Cloning ethics: federal funding debate

Página 1

Cloning: Should The United States Allow Federal Funding for Cloning Experiments?

Introduction

SUPPORTERS ARGUE

Cloning has countless possible benefits; for example, the process known as therapeutic cloning could help develop genetically rejection-proof organs for medical transplantation into the sick, while livestock cloning could improve the quality and quantity of meat and dairy products. Research aimed at achieving such benefits deserves federal funding.

OPPONENTS ARGUE

Therapeutic cloning involves creating and destroying human embryos, which is an immoral and unacceptable abuse of scientific power. Cloning animals is an inefficient, unnecessary process which typically produces defective animals. Polling data show that most Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of cloning not only humans but animals as well.

Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

Researchers in Seoul, South Korea, display three genetically identical clones of an Afghan hound in 2006. Since 1996, scientists have cloned numerous species of mammals, including sheep, horses, cats, cows and pigs.

Ever since Scottish scientists announced in 1997 that they had successfully produced a cloned sheep—the first mammal ever cloned from adult cells—people everywhere have become fascinated by the idea of cloning. However, debates about the morality of cloning have persisted throughout the decade since the cloned sheep, originally code- named 6LL3 but later renamed Dolly, made her debut on the world stage. Advances in cloning technology have served only to fuel those debates.

In the mid-20th century, scientists discovered that a person's genetic makeup is entirely contained within a nucleic acid found in the nucleus of each of that person's cells. That acid is called deoxyribonucleic acid, or, more commonly, DNA. Scientists began to theorize that by transferring a DNA-containing nucleus from one organism into an empty egg cell of another organism, the resulting cell would grow into a new organism genetically identical to the original. That theory was validated in a series of groundbreaking experiments which began in the early 1950s and culminated in the birth of Dolly the sheep in 1996.

Researchers have touted the advent of cloning as a great scientific breakthrough. Specifically, they posit two ways in which cloning can benefit mankind as a whole. The first, livestock cloning, involves the cloning of farm animals, including pigs and cows, to improve the quality and quantity of the milk and meat sold throughout the world. For example, if a cow yields a particularly high level of milk, scientists can, in theory, clone that cow and have it reproduce, leading to an entire generation of high-production dairy cows.

Another way in which cloning can benefit people around the world is through therapeutic cloning. In therapeutic cloning, researchers use a person's DNA to create an embryonic clone of that person. Researchers then extract so-called stem cells from that embryo, which can be used to create organs. Because the organs match the DNA donor's actual genetic makeup, they can be transplanted into that person's body without the risk of the organ being rejected. Therapeutic cloning, however, remains highly theoretical—indeed, no scientist has as yet successfully harvested stem cells from a cloned human embryo, let alone developed organs from them—but many scientists say that further research can make therapeutic cloning a reality. [See 2005 Genetic Engineering]

In recent years, cloning research in the U.S. has been hampered by a ban on federal funding for experiments involving cloning. That ban is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon, as President Bush (R)—whose term runs through early 2009—has said that he staunchly opposes cloning for moral reasons. Therapeutic cloning, for example, requires the creation and destruction of a human embryo in order to work properly. Indeed, there is substantial opposition to cloning for that and other reasons. Should cloning research be expanded in the U.S.? Or do the moral ambiguities surrounding cloning technology outweigh any potential benefits?

Supporters of cloning say that the enormous potential health benefits are reason enough to pursue cloning research. They maintain that it is human nature to develop new technologies that benefit the human race as a whole. In that respect, cloning is no different than, for example, artificial insemination, another scientific development that was once criticized as unnatural and immoral, proponents argue. Additionally, defenders say that most people do not have a clear view of what cloning actually is; if the public knew the truth about cloning, there would be more support for it, they argue.

Jeremy Eagle

Critics, on the other hand, maintain that cloning technology has great potential for disaster. Many critics oppose cloning because they argue that human life at any stage—even the embryonic stage—is precious, and should not be destroyed simply for the advancement of science. Most therapeutic-cloning experiments involve human life being used as a tool, opponents contend, which they say is a deeply unsettling and immoral abuse of scientific power. Additionally, many opponents argue that livestock cloning is an unnecessary technology—there is no pressing need for cloned cows and pigs—and could potentially constitute cruelty toward animals.

Animal Cloning Before and After "Dolly"

In 1952, biologists working at the Institute for Cancer Research in Philadelphia, Pa., successfully cloned a tadpole using the nuclear transfer technique. Although it did not live long enough to grow into a frog, the tadpole was the first recorded instance of a human-produced clone of a living animal. [See 2007 The Science of Cloning (sidebar)]

The experiment set off a flurry of activity in the field of animal cloning. It wasn't until 1963, however, that scientists would successfully clone a healthy, complex organism. That year, a Chinese embryologist named Tong Dizhou cloned a male carp that survived into adulthood and even sired offspring. Tong became regarded as a national hero in China, where the news of the cloned fish was met with substantial public approval.

