Daniel S. McConchie, AUL Vice President of Government Affairs
On Wednesday, July 19, 2006, President George W. Bush stood before a standing-room only crowd in the East Room of the White House and declared he had vetoed legislation that would have expanded federal funding for destructive human embryo research. It was the first veto of his then five-and-a-half-year Presidency.
Behind the President, a father stood holding his widely-grinning 14-month-old son, Trey Jones. As the President spoke about the moral danger of destroying nascent human life for research, the toddler called out to the crowd, “Hey . . . HEY!” Upon getting the attention of much of the front section of the room, Trey smiled widely and gave a big wave. The crowd laughed approvingly.
Trey and his father had been joined by dozens of other families with small children—children who likewise had no idea that they were in the presence of one of the most powerful people in the world. Dressed in miniature suits and evening gowns, the children grew restless during the 15-minute speech: quietly climbing up and down from their chairs, going from one parent’s arms to the other, and whispering very important observations to siblings and grandparents.
The one unusual thing about each of the children is that they were all formerly so-called surplus or leftover embryos—like those embryos that scientists use for destructive embryo research, including embryonic stem-cell research. Called “Snowflakes” after the adoption agency program that puts frozen embryos and adoptive parents together, these children were present to demonstrate that embryos are not just clumps of cells but living human beings. As the President said in his speech, “These boys and girls are not spare parts. They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research.”[1]
Currently, the only way to do embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning is to destroy living human embryos. The debate is becoming increasingly emotional and highly charged, as scientists interested in the research continue to diminish the moral concerns associated with embryo destruction and hype the potential benefits of such research.
Issues
In 1998, embryonic stem cells were isolated from human embryos for the first time.[2] Scientists performing the research hoped that these unspecialized cells might be used to cure currently incurable diseases, such as Parkinson’s, juvenile diabetes, cancers, anemias, and others. While scientists had been working with adult stem cells for more than 50 years, their success was seen as limited. There were still many diseases scientists hoped to be able to treat with this new stem cell source. The race to find a way to use embryonic stem cells commenced as scientists hailed that a virtual fountain of youth was waiting for us just around the corner.
Obtaining embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a living human embryo. It is done by taking a days-old embryo that has grown to the several hundred-cell stage, breaking it apart, and taking the cells from the embryo’s inner mass.[3] These unspecialized cells are then taken, grown, and used for research.
One of the inherent problems in using embryonic stem cells in therapies is the problem of transplantation. If a transplanted cell’s DNA is even minorly different from the person’s being treated, the body usually sees those cells as an invader and kills them off—much like what happens when whole-organ transplants are rejected due to an immune system response. Without the use of drugs to depress the patient’s immune system, transplanted tissue generally doesn’t survive but a few hours or days.
To overcome this inherent problem, scientists began pursuing human cloning as a method for obtaining genetically-compatible cells for transplantation. Cloning-for-biomedical-research, also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and therapeutic cloning,[4] is a process through which a human egg is taken from a woman, the nucleus removed, and replaced with a nucleus from a patient’s body cell. Using electrical shock or chemical bath, the egg is tricked into believing it has been fertilized, and it begins to divide, becoming a human embryo.
With only the proper nutrition and environment, an embryo will develop into you or me. Researchers looking for embryonic stem cells interrupt the developmental process after several days to destroy the embryo and obtain its stem cells. When using cloned embryos, those cells are genetically identical to someone else. Some scientists claim that they are trying to produce cloned children by creating cloned embryos and then transferring the embryo into a woman’s uterus—a process often referred to as reproductive cloning.[5] In addition to horrible genetic problems that currently plague animal clones, there are a whole host of ethical reasons that reproductive cloning should never be allowed.
Ten years after the first isolation of embryonic stem cells, there is not a single disease that these cells can cure, regardless of whether the cells obtained from embryos are created through sperm or egg or through cloning. Scientists have been conducting research on mouse embryonic stem cells for over 25 years and are yet unable to cure mice.[6] Research on humans that necessitates destroying human embryos would be repugnant even if it led to cures. However, such research on humans is even more unseemly given the fact that this research has rarely (and never consistently) worked in animals.
In addition to the fact that it is necessary to destroy nascent human life to obtain embryonic stem cells for research, such research is also immoral because the only way to obtain the human eggs necessary to create embryos is to exploit women. A woman normally only ovulates one or two eggs per reproductive cycle. To obtain enough eggs for research, a woman must take drugs that will cause her to superovulate, releasing 10-15 eggs at a time, and undergo an invasive surgical procedure in order to obtain them.[7] It is simply not possibleto obtain enough eggs from willing women to adequately pursue this research or treat possible diseases that may come from any breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells.[8] Some scientists have discussed trying to use eggs from aborted fetuses or to create eggs from stem cells to alleviate this problem.[9]
The primary alternative to embryonic stem cells is using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have helped patients with over 70 different diseases, with more being continually added.[10] The future of human cures is not in destroying some humans to treat others. It is in ethical treatments that respect all human life with dignity and respect.
