Thinking to Believe

I never ceased to be amazed at all of the scientific inaccuracies and spin the mainstream media is responsible for when reporting on embryonic stem cell research and cloning (and to a lesser extent, abortion).

This morning I read an article on This Is London about English researchers who are seeking to clone human embryos using rabbit eggs rather than human eggs. If successful, the resulting embryo would be a chimera: part human, part non-human. In this case it would be 99.9% human, .1% rabbit.

Not to make light of the moral issues involved with creating chimeras, but I can’t help to laugh when I think about what would happen if one of these cloned embryos was allowed to be born (rather than killing it within 14 days). Can you imagine what little Johnny would say in his 4^th grade class when he has to research and report on his genealogy: “I am part English, part Italian, and part rabbit. My mom is the Cadbury bunny, my grandpa is Peter Cottontail, and my great grandpa is the Easter Bunny!

Humor aside, while creating chimeras has been going on for some time now, I find it odd how cavalier the reporting on it is. It is reported on as if there are no qualms about joining human and animals together. Maybe it’s because there is usually so little animal DNA involved (or the converse). The scary thing is that eventually scientists will start mixing more and more genetic info together so that it will be difficult to distinguish whether the chimera is human, animal, or something else. Right now scientists are simply getting the public comfortable with the practice in principle. Then, they will use the boil-the-frog strategy in which they will gradually and incrementally increase the mixing of DNA until they are finally able to achieve the levels of genetic mixing they really desire. The process will be slow enough that we—like a frog—won’t realize we’re being boiled in a pot of water.

But I digress. The reason I bring this article to your attention is to highlight what the article did not say, and the spin on what they did say.

What they did not say is that what these scientists want to do is clone human beings. As a general rule scientists and the media go to great lengths to avoid the “C” word, even if it means being intellectually dishonest and redefining established scientific definitions. The author did admit that what is being produced is an embryo (which is more than American media will usually admit), but s/he would not say how that embryo is being produced. S/he leaves it as the vague “create embryos.”

The article ends with these words: “The embryos will be allowed to grow for only 14 days, at which point they will be cells smaller than a pinhead.” Apart from the fact that this sentence seems to stop short of an actual finish by failing to note that they will be killed by the 14^th day, and apart from the fact that this is a strange way to end an article, what is said is a common liberal tactic to devalue the life of that which they advocate killing. Why else comment on the size of the embryo? The presupposition is that since they are so small, they do not have value. How being small deprives one of value is never explained or defended. It is merely assumed, and merely asserted. The next time you hear somebody repeat this line, a good question to ask them is Exactly what size does one have to be before they become valuable and obtain the right to life? Chirp chirp chirp chirp.

Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures (MCSCRC), a cloning and embryonic stem cell research advocacy group, uses misinformation to persuade the Michigan public towards their agenda. For example, on their FAQ page for somatic cell nuclear transfer they responded as follows to the question, “What is somatic cell nuclear transfer?”:

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a laboratory procedure that creates embryos for use in stem cell research; sometimes referred to as “therapeutic cloning.” In SCNT, nuclear transfer is used for medical treatment or research. For example, nuclear transfer could be used to create a line of embryonic stem cells genetically identical to the donor. These embryonic stem cells could then be used to generate specialized cells that are transplanted into the patient to replace cells lost to injury or disease. When used in a medical treatment, this would ensure that the new cells would not face rejection by the patient’s immune system. Nuclear transfer also gives researchers the ability to create stem cell lines that carry genetic defects that cause inherited human diseases, allowing them to study the origin of these diseases and potentially to develop new treatments.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>

This is simply not true. SCNT is a laboratory procedure that creates human embryos, period. What scientists intend to do with the embryos created by SCNT is irrelevant. The MCSCRC is illegitimately incorporating scientists’ intentions into the definition of SCNT itself.

They are a little more honest when answering the question, “How does SCNT work?”

SCNT substitutes the nucleus of a somatic cell (which contains all the genetic information of the patient) for the nucleus of a donated egg that has not been fertilized. In cell culture, this customized egg is then coaxed with an electronic or chemical catalyst to develop into a zygote as if it had been fertilized. The zygote begins cell division and develops into a ball of cells called the morula and then into the blastocyst at approximately five days. The inner cell mass of the blastocyst is then removed to generate a pluripotent stem cell line. After the inner cell mass is removed, the blastocyst is no longer capable of further development.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–>

At least they indicate what the product is (zygote). Unfortunately, most people will not know what that is. And rather than calling it an embryo after the one-cell stage, they refer to it as a morula. It appears that they are trying to avoid the word “human” and “embryo” at all costs.