Scientists did not manage to clone a mammal until more than 30 years later. In 1996, researchers from Edinburgh, Scotland, conducted an experiment in which they transferred nuclei from various adult sheep cells into egg cells from different sheep. The fertilized eggs were then implanted into adult female sheep; only one of the 227 implanted eggs, however, resulted in the birth of a healthy baby lamb. That lamb, which the researchers named Dolly, was introduced to the world in February 1997, seven months after its birth, sending shockwaves through the scientific community as well as the public at large.

The success of the cloned-sheep experiment, like the success of the cloned-fish experiment years before, led to an increased focus on animal cloning at universities and research laboratories across the world. In the years following Dolly's birth, scientists managed to clone well over a dozen species of mammals. For example, in 1998, the year after Dolly made her debut, researchers from the University of Hawaii in Honolulu announced that they had cloned mice; later that year, Japanese scientists said they had successfully cloned cows. Later, scientists developed cloned pigs, mules, horses, deer, goats and rabbits, among others.

Despite those successes, however, the cloning success rate remains extremely low. Even with all the advances in cloning technology, only 2% to 5% of eggs that undergo nuclear transfer result in live births. And those animals that do get born typically do not live very long.

Indeed, the vast majority are born with such pronounced defects that they die within weeks or even days. Experts say that for every cloned animal that lives at least a month, hundreds die due to one or more developmental defects. Even Dolly eventually died prematurely; scientists euthanized her in 2003 after she developed lung disease. (Dolly also developed arthritis far earlier than sheep usually get that condition.) Additionally, many cloned mammals weigh much more at birth than typical animals, a factor that complicates pregnancies.

Despite such problems, experts say that there are numerous uses for animal cloning. For example, many scientists are experimenting with interspecies cloning: inserting DNA from one species—most often human beings—into egg cells of a different type of animal. Through that process, scientists have created animals with certain human characteristics, including sheep with human livers, mice with human immune systems and pigs with human blood.

Researchers can use those animals to conduct experiments on human diseases, such as Alzheimer's or amytrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, also referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease), without actually experimenting on humans. In September 2007, the British government broke a long silence on the issue of so-called human-animal hybrid clones when it officially allowed researchers to conduct such experiments in Britain.

Animal cloning has already also been used to clone pets. In December 2004, Genetic Savings and Clone, the world's first commercial pet-cloning company, made its first sale. A Texas woman purchased a clone of her dead cat, Nicky, for $50,000. The clone, which she named Little Nicky, made headlines throughout the U.S. and sparked a debate over the morality of commercial cloning services. Within two years, however, Genetic Savings and Clone had folded because of a lack of business.

Another controversial use for cloned animals is the cloning of livestock for human consumption. In the wake of Dolly's successful birth, large agricultural companies began developing cloned cows and pigs. Those companies selected their best animals—cows that produced the most milk, for example—for cloning. Cloned cows can even be

produced from a cow that has been slaughtered and cut into meat, provided that cells are extracted within 72 hours of the slaughtering process. Therefore, agricultural companies can, in theory, slaughter a cow, sample a piece of steak produced from that cow, and if they judge it to be tasty enough, quickly extract cells from the raw meat for cloning purposes.

Cloned cows and pigs (chickens have not yet been successfully cloned) are not themselves eaten—at a cost of more than $30,000 to produce, livestock clones are far too valuable to be made into meat. Cloned farm animals are used for breeding purposes. Any meat or milk is derived from the cloned animals' offspring, not from the clone itself.

In 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) imposed a temporary moratorium on the selling of meat and milk derived from cloned animals. FDA officials said they needed more time to study the possible risks of consuming food derived from a clone. It was not until December 2006 that the FDA released its official opinion on the matter. "Food from the sexually reproduced offspring of clones is as safe as food that we eat every day," the FDA announced. An FDA advisory panel of scientists and other experts found no "food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine or goats." Additionally, the FDA ruled that food products derived from the offspring of cloned animals do not have to be labeled as such.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Jerry Greenfield, the cofounder of ice-cream company Ben & Jerry's Homemade Holdings Inc., leads a protest at the U.S. Capitol building in February 2007. Greenfield was protesting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to classify meat and milk derived from cloned animals as safe for consumption.