There are efforts to find ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying nascent human life.[11] Since 2007, researchers have seen significant breakthroughs enabling scientists to reprogram adult stem cells back into their embryonic stem cell state—without destroying any embryos.[12]
For legislators and policy makers, it is vitally important that proposed bans on destructive embryo research and cloning do not block important ethical avenues for researchers to pursue. In addition, careful measures should be taken to avoid bans on some types of research, especially in the area of cloning, that are essentially toothless or create incentives for researchers to destroy nascent human life. Simply, careful wording of legislative measures and statutes is very important.
Key Terms
- Adult stem cell—semi-specialized cells that create the end-stage cells that do the work of the body. Present throughout life, they continually work to replace dying end-stage cells. There are no ethical difficulties associated with using these cells as there are with embryonic stem cells. Sometimes referred to as multipotent stem cells, more than 70 different diseases have been treated with these cells.[13]
- Cloning—the creation, by whatever technique, of an entity genetically identical to another entity already in existence. Through cloning, the new entity has only one genetic parent, not two as in normal reproduction.
- Cord blood stem cell—an adult stem cell found in the umbilical cord blood of newborn infants. Umbilical cords, which are routinely discarded, were discovered to have an unusually high concentration of adult stem cells which are very easy to obtain and are capable of treating a host of diseases.[14] In 2006, Congress passed legislation that will create a national umbilical cord blood bank similar to the national bone marrow system for the public.
- Embryo—an entity that, through whatever means (normal reproduction, cloning, or other method), has a full complement of DNA and, with the proper environment and nutrition and unless otherwise interrupted, will develop along the natural course of progression for that species into further stages of development until natural death.
- Embryonic stem cell—an early-stage stem cell that can (currently) only be obtained by destroying embryos of the same species. Embryonic stem cells can become virtually any type of cell in the body, but only if properly directed in their development. This naturally happens in the organized human embryo, but is something that scientists have yet to learn how to control. The primary ethical issues associated with using these cells is that they currently require the destruction of a living human embryo and that current use of such cells in medical research constitutes unethical experimentation when there has not been adequate research using animals. Sometimes referred to as “pluripotent stem cells,” there is not a single disease that scientists can treat with these cells.
- Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)—a type of cloning. A process in which the nucleus (and therefore the original DNA) is removed from an egg and discarded, the nucleus of a somatic (or body) cell containing the genetic material of another entity is transplanted into the egg, and an electric shock or chemical solution is used to trick the egg into believing it has been fertilized. The egg, containing another entity’s DNA, begins dividing as any other early embryo.
- Zygote—a one-cell embryo. From this one cell will arise every cell in the body. Sometimes referred to as a fertilized egg or “totipotent cell.”
Facts & Myths
Myth: Embryonic stem-cell researchers are close to finding cures for a host of terrible diseases, like cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s.
Fact: Embryonic stem cells are unable to cure anyone of anything. Instead, use of the cells in humans does little good and can do great harm. Adult stem-cell research is helping cure more than 73 diseases, with more work being prepared for or currently in clinical trials.
Myth: Embryonic stem-cell research, including the destruction of embryos for their parts, is morally and ethically acceptable.
Fact: Even if breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells do occur, it is still unethical to destroy human embryos for their parts. Regardless of the perceived or real benefit of destroying human embryos, there is no ethical justification for destroying nascent human life regardless of its origins. It is never right to intentionally kill innocent human life to save another’s life, especially in such a systematic manner.
Myth: Cloned human embryos are not really human.
Fact: This would mean that Dolly, the first mammal clone ever, was not a sheep, despite the fact it was created using a sheep egg and sheep DNA and after birth looked and acted like a sheep. If cloned human embryos are not human, then what are they? The only logical answer is that a cloned human embryo with a full compliment of human DNA is fully human.
Myth: We do not owe a right to life to cloned embryos. They are an unnatural aberration.
Fact: Regardless of the ethical issues surrounding the creation of human clones or why a clone was created, if created it should not be forbidden to live. We do not require the destruction of human life when created through other unethical means (e.g., rape). Laws against creating cloned embryos should not require the clone’s destruction.
Myth: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is not cloning.
Fact: SCNT is currently the only way to do a cloning procedure. While other methods may develop, SCNT will always be a form of cloning.
Myth: A ban on destructive human embryo research or human cloning will stifle scientific research or economic development in my state.