And don’t miss the euphemism for killing: “no longer capable of further development.”

The most disingenuous quote is when answering the question, “Can SCNT be used to clone humans?” They answer:

No. The purpose of SCNT is to find cures and therapies to treat human disease. SCNT awakens the natural capacity for self-repair that resides in a person’s genes. While SCNT has been the technique used to clone animals like “Dolly” the sheep, there is no evidence that it could also successfully clone a human due to the increased complexity of the human organism. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical communities in the United States is that human reproductive cloning should be banned.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–>

What a mess of a statement! In one sense they are right. Current technology has not advanced to the point where a human has been successfully cloned, but people all over the world are trying to do this very thing! But they contradict themselves. They say SCNT can’t be used to clone humans, and yet they say cloning humans should be banned. Why do so if SCNT is incapable of doing so? Obviously it can.

To say the purpose of SCNT is to find cures is absolutely false. The purpose of SCNT is to create new human beings asexually. What the creator of those human beings does with them afterwards is irrelevant to what the purpose of SCNT is in itself.

On their “Facts & Myth page” they answer the supposed myth that “cloning is cloning is cloning. It’s all the same.”

FACT: Not all cloning is the same. According to the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), scientists do many kinds of cloning every day, most of which is commonly accepted. Cloning has allowed scientists to develop powerful new drugs and to produce insulin and useful bacteria in the lab. It also allows researchers to track the origins of biological weapons, catch criminals, and free innocent people. There’s a world of difference between reproductive cloning- something that should be banned right away – and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Therapeutic cloning is the transplanting of a patient’s own DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells that could cure devastating diseases. Reproductive cloning is the use of cloning technology to create a child. GPI, along with leading scientists and most Americans, oppose reproductive cloning.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–>

What exactly is the “world of difference” between reproductive and therapeutic cloning? There is none! It’s the same process, the same result. The only difference is what the scientist does with the clone once SCNT is complete.

They go on to tackle this supposed myth: “Therapeutic cloning is a slippery slope that leads to reproductive cloning. There is no dividing line between the two forms of cloning.”

FACT: Therapeutic cloning produces stem cells, not babies. With therapeutic cloning, there is no fertilization of the egg by sperm, no implantation in the uterus and no pregnancy. Dr. Harold Varmus, the former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a Nobel laureate, says there is a profound distinction between cloning with the intent of making a human being and research cloning to help understand and treat life-threatening diseases and conditions. Implantation into a womb is the clear, bright line that divides reproductive and non-reproductive technologies. Without implantation, no new human life is possible. This is where society can and must draw the line.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–>

This is laughable! There are so many word games being played here I don’t know where to begin. The MCSCRC recognizes that most people use “baby” to refer to a post-natal human being. By choosing to use that word they can say cloning does not produce babies. But they know that’s now what people are concerned with. People are concerned that cloning produces a new human being. And they should be because it does! Besides, therapeutic cloning does not produce stem cells. It produces human zygotes who begin to develop in the same way every one of us developed at that stage in our lives.

The fact that there is no fertilization involved in cloning (by definition) is irrelevant. Both fertilization and cloning produce the exact same product: a human zygote. The fact that scientists fail to implant the clone into a uterus does not change what it is. And to say “without implantation no new human life is possible” is simply false. Obviously the embryo from which the scientists are extracting stem cells are alive, and their genetic signature identifies them as human. In fact, that’s why scientists are interested in their stem cells.

<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>1<!–[endif]–>Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-somatic.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

2Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-somatic.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

3Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-somatic.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

4Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/factsmyths.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

5Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research & Cures, “Facts &amp; Myth”; available from http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/factsmyths.html; Internet; accessed 22 September 2006.

This is one month old news now, but I’m sure some of you heard about a new technique created by Advanced Cell Technology that allows researchers to extract a single cell from an embryo, and successfully grow a stem cell line without killing the embryo. The news story appeared on the front page of the nation’s most prestigious news papers. What didn’t appear on the front page, however, was the fact that hardly a lick of it was true. The vice-president of the company, and its chief ethicist lied on several occassions about what they did and did not do.

Check out two articles by Wesley J. Smith, lawyer and bioethicist, regarding this scam (here and here). It is really sad how corrupt and politicized science has become. They have a political agenda, and will stop at nothing–including outright deception–to accomplish it.

