Therapeutic Cloning: Pros, Cons, and Ethical Debate

Introduction to Therapeutic Cloning

Recent years have seen intense debate on the ethicality of human cloning and therapeutic cloning. While the former involves the reproduction of a new human — a clone of the adult from whom the DNA was taken — therapeutic cloning has a very different goal. Nevertheless, therapeutic cloning, too, has come under significant scrutiny. This paper focuses on therapeutic cloning alone and explores the possible pros and cons of the procedure. First, however, it is important to define therapeutic cloning so that the discussion that follows is viewed within the correct contextual framework.

Therapeutic cloning, also known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), is a procedure that involves removing the DNA from a human cell, inserting it into the DNA extracted from a woman's ovum, and then giving the resultant ovum an electrical shock to begin the formation of an embryo. The procedure results in a pre-embryo being formed in a small percentage of cases (Robinson).

The Science and Current Limitations

The pre-embryo that is formed is then allowed to develop and produce stem cells, after which the stem cells are removed, leading to the death of the pre-embryo. The stem cells are subsequently encouraged to grow into either tissue or an organ needed to treat a patient. Theoretically, such stem cells can be used to develop replacement organs. It is envisaged that therapeutic cloning, if successful, will lead to perfectly matched organs that could save countless lives while improving the quality of life for innumerable people who are physically or physiologically challenged (Robinson).

An equally important context is the fact that scientists have yet to achieve several critical stages in embryonic stem cell research. The first is the ability to consistently isolate embryonic stem cells and grow them into the desired type of tissue. The second stage will be to determine the correct mode of delivery of the specialized cells to the part of the body that is diseased or injured. The third stage will involve tissue engineering. Only once research has successfully addressed all of these steps can scientists begin to determine whether there are any long-term benefits, and whether the cells multiply as theorized and interact with and replace injured cells (Shannon).

Given the current status of therapeutic cloning described above, it must be noted that the controversy and debate over the desirability of the procedure center on ethical questions — particularly those concerning the moral status of the cloned human embryo and the implied consequences of routinizing and legalizing the production and destruction of such embryos (Berkowitz).

Arguments in Favor of Therapeutic Cloning

On one end of the spectrum is the view that the cloned human embryo deserves no more respect than any other microscopic particle and that, to that extent, therapeutic cloning involves no moral issue regarding the sanctity of human life. At the other end are pro-life supporters who hold that any human embryo, irrespective of origin, should receive the same respect and rights as any fully developed human being, and that therapeutic cloning should therefore be banned. A third view holds that while pre-embryos probably deserve less consideration than human beings at later stages of development, therapeutic cloning is likely to lead to systematic disrespect for developing human life (Berkowitz).

Advocates of therapeutic cloning emphasize the extraordinary promise the procedure holds. As one summary puts it: "Three possible examples of therapeutic cloning might include the use of insulin-secreting cells for diabetes; nerve cells in stroke or Parkinson's disease; or liver cells to repair a damaged organ" (Robinson).

Proponents also theorize that the method will offer untold advantages over current treatments. Presumably, there would be no danger of transplant rejection because the organ's DNA and the patient's would be an exact match. There would be no need to put donors through the pain and risk of a potentially shortened lifespan. Patients would not have to endure interminably long waiting periods. They would benefit from a brand-new organ rather than a replacement organ that may have reduced functionality due to age. Finally, the method has the potential to cure hitherto incurable diseases (Robinson).

Building on therapeutic cloning's potential to cure disease, the scientific and pro-choice lobbies point out that researchers could take a diseased cell from an adult — such as one affected by cancer, cardiovascular disease, or Alzheimer's — and use embryonic cloning to create a stem cell line from it. Studying such a stem cell line would help researchers observe how diseases develop as the stem cells differentiate, and potentially find remedies to address or reverse that process. For example, the way in which embryonic stem cells cloned from the adult cells of an Alzheimer's patient differentiate into brain cells could be compared with normal brain cell function, thereby providing valuable insights into the origins and progression of the disease (Barglow).

Recognizing the possible gains for medical and behavioral sciences, some countries — such as the United Kingdom — have taken a middle-of-the-road approach, based on the view that "the respect due to an embryo increases as it develops and that this respect, in the early stages in particular, may properly be weighed against the potential benefits arising from the proposed research. The current restrictions and controls on embryo research reflect this latter view, providing the human embryo with a degree of protection in law but allowing the benefits of the proposed research to be weighed against the respect due to the embryo" (Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility).

Among biomedical researchers in the United States there is also a broad consensus that the benefits of research cloning of embryonic stem cells may lead to remedies for severe childhood and adult illnesses that afflict millions of people. In February 2002, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that therapeutic cloning "offers great promise for treating diseases... closing these avenues of research may have real costs for millions of people...." (Barglow).

As a counter to opponents of therapeutic cloning, proponents point out that the current debate over stem cell research is comparable to the 1970s controversy over recombinant DNA technology, which now produces a broad range of medicines, including cancer and diabetes treatments (Barglow). Arising from such arguments is the broader question of society's commitment to the freedom to inquire, to improve human conditions, and to advance scientific understanding (Berkowitz).

Proponents of therapeutic cloning also counter ethical concerns by arguing that early embryos, or the blastocyst, are merely microscopic particles: "...fertilization is itself a process requiring at least 24 hours to complete... cloning does not require fertilization at all.... While many argue that the blastocyst at this stage is a person in potentia and, therefore, should be treated as such, a core problem is that potency is not act" (Shannon).

Conclusion

Dr. Kass, a member of President Bush's Bioethics Council, sums up the issue aptly: "There is more at stake in the biological revolution than just saving life or avoiding death and suffering. Human life and dignity are also in the balance" (The Washington Times, September 2002). The debate over therapeutic cloning is ultimately not merely a scientific or medical question — it is a profound inquiry into what it means to respect human life, at every stage of its development.