Cloning Editorial

[Steven Edwards]

Here is an editorial that I am writing. I tried using a different approach for defining cloning in the second and third paragraphs, particularly the third. How does it sound to you? Are there any egregious errors or omissions?

-----------------------------------------

Cloning

Cloning is a word that instills a sense of fear in many people. Say it aloud: Cloning. Is it a way to manufacture custom-made babies? A way to prolong your life? Or is cloning a way for scientists to make copies of cells to use for research?

Cloning is both. The former examples are forms of Reproductive Cloning -- cloning with the aim of making a human being -- which should almost certainly be banned. The latter example, however, is called Therapeutic Cloning and holds the promise of curing many diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and so many more.

Therapeutic Cloning has a more proper name: Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT). This method involves taking an unfertilized egg cell, removing its nucleus, transplanting the nucleus of an adult cell, and stimulating it to start dividing. After five or six days of controlled cell division in a petri dish, stem cells can be removed. These stem cells can then be prompted to divide into a diverse group of cells: nerve cells for neurological conditions, heart cells for coronary conditions, even insulin producing cells for diabetes.

Two bills currently exist in Congress to put restraints on cloning. The first bill, sponsored by Senator Feinstein of California (S.1758), seeks to ban Reproductive Cloning while allowing the potentially life saving medical research that Therapeutic Cloning provides. The second bill, sponsored by Senator Brownback of Kansas (S.1899), will ban all forms of cloning, effectively slamming the door shut on many avenues of research.

The National Academy of Sciences supports banning Reproductive Cloning while allowing Therapeutic Cloning. A National Advisory Panel on Bioethical Issues supports the same. The majority of doctors and researchers support the same, as do over half of Americans, as a USA Today poll from November 28th of last year shows.

Let your voice be heard as well. Contact the offices of Senators Thurmond and Hollings and let them know that you support Senator Feinstein's bill (S.1758) which allows Therapeutic Cloning for research purposes.

Senator Thurmond
(843) 727-4282

Senator Hollings
(800) 922-8503

-Steven

[rbyrd49100]

Brief, to the point, and even I can understand the concept:)

thanks

Russ Byrd

[marmalady]

Way to go, Steve!

And it's short enough that Strom should be able to read it through to the end! http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

_____________
Tough times don't last - tough people do.

[Wise Young]

Steven, great explanation. Some details... that may not be important:
1. the National Academy of Sciences proposed a temporary ban on reproductive cloning, suggesting a review in five years.
2. Britain has passed legislation to allow the creation of cloned stem cells while banning reproductive cloning by forbidding the transplantation of unfertilized eggs into any human uterus.

Wise.

[htacoma]

Steven,

I like your editorial. I don't agree with your introduction and I hope that my comments don't take us too far apart from the issue at hand.

Originally posted by Steven Edwards:

Cloning is a word that instills a sense of fear in many people. Say it aloud: Cloning. Is it a way to manufacture custom-made babies? A way to prolong your life? Or is cloning a way for scientists to make copies of cells to use for research?

Cloning is both. The former examples are forms of Reproductive Cloning -- cloning with the aim of making a human being -- which should almost certainly be banned.

...snip...


Lately I have been following this debate and even exchanged correspondence with the Minister of Health, Allan Rock, here in Canada -- I support the unrestricted form of cloning.

I find that we are looking at this issue from a narrow point of view, call it Cartesian, mechanistic or the like. This prevents us from applying new tools at our disposal such Systems Theory / Thinking that take a more organic approach.

Somehow "ethics" seems to be creeping up all the time. Over fifteen (15) years ago when I was still teaching Knowledge Based Systems (a subset of Artificial Intelligence) I was involved in the "ethical" issues associated.
Questions arose from "does a machine have common sense? to which I replied -- as much as any human that puts their cat in the microwave to dry it after a bath!" to "in the event that we *can* in fact produce a thinking machine, would it have rights, as we humans do?"

The latter question is the one that really brings the issue of "ethics" at the forefront and where I find a parallel to the cloning issue.

Even though we have had television science fiction programs such as "Startrek" that have touched on this issue by virtue of determining if "Data" was a sentient being, it is perhaps more important to look at the recent past and unfortunately none of the people I mention are still alive -- I would have really liked to hear their point of view.

Alan Turing and Ludwig Wittgenstein were at opposite sides of the issue: Can a machine think?
This is a debate that is over fifty (50) years old that even got John Bourdon Sanderson Haldane, a geneticist involved in the issue.
Erwin Schrödinger, although famous for his Nobel prize work in quantum mechanics, also dabbled in what is today known as molecular biology when back in 1944 he presented his lecture series "What is Life?" at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Dublin.

