Ethical dilemmas of human cloning/stem cell research
 

President Bush considers human cloning completely unethical, perhaps even evil. However, he believes stem cell research on previously destroyed embryos is ethical because that research does not destroy any human life. This seems to be a fairly common position, although it is a minority among the American public in general, most of whom see no ethical problem of stem cell research on blastocysts (very early human embryos, basically a little microscopic clump of undifferentiated cells).

The most efficient way to create a blastocyst, to be used for stem cells, is by human cloning. You replace the nucleus of an egg cell with the nucleus of a somatic cell, and induce it to divide, and you have a blastocyst. A Korean lab recently figured out how to do this. This is human cloning: if you implant that blastocyst in someone's womb, it will grow into a healthy baby.

Here's the dilemma: if cloning is unethical, then presumably it is unethical to implant this cloned blastocyst into a womb. It would then develop into a cloned baby, genetically identical to the donor of the DNA. (The Korean lab says it will never do this.) But if destroying an embryo is unethical, then it is also unethical not to implant this blastocyst into a womb, because if you don't implant it, it will never develop into a baby and will eventually die.

So here's the question: let's assume that a cloned blastocyst exists. Now that we have it, what should we do with it?

If you have a cloned blastocyst, then there are three things that you could do with it: just destroy it (therefore destroy a human embryo); implant it (therefore allow human cloning); or harvest stem cells from it while destroying it.

Which would you prefer? I'm especially interested in answers from folks who are opposed to stem cell research on ethical grounds. This is of topical interest, because cloned blastocysts will very soon be common and in demand by every lab doing stem cell research.

I don't think many will be able to understand the subtleties of the argument. What is the difference between a blastocyst, a zygote, an embryo and a foetus, for example?

I think one of the conundrums here is differentiating between human life and potential for human life. I believe the Catholic church is one of the few organizations (or movements etc) that has, at least, a consistent approach to this. If we were to argue against unnaturally terminating or preventing the develoment of a human life, then we should also oppose artificial birth control. Bush and his supporters, and I presume the majority of anti-cloning advocates in the US, do not oppose birth control, but at least the Catholic church does.

Now, personally, I don't subscribe to the Bush position or the Catholic position (though I was raised a Catholic and generally follow its moral teachins, if not its dogma). I support stem cell research, and the cloning of blastocysts if necessary. It may seem harsh, but I honestly don't imbue equal value into a two to three cell collection of human tissue as I do to a fully formed conscious human being.

Mr Mephisto

Sperm and egg combine to produce a zygote, which is a single cell. That zygote divides, forming early on a blastocyst, which has about 150 cells. The blastocyst then moves to the endometrium, where it is implanted, about a week after fertilization.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/.../eggtravel.jpg

An embryo is the organism from zygote to age two months. A fetus is the organism from two months to birth.

Cloning a blastocyst bypasses the stages of fertilization, conception, and zygote. Technically no zygote is produced.

The Bush administration has yet to take a position on this question, as far as I know.

I am open to being wrong here, but I would think it best to harvest and destroy it. As it has been artificially produced and not yet a 'natural' embryo, to implant it and allow cloning would be something like playing God.

Ethically, I am unsure as to where exactly I stand. I can see the benefits of the research, but I am extremely wary of it's implications also.

It is actually a huge issue that I have not put a lot of thought into, although I am aware it's happening.

Heh, sorry. It was a rhetorical question, by way of showing how complex even the taxonomy is. But your explanation may help others understand better.

:)

I thought it had. No destruction or cloning of human life.

Mr Mephisto

If cloning is evil then wouldn't twins be evil?

If the death of cells that can make human life is evil then wouldn't menstruation, nocturnal emission, or miscarriage be evil?

No, because cloning is artificial creation of life. The argument goes that cloning is "unnatural" as it is Man creating life, which is deemed to be the right only of God. At least that's the simplistic description of the religious objection.

Once again, all these are natural, whilst human cloning is not.


Mr Mephisto

It's a difficult question. Oh, Raveneye, thanks for the pic, it really helps.

I don't know Meph, it seems the more we discuss this, the more confused I get. When I look at the picture with the accompanying text, it seems reasonable to think that "life" wouldn't "appear until a month or two when the embryo has developed into a fetus. For some people, it's not a life until it leaves the mother. For others it's a life the moment Mr. Spermy "hooks up" with Miss Eggy.

What then, would the requirement for life be? A heart beat? Someone mentioned conciousness. What about sentience? For me, I have no recollection of anything until age 6. Anything before that, I have zero memory of. There are some people (adults mind you) that I swear aren't "really there".

I don't know man, I need to think about it some more, and learn more about what cloniong, stem-cell etc really entail.

No matter what, I think having more information and learning more about the topic will lead to a more informed opinion.

Mephisto, what would the position be on artificial insemination, or fertility drugs to help women conceive a child? How about storing a man's sperm for use at a later date? Medicine has been responsible for creating life in a "unnatural" manner for quite a while, with organ transplants and vaccinations - why is it that this medical breakthrough is playing God in any greater way?

Well, I can't speak for those who believe human cloning is "evil" (though I hate that term). As I've said earlier, and in other threads, I support the use of cloned stem cells for medical research, so I'm not one of those who are ethically opposed to it.

Things get a lot more complex when we begin discussing concepts such as human cloning, with a view to developing a fully functioning foetus or (heaven forbid) living person. This is something I'm not too sure of myself.

I'm not 100% sure of Bush's position on IVF. I know that most countries ban the use of "stored sperm" for reproduction without the written consent of the donor.

