Predictions from 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/753838.stm

Check out this BBC News article from May, 2000.

As early as 2000, Ian Willmut, a leading member of the Roslin Institute team responsible for the creation of Dilly, was predicting a variety of potential medical treatments that could arise from cloning technologies. Although he opposes the cloning of a human being, he admits to being hopeful about the possibilities that cloned stem cells could provide. If cells from a patient were used to clone an embryo, stem cells could be harvested, manipulated, and injected back into the patient at the appropriate sight (ie, wherever cells or tissue were degenerating).
Wilmut's predictions were scientifically sound. As we learned in class, many researchers and scientists are in fact trying to bring his thoughts to life: working on ways to treat Parkinson's, diabetes, liver damage, arthritis, etc. (the same conditions that Wilmut mentioned years ago!). But nearly a decade has passed, and very little has come to fruition. Recently, there has been moderate success in treating Parkinson's in mice. But for the most part, we are still trying to reach the potential that we recognized so many years ago.

This article is guardedly optimistic. While it notes the huge benefits that cloning technologies could provide, it also acknowledges "the huge hurdles experts must cross to reap them." And yet it remains hopeful, if cautiously so. Wilmut is reported as saying, "It [cloning] could be helpful to treat conditions associated with damage to cells which don't repair themselves - there isn't currently an effective treatment for any of them." And readers are not discouraged from believing this.
Because cloning is such a heated topic, many articles fall into the trap of editorializing, expressing personal opinions and influencing the public's perception. This article succeeds in avoiding such biased reporting. It expresses both sides, and does not clearly favor one argument. Potential is noted, but present failures are as well (in 2000, sheep and cattle had been cloned, but primates had not; gene cloning, however, had been successful in the creation of goats producing human blood clotting protein); the ethical dilemmas surrounding cloning embryos for medical use, and harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses are both presented.
These are two very thorny debates surrounding cloning technology. While many people agree that the cloning of a human being is taboo, there is nothing even remotely close to a consensus regarding the cloning of embryos. This was true in 2000, and remains true today in 2009. And unlike many ethical dilemmas, which can be considered on a personal level, some broader judgment will eventually have to made regarding such a public medical technology. So although I may be all for the cloning of embryos, if the US government forbids it, my personal ethical decision is over-ruled. But consider, where would you stand on this issue? If the embryo is used solely for medical purposes, is it still dangerous to be producing such a clone? What happens if such technology goes wrong, or gets out of hand?
The article also raises another concern, one that we will return to later. At the very end, the article mentions that "Professor Wilmut also mentioned the genetic modification of pig organs so they can be used in human transplantation - another ethical minefield." If we already slaughter pigs by the millions for pork and bacon, what is the argument against a few more dying to save human lives? Are we valuing a human life over a pig life? Will the pig's quality of life deteriorate because it has been genetically modified? What do we owe pigs (or any animals, for that matter)? These are the questions that we must grapple with in the face of new medical technologies such as that of cloning.

C. Heard