Thank you and goodbye

Can I just say firstly that I haven't been accused of phone hacking as the title suggests....this is my final blog on the issue of human cloning.

My journey of discovery of the ethics of human cloning has been a fascinating one. I have explored the many issues around human cloning ethics, looked at the weird and the wonderful parts of the debate, I've travelled the world and seen the ewe that sparked the debate and I have also looked at the laws and what is required.

What I have discovered myself is that yes, we do need an international law on reproductive cloning, but we should allow stem cell research to progress, because it promises so much for our future health and wellbeing.  Stem cell research is poorly understood by our community. I have met many people with incurable disease who feel that stem cell research is a beacon of hope for them. At the same time, I realise that whilst there have been significant developments in stem cell therapies, (one of which I showed in my second blog "Amazing footage look at what stem cells can do"), I also realise that some cures may be a long way off.

Today, is Stem Cell Awareness Day, and if you are in Melbourne, there is a host of activities taking place in Federation Square. The event is being organised by the Australian Stem Cell Centre and information is available on their Facebook page. Unfortunately this is the only event taking place in Australia today. It could not be timed better, just yesterday, scientists in New York have discovered that they have been able to program somatic cells to a pluripotent state to read it, see my link to Nature. Or if you have trouble with all the techniterms, try this article from the BBC which was kindly donated to me ;). This expands on the work of Woo Suk Hwang which was discussed in my blog on 17 September.

Now in terms of reproductive cloning, I don't think that governance will be in effect before the development of the first ever human clone. The fact that this issue has been widely debated for a number of years is evidence that there is great concern about its implications. And, although the law making process seems to me to be lengthy and frustrating, there is at least action being taken. 

As the old adage says:


"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"


I hope that in the future that the laws and systems do reflect the intent and action on this issue or else I might need to keep blogging on the life of the first human clone!

So, thank you and goodbye.

Revisiting international law- are there any options?

I've just created this link to the UNESCO Final Draft on Human Cloning and International Governance so that you can read the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee on human cloning. It's an interesting read. There are four main recommendations:

1. Further debate is needed on the implications of new technologies ( why am I surprised, the debate has   been going on for almost 15 years)
2. Terminology- refer to cloning only when it is used for reproduction, not for research or therapies.
3. Governance- there should be a convention or moratorium on reproductive cloning.
4. Control of dissemination of information.

When I first looked at the law (back in August), there was still some debate about a total ban on all forms of cloning and the scientific community did not want this, because it limited research opportunities. That scientists were involved in the conflict demonstrates the power that the scientific community has in relation to laws on these issues. It's interesting (and slightly unrelated), this morning I saw an interview with Australia's Nobel Prize winning scientist Brian Schmidt and have linked the article in his name, where he says he thinks that "science should inform public policy" (he was talking about climate change, but I think it is relevant here).  He also said that [science] "is not the only input". So in the human cloning debate, whilst there has been time to analyse the science and distinguish reproductive cloning from other forms, perhaps it is time now for scientists to step back from the argument??? However, now it has been recognised that an international convention is needed, how long will it be before this comes into effect?

Do we believe it can be done? Should it be done?

According to UNESCO, who have been meeting every year on the issue of cloning scientists now have a number of cloning techniques at their disposal. Since 1997, techniques have improved for the cloning of larger mammals. Over the course of the last few months, I have been exploring the ethics of human cloning, the scientists who are involved . The evidence I have found makes me believe that it is possible, albeit harmful to individuals (mothers in particular) to clone humans for reproductive purposes. 

So now the question is, should it be done?

I found the following article about researchers in Japan, being able to grow viable sperm in a test tube dish.  I had heard that there was some significant finding about when I was oversease, but hadn't explored it thoroughly (I was too busy visiting Dolly the sheep! So to find the information I had to type JAPAN, MICE, SPERM into my favourite search engine and hold my breath for what was to come.  Then up popped the result from the Daily Mail. Phew!

Source: Getty Images

Whilst some scientists are attempting to clone for by implantation of embryos for reproductive purposes, the use of induced pluripotent cells (those obtained without the creation of an embryo) to produce gametes negates any reasonable argument to clone an embryo and implant it. On these grounds, because of risks to the parent, there is no real reason to clone a human being. Why not clone the gametes and use them to produce a genetically unique embryo to then use in an IVF process?

Of course these techniques are at this stage, only successful in mice. So it could be argued that for those who cannot wait, then the trial of implantation of cloned embryos may be the only option. But in time, I think that the idea that reproductive cloning will be a cure for infertility will be an outdated one. As we have seen over the course of my blogs though is that all we need is one mad scientist, with skill to take things to the next level, and at this stage, as I have said many times before, international law is not robust enough to deal the scientist who wants to create the first human clone, and that may not be too far away. So next up I will review the latest UNESCO proceedings and provide a few suggestions of my own for how to address the issue.

Glowing dogs- why aren't we scared?

In 2009 the cute little beagles in the video above were cloned in an attempt to cure a number of diseases. Scientists are becoming better at cloning targeting specific genes in animals. To me, cloning animals for the purposes is undisputably beneficial. It is ground breaking research which promises to change the course of our lives in the future. To eliminate diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinson's disease would not only reduce the burden on healthcare systems across the world, but would also free many people from pain and disability. The possibilities that this technology brings is what brought my attention to the cloning controversy.

