| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
From North Wales, Pennsylvania.
| Correspondence to: Susan Kerr Bernal (e-mail: bernal{at}erols.com). |
| Received for publication July 21, 2005; accepted for publication July 21, 2005. |
Similarly, when Dolly the sheep was introduced to the world by embryologist Dr Ian Wilmut in February 1997, virtually the entire world pronounced passionate, disparate opinions on "cloning."2 For sure, the Chicken Littles warned, there was plenty of grease on the cloning slippery slope, and many governments heeding the warning sprang into action passing laws or establishing edicts decrying human cloning and other potential uses of the technology. In the United States, the Clinton Administration called for a voluntary ban on cloning in general, and presently, the Bush Administration prohibits the use of federal funding of reproductive and therapeutic cloning, absent employing a few established cell lines generally heralded as useless by the scientific community. Despite the outlandish claims of the Ralians, Italian doctors, and the narcissistically unscrupulous, the Boys From Brazil are not sliding down the cloning slippery slope.
However, although inflammatory omens and fear of the unknown initially helped many countries and scientists keep their footing and take baby steps with respect to this potentially revolutionary technology, the inflammation has subsided and the fears apparently have been quelled. For example, in May, the United States House of Representatives approved (238 to 194) House Resolution 810, which would loosen restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 sponsored by Rep Michael Castle (R-Del) and almost 200 cosponsors would expand federal funding to embryonic stem cell research and allow research that uses stem cells derived from embryos originally created for fertility treatments that are willingly donated by patients. The bill does not allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on stem cell lines or embryos created expressly for research purposes. The Senate is paused to vote on an almost identical bill that recently has been gaining support and is likely to by approved. President Bush opposes both bills and has threatened to veto any similar measure, but despite his strong proclamation and his parade on the White House lawn of children born from adopted embryos, there have been few headlines. Similarly, although announced just days after a South Korean research team reported their success in cloning a human embryo and extracting a stem cell line, the news that Dr Wilmut was granted a license by Great Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority to clone embryos created from donated eggs and skin cells of patients with motor neuron disease and to cull stem cell colonies for the study of human disease, there has been barely a whisper of concern or opposition from the Chicken Littles. But should there be?
There are legitimate and articulate moral arguments against both reproductive and therapeutic human cloning, especially for those who adhere to the premise that a new human life begins at the joining of egg and sperm. The most significant moral conflict stems from an ethically imperative mandate of respect for individual human life and the total unreliability of the technique. It took Dr Wilmut 276 tries before his success with Dolly. There is enormous potential for fetal death and egregious deformity. Furthermore, the destructive psychological and physical effects on a "mother" carrying and birthing a dead or deformed clone or on a clone questioning his individuality and witnessing his own future à la Dorian Gray are merely speculative at best. These cloning opponents should be equally vehemently opposed to the bills in Congress, the South Korean research,3 and Dr Wilmut's license for reproductive human cloning because, in fairness, these actions are arguably on the slippery slope.
The inconsistency of cloning opponents is revealed in their near ubiquitous silence. Have they accepted that the genie is out of the bottle, opposition futile, and the slope too slippery? I believe not. Rather, I suppose they hold their convictions close to their heart but practicality or reality has stifled their voice. Compelling public advocates for the use of cloning for stem cell research, such as Dana and the late Christopher Reeves, Michael J. Fox, and Nancy Reagan; the vast nonpublic advocates such as the parents of children with an array of debilitating diseases; and other noncelebrity patients weigh heavily on the consciences of people. The stories of these desperate advocates coupled with the fundamental economics of scientific research might just be enough to help those opponents pacify their convictions. The reality that the United States' position atop the scientific world and global market economy could very well be forfeited if therapeutic cloning and stem cell research are not embraced is one very slippery slope no American should want to slide down.
Footnotes
* Journal of Andrology welcomes letters to the editor
regarding "Forum" articles and other ethical and legal issues of
interest in your own practice or research. We also invite you to suggest
topics that deserve attention in future issues. Papers appearing in this
section are not considered primary research reports and are thus not subjected
to peer review. Unsolicited manuscripts are welcome, and will be reviewed and
edited by the Section Editor. All submissions should be sent to the
Journal of Andrology Editorial Office. 
1 Presently there is a federal case pending before the US Supreme Court
initiated by former Attorney General John Ashcroft challenging the legality of
Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Oral arguments are to be heard in the
2005-2006 term.
2 The colloquial term "cloning" will be used in place of the more
technically accurate "somatic cell nuclear transfer" solely for
convenience.
3 The South Korean researchers collected 242 donated eggs from which they
created 30 blastocysts but were successful in harvesting only 1 colony of
cells.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