And for the fun of it, watch pro-life Catholic, Richard Doerflinger, confront ACT vice-president, Robert Lanza about his misrepresentations of his company’s research. He squirms, he evades, and tries to change the subject to put Doerflinger’s personal views about embryonic stem cell research in general on trial.

William Neaves, PhD, former Dean of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and current President of the Stowers Institute, described cloning as follows:

SCNT [somatic cell nuclear transfer, a.k.a. cloning] is the laboratory procedure that can lead to long sought advances in regenerative medicine. It introduces a nucleus from an adult body cell (somatic cell) into the cytoplasm of an enucleated egg, where the genes of the donor cell are induced to recapitulate the earliest steps in development. The early stem cells produced by this procedure have the ability to differentiate into any type of cell or tissue in the adult body.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–>

While Mr. Neaves described the cloning process with great clarity, he failed to mention one very important fact: what the process of SCNT produces. Cloning produces a new human individual. Why leave that fact out? Because it does not fare well for the political agenda of the Stowers Institute. But this is just one casualty among many in his war against biological truth in pursuit of scientific advancement. The rest of his article is filled with many other misrepresentations and scientific distortions.

For example he writes, “Other opponents of SCNT express concern that it creates human life only to destroy it for research purposes. In fact, no new life is created by SCNT. It works entirely with the ordinary body cells of an already-living person. It no more creates human life than does growing someone’s skin cells in tissue culture.” In a certain sense he is correct: no new life is created. No new life is ever created. Life is a continuum. It began thousands, if not millions of years ago and has never ceased since. But that is not the sense in which Neaves is claiming “no new life is created.” He wants to assert that no new individual human being has been created by SCNT, but the field of embryology is definitive that it has. If the clone was placed in an environment suitable for continued growth—rather than being killed for its stem cells—it would mature according to its kind, resulting in a bouncing baby boy are girl nine months later.

Neaves also makes the mistake of confusing parts with wholes when he compares the “product” of SCNT to culturing skin cells. They are very different. An embryo is a person because it is a unitary whole; a “self-integrating organism capable of directing its own maturation as a member of the human species.”<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> Somatic cells such as skin cells, however, are mere parts of a larger whole, unitary organism. Embryos will actively develop themselves into a mature human being if provided the proper environment to do so, whereas somatic cells can only replicate themselves for the survival of the larger organism to which they belong.

While both skin cells and the “product” created by SCNT contain human DNA, they are qualitatively different. The presence of human DNA—while sufficient to demonstrate that an entity is human—is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is an individual human being. Human value is not derived from the mere presence of human DNA in a cell, but to the unitary organism itself to which the cell belongs. We know something is an individual human being because it has an intrinsic ability to direct its own activity/development towards maturation. Somatic cells do not have this ability, so while they are human, they are not individual human beings, and do not possess the same moral quality as somatic cells. While somatic cells and embryos both contain DNA, the latter is qualitatively different from somatic cells because it already is an individual human being, while the other is not. As Dianne Irving wrote:

There is quite a difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess ‘human life’ and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual ‘human being.’… A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human LIFE, but they are not human BEINGS – they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman’s uterus, they would simply rot.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–>

He continues with his misleading and disingenuous claims when he writes:

Some critics of SCNT ask if the stem cells generated by SCNT are no different than those created by fertilization. They worry that the blastocyst generated by fertilization is indistinguishable from the blastocyst resulting from SCNT. In fact, there is a profound difference between the two. A blastocyst formed after fertilization contains a new and unique combination of genes contributed equally by the sperm of the father and the egg of the mother. A blastocyst resulting from SCNT contains only the same genes of the person who donated the body cell nucleus used in the procedure.

The only thing “profound” here is Mr. Neaves ability to duck the objection. The distinction Neaves makes between a fertilized and cloned embryo is valid, but not morally relevant, and not logically relevant to the objection raised. His opponents are arguing that there is no qualitative difference between a blastocyst produced by fertilization and a blastocyst produced by SCNT. Neaves completely ignores the argument by changing the subject to genetic differences. This shift will not work because the genetic differences between fertilized and cloned embryos are scientifically and morally irrelevant. Let me address each in turn.