Yet there is still a long way to go, not only in the treatment of disease, but also in the ethics around reproductive cloning. Scientists are now more rapidly gaining and refining the skills required  to clone humans. So this sort of technology, while promising, also should be cause for alarm, because the governance of reproductive cloning across the world is not consistent.

So the future may hold flying pigs in terms of the cloning of animals, but glowing humans would be a different kettle of fish altogether......

Case of the hero pig

I found this article, from the Telegraph UK, on a pig that has been cloned in china, because it survived the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan Province China. Click on the link to see the story Hero Pig Cloned.

But this is no ordinary pig. He survived for over a month, buried under rubble, eating charcoal and drinking rainwater. He now has six clones of himself, and interestingly, the report says they all "bear a striking resemblance" to him. That makes sense to me! If they are clones, they are the exact genetic copy of him, so uh would look exactly the same! 

We've come a long way in the cloning debate in the last 15 years haven't we? When Dolly the sheep was cloned,  controversy abounded. It seemed that it was only a matter of time before human clones were born.Now we seem to be cloning animals quite frequently and the reaction is very different. People can clone their pets, their pig. Mice, Bantengs and monkeys have been cloned in the name of science. The public (or media) at least seems to have created a link between the cloning of animals and therapeutic cloning, rather than here comes the human clones. I think this is because scientists have become better at communicating the reasons why they are cloning animals. Scientists such as Ian Wilmut (who cloned Dolly) and Robert Lanza (yesterday's blog), have seemed to perfect a balance between animal cloning technology and therapeutic cloning (regardless of what their intentions may be). 

So I'm not sure where the cloners of the Hero Pig should stand? Actually I'm not even sure that the report is true, but the story itself shows us how far we have come.

Next time I am going to show another example of the parallels between animal and human reproductive cloning.

Robert Lanza- its all in the eyes

I found this picture of Robert Lanza, featured in People Magazine in 2003. The picture paints a thousand words.Would any credible scientist appear in such a sculptured way for the purposes of their science? Robert Lanza is a publicity pup. You need only look at his website to see that. 

Here's the link so you can see yourself: Robert Lanza

So who is Robert Lanza? If you just looked at his website, you will know he is the chief medical officer of Advanced Cell Technologies and an adjunct professor at Wakefield University. He was one of the team who created the first cloned human embryo for therapeutic research in 2001. His team also discovered induced pluripotent stem cells, which could be used without having to develop an embryo (ground breaking!). In 2003 he was successful in cloning a Bantang, an endangered species. In 2011, Lanza is conducting stem cell research into therapies for blindness, a worthy cause.

I have to say that although Lanza is quite an extraordinary man, I don't quite know what to make of him. On the one hand, he has been a vocal advocate for stem cell research for many years, has fought criticism from pro life supporters in terms of his cloning, and is now trying to cure blindness.

On the other hand, if you look at his blogs on the Huffington Post he has really indulged in fringe science. He's written articles like "Does Death Exist? Theory Says 'No'" "Why does life exist?" which make me think he's got some sort of Messiah Complex. Then there's the cloning of endangered animals. 

What should we make of it? What is the plan here? Lanza has publicly condemned the production of human clones. Yet I wonder whether or not the scientific community may be using animal models in preparation for the inevitability of the future use of reproductive cloning in humans? I'm not sure. One thing is for sure though, cloning is still a hot topic and has come along way since Dolly was a lamb. Its also extremely lucrative with Advance Cell Technologies being one of the hottest shares to by on the stock market.

The field of technology in animal cloning is advancing rapidly. Next time I'm going to look at an example, and how the reactions differ from when Dolly the sheep was first cloned.

Advanced Cell technologies- first to clone human embryo

Today is the only day of the year that I watch an AFL game. I'm sitting in front of the TV whilst blogging, as I am not keen enough to admit I enjoy watching football!!!! 

Over the last couple of weeks I have been looking at the scientists who have made human cloning claims. The delineation between reproductive cloning and  therapeutic cloning s a very weak one. For those who believe in pro life argument, therapeutic cloning is just as unacceptable as reproductive cloning. In fact the Raelians actually saw no distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. For me the real distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning is whether that embryo is implanted into a womb. Its this distinction that the scientific community will accept in the debate on cloning. Those scientists who are pursuing the end of implantation and establishment of a pregnancy have been shunned by the scientific community (and the public).

Source: xconomy

Advanced Cell Technologies is one company who has walked the line in terms of the cloning of embryos. In 2001, the company were the first to clone embryos to be used for therapeutic purposes. Like Woo Suk Hwang, Advanced Cell Technologies never planned to implant an human embryo, and maintained credibility in the scientific community by providing robust evidence and being open about their intentions.

After the company managed to clone human embryos for therapeutic purposes they expanded their business to another field. They started to clone animals. Of particular interest was the cloning of extinct and endangered animals to make a real life "Jurassic Park". For me this is a fascinating part of the human cloning controversy. They directly avoulded the human cloning issue, similar to what Ian Wilmut had done with Dolly, by cloning animals. I'm not sure where their intentions lie..... But the poster boy for this company was a man called Robert Lanza, who took science publicity to a new level, and since 2001 has been lobbying for stem cell research. I'm going to talk about him next time.