action, both normal and abnormal, ultimately resulting in treatments and cures for many dreaded illnesses and disabilities. On the other hand, the research is controversial because it involved the deliberate production, use, and ultimate destruction of cloned human embryos, and because the cloned embryos produced for research are no different from those that could be used in attempts to produce cloned children." This is the crux of the matter.

Those in favor of cloning-for-biomedical-research believe that the duty of doctors and others in the biomedical profession to relieve human suffering may be greatly advanced by this technology, and that this type of cloning may allow for the treatment of many diseases and disabilities. These Council members write that, "The moral objections to this research are outweighed by the great good that may come from it." Some members do not see an ethical problem in therapeutic cloning, even though scientists will be creating human embryos with the intention of destroying them. Others acknowledge their own qualms about the ethics of this type of cloning, citing three main issues. Firstly, they understand that nascent human life deserves respect, but believe that embryos before a certain stage do not need to be considered "the moral equivalent of a human person." Secondly, they recognize the concerns regarding the creation of embryos for use and destruction, but emphasize that they will not be mindlessly destroyed, but used "in the service of life and medicine." Lastly, they claim that researchers can be prevented from "going too far" and can be deterred from developing cloned embryos beyond the blastocyst stage.

Of course, several Council members also present the moral case against cloning-for-biomedical-research. Their main argument states that:

"It is morally wrong to exploit and destroy developing human life, even for good reasons, and that it is unwise to open the door to the many undesirable consequences that are likely to result from this research. We find it disquieting, even somewhat ignoble, to treat what are in fact seeds of the next generation as mere raw material for satisfying the needs of our own."

This point of view argues that the human embryo, even in its earliest stages, should be considered as deserving of respect and protection as a baby, a toddler, a child, an adult. It also claims that allowing cloning-for-biomedical-research means that our society is sanctioning the creation of human life solely for the purpose of its use in labs, its use in research, and then its destruction, which is a slippery slope that leads...who knows where? The Council members against this type of cloning list three other risks of allowing therapeutic cloning, all of which involve "significant moral harm to our society."

In conclusion, the Council explores possible options for implementing public policy concerning the technology of cloning, ranging from complete prohibition, to a temporary moratorium, to self-regulation by researchers. In the end, though, the Council offers two recommendations.

Majority Recommendation:

"Ten members of the Council recommend a ban on cloning-to-produce-children combined with a four-year moratorium on cloning-for-biomedical-research. We also call for a federal review of current and projected practices of human embryo research, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, genetic modification of human embryos and gametes, and related matter, with a view to recommending and shaping ethically sound policies for the entire field." The moratorium on therapeutic cloning would allow (or force) both sides, those for and those against, to present their arguments publicly. This would allow the American people to understand the issues more fully and make an informed opinion. It would also give more time for research to be conducted, which would allow scientists a chance to evaluate how promising this biotechnology really is.

Minority Recommendation:

"Seven members of the Council recommend a ban on cloning-to-produce-children, with regulation of the use of cloned embryos for biomedical research....Permitting cloning-for-biomedical-research now, while governing it through a prudent and sensible regulatory regime, is the most appropriate way to allow important research to proceed while insuring that abuses are prevented." Similar to the majority opinion, this opinion holds that cloning-to-produce-children should not be practiced. However, this opinion differs in that it considers further experimentation necessary in order to make advances in this field, which in turn will help determine this technology's true value. This opinion holds that strict regulation would prevent abuse of the technology. 

Look out for further analysis on this article!

Cloning for the Commoner

This entry was originally posted November 15th:

2001 TIMES Article Human Cloning: Baby, It's You! And You, And You... by N. Gibbs et al

I found this article after searching through and reading articles about cloning and society. Published in 2001, this article reviews the hopes, dreams, and fears of the American public around the issue of cloning, particularly as it relates to human genes. Prior to publishing the article, TIME ran a poll that found that 90% of Americans thought cloning humans was a "bad idea." Following the poll, TIME painted cloning in a very optimistic light, focusing on the potential benefits cloning could have for sterile couples (or gay couples), and for organ transplantation. It is a very interesting snapshot of optimism in a time before legislation battles on cloning became serious, and in particular, debates over stem-cell research. The article references the Realien group, which is considered a religious cult whose primary focus is creating human clones. At the time of the article, it was considered quite possible that news of the creation or existence of a human clone would break in a matter of months, maybe even weeks. Considering this, the article is very optimistic about the extent of time and investment it would take to produce a human clone. The article appears very expectant of an underground, outcast group popping up with a clone. As we now know, this has not happened. The cost necessary to do this is just too great, and the depth of the hope gauged by the article was far off the actual level that actually existed. There was not enough hope to fuel private investment to make these technologies a reality. The truth is, these sorts of advances will only come about with federal funds, as we can see with our 20/20 hindsight.

