Conception Is Not Cloning: But That Doesn`t Necessarily Make It Right
By Wilton H. Bunch, MD, PhD
Beeson Divinity School
It is hard to pick up a newspaper without reading some new development in cloning. Although many articles contain considerable "spin" and "hype," there is no question that scientific progress is being made every day. This causes great concern among evangelical Christians who, very rightly, oppose human cloning. Although nearly all scientists are interested in producing stem cells (therapeutic cloning) as opposed to persons (reproductive cloning) there are enough publicity seekers who think they will win a Nobel Prize for being first, that worry is an appropriate response.
The evangelical response to cloning has been to chant, "Cloning is wrong because life begins at conception." The two statements may be true, but linking them as cause and effect is a political as well as a biological mistake. To continue to use this as the sole reason for opposing cloning is to guarantee that the objectors will be isolated and marginalized by much of thinking society.
Cloning and conception are two very different biological processes and should not be confused. To understand the difference between conception and cloning it is necessary to attempt a brief review of basic biology. After recognizing the distinction, we can consider the significance of each.
After the sperm are deposited in the vagina they begin the trip through the uterus to contact the ova. During this journey that few will complete, their surface is changed by enzymes produced in the estrogen primed uterus and entry to the oviduct. This results in a change in the plasma membrane of the sperm so that it is able to bind to and penetrate the outer zone of the ova. It is important that this transformation of the sperm occur close to the place where fertilization is to take place since after this change the sperm have a very short life.
The fusion of the sperm and the ova is a complicated process involving specialized molecules that aid the process and others that hinder it. Thus, this is not just a mechanical event, but a biochemically sophisticated one. Once it has occurred, the formerly highly motile sperm becomes immobile and is passively moved into the cytoplasm of the ova. There is a sudden release of calcium and many additional enzyme systems are activated.
There are two more important events that must occur before cell division can occur. First, the outer membrane of the ova must resist attachment and penetration of any additional sperm. Should additional sperm enter the egg there would be too many Y chromosomes. Secondly, the ovum does not complete its reduction of chromosomes from the normal 46 to 23 (so that the resultant child will have the normal number, half from each parent) until the sperm has penetrated the cell wall. This must take place so that there are not too many X chromosomes. Once this has occurred the genetic material of the egg and the sperm can fuse. Shortly afterward the cell, now called a zygote, divides into two and further division continues.
This is a very simplified account. If even this description of conception makes the readers eyes glaze over, it should at least give pause to say with the Psalmist, "we are wonderfully made."
In contrast, cloning, an asexual form of reproduction, is a conceptually very simple, though technologically complicated procedure. Most of the genetic material of an egg is removed and the remaining genetic material inactivated. A cell nucleus from an adult cell is placed into the cytoplasm of the egg and this new combination activated to begin cell division. In mice, sheep, cows and most recently cats, this is placed in a uterus and occasionally a fully developed fetus results.
In contrast to the complicated biochemical events that guide and control conception, the removal of the genetic material from the egg is by mechanical suction. In monkeys that have been totally resistant to cloning efforts, just the removal of the genetic material is so damaging that it cannot be replaced and obtain a zygote.
I do not believe the difference could be more stark. Conception and cloning are two very different biological processes to start the process of cell division. To use one to judge the other is simplistic.
The issues of cloning and stems cells are closely interrelated. The interest in cloning received a substantial boost after President Bush announced that the government would fund research using the existing stem cell lines, but not the creation of additional lines from zygotes. The scientific community soon decided that there were not enough cell lines available, hence cloning became imperative.
With much fanfare, a Massachusetts company announced in January that they had cloned human cells; however, these cells did not survive more than a few hours and only divided twice. Most scientists think that this did not represent the new genetic activity and protein production characteristic of cloned cells, but only residual energy from material not removed from the egg. Thus, as of this writing, there is no evidence that human cells have been cloned.
Does this mean that we can become complacent or that we must accept cloning? I do not think that it does, even for an instant. What it does mean is that we must develop arguments that are consistent with and understanding of the reality of the biology. There are a number of objections that need to be heard.
First, there has been an inordinate amount of favorable publicity; grossly overstating what has been achieved. Patients and families are convinced that the cure for their personal disease is just around the corner. Scientists do not know how to make pancreatic islet cells to produce insulin. They do not know how to make kidney cells. They do not know how to make nerve cells. Even if any of these are possible, it will be years from now. Much of the blame for the unrealistic expectations rests with the press, but the scientists have also contributed. If there is to be government funding, they want it to be as generous as possible in order to maintain their laboratories. They do not speak as disinterested observers. It is appropriate to make this point.
