Manufacturing Human Beings in Worcester?

Company Is Cloning Animals and . . . Human Embryos

Two types of human cloning are now being done — or are about to be done — across the world. One is the actual creation of babies which the scientists hope will grow into persons. The other is the creation of human embryos, which are destroyed after a few days. Before these embryos are destroyed, some of their cells are used for research. The proposed legislation in Congress would outlaw both types of cloning. 

The term “stem cells” refers to cells which are not “specialized,” as are those in the heart, skin or nerves, etc. Scientists say that when these stem cells are taken from babies, it is possible to cause them to become specialized. Therefore, the cells can be valuable to their work. However, other research is now showing that cells from adults, placentas or umbilical cords may be just as beneficial. 

Advanced Cell is one of the leaders of the biotech industry in hoping to produce stem cells from embryos which have been cloned.

Human Cloning Moves Ahead

Some scientists are saying they are going to produce human babies within a year. Dr. Severino Antinori of Rome told the National Academy of Sciences in Washington last month that he has developed methods to screen out abnormal embryos. He says he is working with eight couples in England to produce the first cloned baby. “I fully expect the first cloned baby to be born next year,” he says. 

Although England does not allow such cloning, in January it became the first country to allow cloning to obtain stem cells. The embryos must be destroyed after 14 days. 

But there is widespread opposition to the cloning. The Council of Europe has already passed a ban on cloning while 24 countries (including Germany, France, Italy and Japan) have enacted national bans on cloning. 

Because of the eugenics practiced in Germany under Hitler, that country is very sensitive to such research. The recent action by Congress was praised by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. He and his French counterpart, Hubert Vedrine, are pushing the UN for a human cloning ban. 

In the U.S. Senate, the Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, has said he’s “opposed to the effort to clone under virtually any circumstances.” He also told reporters that he didn’t necessarily oppose cloning for research purposes. He is very supportive of using stem cells from fertility labs for research purposes. In 1998, the Senate considered a total ban on cloning after Chicago physicist Richard Seed announced he was going to try to clone a human being, but it was killed by a filibuster led by the Democrats.

The Boston Globe has been clear in its news stories that it favors the use of cloning to produce stem cells. For example, in a front-page story on August 9 it reported that this type of research is going to leave America and go overseas. “Other countries have had similar debates but with far less vitriol,” it reported and continued,  “Great Britain, for instance has fostered research on human embryonic stem cells and became the first country to create embryos for that purpose.” But what the Globe is really saying is that there was less “vitriol” only because there was no strenuous opposition and England allowed the scientists to do their experimenting. 

Animal Cloning at Advanced Cell 

Less controversial than its human cloning, much of Advanced Cell’s research to date has been animal cloning. Although the company does have agricultural clients, the vast majority of its research which focuses on animals, is done “as a way to understand basic processes so they can be applied to human medicine,” according to Dr. Lanza, head of medical and scientific development. 

Principal Researchers at Advanced Cell Dr. Michael D. West Dr. Jose B. Cibelli Dr. Robert P. Lanza

Even the animal cloning projects have raised objections. According to Joyce da Silva of Compassion in World Animal Farming, herds of identical cloned animals would be an animal welfare disaster. “There would be a huge loss of genetic diversity with unforeseeable results in terms of animal illness.” 

Two years ago, Advanced Cell made a sensational attempt to bring back to life a species of wild ox from Spain (the “gaur”) which had become extinct several years before. Skin cells from the last living gaur were fused with cow eggs stripped of their nuclei. One cloned gaur was born in January and lived only two days. (Many cloned animals, if even surviving till birth, die soon after). 

West says, “[Our] work on endangered species is primarily altruistic. We don’t see this as a profit center for the company. Our thought is simply that the human species has casually used technology to despoil the planet, the least we can do is to use the technologies we work with every day to make a small contribution to save innocent and endangered species.” The company is collaborating with the Soma Foundation, which “provides funding for … zoos to preserve endangered species through cloning.” 

Human Cloning at Advanced Cell 

Advanced Cell is one of the leaders of the biotech industry in hoping to produce stem cells from embryos which have been cloned. 

The first human clone embryo at Advanced Cell Technology was about one-millionth cow. Richard Doerflinger, spokesman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has explained how dangerous he considers this to be. 

“The ominous implications of West’s [cow-man] experiment go beyond concerns about mixing humans and animals. One of the last practical barriers to mass production of identical human embryos for destructive experiments was the fact that it required donated human eggs, which are difficult to obtain in large quantities. But if eggs can be obtained in large numbers from other species, there may be almost no limit to the number of identical human embryos who can be produced by cloning for such lethal experiments. 