In my opinion I would recommend that you review your editorial taking a "systems" approach to the issue and explore what additional effects cloning could have on our future. From the point of view of not just "looking for a cure" but rather to why not consider the need for humans with different genetic characteristics for space colonization.

I say this because so many models currently in use are absurd, i.e. (I will only show one (1)), the concept of having a car in every garage -- if this was applied in China the daily requirements for oil would be about 80 million barrels per day, which is more than the current production.

Cheers!

~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~

[Sue Pendleton]

Han, while I like the idea of arguing this all out even just as a way to keep the old brain out of neutral, we have to aim our editorials at what the "common man" wants to know and can readily understand in very few words. They understand their sister with breast cancer. They want to know why we would spend money to clone people to live on Mars and with a different atmosphere acceptance genetically modified into their DNA. And since we blew the last 2 Mars probes I'd be with them on asking why we want to spend real money on what is, for now, an unreal problem.

[Sue Pendleton]

Posted on Sun, Mar. 03, 2002

Therapeutic cloning is a matter of life and death

Cindy Aman of Eureka is the mother of Sam, 7, and Alex, 4.

The word "cloning" has been in the news quite a bit recently. It scares a lot of people, but the word means "hope" to me, because I have two sons with juvenile diabetes.

When my youngest, 4-year-old Alex learned he had the disease, he told us he wanted to find out where God lives so he could tell Him that he didn't want to be a diabetic.

Alex knows what his 7-year-old brother Sam has had to go through for almost six years. Now both boys have to take a shot of insulin first thing in the morning. Several times a day, each has to have his blood sugar level tested with finger sticks, and both will need to take at least one or two more insulin shots before bed - and possibly while they lie sleeping.

It's a routine our children must follow to stay alive, and one they will have to keep up for the rest of their lives, because there is no cure. They and other people with diabetes are also at risk for kidney failure, blindness, circulatory failure, the early loss of limbs, and shorter life expectancy.

As you can imagine, hope is very important to my family, and recently we've had a lot of it.

Almost every leading expert believes breakthroughs in stem cell research could lead to new treatments and even to the cure our family is looking for. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate is about to take up a bill that could shut the door to some of that research's promising pathways, dashing the hopes of my sons and millions of other people who suffer from life-threatening medical conditions.

The issue is cloning; that word that makes a lot of people nervous. And I certainly understand why.

Thanks to sensational news stories about copying cats or even human beings, when most people hear "cloning," the first thing they think of is reproductive cloning - duplicating babies. I'm opposed to that, as are almost all Americans.

But the fact is there are many kinds of cloning. The one I care about - therapeutic cloning - is a symbol of hope for my boys. In therapeutic cloning (or somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, SCNT, as scientists call it), scientist remove the nucleus of an egg cell, and replace it with material from the nucleus of a "somatic cell" (a skin, heart, nerve or any other non-germ cell). Then they stimulate this cell to begin dividing.

What people may not realize is that this clump of dividing cells never leaves the lab. It is never transplanted into a womb. That means the egg never even begins to develop into a human being. Instead, the egg cells stored in a petri dish can become a source of stem cells that can be used to treat life-threatening medical conditions.

SCNT gives hope to my family because juvenile diabetes, along with a lot of other incurable diseases and conditions, is caused by damage to cells and tissue. The cells that make insulin in my sons' bodies have been destroyed. SCNT could allow a patient's own genetic material to be used to develop advanced stem cell therapies. These might include developing replacements for the dead insulin cells that could be transplanted to people with diabetes.

But scientists may never get the chance to explore the promise of SCNT. In the next few weeks, the U.S. Senate takes up legislation that would outlaw all forms of cloning, including SCNT. This legislation would make researchers and doctors criminals and even prohibit people from importing successful diabetes therapies developed in other countries, if they are derived from SCNT.

When they vote, I hope our senators pay attention to what the nation's leading medical researchers are saying. Last month, a prestigious committee of the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found that cloning to reproduce humans is currently unsafe and should be illegal.

However, the committee also found that SCNT has "considerably potential" and should be permitted. In fact, SCNT could bring new hope to the nearly 100 million Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, various cancers, and even paralysis resulting from spinal cord injury.

It hasn't been easy to get a fair hearing for SCNT. You are much more likely to hear about a cloned cat than about how therapeutic cloning could help kids like ours. I just hope our senators can step back from the sensational stories and heated rhetoric and listen to the people who know therapeutic cloning really is a matter of life and death.

I urge them not to close the laboratory door on my boys.