STEM CELLS, CLONING, AND HUMAN EMBRYOS - Family Research Council

the results, performed the surgery in Portugal, butneurologists in the US are seeking FDA approval tobegin offering Dr. Lima’s therapy in the United States.Sickle-Cell AnemiaNot long after birth, Joe Davis, Jr. was diagnosed withsickle-cell anemia, adisorder in which thered blood cells of thebody are abnormallyshaped,blockingblood flow within theblood vessels. Thedisorder can causeintense pain andorgan damage, usually proving itself fatal within tenyears. Doctors confided to Joe Jr.’s parents, Darleneand Joseph Sr., that their son may not live to see histeen years. But a doctor they knew informed themof a transplant using adult stem cells from umbilicalcord blood taken from a donor at birth. However,they needed a good match from the donor, and thenumber of cord blood donations from the AfricanAmerican community was low. A surprise came to theDavis family when Darlene became pregnant. As thepregnancy progressed, the tissue type of the secondDavis baby was revealed to be a perfect match for thetransplant. Joe Jr., just two years old at the time of thetransplant, was given a dose of chemotherapy, riddinghis system of the diseased blood cells, and received aninjection of adult stem cells taken from his youngerbrother’s umbilical cord blood. Joe Jr. was cured, withnot a hint of sickle cell anemia since the transplant.For more examples of successful adult stem cellapplications, see stemcellresearchfacts.org.Embryonic Stem Cells: Because obtaining EScells requires the death of the human embryo,research involving these stem cells is unethical andunacceptable. Every human life at every stage of lifehas intrinsic dignity, and should be treasured and notsacrificed for science.Embryonic Germ Cells: When the embryonic germcells are derived from fetuses by abortion, this researchis unethical and unacceptable, because the procedurerequires the deliberate destruction of an innocenthuman life.Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: Because thecreation of iPS cells requires only human body cells(e.g. skin cells) and bypasses the need for an embryo oregg cell, iPS cell research is ethical.Umbilical Cord Stem Cells: The umbilical cord is nolonger needed after birth, and thus, can be utilized asan ethical source of stem cells.Placentally-Derived Stem Cells: Like the umbilicalcord, the placenta is not needed after birth, renderingits stem cells acceptable for research purposes.Adult Stem Cells: Because their harvest does notrequire destruction of the donor, adult stem cellsare ethically acceptable for research and treatments,provided the donor gives informed consent.Is stem cell research ethical?Most of the stem cell research in the scientific world isacceptable, ethical, and laudable. The only area of stemcell research that is unacceptable is the field requiringharm or destruction of human life, especially ES cellresearch.89

What is reproductive cloning(cloning to produce children)?CloningWhat is “cloning” and what are its uses?Cloning is the process of creating an embryo asexually.While it’s not the only way to clone, the most commontechnique is “somatic cell nuclear transfer” (SCNT).SCNT occurs outside of the woman’s body and doesremoveDNA fromunfertilizedeggremoveskin cellfrompatientWhat is therapeutic cloning (cloning for research)?fuse cellsearly embryowith donor DNA[clone formed]clonedembryoinfant cloneof patientReproductive cloning involves removing the nucleusof a somatic cell (a body cell such as a skin cell).The nucleus is then transferred into an egg cell(oocyte) which has already had its nucleus removedor inactivated. In other words, the nucleus of an eggcell is replaced with the nucleus of a body cell. Anelectrical or chemical stimulus initiates cell divisionand the beginning of embryonic development. This isfollowed by implantation of the embryo into a uterus inorder to gestate the young clone to birth. Because thenucleus stores the genetic material, this cloned embryois genetically identical to the person who donated thesomatic cell nucleus. Reproductive cloning essentiallycreates a virtually identical twin of the nucleus donor.implant insurrogateembryonicstem cells"reproductive cloning""therapeutic cloning"not involve the fusion of egg and sperm. Cloning isused with two primary ends in mind. The first and mostwell-known is “reproductive cloning” or cloning toproduce children. The second is so-called “therapeuticcloning” or cloning for biomedical research.10So-called therapeutic cloning involves the sameseries of steps as the reproductive cloning techniquedescribed above. The only difference is what happensto the embryo. Rather than implanting the embryo intoa uterus and gestating to birth, scientists destroy theembryo to harvest its stem cells. Therapeutic cloningis, therefore, a “create and destroy” method—one wherethe embryo is created in order to be destroyed. Thepurpose of creating the embryo is to harvest embryonicstem cells that are genetically identical to the nucleusdonor in question, theoretically eliminating the risk ofimmune rejection after transplantation.What’s wrong with human reproductive cloning?The act of cloning in order to produce human beingsreplaces procreation with production. Human beings aretreated as manufactured products rather than createdpersons. In animal cloning experiments, only 2 to 3percent of all reproductive cloning attempts have beensuccessful at producing born clones. The clones thatare successfully birthed are often born with majordisabilities or deformities, or experience problemsafter birth. For example, cloned mice have been11