It is not likely that U.S. consumers will see such food on their dinner tables any time soon. Animal cloning is expensive and still in its infancy; it must clear many technological hurdles before it can be considered an efficient way to produce food. However—as with many other issues surrounding cloning in general—there are many people who oppose the idea of eating cloned animals, including Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, Vt.), who filed an official protest with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the wake of the FDA's approval of food derived from cloned animals.

Human Cloning Sparks Debate

Human cloning has proven to be even more controversial than cloning animals. There are two types of proposed human cloning: reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. The former refers to the cloning of actual human beings—creating a newborn baby who has been cloned from human DNA, much like Dolly the sheep was cloned from sheep DNA. To date, that has never been done, although there have been a handful of reports in the media about fertility doctors experimenting with reproductive cloning technology. However, observers generally agree that

no reputable scientist in the world is actively trying to clone a human being.

Therapeutic cloning is a different matter entirely. In therapeutic cloning, as with reproductive cloning, the DNA- containing nucleus of a human cell is implanted into a human egg cell that has had its nucleus removed. However, that egg cell does not develop into a clone; instead, scientists halt the development of the resulting embryo. Cells known as "stem cells" are then extracted from the embryo and cultivated in a lab. The stem cells can, in theory, be coaxed into developing into any type of human organ. [See 2005 Stem-Cell Research]

Therapeutic cloning is seen by many scientists as a potential treatment for certain illnesses or injuries. For example, if a person has a diseased pancreas, researchers can, in theory, "clone" a new pancreas for the patient. Because the new pancreas has the same DNA as the patient, there is almost no risk of that person's body rejecting it, as there would be if the patient had received a pancreas from an organ donor. Such a scenario remains entirely speculative, however; therapeutic cloning has yet to yield a single positive result.

Additionally, ethical questions regarding therapeutic cloning abound. Many people oppose the practice for the same reason that they oppose stem-cell research; by extracting stem cells from embryos, researchers automatically destroy those embryos. Opponents argue that embryos are living things and should not be destroyed for the sake of science.

Bush has said that he personally opposes therapeutic cloning and most types of stem-cell research for precisely that reason. In January 2002, he created the President's Council on Bioethics, an advisory panel that is intended to educate both the public and government officials on the potential ethical dilemmas surrounding cloning, stem-cell research and other areas of biotechnology. At the time, Bush was criticized for allegedly stacking the council with like-minded thinkers.

However, the council has taken a less hard-line approach than Bush toward biotech research. In 2004, for example, the council suggested that further research on reproductive cloning be halted, but it did not take a stance on therapeutic cloning. Many observers interpreted that to mean that the council was tacitly approving future research in the field of therapeutic cloning.

As of September 2007, there are no legal bans on any form of cloning research. Bills attempting to ban further human cloning research have failed to clear Congress, due mainly to disputes among members of Congress over whether all types of cloning should be banned, or just reproductive cloning and not therapeutic cloning.

Although cloning remains legal in the U.S., federal funds cannot be allocated for human cloning experiments. Bush has said that he would veto any legislation that would lift that ban. "I worry about a world in which cloning would be acceptable," he says. Funding therefore must come from state governments—California has been a leader in the funding of cloning research, with $3 billion worth of funds promised over the next decade—or from other sources, such as private universities or wealthy individuals.

Many researchers say that the lack of federal support for cloning has allowed other countries to surpass the U.S. in the field of biotechnology. Great Britain, China and South Korea have all made significant advances in cloning, while in the U.S. research has lagged considerably, experts agree. Supporters of cloning say that more research must be done; the therapeutic benefits of cloning have immense potential, and the U.S. should be at the forefront of developing that technology. Opponents, meanwhile, maintain that the morality of cloning is far too muddled. Developing clones of human embryos is tantamount to playing God, they argue.

Supporters Argue: Cloning Research Should Be Funded

Even the most ardent supporters of cloning are quick to point out that there is little interest in cloning human beings. In 2006, Rudolf Jaenisch, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, said, "There has been no progress—none—the last six years in making [human reproductive] cloning more safe." He added that cloning human beings "is totally out of the question" for the foreseeable future.

However, defenders of cloning say that both therapeutic cloning and animal cloning can have enormous benefits for mankind as a whole. Therapeutic cloning might result in cures or treatments for previously untreatable diseases, while animal clonin—particularly livestock cloning—can benefit people by improving both the quality and quantity of global food, supporters say. They add that attempts to curb funding for such research—or worse, to ban such research entirely—are extremely ill-advised. Ian Wilmut, one of the researchers who created Dolly, says:

Learning how to do new things is something our species has been doing for millions of years, whether we're rearing better livestock or growing crops or building houses. The thing that human beings do is try to enhance the duration and quality of our lives, and that's what we're doing with cloning.