After reading this article, it is striking to note the lack of urgency or hope in treatment through cloning technologies outside of the medical community today. Indeed, cloning seemed to be seen solely through the lens of reproduction. Has fear of extremists, indeed, ruined the enthusiasm for success? The inhibitory legislation that passed as a result of this fear has kept us from potentially saving lives. But, because cloning is such "old news," and nothing has come out of it yet (or at least, nothing has come to fruition), is it now dull in the eyes of the public? What needs to happen for the commoner to get behind the idea of continuing research in cloning?

Clearly, these are important questions to answer, especially if it is our goal to introduce cloning to the healthcare debates. If the public is too scared of cloning technologies, if they are ignorant of the potential benefits it may provide to the diseased and disabled, then we will be hard-pressed as a society to see cloning advance enough, and be supported enough, to make it into healthcare debates.

A. Wilde

Cloning pets: worth it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/garden/01clones.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=cloning&st=cse

The December 2008 New York Times article by Eric Konigsberg, “Are Cloned Pets the Real Thing?”, is simultaneously a human interest story about Lou Hawthorne, the owner of BioArts, a biotech company out of California, and an account of the state of pet cloning today. Hawthorne had his company create clones from Hawthorne with the three clones of Missy. preserved DNA of his mother’s old dog Missy. He extols the virtues of cloning your pet, claiming that Missy’s clones all have her qualities: “she was an amazing dog: superior intellect, incredibly beautiful, obedient, a phenomenal temperament… all those qualities are represented [in the clones].” However, since he is the owner of one of the only companies which offer dog cloning services, one can see why he may be more inclined to see pet cloning as a way to get your old dog back, personality and all.

The issue is that we don’t know how much of behavior is actually genetically based: even Hawthorne acknowledges that “when it comes to such highly trainable creatures as dogs, it’s pretty difficult to know where nature ends and nurture begins.” For example, Hawthorne’s mother insists that the late Missy and her new clones are “not at all alike.” And many of the Missy clones’ special qualities can be seen as a product of environment, and not genes (obedience and temperament, particularly). Many who wish to clone their pets do not simply want a physically identical copy, but one which has all the personality traits of the original. Because we know that many factors other than genetics go into forming an individual, it is nearly impossible for a pet to be recreated to the owner’s satisfaction. But this is the claim Hawthorne makes and this is how companies such as BioArts are able to make money.

A part of the story which particularly interested me was that Hawthorne held auctions, offering BioArts’ dog cloning services to the four highest bidders (who ended up paying from $130,000 to $170,000 for the clones). To “offset accusations of elitism,” Hawthorne ended up also offering the services pro bono to a fifth client out of the search. Like any new technology, as of now, pet cloning is extremely expensive and therefore limited to the wealthy. Though Hawthorne’s move was largely symbolic, it’ll be interesting to see in the future how pet cloning companies deal with claims of elitism. Since the companies and the technologies are still very new (and flawed) it’s not surprising a single clone can take $100,000 or more to produce. As time goes on and the price of clones gets lower and lower, less wealthy families may gain access to pet cloning services. But whether they will be satisfied with their clones? According to Hawthorne, yes. According to his mother, not necessarily.

EDIT: http://www.bioarts.com/press_release/ba09_09_09.htm
September of this year, BioArts announced that it would no longer offer dog cloning services. The reasons cited in the press release by Lou Hawthorne include a "tiny market," "unethical, black market competition," weak intellectual property protection laws, and the unpredictable nature of cloning. Perhaps we are not yet ready to face the ethical and public policy issues of cloning?

A. Suchecka

The potential effects of human cloning on society

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;296/5566/314?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cloning&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

"Human Cloning and Our Sense of Self," written by Dan W. Brock, a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Brown, and published in April of 2002, offers a philosophical perspective on some of the moral implications of human cloning. He addresses three main concerns people have when it comes to cloning: that cloning would injure their sense of individuality, that it would affect their value as a person, and that it would affect their sense of freedom in their life decisions. Though the author admits that it’s possible that cloning would bring about these three effects, he largely aims to diffuse the public’s fears about human cloning.

Amidst all the news about the biology and politics of human cloning, I found it refreshing to get a glimpse of how a philosopher sees cloning. I think the author’s main point was that if there are any negative effects on a person’s self-worth due to cloning, it is because of false notions and personal beliefs about cloning. The author argues cloning would not actually result in a loss of individuality and uniqueness, unless it is defined as strictly genetic uniqueness (e.g. although identical twins are in fact genetically similar, we can see that they are distinct and unique individuals). Widespread human cloning could result only in a psychological, perceived loss of individuality. It’s a fine line: one could argue that the perceived loss of individuality is as bad as an actual loss.

