![](USCCB%20-%20Pro-Life%20Activities%20-%20Research%20Cloning%20and%20%EF%BF%BDFetus%20Farming%EF%BF%BD%20%20The%20Slippery%20Slope%20in%20Action_files/solidline.gif)
I. The Current Situation
Some scientists and their political allies support human cloning for
research purposes (which they call "therapeutic" cloning, although it
has not produced any therapies). They say this practice can be kept
totally separate from "reproductive" cloning (using cloned human embryos
to initiate pregnancies).
However, the cloning procedure is exactly the same in both cases; so
many supporters of research cloning admit that allowing it will make
reproductive cloning more likely as well.1 It is doubtful
that any ban on reproductive use of cloned embryos would be practical,
enforceable, or even constitutionally valid once the mass-production of
embryos for research purposes is authorized.2
II. "Fetus Farming": An Alarming Development
In recent years this debate has shifted in an alarming direction:
- With the support of groups favoring research cloning, many states are considering (and some have passed) laws that allow placing cloned human embryos in women's wombs, but forbid any attempt to let them be born alive.
Under these laws, researchers can implant cloned human embryos in
wombs, develop them to the fetal stage, then abort them for their cells
and tissues (a process some call "fetus farming").
- This legislative trend is based on recent scientific evidence suggesting that therapeutic benefits will not be safely obtained from the cloning of human embryos unless such "fetus farming" is allowed.
This new agenda has required a shift in definitions. Increasingly, "reproductive" cloning is said to occur only if a cloned human being is brought to full term and born alive. In this way a law can be called a ban on "reproductive" cloning even if its only legal effect is to mandate abortion for any woman carrying a cloned unborn child in her womb.
III. Documentation of this Trend
A. The Legislative Slippery Slope to Fetus Farming
Until recently, groups promoting research cloning, such as the
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), supported state and federal
bills that prohibit implanting a cloned embryo in a womb. For
example, in Congress they supported the "Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell
Research Protection Act" of 2003 (S. 303). That bill actually allowed
the human cloning procedure, calling it "nuclear transplantation," but
banned two things: (1) "implanting or attempting to implant the product
of nuclear transplantation into a uterus or the functional equivalent of
a uterus"; and (2) maintaining such a cloned human embryo for "more
than 14 days from its first cell division," not counting time spent in a
freezer.3
BIO told the President's Council on Bioethics in June 2003 that it
supported this 14-day limit – adding that this may be reconsidered
"umpteen years" from now in light of new facts.4
Yet months before making these remarks to the President's Council, BIO was urging its state affiliates
to help pass laws violating this 14-day limit. The national group
recommended a new California law on cloning as a "model" for other
states.5 That law authorizes "research involving the
derivation and use of human embryonic stem cells, human embryonic germ
cells, and human adult stem cells from any source, including somatic cell nuclear transplantation."6 California law also bans initiating a pregnancy using a cloned human embryo, but only if that pregnancy "could result in the birth of a human being."7
In fact, the same official who presented BIO's testimony to the
President's Council on Bioethics had already testified in support of a
New Jersey bill with this same broad language.8 After
critics pointed out that the New Jersey bill did not even really ban
"reproductive" cloning, the bill's sponsors made its extreme scope even
clearer. The final law bans "cloning of a human being," defined as "the
replication of a human individual by cultivating a cell with genetic
material through the egg, embryo, fetal and newborn stages into a new human individual."9
Developing the cloned embryo to any point short of this to harvest
cells and tissues is allowed, and the governor later decided it could be
publicly funded. Only letting the cloned human survive "through" this
entire process is prohibited.
In keeping with BIO's new approach, at least nine states considered
sweeping "therapeutic cloning" bills in 2002 and 2003, allowing the
exploitation and destruction of cloned humans well past the embryonic
stage. This approach is now reflected in California's state
constitution through voter approval of "Proposition 71" in November
2004: It rejects "human reproductive cloning," defined as using a cloned
embryo to initiate a pregnancy if this is done as part of "the
practice of creating or attempting to create a human being" (which seems
intended to mean a live-born human being). Other states have also
continued to consider such legislation.
But why the shift toward "fetus farming"? The answer lies in recent cloning research.