The genetic differences are scientifically irrelevant because they do not change what the “things” in question are. The only genetic difference between cloned and fertilized embryos is the source of their genes, not the kind or number. Humans produced by fertilization receive their genes from two pre-existing humans, whereas humans produced by cloning receive their genes from one pre-existing human. But the source of the genes is inconsequential to the central question: What is it? Since cloned embryos and fertilized embryos both have a full set of human chromosomes, and they both possess the intrinsic potential to actively develop themselves toward maturation as a whole human being, they are biologically equivalent. To see that a cloned embryo is just as human as a fertilized embryo one need only consider the genetic source of the cloned embryo: a human being. If the “parent’s” cell was fully human, would its clone not be fully human as well? Of course!

The genetic differences are morally irrelevant as well. Whether the newly created embryo is a genetic twin of an existing human being, or the creation of a completely unique human being through fertilization, it is irrelevant to their ontological and moral status as human beings. To see this one need only consider the case of identical twins. Of the two siblings, one was fertilized while the other was naturally cloned from its sibling. Would Neaves argue that the cloned sibling is qualitatively different from its fertilized sibling because the latter “contains a new and unique combination of genes contributed equally by the sperm of the father and the egg of the mother” while the former “contains only the same genes” of the newly fertilized embryo? Of course not! So how can he claim there is a “profound difference” between fertilized and cloned embryos in the lab if the only difference between natural cloning (twinning) and artificial cloning (SCNT) is the amount of time separating the creation of the clone from the fertilized embryo. He can’t. His argument is smoke in mirrors. The simple fact of the matter is that having identical genes to someone else does not make you non-human or rob you of your moral value. The “profound difference” Neaves offers is neither profound, nor relevant to the debate.

He goes on to say, “SCNT does not entail fertilization of an egg with a sperm. It does not involve conception of a new human life. Instead, it awakens the developmental potential in the genome of cells from a person conceived years ago.” Obviously cloning does not entail fertilization (because this refers to a specific method of producing a human being, and thus SCNT cannot be considered fertilization by definition), but what determines the presence of a human being is not how it came into existence, but rather what it is that came into existence. What comes into existence by fertilization is identical to what comes into existence by cloning. Both cloning and fertilization result in a new, individual human being. It is true that SCNT “awakens the developmental potential in the genome of cells from a person conceived years ago,” but in doing so it begins the creation of a new person.

Again he writes:

Another objection to SCNT arises from people who fear it will be misused to clone human beings. If a blastocyst resulting from SCNT were placed in the uterus of a foster mother instead of remaining in a petrie [sic] dish, it is theoretically possible that it might undergo embryonic and fetal development leading to the birth of a genetic clone of the donor of the cell nucleus used in the procedure. This is reproductive cloning, and no legitimate biomedical scientist would countenance attempting such an inappropriate act with human cells. Scientists around the world have deplored any suggestion of using SCNT to clone people.

Theoretically possible? It has already been done. True, it has been with animals, but it is no less possible with humans. Humans are simply more biologically complicated than many of the animals we have cloned, which has impeded our ability to clone ourselves to date. But Neaves acts as if the possibility is science fiction, and he is only considering the logical possibility of it.

Neaves uses the same ploy many others do when he tries to distinguish cloning a human for the purposes of birth from cloning a human for purposes of destructive research by calling the former “reproductive cloning” (contrasted to “therapeutic cloning”). The biological fact of the matter is that all cloning is reproductive in nature. The act of cloning is completed upon a successful nuclear transfer that is then stimulated to fuse and begin growing. While scientists may intend for some clones for one purpose and other clones for a different purpose, and employ terminology to distinguish the two purposes, it is wrong to portray the difference in terminology to indicate a difference in ontology. That distinction is pure fiction, and those who perpetuate it ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Even his illustrated graph is deceptive. While I cannot reproduce it here, I would recommend that you access it at the link above. He shows how the early development of the “product” (he leaves it unnamed in the graph) created by fertilization, and the early development of an product created by cloning are the same. But then he says of the fertilized product: “If blastocyst is implanted into a uterus, embryonic development begins.” Of the cloned product he says: “If inner cell mass is placed in culture these cells will multiply to produce stem cells that can replace damaged cells in the body.” Both claims are false.

Regarding the first, being inside a uterus does not begin embryonic development. Embryonic development begins at the creation of the embryo. While embryonic development will eventually stop if the embryo is not placed in a uterus (because it will die), being placed in a uterus does not instantiate embryonic development.

Regarding the second, the inner cell mass consists of stem cells—it does not create them. Culturing these stem cells will result in their further multiplication, but they existed prior to the culturing.