The Stem Cell Research and Cloning Controversy
By John M. Swomley, Professor Emeritus of Social Ethics
St. Paul School of Theology
The present controversy over stem cell research and cloning has occurred because Pope John Paul II has decreed that human life begins at conception instead of the biblical view that human life begins at birth. This is the basis for opposition to various forms of contraceptives, to abortion, and to stem cell research.
However, the Vatican does not object to stem cells derived from miscarried embryos or from umbilical cords. It also does not object to skin stem cells derived from the foreskins after circumcision.
In order to understand stem cells we must note the following: At conception, when egg and sperm meet, a zygote is formed. Approximately four days after that, during which the cell divides again and again, a blastocyst develops. The blastocyst has an outer layer of cells which will form the placenta and other supporting tissue needed for fetal development in the uterus. The inner cell mass, from which stem cells come, will form virtually all of the tissues in the human body. In normal fetal development the blastocyst becomes an embryo. If, however, the inner cells of a blastocyst are removed from the outer layer of cells, they are not embryos and if placed in a woman`s uterus would not develop into a fetus. If removed for research, they nevertheless undergo further specialization into stem cells that have a particular function, such as blood stem cells, which reside in the bone marrow of every person and also circulate in smaller numbers in the bloodstream. If the inner cells are not removed until the formation of the embryo they are called embryonic stem cells.
Stem cells undergo further specialization that have the potential for cell therapies to deal with various diseases and disorders. Scientists also hope to learn from stem cell research about abnormal cell specialization and cell division, the causes of such medical problems as cancer and birth defects.
There are other reasons why stem cell research is essential. Science has made great progress with organ transplants such as liver and kidney. However, ten patients die daily waiting for organs. Also, the problem of matching transplants to recipients rather than having them rejected could be solved by stem cell research.
Stem cells can potentially be used for any purpose; for example, injecting one into a heart muscle that has been damaged. Research is needed not only to learn how stem cells can help speed the treatment of individuals but for the actual regeneration of a species.
Research can help with respect to blood supplies both in ordinary times and in times of crisis. Instead of storage facilities of blood by blood types (such as Type O), we could rely on stem cells to produce blood when there are major casualties from war, natural disasters, epidemics, or biochemical accidents.
The chief source of stem cells for research today is excess or extra embryos received from in vitro fertilization or from terminated pregnancies. In each such case the only creative use of such embryos or fetuses is for research or actual life-saving use. Certainly the destruction of unused or unneeded embryos is not "pro-life." In a TV interview, Senator Orrin Hatch (one of the most anti-abortion Senators) said that support for stem cell research was "the most pro-life position [because] it could save millions of lives."
Another public opponent of abortion, former Senator Connie Mack, said, "I believe life begins at conception . . . but it depends on how one defines conception. Initially we said that conception . . . took place in the uterus. We`re talking [now] about embryos that in fact have been created in petri dishes" (Frances Kissling in Conscience Summer, 2001).
Paul D. Simmons, while Professor of Christian Ethics at Southern Baptist Theological School, Louisville, provided another reason against the Vatican idea that a person or human being exists at conception. He wrote, "The fallacy of believing a zygote is a person is also seen when the argument is reduced ad absurdum: Every body cell of a person contains one`s DNA or genetic code. That is why theoretically, at least, persons may be cloned or duplicated. If one uses the genetic definition of `person` one would have to regard every cell as a human being, since each cell has the potential for becoming another person through cloning."