The lack of federal funding for cloning research in the U.S. has caused American researchers to fall behind a number of countries in the field of biotechnology, proponents say. That development puts the U.S. at a huge disadvantage both scientifically and economically, supporters maintain, which is why it is imperative for the U.S. to federally fund cloning research.

Many proponents of cloning argue that a proposed ban on cloning research would not only be disastrous from a scientific standpoint but might also be unconstitutional. Those supporters point to the First Amendment, which states that governments can restrict speech only if it can prove a "compelling interest" to do so—such as protecting the public or guarding national security. (In a 1977 meeting of the House Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, four legal scholars testified that scientific experimentation qualifies as protected speech.)

Moral objections to cloning, or to the destruction of embryos necessary to carry out cloning experiments, are themselves no reason to ban cloning, supporters maintain. "Unlike, say, an experiment that releases smallpox into the wind to study how it spreads, which could be banned, embryo research presents no readily apparent danger to public health or security," asserts Brian Alexander, a science writer.

Although many Americans are skeptical of food derived from cloned animals, supporters say that people have no reason to fear such food. Indeed, the FDA approved such food in 2006, proponents note. The offspring of cloned animals "appear to grow and develop normally," the FDA wrote in its report, adding that food derived from cloned animals is "virtually indistinguishable" from livestock produced using standard breeding methods.

Finally, supporters assert that many people who oppose cloning do so out of an irrational fear. The term "cloning" has a negative, science-fiction connotation, proponents maintain; many people base their negative feelings toward cloning on movies or television shows that depict clones as soulless and violent creatures. "Cloning, just the word itself, conjures up a lot of distasteful and unsettling images in people's minds," says Christopher Galen, a spokesperson for the National Milk Producers Federation, an organization representing dairy farmers. "The word 'cloning' plays on people's worst fears on the role of science and food production."

Critics of cloning "have had to capitalize on scare stories and the public's ambivalence about unfamiliar technologies" to build a case against cloning, writes Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that advocates free markets. But if more people were to learn about what cloning really is—and how it could benefit all of humankind—people's opinions would almost certainly be swayed in a more positive direction, proponents assert.

Opponents Argue: Cloning Research Should Not Be Funded

Critics call therapeutic cloning immoral because embryos are created and then destroyed in the process of developing stem cells for largely experimental purposes. "A decent society doesn't build the foundations of its biomedical science on the creation and destruction of human embryos," says William Hurlbut, an ethicist at Stanford University in California who is also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.

Jeremy Eagle

Many opponents of cloning are social conservatives who also oppose abortion on the grounds that all human life is sacred at every stage, from conception all the way up to death. Therefore, the destruction of a human embryo is a highly immoral act, tantamount to murder, opponents argue. Cloning research is the same as "treating a human being at his or her earliest stages as a mere tool," says Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, a professor of philosophy at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and another member of the President's Council on Bioethics. Gomez- Lobo also describes cloning research as "a violation of human dignity."

Additionally, critics note, polling data show that most Americans are uneasy with the concept of cloning—both of humans and animals—if not against it outright. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 86% of Americans would describe the cloning of humans as "morally wrong"; 59% said the same thing about animal cloning. Polling also shows that Americans do not approve of the idea of eating food derived from cloned animals. Sen. Leahy, in his letter to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, cites such data in arguing that the FDA should reconsider its approval of such food. "Clearly, consumers are not clamoring for this new food technology," writes Leahy.

Critics of animal cloning also argue that the cloning of livestock represents one more way in which big agricultural corporations are dominating the landscape of American farming. "Small farmers, already put at a disadvantage by mounting debt and mechanized competitors, will be further marginalized as cloning practices become commonplace," writes Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive officer of the Humane Society of the United States, an animal-rights group. "More than ever, they'll be at the mercy of corporate factory farms to purchase their supply of clones." Consumer groups allege that the FDA's stamp of approval of food from cloned livestock is proof that the federal government is putting the interests of big agriculture ahead of public health.

Animal-rights groups, meanwhile, oppose animal cloning largely on the basis that the technology for cloning is

unproven. The success rate for carrying cloned embryos to term is extremely low, critics point out, and those animals that do get born have proven to be defective in one way or another. "The animals being cloned exhibit grievous problems, such as cows with grossly enlarged udders, major leg problems and other forms of lameness," Pacelle writes. "And these are the very animals trumpeted as success stories."

Funding further cloning research would be a poor way to allocate federal funds, opponents argue, because cloning itself is simply unnecessary. First off, they argue, animal cloning is unnecessary because farmers already produce more meat and milk than they can sell. Cloning animals simply to breed them and then sell food derived from their offspring is a colossal waste of time, money and other resources, opponents say.

