h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The following is Professor Elizabeth Price Foley's conclusion to her report 'THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF HUMAN CLONING'. The full report can be found at http://www.law.arizona.edu/journals/lawreview/lawreview/articles/foley_final.htm#_ftn1

"If our Constitution does, in fact, give us the right to procreate by cloning, should we be afraid? Should we begin mobilizing politically in an attempt to pass a constitutional amendment via the procedures of Article V to ban human cloning? The answer should be “no,” for several reasons.

First, the science fiction abuses associated with human cloning are unlikely to occur under current law, both statutory and constitutional. The current legal construct provides us with both the fundamental freedom to procreate as well as corresponding protections for the products of our procreation, our children, regardless of how they are conceived. Current law, in short, does not recognize genetic classification of human beings; if one is human, then one is entitled to all the legal rights enjoyed by other humans.

Second, the primary objections to human cloning appear to be unfounded, based more on morality, theology, and fear than objective data. Such subjective notions should not provide the sort of important or compelling interest sufficient to justify infringement of constitutional rights. Finally, even assuming that banning human cloning would serve one or more important or compelling governmental interests, such a law may nonetheless be unconstitutional because there are numerous, more narrowly tailored means—short of a total prohibition—by which to effectuate such ends.

Banning human cloning sends the regrettable message that politics and public pressure triumph over logic and the law. If citizens and lawmakers can just remember that clones are people, too, we can face this brave new world, confident that our laws are adequate to carry us all, safely, into the twenty-first century."

Discuss.

Up to date reading can be found at http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cloning/ for anyone interested.

It's a fascinating topic. Nice one Flake

I'm not sure whether I could add more that what Prof Foley said. It's very interesting that she argues that no new laws are needed to control human cloning.

The current political fervour dous seem to be more to do with public pressure, reacting emotively to a 'nightmare-scenario' as envisioned by the media and science-fiction. Politicians can't be seen to be doing nothing about such a potentially catastrophic technology could they? It is currently doing more damage than good, with the draconian restrictions placed upon science by the US government.

But what *is* so dangerous about human reproductive cloning (as opposed to cloning for research or therapy)?

Can a ban therapeutic and research cloning justified? Is it ethical to create an embryo to *use*?

Ste

"Is it ethical to create an embryo to *use*?"

I'm no expert, I simply picked this topic because it seems to be highly emotive to people. But aren't embryos essential in getting stem cells? If so, then I think it will happen more and more, regardless of ethics. This is my opinion on most things with questionable ethics when scientific advancement is involved. I would be glad to see paralysed people walking again through research done on stem cells (its already been achieved in a rat, I believe) but only because I would know that it was going to happen regardless of the controversy surrounding it. I'm happier in the knowledge that there was nothing I could have done to stop it in the long run. Maybe this makes me a coward? But I don't really care.

I think at the moment stem cells are harvested from aborted embryos; i.e., embryos that would have been destroyed anyway. There is no intent to create them to use them right now. But there could be in the future.

There also might be an alternative source of stem cells by reversing the permanent differentiation of a cell and returning it to it's youth. There has been limited success with this technique, but they're trying to improve it. This is seen as a preferable method as it side-steps the moral issues.

Though to a quadraplegic all this ethical hand-wringing must be infuriating, and seem like miles out of step with practical reality.

Ste

Personally, I see the benefits of this research as massive - imagine losing and eye in an accident and then having a new one grown for you.

This may seem like a silly question, but once we can grow individual organs from stem cells, could we, in theory, live forever? A bad heart could be replaced, a new set of lungs perhaps or even livers. I suppose the brain would be the hard one.

I don't have a problem with human cloning. For a start, the classic "abuses" cannot happen (ie a serial-killer cannot clone another, grown-up, version of themselves). In Arthur C Clarkes "Imperial Earth" (a dull book, incidentally, but let me get to my point ) cloning is used simply to reproduce by those who cannot naturally and, at the end of the day, this is it's only practical purpose.

And, being an agnostic humanist, I personally can't really regard the opinions of a God and whether he/she/it thinks a clone is truly human.

Can you really have a debate when everyone is in agreement?

Throughout history, whenever new things come around, there are always people who resist them, with apocalyptic visions of what will come, and they're proved wrong over time when the new thing is implemented despite them. I think cloning will prove to be no different.

A few regulations on cloning should keep scientists from running amok and playing god... creating a few clones and sending them out to live in different environments to study the relationship between genetics and environment in forming a personality, for instance.

My view is that there is no reason to ban human cloning.

