Reproductive cloning: A step closer

The debate about reproductive cloning is far from resolved. The clip below details some of the ethical issues with the concept of reproductive cloning and features the work of Dr Panyotis Zavos, who in 2009 claimed he had cloned human embryos for implantation. His work in the area of reproductive cloning, is bizarre, but has continued the debate about reproductive cloning. The views of scientists and their work for and against human cloning will be a focus for me in upcoming blogs. Take a look at the video and see what you think!

Having done a bit of research about Dr Zavos, I've found that he isn't even a medical doctor, but a reproductive physicist. He is legally permitted to practice IVF technologies in the US with this qualification. His argument for reproductive cloning is a compelling one, until we find out he has combined human and animal cells to make a hybrid embryo. Doctor he may not be....mad scientist???? I'll let you decide that one for yourself!!!!

"Cloned" woman could dispel cloning fears

Check out this video I found of Kim Taylor of Hackney in London, who claims she is a human clone.

The thing that strikes me about Kim is that whilst claiming she is the same genotype as someone else, she talks about developing her own identity. Academics call this the concept of Genetic Determinism, the idea that someone with the same genotype as another develops a different personality and identity. To me, she also presents a more human side of the reproductive cloning debate, and it is this which could dispel some of the fears about cloning for reproductive purposes.

Now although Kim makes a good point, I am unable to verify if she is a real person/ clone as my searches of facebook, linkedin, google and scholarly articles have not brought up anything. But whether this is a true account or not, Kim raises some relevant issues in the debate. And while we don't need to believe Kim in her account, scientists believe that we are getting closer to producing the first human clone.

The concept of reproductive cloning is one that I will be exploring further in this blog. I will be leaving the issues of therapeutic cloning aside to focus on the debate about human reproductive cloning.

Human cloning and child welfare

I'm sitting in the media centre here at UQ and there's a bubble of activity around me. Its nice to be back home.

So, on to human cloning and child welfare. This is one of the most contentious arguments against reproductive cloning. Those against human cloning propose that there will be a psychological impact on the child who has been cloned. There may also be dysfunctional aspects to the parent child relationship because the parent may project their personality on to the child. A child who has been cloned may be subject to ridicule and stigma because they are a clone.

If we broke down this argument, let's have a think about this....

Dysfunctional families, psychological impacts, teasing, ridicule, stigma.

Are these things that some children would experience anyway, regardless of whether they are a clone or not???

Certainly those who are born out of a natural process of reproduction or even IVF could be subject to any of these in the course of their lifetime. But where do we draw the line under who has a right to be a parent, and how that occurs? Particularly if the "owner" of the genentic material decides to reproduce it. However when there is any possibility of producing a human clone, there is an outcry from the media and organisations, and people, including myself sqirm a little bit in our seats. Why is that?

Next time I want to look a little more into why the concept of reproductive cloning makes us feel uncomfortable, and the ethics of some examples of human cloning.

Human dignity and the value of a human life

I am now home in Australia, after so many fantastic experiences and one hell of a dose of jet lag!!!! I have the song "It had to be you" (instrumental version) ringing in my ears after it was played during every take off and landing from London to Brisbane (6 times in total). I couldn't help thinking that if the plane did crash, with that song playing mockingly, I'd be thinking "Why did it have to be me"!!!!!!!!!

Flying on a plane reminds me of how we value life. This is a central argument against cloning of any form, especially of Embryonic Stem Cell production for therapeutic purposes. It is argued that each "life" is intrinsically valuable and should be respected. Therefore to create a life in order to then destroy it would be unethical and inappropriate. The laws in Australia reflect these principles. Any embryonic stem cells for research purposes must be obtained from unused embryos created by the process of IVF and with consent from the donors. 

For me, the argument again stems (no pun intended) from a value base where a "life" is defined as the cells that could potentially develop in to life, a "pro life" argument.  However, I don't feel as ethically challenged by this argument, because even at the blastocyst stage, where cells are harvested to create further stem cells, there is still only a chance of life, not a life itself. 

In my initial readings for this blog, I heard stories about organ factories (see the film Autopsy for a visual, however possibly the worst film I've ever seen) and the abuse of life for the purposes of medical research. But the reality of the science of how the organs and cells for research is very far removed from the images that an organ factory conjures up. I think its the fear of what these images entail and therefore the way that the science has been communicated and understood has fuelled this argument.

Next time, in the last on the series of arguments against cloning, I'll be looking at the argument of the welfare of the child that has been cloned. I'm now off to bed, hoping to sleep off the travel fatigue!!!!!