B. The Researchers' Slippery Slope: The Need for Fetal Organs
The shift in legislation is due to a growing realization that human
cloning will probably not produce usable cells and tissues unless cloned
humans can be developed past the embryonic stage. Five recent studies
are of special importance:
- The first animal study claiming therapeutic benefits from cloning was published in April 2002.10
It used cells from a cloned mouse embryo to try to reverse an immune
deficiency in the original mouse. This effort failed to cure the
condition, and showed that even genetically matched embryonic cells from
an animal's own clone may be rejected by the animal.11 The
researchers succeeded in curing the disease only when they modified stem
cells from the cloned embryo (to correct the original mouse's genetic
defect), used these stem cells to create a new embryo, then placed that
embryo in a mouse's womb to develop it to the newborn stage. The born
mouse's adult stem cells were placed back in the original mouse to
reverse the disease.12
- In June 2002, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in
Massachusetts reported on their efforts to use cloning to produce kidney
tissue for cows. The effort succeeded only when they placed the cloned
cow embryo in a cow's womb, grew it to the fetal stage, then aborted it
to obtain developed kidney tissue. The authors pointed out that
because this required gestation in a womb, it should not be considered
as a model for human "therapeutic cloning."13
- In February 2004, ACT reported on its efforts to clone mouse
embryos to produce new heart tissue for mice. Once again, usable cells
were produced only after the researchers placed the cloned mouse embryos
in "surrogate mother" mice, grew them to the late fetal stage
(the equivalent of the fifth to sixth month of pregnancy in humans),
then aborted them for their heart tissue. This time, however, their
report contained no disclaimer about this not being a model for human "therapeutic cloning."14
Even the fact that the study required fetus farming was made clear
only in a data supplement on "materials and methods," quietly posted
online after ACT's news release about this "advance" had been issued.15
In the news release, ACT hails its study as presenting "an important
new paradigm" for therapies, but falsely describes it as involving
"myocardial regeneration obtained with stem cells from cloned embryos."16 In fact cloned embryos were grown into cloned fetuses, then aborted for their cells.
- In ACT's third study on "therapeutic cloning" in animals, in
June 2005, its researchers were more candid. The new study, on
producing new blood cells in cows, openly reported that cloning was used
to generate "cloned bovine fetuses," and "clone fetal liver
hematopoietic stem cells" were transplanted into the cows that provided
the original body cells.17 The cow fetuses, whose normal
gestation time is similar to that of humans, were aborted at 100-120
days' gestation (3 to 4 months) for their liver tissue.18
While the adult cows developed only very limited "chimerism" (survival
of cells from the cloned fetuses), the authors added that
"transplantation of whole liver from older cloned fetuses into unconditioned cows would be expected to give significantly higher levels of long-term chimerism."19
ACT's own press release announced that in this study the cloning
technique was used "to generate fetal liver hematopoietic stem cells"
(which is misleading, since it actually generated mid-term fetuses that
were then dissected for their livers). The release quoted chief author
Robert Lanza as saying: "We hope to use this technology in the future to
treat patients with diverse diseases..."20
- A January 2004 study of cloned embryos helps explain why cloning research is taking this alarming direction. It seems the cloning procedure wreaks havoc in gene expression at the embryonic stage – that is, all the human genes are present, but the genes do not always "switch on" and express themselves at the right time and in the right order, and this produces many abnormalities. However, there may be a second opportunity to finish "reprogramming" the genes successfully, if one can get the cloned embryo to survive to the fetal stage.21 This provides a scientific rationale for developing cloned embryos to the fetal stage, to produce more normal cells that are usable in research or therapy.
IV. Conclusion
Cloning supporters in the biotechnology industry are moving on to the
next stage of their agenda – one that requires gestation in the womb to
grow and then destroy fetal humans for their body parts. They believe
use of human cloning for "therapeutic" purposes may require use of what
everyone once called "reproductive" cloning.
Notes
- A group of researchers and ethicists who support
cloning for research purposes (which they call CRNT for "cell
replacement through nuclear transfer") admits that "the techniques
developed in CRNT research can prepare the way scientifically and
technically for efforts at reproductive cloning." Robert P. Lanza et
al., "The Ethical Validity of Using Nuclear Transfer in Human
Transplantation," Journal of the American Medical Association 284
(December 27, 2000): 3175-3179 at 3178. The American Society for
Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) says of the same cloning procedure, which
it calls SCNT for "somatic cell nuclear transfer": "If undertaken, the
development of SCNT for such therapeutic purposes, in which embryos are
not transferred for pregnancy, is likely to produce knowledge that could
be used to achieve reproductive SCNT." ASRM Ethics Committee, "Human
somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning)," Fertility and Sterility 74 (November 2000): 873-876 at 873; www.asrm.org/Media/Ethics/cloning.pdf.