Also, I consider it perfectly ethical to create embryos to use--my general opinion on embryos and fetuses is that they are not individuals of any sort until they can function on their own and not humans, deserving of human rights, until birth.

If you want more explanation, let me know.

Ah, embryos that have rights or don't...a tricky subject. but onto cloning....


Cloning itself is not a bad thing. I see the biggest problem with human cloning is the rights of a cloned person, should they ever exist. What should they be treated like? An experiment, or just another human being? Just a thought. And then the social implications; What kind of reaction would there be in the religious community if a human was cloned successfully? How would an achievement like this affect the rest of the world?

Why should the rights of a clone be any different from those of a non-cloned person?

Of course, religious groups would probably decry it as unnatural, but if we only did things that didn't offend any religious groups, we wouldn't have any forms of birth control, we wouldn't do any science, and we'd sit around discussing how the Earth is flat and 600 years old.

Ethics is not necessarily tied in with religion. It is to do with morality (some fundamentalists inexorably link religion and morality, but they're wrong). A lack of religion does not free us to do whatever we want in science.

Is it right to create an embryo to *use* for stem cells? If you think 'yes' then ask yourself if it would be preferable to create stem cells from adult cells (it is becoming more possible to do this) and why?

I personally think it's a necessary evil, for now. I think human life needs more respect that to use human embryos in such a manner. I accept their use though, for the same reason. The respect for human life should be extended to the ones that are suffering debilitating diseases which may be cured with the use of stem cells. As soon as this uncomfortable situation can be resolved with the use of converted adult stem cells the better.


Ste

My point about religion was a responce to "What kind of reaction would there be in the religious community if a human was cloned successfully?", not a discussion of the morality of cloning or anthing else. I merey meant that the fact religious groups don't like something isn't enough reason to not do it.

That doesn't mean there aren't moral issues involved.

I say its OK to make an embrio to use for stem cells, because I don't think an embrio, less than a month or tewo old, can rweally be seen as an individual independant from the mother.

Although not a biologist, my personal guess is that adult stem cells aren't enough for everything, and some embrionic ones are needed. I personally have no moral qualms with creating an embrio for *any* reason, if it is to be used within two months of conception.

'I merey meant that the fact religious groups don't like something isn't enough reason to not do it.'

Fair enough.


Just say that 'coverted' adult stem cells were as good as the real thing; embryonic stem cells (they're not, yet). Which would be preferable, and why?

Ste

I suspect it depends on the situation. Adult stem cells from the intended recipient of the tissue produced from them would have the advantage that you wouldn't have to worry about tissue being rejected (this would only be true for embrionic ones if they were cloned from the recipient).

However, embionic stem cells might be concievably be made in large enough variety that a hospital could have pregrown organs for enough genomes/bloodtypes that say they could, say, have a heart on hand for an emergency heart transplant without waiting for a new one to be grown from sctratch.

My guess is that different situations would call for different solutions--some would be best witrh adult cells and some with embrionic ones.

An organ factory? Eerie...

Yeah, wouldn't want to work in one of those. The current way in which organs are harvested from recently dead people and sewn into barely living people (who'll have to take immunosuppressive drugs for the rest of their lives) isn't all that pleasant either.



Ok, I'll put it another way

All things being equal, which is preferable: The use of converted adult stem cells, or embryonic stem cells?



Ste

Well, *all* things being equal, they would obviously be the same.

Now that I've finished my obligatory pedantical statement, here's my opinion:

Embrionic has the advantage you don't need sugery on an already sick patient to produce them.

I have no moral problem with embionic stem cells in any case, since as I havfe said before, I don't think a embrio before the cells differentiate has *any rights whatsoever*, not even those we generally acord to all vertabrates (I'll explain why if you want).

If there's no practical difference, then there is no difference that I can see, in this case.

About organ factories, I don't see any particular reason that I wouldn't want to work in one. Certaintly beats cutting them out of corpses, in my opinion. And it avoids organlegging.

Are there some such things as adult stem cells? By the time an individual reaches adulthood many of his or her cells are differentiatied into various tissues. There are a few cells which can still differentiate, such as erythrocyte stem cells to produce red blood cells (these are the cells needed in bone marrow transplants, for example) and crypt epithelial cells to produce intestinal cells. However, these cells are to replace existing worn-out cells of related tissues. To produce a new set of tissues or organs requires far less mature cells, preferably embyrionic as they potentially have the capability to differentiate into almost any cell. One area of research is focussed on the use of stem cells in nerve tissue regeneration to treat Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. This is not possible with adult stem cells.