Fact: Few companies even do this research, in part because there are no foreseeable cures that will recoup the dollars needed for investment. And, if embryonic stem-cell research ends up not producing cures, companies may not survive in the state long enough to produce any benefit.
Myth: Embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures are just going to die anyway. We should get some benefit from them.
Fact: It is not necessarily the case that embryos left over from IVF procedures will be destroyed. Some parents change their mind and decide to implant the embryos to give them a chance at survival. Increasingly, infertile couples are adopting embryos that would otherwise be destroyed or languish in cryopreservation. Even if these embryos would be destroyed, it does not give us the right to use them for research material.
Myth: You cannot compare a clump of cells smaller than the tip of pencil to an existing human being who is suffering and may die without this research.
Fact: It is not your size or location that gives you value and dignity, it is your status as a member of the human race. Every human being, whether as small as the tip of a pencil or as large as a sumo wrestler, deserves the protections accorded to all other human beings. If we decide that some members of the human race should not receive those protections, then we are all at risk if the rich, powerful, or simple majority decides some of us are no longer worthy of life.
Myth: Adult stem cells are not as capable as embryonic stem cells.
Fact: While it is generally agreed that embryonic stem cells are more flexible in becoming different tissue types than adult stem cells, the idea that adult cells are not as capable as embryonic cells for use in treatments is pure speculation. Currently, adult cells are much more capable of treating human beings than embryonic cells, which have yet to cure a single disease.
Myth: All stem cell research is unethical.
Fact: Only stem cell research that destroys human life or puts people unnecessarily in harm’s way when doing experimental research is unethical. The vast majority of scientific research being done on stem cells is perfectly legitimate.
Endnotes:
1. George W. Bush, President Discusses Stem Cell Research Policy, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/07/20060719-3.html (last visited Oct. 21, 2008).↑
2. Michael J. Schlambott et. al., Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells, Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. USA 95:23, 13726-731 (1998).↑
3. Id.↑
4. The term “therapeutic cloning” is often used by proponents to convey the idea that cloning for research has medical or therapeutic benefit. In reality, cloning research does not have any therapeutic benefits to patients. Additionally, research cloning is decidedly non-therapeutic to the clone that must be killed for the research.↑
5. The term “reproductive cloning” is often used to denote cloning with the intention of creating a born child. However, since all cloning processes create a new entity at the embryonic stage, it is a misnomer to only classify certain types of cloning as reproductive.↑
6. M. J. Evans & M. H. Kaufman, Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos, Nature 292, 154–56 (1981).↑
7. Antonio Regalado, Stem-Cell Rift Shows Difficulty Obtaining Eggs, Wall Street Journal, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113193183444296112.html (last visited Oct. 21, 2008).↑
8. David Prentice, Under the Microscope: A Scientific Look at Cloning, Family Policy 15:3. See also Wesley J. Smith, Lessons From the Cloning Debate: The Need for a Secular Approach, in Human Dignity in the Biotech Century 194-96 (Charles W. Colson & Nigel M. de S. Cameron, eds. 2004) (explaining that it is not physiologically possible to obtain enough eggs to treat disease through stem cell research and human cloning).↑
9. Eric Cohen, Orphans by Design, First Things 158, 13-15 (2005).↑
10. To see a current list of benefits of both embryonic and adult stem cells in patients, see Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients: Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells (Apr. 11, 2007), available at http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm (last visited Oct. 21, 2008).↑
11. To see the current ways the National Institutes of Health are investigating alternative ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells, see James F. Battey, Alternative Methods of Obtaining Embryonic Stem Cells, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, July 14, 2005, available at http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/statements/20050712battey.asp (last visited Oct. 21, 2008).↑
12. See, e.g., Mailee Smith, A “Breath-Taking” Summer for Ethical Stem Cell Research (Sept. 15, 2008), available at http://blog.aul.org/2008/09/15/a-%e2%80%9cbreath-taking%e2%80%9d-summer-for-ethical-stem-cell-research/ (last visited Oct. 21, 2008); Mailee Smith, Once Again, Destructive Embryo Research Proven to be Unnecessary (Aug. 28, 2008), available at http://blog.aul.org/2008/08/28/once-again-destructive-embryo-research-proven-to-be-unnecessary/ (last visited Oct. 21, 2008); Monya Baker, More reprogramming tips, Nature Online (Mar. 6, 2008), available at http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2008/0803/080306/full/stemcells.2008.43.html (last visited Oct. 21, 2008) (“So far, four sets of researchers have reported their success in reprogramming human skin cells to behave like embryonic stem (ES) cells.”).↑
13. Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients, supra.↑
14. A great summary of the benefits of umbilical cord blood can be found in Sec. 2. Findings of the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2003, available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h596ih.txt.pdf (last visited Oct. 21, 2008).↑