The article also deals with the potential effects of human cloning on the perceived value of life. “It is the nature of a being,” the author writes, “not how it is created, that is the source of its value and makes it worthy of respect.” He cites the example of children who are created using technologies such as in vitro fertilization, but who are obviously treated as equal to children created using the ‘natural’ way. The article also addresses the concept of genetic determinism: the idea that a person’s genome completely determines their traits, their character, and essentially, their life. The author seems skeptical that if human cloning became widely used, genetic determinism would be the rule, since it is clear that genes are only a part of what makes us who we are.

I think this would be a good article for everyone to read, but especially those who are highly critical of cloning or who fear the moral implications of human cloning. The article is simply written and easy to follow and addresses the moral issues of human cloning in a fairly unbiased way. The only issue may be that the article was published in Science Magazine, which is hardly a layperson’s choice for science news. I really appreciated that the author laid out his argument in a very logical way and every step of the argument was based on rationality and not feelings. Too often, when it comes to controversial issues like stem cells, genetic engineering, and cloning, the public is swayed by arguments that appeal to their feelings rather than their logic. Articles such as this one can help to educate the public about what human cloning could possibly mean for individuality, human value, and freedom. As cloning becomes more and more feasible, these moral issues could potentially impact health care debates. Though we do not have the capability to clone a human being just yet, we are getting closer and closer. Someday, not as distant as one might think, we may have the capacity to clone a human and when that day comes, we’ll have to address these philosophical questions of the morality of cloning.

A. Suchecka

Are you For or Against Cloning?

http://library.thinkquest.org/24355/data/reactions/proconmain.html
Check out the three links on this website: arguments for and against cloning, as well as some really interesting and provoking statements about the ethics of cloning, opinions about banning cloning, etc.
This website offers links to three pages: one that outlines some of the common arguments in favor of cloning, one that lists some arguments against cloning, and one that shares the statements/opinions of people and organizations in regard to their stances on cloning.
Clearly, cloning is an extremely controversial technology. Fear plays a large role in this controversy, but sound scientific arguments are present on both sides of the debate. This website may help the average person come to an informed personal opinion on the topic of cloning.

What I found to be the most interesting part of this website is the page with several quotations about cloning:
1. Libertarian Party: Steve Dasch, chairman- "Politicians should not have veto power over the creation of new life - especially human life...That’s why the Libertarian Party supports reproductive freedom of choice for Americans-whether they choose to reproduce using the traditional method, or artificial insemination, or in-vitro fertilization, or cloning... if cloning research is banned, millions of people could suffer." Can cloning really be compared to artificial insemination of in-vitro fertilization? Is it just as legitimate a form of reproduction as any other? Or do we have to take into consideration the fact that these other methods have been rather perfected (or at least significantly more developed) and have fairly high success rates, and an acceptable cost/benefit ration, while cloning is still hugely inefficient? When we look at Dolly, 277 reconstructed embryos resulted in 1 birth; is that even close to an acceptable numbers game to subject a human to? Yes, maybe we want people to have reproductive rights. But who are the millions of people who will "suffer" if cloning is banned, and what will this "suffering" entail?

2. Foundation of Economic Trends: Jeremy Rifkin, president- Proposing a world-wide ban on cloning, he says it should carry a penalty "on par with rape, child abuse, and murder."
Why is cloning anything like rape or child abuse or murder? What do these things have in common? Do you agree that these are the appropriate punishments?

3. Church of England Board of Social Responsibility: Mary Seller- "The antics of a few cranks and Hitler types" should not impede cloning research. "Cloning. like all science, must be used responsibly. Cloning humans is not desirable. But cloning sheep has its uses."
How do we stop people from abusing the technology of cloning? Where do we draw the line between someone conducting useful research, and someone who is a "Hitler type"? I

agree that cloning needs to be used responsibly. It could potentially be very dangerous. So how do we keep knowledge out of the wrong people's hands? Is cloning technology going to have to be guarded like the knowledge needed to make an atomic bomb? Can we even make that comparison? Also, we have to consider what differences there actually are between cloning humans and cloning animals. Do we as humans have different rights to protect than animals such as sheep do? Why is it okay for us to manipulate sheep in this way? And why can we alter the genes of sheep, but we cannot use pigs to produce transplantable organs? Even if we draw the line between humans and animals, where is that seemingly arbitrary line drawn within cloning in animals?