Simmons went on to say, "A fertilized ovum (zygote) . . . is a cluster of cells, but hardly complex enough to qualify as a `person.` A person or human being has capacities of reflective choice, relational response, social experience, moral perception and self awareness." (Paul Simmons, "The Fetus as Person," cited in Doerr and Prescott, Abortion Rights and Fetal Personhood, 18)
Dr. Charles Gardner, an embryologist and specialist in cell biology, wrote, "The biological argument that a human being is created at fertilization . . . comes as a surprise to most embryologists . . . for it contradicts all that they have learned in the past few decades. . . . in humans when two sibling embryos combine into one . . . the resulting person may be completely normal. If the two original embryos were determined to become particular individuals, such a thing could not happen. The embryos would recognize themselves to be different . . . and would not unite. But here the cells seem unaware of any distinction between themselves . . . The only explanation is that the individual is not fixed or determined at this early stage." (Charles Gardner, "Is an Embryo a Person," Nation, Nov. 13, 1989).
In therapeutic cloning, a cell would be taken from the patient. The cell`s nucleus containing its DNA would be put into a woman`s egg from which its own nucleus had been removed. The cell in effect is a substitute for the sperm. Hence the egg, believing it has been fertilized, would in another four or five days develop into a blastocyst from which stem cells can be removed. These could provide treatments for patients, for example, who need an exact organ match, so as to prevent rejection by the patient.
Or the resulting stem cells could be cultured to grow into self-sustaining colonies and treated or turned into different types of tissues such as heart cells or nerve cells. At this early stage little is known about which technology should be used to get thousands of unfertilized eggs, for women who use in vitro fertilization generally do not produce more than ten to fifteen eggs.
Reproductive cloning, which I believe should be opposed, is intended to produce a similar human being to the one from whom stem cells are taken. It is done for such purposes as vanity, or to replace a child or friend who has died, or to prefer one sex over another, or to try to develop another Einstein. Actually, there is no assurance that such effort at replacement would be successful, since even if DNA were the same, we are all more than biological entities. Each of us is shaped by educational, cultural, and other environments, so that no Einstein or any other genius could be replicated simply by identical cell development or cloning.
Reproductive cloning is creating embryos from adult cells, but in therapeutic cloning the fertilized eggs, instead of being inserted in a womb to develop into a fetus, would be kept in lab dishes and used to generate stem cells.
There are several reasons for opposing legislation that would ban therapeutic cloning. One is that it will retard or adversely affect advanced scientific research in the United States designed to prevent disease and disability.
A second reason is that if prohibited here it would simply force those who want to engage in such research to go to other countries where the Vatican or other religious fundamentalists cannot ban certain forms of science, as the Pope did to the discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus.
A third byproduct of such banning or outlawing of scientific research might leave the U.S. unprotected from certain diseases, epidemics, and other calamities at a time when such scientific results would be most needed.
Another reason to permit and encourage stem cell research is its impact on in vitro fertilization, which the Vatican also wants to outlaw. If in vitro fertilization is curtailed or ended, will excess human embryos be immediately destroyed, since they could not be used to produce stem cells?
Human embryos have a high imperfection ratio, and both in nature and in clinics, up to eight or more embryos are created for each successful pregnancy. At present, surplus embryos are usually stored in freezers. Is their destruction more ethical than their use to enhance life for those who suffer? The Vatican`s position and its influence on politicians would say, "Yes, because pro-life is inconsistently pro-death at this point."
The chief countries overseas that permit therapeutic cloning and stem cell research are Britain and Sweden. In Britain there is a Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority that licenses both fertility clinics and research institutions that study human embryos. Since 1991, a total of 294,584 embryos have been destroyed, and 53,497 have been used for research purposes. (New York Times, August 14, 2001)
Portugal, Italy, Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg have no laws on the subject and Spain and Finland allow research under certain conditions. Israel has produced insulin from stem cell research that could lead to treatment for one form of diabetes that could be used to help more than one million Americans with that type of diabetes (New York Times, August 2, 2001).
Therefore, if the religious right and a President who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" have their way, research and success in dealing with disease will continue in other countries and may eventually benefit some Americans. Others who have Parkinson`s disease, Alzheimer`s disease, and numerous other maladies may not be so fortunate. They will not benefit from the pro-life campaign of the Vatican and others who influence the White House, because for them "pro-life" applies only to contraception and abortion.