“Creating and destroying human life in the laboratory on a regular basis could actually become the standard way to treat a broad array of human diseases. Each time a patient requires replacement tissue, his or her body cells (along with eggs taken from a cow or other species) would be used to create genetically matched human embryos who are grown and then dissected for their stem cells. Saving each human life, if this is ever proved to be possible, would demand countless deaths in the lab.” 

Doerflinger’s predicted outcome seems credible, in light of what the company’s Dr. Lanza told the Boston Globe: “My guess is, you will see in our lifetimes the ability to grow organs” out of a patient’s own cells. “We’ll be able to grow immune-compatible organs for anyone who needs one, within 20 to 30 years, I’m virtually certain.” 

According to Doerflinger, Advanced Cell was “virtually alone” in 1998 “in insisting that success in embryonic stem cell research would require moving on to human cloning to make genetically matched tissues for each patient.” Recently, the Geron Corporation has also adopted this strategy, deciding to acquire the Roslin Institute in Scotland (cloners of Dolly the sheep). Doerflinger says this is the “slippery slope in action.” 

Such privately funded companies do not need federal money to proceed further down the slope. They may, however, become subject to regulation by federal and/or state law. 

Advanced Cell is now proceeding with all-human components when cloning for embryonic stem cell production, according to recent public statements. The “cow-man” type experiments may be continuing in the lab as well. And the Boston Globe is now reporting a recent patent showing the company intends to grow “cells for human organs, such as hearts and livers, in the bodies of mice.” Dr. Lanza said the “technique was only a research tool and that the company has no plans to test mouse-grown cells in humans.”  

Stem Cell Research: Precursor to Cloning People 

Many question whether there is scientific justification for this company to move ahead with its production of human clones as a source of embryonic cells. Currently, the evidence is mounting that adult stem cells, even the lowly fat cell, are just as promising in therapeutic applications, if not more so, than stem cells taken from embryos.

Adult stem cells from the patient’s own body would also have the advantage, Dr. West claims, for cloned embryonic stem cells: they could be genetically identical to the patient, and thus not be rejected. In addition, embryonic stem cells have been shown to result in freakish effects. 

These emerging results question the claim that stem cells from embryos, from whatever source, are required for progress in “therapeutic” stem cell research. 

Might we suspect their aim is to clone for cloning’s sake? Though their scientists have publicly denied this time and again, many say that “reproductive cloning” will surely come if “therapeutic cloning” is allowed. 

Professor Leon Kass of the University of Chicago has said, “Once embryonic clones are produced in laboratories, the eugenic revolution will have begun, and we will have lost our chance to do anything about it.”  

A report by the Center for Public Integrity says that anti-cloning activists see the industry’s low-key position on cloning as part of an overall strategy. In that report, Doerflinger says that the industry’s goal is to “get the embryonic stem cell research established first and then call for cloning. It is a two-step process.” It also quotes Richard Hayes of the Exploratory Initiative on New Genetic Technologies on the biotech industry in general. “They are against human cloning, but they don’t say they won’t do it.” 

George Annas, Professor of Health Law at Boston University School of Medicine, says of human cloning, “It’s irresponsible and it’s unethical in the practice of medicine.”

He thinks cloning might be stopped by denying doctors’ licenses, denying publication of scientific papers on cloning and passing laws creating heavy penalties. He also believes the company’s current experiments “might open up the firm to prosecution under a Massachusetts law that prohibits certain kinds of fetal research.” 

Dr. West has, in fact, said that we must leave the door open to reproductive cloning. He has called for “government guidelines for the application of [embryonic stem cell] and [nuclear transfer cloning] technologies in medicine. … Poorly constructed legislation, designed to prohibit the cloning of a human being, could inadvertently interfere with urgent and ethical applications of the technologies in medicine.”

But others wonder why this is “urgent”? Haven’t people been getting sick and dying for many millennia? Aren’t we now the beneficiaries of many fantastic medical advances? “Ethical” applications? If West already knows what’s “ethical,” why is he asking for government guidelines? Is it “urgent” merely to make money for companies such as Advanced Cell Technology? 