Secondly, stem cells have been placed in human beings for the treatment of Parkinson`s Disease. None of the patients who had stem cells deposited into their brains had improvement in their symptoms and 15% were made worse because the cells secreted too much of the desired protein. This result, although described in the most prestigious medical journal, has been ignored in the discussion. It is appropriate for those concerned about cloning to point out that the results of cell therapy in humans has been a failure.
Thirdly, there is the problem of tissue incompatibility. It is well known that if patients receive a kidney, liver, or heart transplant, they must take drugs to inhibit the immune response. This is a protective response of the body that recognizes the transplanted organ as "not me" and tries to remove it. This same response would be present for any cells or organs that resulted from cloning unless it was from the individual. That would be so expensive it is not seriously contemplated. It is appropriate for those concerned about cloning to point out that this limitation must be considered.
Fourth, the process of cloning causes genetic damage to all the subsequent cells. In animals, most clones die in the womb and those that survive to birth usually have defects of the heart, lungs, kidneys, brains or the immune system. A leading expert has said that he doubts that there are any normal clones. Although this is usually discussed in terms of potential reproductive cloning, it also applies to cloning to produce stem cells. These cells will also have genetic damage and any tissues developed from them will be abnormal. It is appropriate for those concerned about cloning to remind the nation that the much-discussed benefits would include damaged genetic material.
Cloning has a very low level of efficiency; many eggs are required for a single success. This fact leads to the exploitation of women to obtain sufficient cell lines. The women donors must be injected with drugs so that they will superovulate and an invasive procedure is necessary to remove the eggs. This process is not without risks. Advertisements in many college newspapers offer $2,500 to $4,000 for donors, thus targeting low income and potentially naive women. It is appropriate to ask if this is just.
Finally, there are alternatives. A company in New Jersey reports that they have cultured stem cells from the placenta. Although this has not yet had scientific peer review, it raises hopes that the use of human embryos or cloning could become obsolete. Adults also have stem cells and these are harvested, grown, and given back to patients with various blood diseases. These stem cells then produce red blood cells, the several kinds of white blood cells and platelets. Researchers in Minnesota have found that these same cells in the bone marrow can been transformed into bone, cartilage, fat, and skeletal muscle cells.
When considering the alternatives one might wonder why so much attention has been given to embryonic stem cells and so little to the adult variety. At least part of the answer is that most of the work has come from the same laboratories that investigated in-vitro fertilization, therefore they were technically skilled in dealing with eggs, sperm and zygotes. The old saying, "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail," has truth in scientific research as well as other aspects of life.
These facts argue strongly against cloning, but a story may make the issues even clearer. Mary Shelly provided an illustration nearly 200 years ago when she penned the story "Frankenstein." In this story of technology run amuck, Victor Frankenstein is a dedicated scientist who nearly destroys his own health in his devotion to producing life. Taking parts from dead humans he succeeds in creating a life form that has many human characteristics, but it is not human. This process anticipated cloning, which takes parts from humans for creation of a new being. The Monster, as this new being is called in the story, was originally innocent, wanting only to be treated as "other" human beings but was rejected because of his appearance. Although he could feel, breath, and think, his origin made him count for less in human eyes. In response, he became a murderer.
Toward the end of the story the Monster says to Victor Frankenstein, "Remember that I have power, . . . I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master." Such an end was never remotely contemplated as Victor Frankenstein was working in his laboratory. He pursued his scientific studies with such diligence that he had no time or energy to think of the consequences. Today, much thought and work are being directed to the biology of cloning, yet it appears that little thought has been given to the potential consequences.
Victor Frankenstein`s sin was not in pursuing knowledge, perhaps not even in implementing what he had learned. Instead, he proved unable, or unwilling, to take responsibility for his actions and their consequences. Only after the Monster was attempting to force him to create another creature as a mate did Frankenstein begin to question the morality of what he had done.
This story is valuable to us because it reminds us that we must be cautious and wise in our use of technology. We cannot afford to merely go into the future without thinking of what the future might be. Paul reminded the church at Corinth, and us, that not everything that is lawful or permissible is beneficial (1Cor 6:12). Just because we have the technical ability to accomplish cloning does not mean that we should do it.
There is nothing intrinsic in Christianity that should make us "anti-science." We want science and technology to promote life, health, and general well being. What should concern us is whether the secular society possesses the moral underpinnings to consider the consequences of progress and to debate the responsibilities that progress brings. This is a role for the Church. For the sake of humanity, the Church cannot afford to withdraw from this activity. This is a much more difficult role for Christians than merely chanting, "Life begins at conception," but that should not deter us from this task.
Note: I am pleased to acknowledge the lively discussion and thoughtful papers of the students in my class, "Genetics, Ethics, and Theology" for many of the ideas in this essay.