4. Clones Rights United Front: Randolfe Wicker, founder- "We’re fighting for research, and we’re defending people’s reproductive rights... I realize my clone would be my identical twin, and my identical twin has a right to be born." This seems to be a matter of controversy over definitions. Is a clone really the same thing as an identical twin? Do we not have to take into consideration the matter of shortened telomeres, and the fact that clones are generally created from much older cells? We still do not fully understand how adult cells are reprogrammed to become stem cells again, and as long as we don't have this knowledge can we really equate a clone with a twin?

There are no easy answers to any of these questions. Perhaps this is one of the big reasons that the debate over cloning remains so heated. There is no clear black or white--everything seems to be a shade of gray, and individuals are left to ponder the questions and come up with their own opinions. This may be one of the biggest obstacles to the advancement of using cloning technologies in medicine. And it may also mean that the government (or federal agencies) will need to step in, in order to make one decision.

C. Heard

Cloned Cells Bring Hope of Therapy for Parkinson's Disease

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3607659.ece

This article, published in March 2008, reports on "the first time that cloned stem cells have been used to reverse disease in the same animals from which they were derived." In an experiment lead by Lorenz Studer, somatic nuclear transfer was used to create nearly 200 lines of cloned embryonic stem cells. Because Parkinson's disease is associated with a deterioration of dopamine-producing neurons, these stem cells were manipulated in vitro to form dopamine neurons, which were injected back into the mice (from which the embryonic stem cells were cloned). According to this article, "when mice received neurons grown from their own cloned stem cells, their neurological symptoms improved and they showed no signs of rejecting the transplanted tissue."

This experiment, as the article states, could have far-reaching implications. If the same process could be mimicked with human cells, we may be well on our way to a potential therapy for Parkinson's. But we still have a long way to go. As with many articles we have read, the tone of this report is guardedly optimistic. Yes, this experiment is an amazing breakthrough using the biotechnology of cloning. But mice and humans are a very different matter. The article cautions its readers not to get their hopes up quite yet. Although the experimental procedure shows promise, the article warns that "only two groups, one in Britain and one in the US, have succeeded in cloning human embryos, and none has yet produced stem cells from a cloned embryo." So how, realistic, really, is it to believe that this therapy will soon be used in humans? The article also notes that cloning is hugely inefficient; scientists are still not able to consistently produce a viable line of cloned embryonic stem cells. On the contrary, "cloning... [usually] requires hundreds of eggs to produce a single viable clone, [which] is also expected to limit therapeutic applications."

Despite the fact that these statements may seem negative in tone, the article overall is being more realistic than pessimistic. It notes that there are many intermediary steps that need to be taken before this kind of therapy can be applied to human patients. But it quotes experts who claim that the results are exciting and will eventually be useful in treating humans. One scientist is quoted as saying, “This is a very well conducted study that provides further proof-of-principle of the idea of ‘therapeutic cloning’ using a mouse model. Ideally one of the next steps will be to repeat the whole procedure with a monkey model, in which all the individual steps have now been established. This will allow much better tests of functional recovery and safety.”

Overall, the article presents a very fair few on the developing technology of therapeutic cloning. Progress is being made, but we should be careful not to count our chickens before they hatch. Scientists have still not mastered cloning completely; it is a fickle science that we still need to improve our understanding of, in order to utilize it most effectively. Although a decade has gone by since Dolly was cloned, and many people assumed that cloning would soon become common practice, we are still only making slow advances. But they are advances nonetheless, and should not be under-credited.

Readers should also notice the several controversies that are subtly raised in this article. First, is the "inefficiency of cloning." When hundreds of eggs are still required to produce a viable clone, how ethical is it to even consider using this technology in humans? Can we even imagine asking a woman to hyper-ovulate to this extent, in order to harvest her eggs in what still may be a failed attempt to produce an embryonic clone? I think we as a society will only consider these procedures acceptable in humans when the technology of cloning has been fine-tuned, and is much more efficient and consistent.
The article seems to agree. It states that "many scientists think that the main use of cloning will be to make laboratory models of disease for medical research, rather than treatments to be given to patients. This can be done by inserting human DNA into animal eggs, which will be allowed under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill." Here, then, we will not be asking a woman to use her own eggs. Instead, animals will be made to bear that burden. But how ethical is this? How would animal rights activists respond to this? And how do we feel about the government stepping in to decide this issue with a federal bill?

Clearly, in trying to solve one controversy, scientists may run into another. Because cloning is still not fully understood or developed, many thorny issues abound. Hopefully, as scientists learn more about how to improve these technologies, some of these issues will no longer be a problem.
But for now, we must accept each small step forward that is made, and look to how we can improve and refine cloning technology to apply it safely and ethically to human patients.

C. Heard