- See: Daniel J. Bryant, Testimony on behalf of the U.S.
Department of Justice before the House Government Reform Committee, May
15, 2002,
www.cloninginformation.org/congressional_testimony/bryant_02-05-15.htm;
Richard M. Doerflinger, Testimony on behalf of the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science,
Technology and Space, March 27, 2003, www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/cloning/test327.shtml.
- Even this bill has an implied threat against a woman who
already carries a cloned embryo in her womb. If she continues the
pregnancy past 14 days, she could violate federal law and be subject to
civil penalties for not aborting before that time. If the pregnancy has
continued past 14 days, however, there is no legal penalty for
maintaining the fetus to the point of live birth. See Doerflinger, note
2 supra.
- Remarks of Michael J. Werner, Esq. on behalf of the
Biotechnology Industry Organization to the President's Council on
Bioethics, June 12, 2003,
www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jun03/session4.html.
- See Illinois Biotechnology Industry Organization, "NOTES:
BIO State Government Relations Committee Meeting, March 4, 2003," p. 2;
www.publicintegrity.org/docs/cloning/Bio_notes.pdf.
- Cal. Health and Safety Code §125300.
- Cal. Health and Safety Code §24185. Also see Americans to
Ban Cloning, "Report: State Bills on Human Cloning," March 26, 2003
(emphasis added); www.cloninginformation.org/info/ABC-State-Laws.htm.
- Testimony from Michael J. Werner, Esq. on behalf of the
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) in support of New Jersey
Senate Bill 1909, Senate Health, Human Service & Senior Citizens
Committee, November 4, 2002; www.bio.org/local/bioethics/tst200211.asp.
- N.J. Stat. Ann. §2C: 11A-1. Also see "Report," note 7 supra.
- William M. Rideout III et al., "Correction of a Genetic Defect by Nuclear Transplantation and Combined Cell and Gene Therapy," Cell 109 (April 5, 2002): 17-27.
- One set of experts noted that in this study "the donor
cells, although derived from the animals with the same genetic
background, are rejected by the hosts," and concluded that such
"unexpected findings" pose a challenge to future use of embryonic stem
cells for therapeutic purposes. Robert Y.L. Tsai et al., "Plasticity,
Niches, and the Use of Stem Cells," Developmental Cell 2 (June 2002): 707-712 at 710.
- See Americans to Ban Cloning, "Why the 'Successful' Mouse
'Therapeutic' Cloning Really Didn't Work,"
www.cloninginformation.org/info/unsuccessful_mouse_therapy.htm.
- Robert Lanza et al., "Generation of histocompatible tissues using nuclear transplantation," Nature Biotechnology
20 (July 2002): 689-696;
www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n7/pdf/nbt703.pdf. The authors declared:
"Because the cloned cells were derived from early-stage fetuses, this
approach is not an example of therapeutic cloning and would not be
undertaken in humans." Id. at 689.
- Robert Lanza et al., "Regeneration of the Infarcted Heart With Stem Cells Derived by Nuclear Transplantation," Circulation Research 94 (April 2, 2004): 820-827; http://circres.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/94/6/820.
- "Cleaved (2-cell) embryos were transferred... to the
oviducts of pseudopregnant CD1 surrogate mothers. Cloned fetuses
recovered at 11 to 13 days of gestation were used as source of liver
cells." Online Data Supplement, at
http://circres.ahajournals.org/cgi/data/94/6/820/DC1/1. Total
gestational period in the mouse is about 20 days long.
- See Advanced Cell Technology, "Cloned Stem Cells Regenerate
Heart Muscle Following a Heart Attack," February 10, 2004, posted on
The Healthcare Sales and Marketing Network;
http://salesandmarketingnetwork.com/news_release.php?ID=14109&key=Advanced%20Cell%20Technology.
- Robert Lanza et al., "Long-Term Bovine Hematopoietic Engraftment with Clone-Derived Stem Cells," Cloning and Stem Cells 7 (June 2005): 95-106 at 95; www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/clo.2005.7.95?cookieSet=1.
- Id. at 96.
- Id. at 105 (emphasis added).
- Advanced Cell Technology, "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer
Gives Old Animals Youthful Immune Cells," June 29, 2005;
www.advancedcell.com/press-release/somatic-cell-nuclear-transfer-gives-old-animals-youthful-immune-cells.
- Josef Fulka et al., "Do cloned mammals skip a reprogramming step?", Nature Biotechnology 22.1 (January 2004): 25-26; www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n1/pdf/nbt0104-25.pdf.