shown to be extremely obese. Cloned cows usuallyexperience lung and heart problems. Dolly the sheep –the first mammal ever to be cloned from an adult cellnucleus – experienced early onset arthritis and had alung disease. Due to these complications, she was putdown only six years after birth. Thus, the few clonedchildren that might manage to be born would besubjected to disabilities, deformities, and abnormallyshort lives, all because of the imprudent curiosity ofsome researchers. Reproductive cloning would allowa woman to clone herself using her own egg, her ownsomatic cell, and her own womb. Not only would aman be superfluous to the process of creating a child,but a woman would be giving birth to an individualwho is both her identical twin sister and her child.Cloning could even allow us to pick and choosedesired physical and mental traits for our children.Characteristics such as height and intelligence couldbe manipulated according to someone else’s likes anddislikes. By purposely choosing desirable characteristicsand avoiding undesirable ones for our future generations,scientists employ a method of eugenics.12When contemplating the future of cloning, it isespecially telling to hear Ian Wilmut, the creator ofDolly the sheep, describe human reproductive cloningas “criminally irresponsible.”What’s wrong with human therapeutic cloning?Plainly put, therapeutic cloning is the purposefulcreation of human life with the deliberate intentionof destroying that life. This technique is graced withthe adjective “therapeutic” because a human life isused as an object for someone else’s supposed benefit.Essentially, this creates a disposable caste of people– a new class of human beings to be discriminatedagainst as objects. Human life is thus degraded, seenas something dispensable, rather than somethingvaluable.Therapeutic cloning opens the doorway to “fetalfarming.” That is, it creates a situation in which newlycreated embryos can be gestated to the fetal stagewithin a woman’s womb. The fetus would then beaborted and harvested for its organs instead of simplyits stem cells. Unfortunately, the concept of “fetalfarming” is more than mere speculation. In referenceto women considering abortion, Huffington Post writerJacob Appel, says, “If only a small percentage of thosewomen could be persuaded to carry their fetuses to thenecessary point of development for transplantation,society might realize significant public healthbenefits.”1 If embryos can be grown to the point wheretheir stem cells can be harvested, what will preventscientists from growing them to the point where wholeorgans can be harvested? As a result, women wouldbe treated as incubators, no more than a piece ofmachinery by which products (i.e., organs and tissues)are manufactured.Whether the technique goal is reproductive ortherapeutic cloning, human eggs are the necessary rawmaterials. Obtaining human eggs, of course, requiressoliciting women from whom to harvest those eggs.Besides the possibility of using women as incubators,13

