"No" to embryonic stem cells.

There are two types of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research: one using embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, the other using cloned embryos. In the United Kingdom (UK), the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has granted licenses to clone embryos to undertake so-called therapeutic cloning to two institutions: the Newcastle Fertility Centre for Life and the Edinburgh-based Roslin Institute (of renown for having cloned Dolly, the sheep).

The aim of hESC research is clearly praiseworthy insofar as it is undertaken in the hope of finding cures for diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson, Alzheimer, motor neuron diseases and for injuries resulting in paralysis. In addition, hESC research involving cloning holds the prospect of providing the repair tissue from the very individual that is being cloned. As the replacement tissue would be genetically identical, the problem of tissue rejection, which can be a difficulty when foreign tissue is transplanted to a patient, is eliminated. Yet both genres of hESC research necessitate the destruction of human embryos. Moreover, in the case of embryos left over after IVF, they are allowed to develop for eight days or so, after which time their inner cells are harvested for hESC research. This raises the question of the status of the human embryo, cloned or not cloned. It also raises the question whether a cloned embryo has the same moral status as one naturally conceived or conceived by IVF.

To create a cloned embryo, an egg is emptied of its own nucleus. The nucleus of a somatic cell, such as a skin cell, is then transferred to the emptied egg. The new entity thus created has the same genetic makeup as the man or woman from whom the somatic cell--say, a skin cell--was taken. It is not yet, however, an embryo; it remains more like a skin cell than an embryo. This is because initially, only the skin-cell genes are "switched on."

In an early embryo, all the genes are switched on. But, as the embryo grows, its tissues differentiate and different genes are switched off. It is the switching off that makes the tissues different. Skin cells only have skin-cell genes switched on, and muscle cells only have muscle-cell genes switched on. However, at cloning, the developmental clock is turned back. All the genes in the new entity--that which was created by the transfer of a somatic cell nucleus to the egg emptied of its own nucleus--are switched on again. This can be done by electrical or chemical means. When this is done, it turns the new entity into an embryo, which starts dividing and growing. We now have a cloned embryo. Apart from a few genes left in the cytoplasm in the emptied egg, this cloned embryo has the same genetic makeup as the somatic cell donor. Therefore, it is effectively an identical twin of the donor, only much younger.

Most scientists and moralists have rejected reproductive cloning as immoral. While reproductive cloning is illegal in many states, including the UK, the process of reproductive cloning would be undertaken in exactly the same manner as the one for cloning an embryo for therapeutic purposes, as described above. In other words, the aforementioned embryo potentially could be used for reproductive purposes. Thus, it logically follows that cloned embryos have the same moral status as those embryos created for other reproductive purposes; that is, IVF embryos and embryos naturally conceived.

The question that remains is whether the human embryo is to be counted as a human being and, therefore, deserving of respect and protection. Those who deny that the human embryo is a human being often argue that in order for the embryo to be a proper human being, or a person, it is necessary to possess certain qualities or abilities--self-consciousness and a certain degree of rationality have been put forward to this end. (1,2) This criterion of personhood would, however, rule out the child with severe Down syndrome as well as the old lady with advanced Alzheimer disease. It may even rule out the normal and healthy one-year-old child. This is counter intuitive. Moreover, all of us began life as an embryo, and if you had been killed as an embryo, you--who are a real person--would have been killed. Human life is an indivisible whole, from start to finish. The human embryo, whatever its provenance, is human and alive. It is a nascent human being, a member of the human family. Therefore, hESC research cannot be moral, since it involves the intentional destruction of human life.

At least this is true based on the understanding of Christians and others in the Judeo-Christian tradition, in whose view the intentional destruction of innocent human life is wrong. The Bible says that life is a gift from God and that human beings are created in the image of God. As a gift of God, human life is clearly to be cherished. And being in the image of God, it deserves respect.

Besides the issue of embryo destruction, there are other moral objections to hESC research relating to egg donation. In November 2005, cloning expert Professor Gerald P. Schatten of the University of Pittsburgh, severed his ties with his research partner, Professor Hwang Woo-suk, the South Korean cloning pioneer, over concerns about Professor Hwang's means of egg procurement. Soon afterwards, following revelations about immoral practices at his laboratory at Seoul National University, Professor Hwang resigned from all of his official positions. In a humiliating climb-down, he admitted that two of his laboratory staff had donated eggs for his work. According to international standards, it is unacceptable to use donors who are vulnerable to coercion or who may be tempted by financial remuneration, as egg donation could be to their physical or mental disadvantage.

That cloning could lead to the exploitation of women is evident. It requires a high number of fresh eggs. Both the Newcastle team and the Korean team have found that for cloning the eggs must be used within an hour after retrieval. They must also come from young women. The Newcastle team had initially hoped to use eggs left over after IVF treatment. But they found that they had to ask women undergoing IVF treatment to set aside eggs for donation at the time of egg retrieval. Eggs so set aside cannot be described as leftover eggs. And the procedure would disadvantage the donor by reducing her chances of having a baby, since it could reduce the number of embryos which could be used for IVF. That the Newcastle team found it impossible to rely on donated leftover eggs is not surprising. Their cloning license was granted on condition that they obtain 1000 eggs per year. It has proved impossible to obtain so many leftover eggs.

The alternative to leftover eggs, and eggs set aside during IVF treatment, would be eggs donated from women not undergoing IVF. But in this case donors would have to undergo hormonal treatment to produce multiple eggs in one cycle. Such treatment can have serious adverse side effects, including, in the worst-case scenario, death. And the risks are not outweighed by the prospect of a baby, as in the case of IVF. For this reason, the United Nations has opposed therapeutic cloning, arguing that it could lead to the exploitation of women from poorer countries, who might be tempted to sell their eggs.

Besides the destructive use of human embryos and the potential for exploitation of women, there are medical risks associated with hESC research. On June 4, 2005, The Lancet published an article by neurology researcher, Dr Neil Scolding of Bristol University, who argued that embryonic stem cells--whether obtained from spare or cloned embryos--have a tendency to develop into tumors and are prone to chromosomal abnormalities. With reference to therapeutic cloning, he also pointed out that in animals, cloning has usually been associated with severe abnormalities.

Thus, while there are many potential benefits to both therapeutic and reproductive cloning, there are many more moral objections which accompany hESC research. Such research eschews a clear disrespect for life--both for the human embryos which would be destroyed of necessity, and for the women who would be so easily treated as mere instruments to an end. As such, it seems clear that therapeutic cloning should not be pursued.

References

1. Singer P. Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics. Oxford, St. Martin's Griffin, 1995.

2. Kuhse H. Should the Baby Live. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1985.

Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all
breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are
all mortal.
--John F. Kennedy

Agneta M. Sutton, PhD

From the Department of Theology, University of Chichester, Heythrop College, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Reprint requests to Agneta M. Sutton, PhD, Department of Theology, University of Chichester, Heythrop College, University of London. Email: [e-mail]