Nowhere are science, politics, religion and philosophy more intertwined than in the emotional debates over cloning.
And following last week's still unproven claim of the birth of the first human clone, voices from those viewpoints stand to raise the ethical and legal arguments to new heights.
Florida-based Clonaid, a company associated with a sect that believes extraterrestrials created life on earth, claims at least four other women will give birth to clones this month. An Italian fertility doctor, Severino Antinori, also says a cloned baby will be delivered this month.
How society deals with the most miniscule of organisms has immense consequences for the future of life as we know it. Will human cloning — which possibly has occurred and will continue to occur regardless of ultimate public policy — bring about great miracles? Or will it destroy the sanctity of life?
The controversy pits religious conservatives and abortion opponents, who regard embryos as nascent human life, against patients' groups, scientists and the biotechnology community.
Since Scottish scientists announced the birth of Dolly the sheep in 1997, the specter of cloned humans has loomed in the public psyche and in the minds of lawmakers.
The questions are complex and not easily grasped without considerable brain wracking and soul searching. Is it a matter that should be decided with the head or the heart?
To clone or not to clone
Basically, human cloning can be broken into two categories — reproductive and therapeutic.
Reproductive cloning means creating an embryo to produce a child who will be virtually genetically identical to an existing person, a delayed twin, if you will. Therapeutic cloning means creating an embryo from which to extract stem cells for possible use in curing chronic diseases and disabilities.
Some scientists prefer the self-explanatory terms cloning-to-produce-children and cloning-for-biomedical-research.
There is little argument that human reproductive cloning should be banned, though that view isn't universal.
 Deseret News graphic How cloning worksRequires Adobe Acrobat. | |
"I think there could be a place for it to do good in human beings," said Dr. James S. Heiner, director of the Reproductive Care Center at St. Mark's Hospital. "I don't think it's good to automatically have a prejudice against it."
Cloning could allow infertile couples who can't produce a child any other way to have genetically related offspring. A cloned child also could become a perfect transplant donor for a sibling with a life-threatening illness.
But getting to that point could take a considerable human toll.
The National Bioethics Advisory Committee in 1997 and the National Academy of Sciences last year concluded cloning humans would be unethical due to the risk to both the embryo and the mother. The recently formed President's Council on Bioethics concurs it is not only unsafe but morally unacceptable and should not be attempted.
There seems to be no ethical way to discover whether reproductive human cloning can become safe, now or in the future. It would take trial and error, the outcomes being possibly grotesque and ones society would find reprehensible — deformities, stillbirths and abortions as well as potentially fatal risks to the mother.
"I can't think of anything that would justify that to begin with," said Dr. Jeff Botkin, head of the University of Utah Division of Bioethics.
Playing God
Southeast Baptist Church Pastor Mike Gray rues the day a cloned baby is born.
"It would remind me too much of what Hitler did," he said, noting the Nazi leader's inhumane experiments on Jews.
Gray associates human cloning with playing God, which in his estimation "cheapens" human existence.
"You're messing with life that only God could create. It wouldn't be a case of creating life but somehow manipulating life."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement in March 1997 opposing reproductive cloning, saying, "God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed."
Though it reiterated that belief on the heels of Clonaid's announcement, the church remains silent about cloning for research purposes.
Are embryos people, too?
Most biomedical researchers believe stem cells taken from cloned embryos hold great promise toward cures for many chronic illnesses such as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and degenerative conditions such as spinal cord injuries. For example, cells grown from stem cells implanted into a diseased heart or liver could regenerate those organs.
Nevertheless, some scientists say stem cells taken from sources other than embryos — adult cells, discarded umbilical cords, human placentas — are also promising. Patients suffering a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.
Whether embryonic research is acceptable depends on one's view of the status of the human embryo and how that ought to be weighed against the promise of stem cell-related cures for chronic diseases.
Dr. Jay Jacobson, a bioethicist at LDS Hospital, poses these questions: Is it property? Is it a human being? Is it a potential human being?
The moral status of an embryo is a crucial issue in the stem cell research and cloning debates. Whether through fertilization or an electrical charge, the emerging cluster of cells is and always will be human.
But asks the U.'s Botkin, "Is it a form of human life that deserves full moral status?"
Opponents of cloning and stem cell research say an embryo is no different than you or me. They make no distinction between a human being and a human person. They oppose embryonic research because extracting stem cells destroys the embryo, which in their eyes is tantamount to murder.
Heiner said most embryos don't survive in natural reproduction. A half dozen die before being implanted in the womb.
"Every time you have sex, you kill embryos," he said. "If you're really against killing embryos, you can't have sex."
According to the Catholic Church, embryos deserve full moral status. In other words, embryos are people, too.
"When you experiment with a human embryo, you're experimenting on a human being," said Bishop George Niederauer of the Salt Lake Catholic Diocese.
The Catholic Church opposes legalizing or funding research that results in the destruction of embryos.
"It may lead to more knowledge of human embryos, but for us, the ends do not justify the means," he said.
Proponents of research cloning, like Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, say there are sound reasons for not regarding an embryo in its earliest stages as the moral equivalent of a person. They argue the embryo has a moral worth that commands "special respect" but that it is morally permissible to experiment with it.
Hatch favors cloning for medical research in part because the process uses an unfertilized egg. He believes human life doesn't begin until an embryo is implanted into a woman's womb.
Pro-life advocates, including Utah Eagle Forum president Gayle Ruzicka, vehemently disagree, saying there are many opinions about when life begins, and who is Hatch to decide when that is.
A change of heart
As a medical student, fertility doctor Heiner believed life begins when a man's sperm fertilizes a woman's egg.
Early in his professional practice, the Salt Lake fertility doctor wouldn't destroy unused embryos. Patients who wanted them discarded picked them up frozen in a Styrofoam cup. The cells thawed before the patient reached the elevator. He discontinued that because "I could not put couples through that."
After studying human reproduction for years, Heiner changed his mind. He now believes life starts after the embryo implants itself in the womb. He uses the medical definition of death to explain his thinking. Like a dead body, an embryo, he said, has no cardiac, neural or respiratory function.
But perhaps the biggest factor for Heiner is more religious than scientific. He doesn't believe embryos have souls. "A spirit can't exist in a clump of cells," he said.
Heiner points to an embryo that splits to form twins. He can't fathom a soul or spirit dividing itself between two embryos.
Because the doctor doesn't believe embryos have souls, he isn't opposed to embryonic research. And he doesn't think cloning to produce babies should be dismissed out of hand, either.
Politics and politicians
Congress has a wide range of pending legislation. The House already voted for a total ban on cloning; the Senate hasn't made up its mind. President Bush opposes the creation of new stem cell lines but would allow federal funds for research on existing lines.
It's "scientific nuts" like Antinori and Clonaid that have Hatch anxious for a federal ban on cloning babies but equally anxious to pass a bill expanding embryonic stem cell research. With the makeup of the Senate changing this year, Hatch said he isn't sure he has the votes to bring legislation up for debate.
The United States, he said, should set the moral and ethical standards for cloning research, which he believes holds great promise to rid the world of disease. "Then the rest of the world will follow."
Without legislation, Hatch said, the "Dr. Antinoris of the world will crop up all over."
Although many state legislatures have waded into the controversy, only six — California, Michigan, Louisiana, Virginia, Rhode Island and Iowa — have outlawed human cloning, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But California also recently adopted measures opening the door to embryonic stem cell research.
With Congress so far failing to agree, a patchwork of state laws could further jumble the legal and ethical questions that fuel the emotional debate.
E-mail: romboy@desnews.com