Therapeutic cloning also should not be federally funded at any point in the near future, critics maintain. Indeed, many opponents of cloning say that the term "therapeutic cloning" itself is misleading, since no one has yet been cured of anything that way. "[T]he mainstream Western media all routinely refer to human cloning for research purposes as 'therapeutic cloning,' and blithely suggest that 'lifesaving cures' are around the corner if only we will accept and support this project," writes Richard Doerflinger, the deputy director of pro-life activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In fact, opponents say, therapeutic cloning to date has little or nothing to show in the way of results.

Will Cloning Ever Affect Everyday Life?

Despite the controversy surrounding cloning, the technology behind it remains relatively primitive. The vast majority of animal-cloning experiments result in clones that do not make it past the embryonic stage, and cloned animals that do get born often, but not always, have some type of defect. Indeed, in July 2007, a team of British scientists said that animal cloning will never occur on a large scale: It is too impractical and expensive, and only has "niche applications," the researchers stated.

Meanwhile, the benefits typically ascribed to therapeutic cloning remain strictly theoretical, as no scientist has successfully harvested stem cells from a cloned human embryo. In early 2004, researchers from South Korea announced that they had finally accomplished just that, publishing their findings in both Science and Naturemagazines. South Korea was touted as a prime example of the benefits to be accrued to countries providing government funding to cloning researchers; the lead scientist on the project was even glorified on a postage stamp.

However, in January 2006, the researchers were forced to admit that their data had been fabricated and that they had never produced cloned human embryos after all. Discouraged researchers had to go back to square one. However, many cloning supporters say that in the wake of the South Korea controversy, they remain more determined than ever to prove the medical and social benefits of cloning. Opponents, however, say they are just as determined to convince the public that cloning is immoral.

Bibliography

Alexander, Brian. "Free to Clone." New York Times, September 26, 2004, www.nytimes.com.

Boyce, Nell. "The Clone Is Out of the Bottle." U.S. News & World Report, February 23, 2004, 40.

"British Scientists Propose Human-Animal Hybrid Cloning." FOXNews.com, March 27, 2007, www.foxnews.com.

Doerflinger, Richard. "Cloning Chaos." National Review Online, December 13, 2005, www.nationalreview.com.

Glauber, Bill. "Emotions, Science Collide in Cloning." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 18, 2007, www.jsonline.com.

Kahn, Michael. "Large Scale Animal Cloning Unlikely: Scientists." Reuters, July 10, 2007, www.reuters.com. Lamb, Gregory. "How Cloning Stacks Up." Christian Science Monitor, July 13, 2006, www.csmonitor.com.

Lynch, Colum. "U.N. Backs Cloning Ban." Washington Post, March 9, 2005, A15.

Montgomery, Rick. "Cloned Beef Vs. the 'Yuck Factor.'" Kansas City Star, January 21, 2007, www.kansascity.com.

Pacelle, Wayne. "Is Animal Cloning Ethical?" SFGate.com, January 21, 2005, www.sfgate.com.

Park, Alice. "The Perils of Cloning." Time, July 10, 2006, 56.

Saletan, William. "Cloned Bull." Slate, January 6, 2007, www.slate.com.

"Stem Cell Research: S. Korean Scientist's Research Discredited." Facts On File World News Digest, December 31, 2005, p. 924.

Additional Sources

Additional information about cloning can be found in the following sources:

Fukuyama, Francis. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York City:

Picador, 2002.

Harris, John. On Cloning. New York City: Routledge, 2004.

Contact Information

Information on how to contact organizations that are either mentioned in the discussion of cloning or can provide additional information on the subject is listed below:

Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission 901 Commerce St.

Suite 550

Nashville, Tenn. 37203

Telephone: (615) 244-2495 Internet: www.erlc.com

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 10903 New Hampshire Ave.

Silver Spring, Md. 20993

Telephone: (888) 463-6332

Internet: www.fda.gov

New York Stem Cell Foundation 3690 Broadway Ave.

New York, NY 10032 Telephone: (212) 927-1801 Internet: www.nyscf.org

For further information about the ongoing debate over cloning, search for the following words and terms in electronic databases and other publications:

Therapeutic cloning

President's Council on Bioethics Dolly (sheep)

Livestock cloning

Hwang Woo Suk

Citation Information

"Cloning: Should The United States Allow Federal Funding for Cloning Experiments?" Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 21 Sept. 2007, icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=2649. Accessed 24 Sept. 2021.

Copyright © 2021 Infobase. All Rights Reserved.

Página 2