Pro-Lifers Outraged as Britain Grants Dolly's Doc License to Clone
by Fred Jackson and Jenni Parker
February 8, 2005
(AgapePress) - The scientist behind the cloning of the sheep known as "Dolly" has now been given a license to clone human embryos for medical research. The British government has granted approval to Professor Ian Wilmut of Edinburgh's Roslin Institute, who will use the bodies of these cloned human beings to harvest embryonic stem cells.According to Reuters news reports, Wilmut plans to obtain embryonic stem cells for use in his investigations into Motor Neurone Disease (MND). Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority granted the license to the Scottish professor and two other scientists, Dr. Paul de Sousa, also of Edinburgh, and Prof. Christopher Shaw of King's College, London. This is only the second time such a license has been granted in Great Britain, where human reproductive cloning is against the law, but where creating embryos as a source of stem cells to treat or cure disease, is allowed on approval. Wilmut and the other scientists claim the stem cell technique will greatly enhance their understanding of MND and will speed the process of discovering new drugs and treatments for disease.
However, there are those who dispute both the value and ethics of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) and therapeutic cloning of embryos. Such disputes have divided the medical world and society into camps, with political leaders, advocates, researchers, medical professionals, and ethicists weighing in on various sides of the controversy. While leaders in the scientific community tout human embryonic research in the interest of scientific and medical advancement, pro-life groups like the American Life League call human cloning "an evil step that should never be taken."
Many opponents of ESCR and therapeutic cloning feel the creation of human embryos just to harvest their stem cells amounts to farming and then slaughtering unborn children. The dehumanizing process is viewed as all the more offensive to these pro-life advocates in light of their contention that research into the use of adult stem cells has made ESCR unnecessary.
In the U.S., where federally funded ESCR has been limited to the use of existing stem cell lines, many in the scientific community are pushing for a relaxation of government restrictions on cloning. However, President Bush has said he intends to press for even stricter limitations on human embryo research. His position has been informed and supported by pro-life and medical ethics groups, including the Christian Medical Association (CMA), which has urged the president to direct federal research dollars not toward ESCR, but toward the more promising use of adult stem cells.
Therapeutic Cloning -- Unethical, Unreliable, Unnecessary
In a 2001 petition to Bush, the CMA advised the president that ESCR has demonstrated no actual therapeutic results and contended that millions of patients and families being led to count on cures from such research will be crushingly disappointed. For that reason, the association of Christian health professionals urged the administration to "offer patients true hope -- by directing federal research dollars toward ethical adult stem-cell research while upholding longstanding ethical injunctions against lethal human experimentation."
The CMA continues to advocate this path, citing up-to-date research in which embryonic stem cells still have yet to demonstrate a single human therapeutic benefit -- but in which these cells are revealed to be unstable and unpredictable. Meanwhile, the association notes that studies using non-embryonic stem cells, ethically and safely taken from umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, brain tissue and fat, have moved well beyond theory to application. The Christian group cites clinical studies on non-embryonic stem cells showing solid benefits to patients suffering from heart disease, blood disorders, and other afflictions.
And according to a CMA Executive Summary, adult stem cells have already been used successfully "to treat cartilage defects in children; restore vision to patients who were legally blind; relieve systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis; and to serve as an aid in numerous cancer treatments." Also, several studies suggest that the use of a patient's own stem cells is even preferable to using embryonic cells, since this circumvents the concern of the body rejecting cells other than its own.
A recent Philadelphia Inquirer article describes ongoing research in which adult stem cells have been involved in "a genuine therapeutic breakthrough" in the healing of human heart tissue. One spokesman for the Texas Heart Institute in Houston was quoted as saying that the use of adult stem cells in this area "looks extremely promising," and could someday make heart transplants appear "totally barbaric."
In the last four years, the Inquirer reports, studies involving a few hundred heart-failure patients treated with adult stem cells showed a resulting improvement in cardiac pumping and blood flow, reduced chest pain of angina, and relief of several heart-failure symptoms. Those studies were done with patients suffering from ischemic cardiac failure (related to heart attacks and clogged arteries); while, in the latest studies, bone-marrow stem cells from adults even helped hearts failing for "idiopathic" (unidentified) reasons.
Opposing the Culture of Death
American Life League, the CMA, and other pro-family and pro-life advocates identify the battle to stop human cloning as an important opportunity to turn the tide against what they term the "culture of death" in America. ALL's Judie Brown warns against a practice that would turn human beings into commodities and treat unborn babies as guinea pigs. "Human beings should never be brought into existence for the sole purpose of having their lives destroyed in the name of science," she insists.
The CMA's Executive Summary on Stem Cell Research concurs, stating that every human being created in God's image "represents a life worthy of our honor and protection." The Christian medical professionals in that group describe the debate over ESCR as a "clash of conscience" that calls for moral leadership rather than political compromise.