West’s protestations against cloning a person may be placed in doubt also by his statement reported in the Washington Post: “ACT’s West predicted that cloning efficiency will be vastly improved in a few years. And although he is opposed to human cloning on other grounds, he said those committed to cloning people should at least wait until techniques improve. ‘We’re talking about harming developing humans,’ West said. ‘Why not wait three years?’ ”  

It is West’s own company which is contributing to the techniques which will allow others to proceed with the cloning of people. West also admits here that the very embryos his company produces are, or at least can become, “developing humans.” His advice to others to wait three years implies he believes in the “slippery slope,” that his advances will be used by others. 

His scientist Dr. Lanza has said that cloning a human being is “definitely an achievable feat, unsafe and unethical, but achievable with the right resources and know-how. Cloning is conceptually very simple, so someone with the drive has a real chance of succeeding.” 

Dr. West assured the U.S. Senate in 1998 that the company “has no intent to clone a human being, and we are opposed to efforts to clone a human being. As of today, we see no clear utility in producing a child by NT [cloning], and if such uses were identified, NT [cloning] would likely carry with it an inappropriately high risks [sic] of embryonic and fetal wastages.”  

But one must look very carefully at his words to see that he qualifies that statement with “as of today.” This makes many wonder what he might think about the subject tomorrow. 

Defies Standards of Scientific Community 

We know that West’s company has the eggs now, so human clones could well be in existence there already. They hid their existence once before. There is some precedent of making announcements about research long after the experiments have taken place, though in this case, they seem to be rushing to be the first to produce cloned human embryos. It was the day after the Jones Institute (for Reproductive Medicine in Virginia) announcement, that it is using donated egg and sperm to produce embryos just for research, that Advanced Cell hurried its cloning announcement to press. 

The Hartford Courant reported that, “West has raised eyebrows among his scientific peers for his willingness to discuss his work with cow embryos before publishing his research in a scientific journal. And a few of his peers are suspicious that he went public with his work only shortly after the New York Times ran a story about his former company, Geron.” 

West attempted to justify this breach of professional etiquette as a way of defusing public concern that the company was violating the 1997 presidential moratorium on human cloning. Later, he said that his July 2001 announcement (that his company was cloning human embryos for stem cells) was intended “to open a serious national discussion about the ethics of such work.”  

However, he clearly intends to forge ahead with the work at a pace beyond the public’s – or government’s – ability to keep up. His scientists will not report whether or not they are successful until the results can be published in a scientific journal, the Washington Post reported.  

The company’s Dr. Lanza recently said that the “thrust of the firm’s human-cell research … is to find ways to repair damage to heart, nerve, liver, and other cells, in order to treat such maladies as Parkinson’s disease and heart disease.” He said that the vast majority of the company’s research focuses on animals as a way to understand basic processes so they can be applied to human medicine. 

What to Expect from Human Clones

Here’s what to expect from the first human cloning experiments, which will threaten both the surrogate mothers and the babies which result from the cloning, according to several scientists. Rick Weiss of the Washington Post writes:

“Almost all of the first 100 clones will abort spontaneously because of genetic or physical abnormalities, putting the health and lives of the surrogate mothers at risk. Of the handful of clones that make it to term, most will have grossly enlarged placentas and fatty livers. And of the three or four fetuses that may survive their birth, most will be monstrously big -- perhaps 15 pounds – and will likely die in the first week or two from heart and blood vessel problems, underdeveloped lungs, diabetes or immune system deficiencies. With access to an intensive care unit, perhaps one of those 100 clones will survive, scientists said. It will bear the hallmark of most animal clones: a huge navel – a remnant of the oversized umbilical cord that inexplicably develops during most pregnancies involving clones.” 

Professor Rudolf Jaenisch at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge says, “Serious problems have happened in all five species [of animals] cloned so far, and all are mammals, so of course it’s going to happen in humans. … You can dispose of these animals, but tell me, what do you do with abnormal humans? You probably keep them alive with medical intervention, and they’ll probably be miserable; and even the ones that look normal won’t be. It’s an outrageous criminal enterprise to even attempt.” 

Fewer scientists speak publicly of the profound effect human cloning would have on family relations, the psychology of the cloned person, societal issues, or deeper spiritual questions. These would seem to be the sort of issues bioethics advisers would bring up. (For more on this, see Huxley’s  Brave New World; Leon Kass, Preventing a Brave New World in The New Republic, 5/21/01, www.thenewrepublic.com; Family Research Council, www.frc.org; and Pontifical Academy for Life, Reflections on Human Cloning at www.prolife-mcfl.org.)

We can only imagine the political world to come, where cloning technology will be combined with genetic engineering. Who will hold the power to decide what traits are desirable in the humans of the future?  

The staff of MassNews also contributed to this article.

Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent.