Login/Signup
Tweets
An error occurred
Oops, an error seems to have occurred. We're sorry for any inconvenience this might have caused. If the error persists, feel free to tell us about it.
Does Human Cloning Produce An Embryo?
| Sample Term Papers |
Does Human Cloning Produce An Embryo?
In February 1997, Dr. Ian Wilmut and his team startled the scientific world by showing that the nucleus from an adult sheep's body cell could be used to produce a developing embryo that would grow into another, genetically identical sheep. There was no doubt whatever that this process ("somatic cell nuclear transfer") produces an embryo of the relevant species. As Dr. Wilmut said in his groundbreaking article: "The majority of reconstructed embryos were cultured in ligated oviducts of sheep... Most embryos that developed to morula or blastocyst after 6 days of culture were transferred to recipients and allowed to develop to term," etc. [I. Wilmut et al., "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells," 385 Nature 810-813 (Feb. 27, 1997)]
Now that the discussion has turned to humans, political spokespersons for the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have decided to engage in a curious avoidance of the fact that somatic cell nuclear transfer using a human nucleus would produce a human embryo. There seem to be two reasons for this:
a. some spokespersons maintain -- contrary to scientific evidence, the findings of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, and current federal law on embryo research -- that no human embryos should be called "embryos" for the first two weeks of existence.1
b. because cloned embryos are seen as such useful research material for destructive experiments, current restrictions on embryo research etc. must be evaded by denying that an embryo produced by cloning deserves the name.
Thus euphemisms and misleading or inaccurate terms ("totipotent cell," "clump of embryonic cells," "unfertilized oocyte," etc.) have entered the political discussion. They are employed to conceal the fact that researchers want to be allowed to use cloning to produce and destroy human embryos. Biotechnology groups claim to oppose the cloning of "human beings" or "persons" -- but they reserve the right to conduct cloning experiments on human embryos and fetuses, so long as none is allowed to survive to live birth.
Fortunately, one can cut through the political evasions by looking at the professional literature -- including writings by those who support cloning of embryos for research purposes:
"One potential use for this technique would be to take cells -- skin cells, for example -- from a human patient who had a genetic disease... You take these and get them back to the beginning of their life by nuclear transfer into an oocyte to produce a new embryo. From that new embryo, you would be able to obtain relatively simple, undifferentiated cells, which would retain the ability to colonize the tissues of the patient." - Ian Wilmut, in 7 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 138 (Spring 1988)
[On being asked in an interview: "Do you think that society should allow cloning of human embryos because of the great promise of medical benefit?"]: "Yes. Cloning at the embryo stage -- to achieve cell dedifferentiation -- could provide benefits that are wide ranging..." - Keith Campbell, head of embryology at PPL Therapeutics and co-author of Dr. Wilmut's landmark paper, in 7 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 139 (Spring 1988)
"Yet there is nothing synthetic about the cells used in cloning... The newly created embryo can only develop inside the womb of a woman in the same way that all embryos and fetuses develop. Cloned children will be full-fledged human beings, indistinguishable in biological terms from all other members of the species. Thus, the notion of a soulless clone has no basis in reality." - Lee M. Silver, professor of molecular biology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University, in Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (Avon Books 1997), p. 107
"The Bond-Frist bill in the Senate and the Ehlers bill in the House... would ban all cloning in human-embryo research..." - J. Kassirer and N. Rosenthal, in 338 New England J. of Medicine 906 (March 26, 1998)
"This experiment [producing Dolly] demonstrated that, when appropriately manipulated and placed in the correct environment, the genetic material of somatic cells can regain its full potential to direct embryonic, fetal, and subsequent development." - National Institutes of Health, Background paper "Cloning: Present uses and Promises," Jan. 29, 1998, p. 3
"The Commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term." - Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (Rockville, MD: June 1997), p. 3
[Listing research proposals that "should not be funded for the foreseeable future" because of "serious ethical concerns"]: "Such research includes: ... Studies designed to transplant embryonic or adult nuclei into an enucleated egg, including nuclear cloning, in order to duplicate a genome or to increase the number of embryos with the same genotype, with transfer." - Final Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel, National Institutes of Health, Sept. 27, 1994, p. 12
[Expressing disbelief that some deny that human cloning produces an embryo]: "If it's not an embryo, what is it?" - Jonathan Van Blerkom, human embryologist at University of Colorado, in American Medical News, Feb. 23, 1998, p. 32 (Dr. Van Blerkom said researchers' efforts to avoid the word "embryo" in this context are "self-serving.")
: Study Spanish in Guatemala, American Bulldog Information, and Eulogies
In February 1997, Dr. Ian Wilmut and his team startled the scientific world by showing that the nucleus from an adult sheep's body cell could be used to produce a developing embryo that would grow into another, genetically identical sheep. There was no doubt whatever that this process ("somatic cell nuclear transfer") produces an embryo of the relevant species. As Dr. Wilmut said in his groundbreaking article: "The majority of reconstructed embryos were cultured in ligated oviducts of sheep... Most embryos that developed to morula or blastocyst after 6 days of culture were transferred to recipients and allowed to develop to term," etc. [I. Wilmut et al., "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells," 385 Nature 810-813 (Feb. 27, 1997)]
Now that the discussion has turned to humans, political spokespersons for the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have decided to engage in a curious avoidance of the fact that somatic cell nuclear transfer using a human nucleus would produce a human embryo. There seem to be two reasons for this:
a. some spokespersons maintain -- contrary to scientific evidence, the findings of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, and current federal law on embryo research -- that no human embryos should be called "embryos" for the first two weeks of existence.1
b. because cloned embryos are seen as such useful research material for destructive experiments, current restrictions on embryo research etc. must be evaded by denying that an embryo produced by cloning deserves the name.
Thus euphemisms and misleading or inaccurate terms ("totipotent cell," "clump of embryonic cells," "unfertilized oocyte," etc.) have entered the political discussion. They are employed to conceal the fact that researchers want to be allowed to use cloning to produce and destroy human embryos. Biotechnology groups claim to oppose the cloning of "human beings" or "persons" -- but they reserve the right to conduct cloning experiments on human embryos and fetuses, so long as none is allowed to survive to live birth.
Fortunately, one can cut through the political evasions by looking at the professional literature -- including writings by those who support cloning of embryos for research purposes:
"One potential use for this technique would be to take cells -- skin cells, for example -- from a human patient who had a genetic disease... You take these and get them back to the beginning of their life by nuclear transfer into an oocyte to produce a new embryo. From that new embryo, you would be able to obtain relatively simple, undifferentiated cells, which would retain the ability to colonize the tissues of the patient." - Ian Wilmut, in 7 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 138 (Spring 1988)
[On being asked in an interview: "Do you think that society should allow cloning of human embryos because of the great promise of medical benefit?"]: "Yes. Cloning at the embryo stage -- to achieve cell dedifferentiation -- could provide benefits that are wide ranging..." - Keith Campbell, head of embryology at PPL Therapeutics and co-author of Dr. Wilmut's landmark paper, in 7 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 139 (Spring 1988)
"Yet there is nothing synthetic about the cells used in cloning... The newly created embryo can only develop inside the womb of a woman in the same way that all embryos and fetuses develop. Cloned children will be full-fledged human beings, indistinguishable in biological terms from all other members of the species. Thus, the notion of a soulless clone has no basis in reality." - Lee M. Silver, professor of molecular biology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University, in Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (Avon Books 1997), p. 107
"The Bond-Frist bill in the Senate and the Ehlers bill in the House... would ban all cloning in human-embryo research..." - J. Kassirer and N. Rosenthal, in 338 New England J. of Medicine 906 (March 26, 1998)
"This experiment [producing Dolly] demonstrated that, when appropriately manipulated and placed in the correct environment, the genetic material of somatic cells can regain its full potential to direct embryonic, fetal, and subsequent development." - National Institutes of Health, Background paper "Cloning: Present uses and Promises," Jan. 29, 1998, p. 3
"The Commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term." - Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (Rockville, MD: June 1997), p. 3
[Listing research proposals that "should not be funded for the foreseeable future" because of "serious ethical concerns"]: "Such research includes: ... Studies designed to transplant embryonic or adult nuclei into an enucleated egg, including nuclear cloning, in order to duplicate a genome or to increase the number of embryos with the same genotype, with transfer." - Final Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel, National Institutes of Health, Sept. 27, 1994, p. 12
[Expressing disbelief that some deny that human cloning produces an embryo]: "If it's not an embryo, what is it?" - Jonathan Van Blerkom, human embryologist at University of Colorado, in American Medical News, Feb. 23, 1998, p. 32 (Dr. Van Blerkom said researchers' efforts to avoid the word "embryo" in this context are "self-serving.")
: Study Spanish in Guatemala, American Bulldog Information, and Eulogies