Is cloning a human or human tissues “playing God”?

My trip is drawing to a close. I am in Paris and in two days, I’m flying back to Australia. But this is a concept I’ve been considering since we were in Bournemouth. 

For my sins (haha) I’ve been searching the internet for the religious viewpoint on human cloning. Without delving too far into the theological argument, here are two of the most poignant quotes from my search:

 “Only God has the right to create a new human soul, and only God has the power to grant eternal life” (interpretation of Genesis 1:27 King James Bible). Source Activated Ministries

Pope John Paul was quoted in August 2000 as condemning human reproductive and therapeutic cloning is “not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself”. Source Religious Tolerance

The argument that scientists should not be “playing God” by cloning a human is based on the principle that cloning of any form is “wrong” and “not morally acceptable”. My view is that the argument is value based rather than having a logical reason as to why it is wrong to play God. It could be argued that there many socially acceptable forms of “playing God” in medical science for example a life support machine or drugs to cure fatal disease. I am starting to wonder if the messages about what cloning is and what it can do are not communicated well enough. I hope to come back to that idea in the next week or so, but next time I will be looking at the intrinsic value of life, human dignity and cloning.

Hello Dolly- Part Two

After watching too many street performers at the Edinburgh Festival, I finally got to see Dolly! Here I am with Dolly, at the Edinburgh Museum.

Visiting Dolly made me think of the controversy that surrounded her.

Within the scientific community, there was a concern about the viability of cloning both in sheep and humans due to the following:

·         The scientists who created Dolly admitted that there were numerous failed attempts to produce viable offspring using the technique. There were reports that cloned lambs produced were abnormally large and died shortly after birth.

·         Dolly died prematurely at the age of six after suffering from arthritis and progressive lung disease.

·         Dolly’s DNA was found to have shortened telomeres indicating premature ageing.  Doubts about the viability of clones beyond the age of their donor were raised because the donor cells came from a six year old sheep.

But it was Dolly’s very creation and existence that sparked controversy both internally and externally to the scientific community. Some of the arguments against cloning were:

·         The cloning of humans was unacceptable as it was in effect “playing god” with human life.

·         Life is intrinsically valuable. To clone a human would not preserve human dignity and respect the creation of life the way “nature” intended.

·         Concern for the welfare of the child who has been cloned.

I’m going to explore the arguments against cloning more fully in the next few blogs. I want to know whether  these arguments  are legitimate or not? So it’s goodbye to Dolly for now, but I have to say, it’s been fun!

Sources

Harris, J. “Goodbye Dolly?” The ethics of human cloning. Journal of Medical Ethics 1997; 23 353-360.

Petersen, A. Replicating our bodies, losing ourselves: News media portrayals of human cloning in the wake of Dolly. Body and Society, 2002; 8(4), 71-90.

Burley, J & Harris. J Human cloning and child welfare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1999 25(2), 108-113.

Burley, J. The ethics of therapeutic and reproductive human cloning. Cell and Developmental Biology, 1999, 10, 287-294.

Hello Dolly- Part One

Its festival time in Edinburgh, which means the city is teeming with Australians, and every restaurant, café and theatre space in the city is packed out! 

Edinburgh not only plays host to one of the most popular arts festivals in the world, but, in 1997 was the city where one of the most controversial scientific events of recent times occurred- the birth of the cloned mammal, Dolly the Sheep.

Dolly was born on 5 July 1996 at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh UK. Her birth was announced to the media 7 months later in February 1997. She was the first mammal to be cloned using somatic cell nuclear transfer using mammary glands from a six year old sheep donor. Dolly in actual fact had three mothers, one who provided the fertilized egg, one who provided the mammary cell and lastly the surrogate who carried her to term.

(Source: Wikipedia)

Dolly gave birth to two litters of lambs (five lambs in total across two years) in her lifetime. At the age of five she developed arthritis in her legs. In 2003 at the age of six, Dolly was euthanased due to developing lung disease and severe arthritis. Dolly had lived most of her life indoors, due to security reasons.(Source: Wikipedia)

What made Dolly’s birth so controversial was that, for the first time, scientists understood that it could be possible to clone other mammals, including humans, using the same technique. A number of scientists, religious organisations and politicians made statements about human cloning. The world was becoming conscious of the ethics of human cloning. Take a look at this video, for a bit more information.

 In Hello Dolly Part Two, I’ll be exploring the controversies internal and external to the scientific community in relation to Dolly the Sheep.