women will begin to be viewed as natural resourcesfrom which to obtain the necessary raw materials ofscientific research. In other words, women will beutilized as a means to an end—the end being theprocurement of an egg.being no matter how young or old. A human embryois simply a human being in his or her earliest stage ofdevelopment. Who among us was never an embryo?Despite their unfamiliar appearance, embryos are whatyoung humans are supposed to look like.The health risks to women who donate eggs is alsoof great concern, and many egg donors are not givenadequate informed consent regarding the dangers. Asignificant number (anywhere from 5% up to 20%) ofwomen who undergo ovarian stimulation to procureeggs experience severe ovarian hyperstimulationsyndrome, which can cause pain, and can lead tovarious side effects, including ovarian torsion, bloodclots, kidney disease, premature menopause, ovariancysts, chronic pelvic pain, stroke, reproductive cancers,and in some cases, death.2Religious belief or biology?The moment at which a human life begins is not amatter of religious belief, but a matter of basic biology.A quick glance through standard embryology anddevelopmental biology textbooks tells us the beginningof human life is at conception. When the sperm andegg unite to form a zygote—a single-cell embryo—anew, genetically distinct human life has begun. Thedefinitions found in these textbooks are not writtenReproductive cloning treats human beings as productsto be manufactured, while therapeutic cloningdiscriminates against the youngest forms of life byviewing them as nothing more than a means to an end.Human EmbryosAre embryos human? Are they really one of us?Just as an infant, a child, and an adolescent are potentialadults, so is an embryo. An embryo is not a “potentiallife.” It is, rather, “life with potential.” Any embryo hasthe potential to become a fetus, an infant, a child, anadolescent, and eventually, an adult.A human being retains his or her status as a human14by pastors, priests, or theologians. They are written byembryologists and developmental biologists—thosewho specialize in the study of the embryo and thedevelopment and maturation of human beings.It is those who wish to exploit the human embryo—whether for financial gain, scientific curiosity , oreven for well-intended medical advancement—who15

deny this clarity. But any scientific advancement thatrequires the denial of scientific fact must be viewed asit is: hollow and unethical.Why is the destruction of human embryos wrong?Because a human embryo is a human being in hisor her earliest stage of development, destroying anembryo is morally equivalent to destroying any otherhuman being. Some will balk at this line of reasoning.But it is valuable to ask—when would it be morallyacceptable to end the life of another human being?We know that the human embryo is a human beingbecause it is a self-directed organism. As long as it isgiven an appropriate, nurturing environment (i.e., thewomb of the mother), it actively develops to maturity.Proponents of embryo research may argue that becausean embryo cannot develop in isolation when placed ina petri dish, it does not possess an internal code forself-actualization and is therefore not a human being.To this, we respond that no organism (including adulthuman beings) can develop without a hospitableenvironment. If you or I were placed on Mars with nofood or drink, we would undoubtedly die. The planetMars is not an environment conducive to our growthand development. This is no different when it comesto a human embryo. All organisms are dependent ontheir environment for growth and survival.TEN MYTHSin the Stem Cell DebatesThe scientific research can be exciting, but the moraland ethical stakes are high. As you engage scientists,patients, and policy-makers, you may come across thefollowing myths.Myth 1: Embryonic stem cells are the only kind ofstem cell.Adult stem cells can be harvested from umbilicalcords, the placenta, amniotic fluid, tissues and organssuch as bone marrow, muscles, the eye and nose, andeven from cadavers after death, and have been usedin patient treatments for years. Induced pluripotentstem cells – stem cells that behave almost exactly likeembryonic stem cells – are another type of stem cellused in research.Myth 2: Christians oppose stem cell research.Stem cells can be classified into three generalcategories: embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, andinduced pluripotent stem cells. As long as stem cellsare not derived from embryos or fetuses that havebeen intentionally destroyed, Christians are morallyopposed only to one category: embryonic stem cells,because deriving embryonic stem cells relies ondestruction of a young human embryo.1617