Finally, some religious groups oppose all such "artificial" acts, including organ transplants and even blood transfusions. I guess it's all a matter of degrees.


Mr Mephisto

A classmate of mine in elementary school nearly died from a simple infection because his mother was a Christian Scientist, who see all medical care as a lack of faith in God. I guess this formed my ideas early on as to problems with faith vs. science.

My point with IVF, etc. is that the nature of science changes every day, and as a rule, faith stays constant. There obviously needs to be a standard of ethics that guides scientific development, I just don't know that religious doctrine can stay relevant as the final word in what is going on in laboratories these days.

Oh - and I say harvest the stem-cells off of the blastocysts and destroy them. Cloning creeps me out.

I agree that it's a bigger issue than most people are aware. Human cloning used to be a science fiction fantasy; now it's actually happening, although very quietly. In a year or so my guess is that we'll be seeing pictures of cloned babies genetically identical to their parents, and in a few years pictures of toddlers juxtaposed to pictures of their parent at the same age . . . . the debate will really start to heat up then: are these parents pioneers or pariahs?

It's ironic that it turns out that cloning can very efficiently produce stem cells. People's support of stem cell research is now pretty much inseparable from support of cloning (at least to the blastocyst stage).

That's close to Bush's official position, but actually there is nothing illegal about this research. The official U.S. policy is that any research that requires the destruction of human embryos is not supported by federal funds. But Bush has done a little two-step around this rule: he says that if the embryo was "previously destroyed" then the government can fund research on that embryo. If the embryo is not previously destroyed, then it's off limits for federal funding if research kills it.

So that begs the question: if you have a cloned embryo, what to do with it? It's not destroyed, so you can't use it for stem cells because that would kill it (according to Bush). The only alternative then would be to implant it, but then you'd have a cloned baby.

As I said, these embryos (blastocysts) are just going to get easier and easier to create.

Personally, I would harvest the available stem cells. I don't agree with the notion that all human life and the potential for development thereof is sacred and must be salvaged/aided if at all possible. If it is to society's advantage to "sacrifice" a human embryo for the purpose of medical advances (quite substantial ones), then I'm all for it.

I find it odd that the same church that brought about the crusades is against stem cell research... it's okay to kill real live human infidels to get the Word of God across, but it's not acceptable to kill life-potential cells for the betterment of mankind... and who's playing God again? *sigh*

So because we had the crusades several hundred years ago....

The church can't talk about cloning?

Also I'd have to add that Christian does not equal Catholic. I'm sure you can find a great many Christians, who have had nothing to do with religious wars who are against stem cell/cloining research.

the problem with Bush & Co's arguments against stem cell research is that their logic is nonexistant.

They say "we dont' want you destroying embryos in order to do research, so we're making it illegal."

But then they don't say "we don't want you creating dozens of embryos, picking one to implant in a woman, and destroying the rest, so we're making fertility clinics illegal."

Fertility clinics destroy scores of embryos for every one they implant in a womb. Why is this not considered evil?

Either destroying embryos is wrong or it is not. If it's wrong, then it's just as wrong for fertility clinics to do it as it is for scientific research to do it.

If fertility clinics are not immoral, then neither is stem cell research.

a) Christians are born of the Catholic doctrine. While not all Christians are Catholics, they all have their roots in the same bible. If the bible says it, it should be true for all... if it does not, true for none. While that last part has nothing to do with this article, it just further's my case that organized religion is far too apt to change it's views to be an important part of making a decision that affects life everywhere on our planet.

b) Your argument does not actually counter mine. My argument is simply that there is a large amount of hypocrisy in the Church. There are probably some people that are for stem cell research that are against war... there are probably some people that can ACTUALLY hold their breath until they turn blue. Some people don't make a difference... MOST people do.

Natural is a subjective word. In my opinion everything is natural (everything comes from nature, this universe).

It's ironic for those that argue that we are playing god by cloning, by the very suggestion that we as humans can play god is blasphemous. Think about how arrogant that is to assume we can be god even if only in one aspect.

Basically all we do is move cells around with machines and devices. We are not providing that mystical spark of life, we are only allowing it to take place in a different way.

i would have to say im for the cloning of blastocysts/ using it while destroying it.
if stem cells are truly as good as scientists have said, it would be a huge leap forward in medical advancement and something that should be looked at intensely
and the idea of cloning a human fascinates me personally.

I'm not sure if you were referring to my post directly, but as I used the word natural, and I termed 'playing God' I want to address this. I could probably do with some more discussion on this issue.

My term of natural was used in relation to blastocysts/embryos being engineered as opposed to conception. I can agree also with your opinion of 'natural', yes it does all come from the natural world or universe.

When I talked about playing God I was coming from the perspective of cloning.. engineering new people with pre-determined aspects and traits. Creation of a super-race, decisions about 'what' we can actually bring into the world. I am short of another term for this... genetic engineers?
I also wonder if we at least know enough about how we work ourselves, let alone try to engineer us? Perhaps that is the worry induced by movies etc? I'm really not sure.

Yes, I do agree that moving cells around and allowing it to happen in a different way is just as valid, but what then? It's happened in a different way, does that mean we should do our best or ensure that every one we create we should implant it because it's human and therefore precious? Or is this created life not as precious as a more 'usual' one? Or is life just life?, should we not be so concerned with the outcome no matter how it came to be?

I am still unsure where I stand ethically...

Don't worry Seeker we won't fall off the horizon.

Shakran, wow I never knew that. Thanks for the good info.

I'm just going to pass along my favorite slogan relating to the issue of stem cell research...

"George Bush Killed Superman."