Myth 3: Human ES cells are necessary for iPS cellresearch.Japan’s Shinya Yamanaka is one of the two scientistscredited with the iPS cell breakthrough (the other beingJames Thomson of the University of Wisconsin). Bothscientists worked independently and published theirresults in November 2007. Contrary to the claims madethat ES cell research is essential to iPS cell research,Yamanaka himself has said that human ES cells werenot crucial to his work. Before his breakthrough inreprogramming human somatic cells to a pluripotentstate, Shinya Yamanaka’s work in reprogrammingutilized mouse, not human, ES cells, and he used thesame method for human iPS cell production. In fact,Yamanaka himself has said, “Neither eggs nor embryosare necessary. I’ve never worked with either.” Moreover,it was precisely Yamanaka’s ethical concerns to avoidlethal experiments with human embryos that led to hisbreakthrough. Recalling looking at a human embryothrough a microscope several years earlier, Yamanakasaid: “When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realizedthere was such a small difference between it andmy daughters I thought, we can’t keep destroyingembryos for our research. There must be another way.”Myth 4: Embryonic stem cell research holds thegreatest promise.ES cells have yet to provide a proven treatment or curefor a single human being. In 2010, the biotechnologycompany Geron began conducting the first humanclinical trials using ES cells to treat spinal cord injuries,but in 2011 decided to abandon not only the trial,but the entire field of ES cell research altogether. Thefield of adult stem cell research, on the other hand, isflourishing. Adult stem cells have already cured andtreated hundreds of thousands of people. For example,stem cells from olfactory tissue inside the nose haveshown great success in treating spinal cord injuries, andadult stem cells harvested from an area of the eye haveeven restored sight to patients with corneal blindness.18Myth 5: Embryonic stem cell research is illegal.The 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment (implementedduring Bill Clinton’s presidency) prohibited researchinvolving the destruction of human embryos.President Bush then issued an executive order banningthe use of federal funds to support research on EScell lines created after August 2001. ES cell linescreated before August 2001 were still allowed to befunded by the federal government. Bush’s executiveorder actually relaxed the restrictions called for by theDickey-Wicker amendment. It should be highlightedthat Bush’s policy never declared the research illegal.President Obama, upon assuming the presidency in2009, replaced Bush’s policy with his own executiveorder, permitting increased incentives for embryodestruction and federal funding of the research.Myth 6: Therapeutic cloning and reproductivecloning are fundamentally different techniques.Both cloning techniques use the exact same seriesof technical steps to create a new, cloned embryo.The only difference is the fate of the newly-createdembryo. The embryo will either be implanted into19

a woman’s uterus in an attempt to gestate to birth(reproductive cloning) or be destroyed for its stemcells (therapeutic cloning).Myth 7: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) isdifferent from cloning.“Somatic cell nuclear transfer” is simply a scientificterm for the most popular method of cloning anorganism.Myth 8: Somatic cell nuclear transfer can producetissues or organs without having to create an embryo.Scientists are currently unable to bypass the creationof an embryo.Myth 9: Because cloning employs the use of asomatic (body) cell in order to create an embryo, allof our body cells have the potential to become humanbeings; thus, every somatic cell is a human life.Some bioethicists such as Julian Savulescu argue: “Ifall our cells could be persons, then we cannot appealembryo on its own. The ability to become an embryodoes not come from within the somatic cell. Thecell must be acted upon. In other words, the processof creating an embryo from a somatic cell requiresdeliberate human intervention. Without any degree ofhuman tinkering, a somatic cell (such as a skin cell) willonly give rise to more somatic cells (more skin cells).An embryo, on the other hand, is a self-directed entity,actively developing and maturing itself, eventuallygiving rise to an entire adult organism. Consequently,somatic cells are not analogous to embryos.Myth 10: Since frozen embryos will eventually bediscarded, we may as well destroy them for theirstem cells and get some good use out of them.The moral analysis of what we may permissibly dowith an embryo doesn’t depend on its otherwise “goingto waste,” nor on the incidental fact that those embryosare “trapped” in liquid nitrogen. Consider a radical casein which a group of children are permanently trappedin a schoolhouse through no fault of their own; thatwould not make it morall

Stem Cells Stem cells remain a mystery to most people, even though the debate over stem cell research, treatments, ethics, and funding has led to legal, legislative, scientific, religious, and policy debates. This publication offers a general overview of stem cells—their sources, practical uses and potential, and ethical problems.