HUM-MOLGEN archive: ETHI: Nuclear replacement in humans

We received a substantial number of replies to this inquiry. Here are several. Responses to the questions raised in these posts are requested. Hans Goerl ETHI editor, HUM-MOLGEN ***************************************************************************** ** 1. From: IN%"mcreynolds@lnknet.com" In reply to your message I would like to make the observation that future biological manufacturing processes, including cloning, are not likely to be as expensive and complicated as nuclear processing, i.e. making atomic weapons. Once the knowledge is out and most of it is allready out, any competent biologist with commercially available tools i.e. microscopics and micropipettes can set up a clandestine lab. The biological bases, including human cells are of course available. Do we want to repeat the mistakes of Prohibition, and will the biologists and physicians of today be the "bootleggers" of tomorrow? C.R. McReynolds M.D. (retired pathologist) **************************************************************************** 2. From: David Kowbel <kowbel@WHITE.LBL.GOV> Although the ethical controversies surrounding the successful cloning experiments in sheep and monkeys, the laws concerning human cloning have already been enforced by NIH's firing of geneticist Mark Hughes for manipulating 8-cell embryos for DNA testing (see Science: 275, page 472). Although his experiments were not actually cloning, the techniques he used for removal of nuclei from an early embryo are similar to those used in cloning. As a researcher in Human genetics, I find it incredible that an ever changing political atmosphere can dictate sanctions that will keep the USA from being world leaders in human embryo research. The natural consequences of such actions will force scientists to find private sector money to achieve their goals. If guidelines are to be established in cloning research it should involve experienced scientists who deal with genetic issues on a daily basis. David Kowbel LBNL EDITOR'S NOTE: Today's Chicago Tribune (March 9,1997) reports that Dr. Hughes was repeatedly warned that what he was doing was illegal, that he deceived his superiors at NIH and his co-workers, and that his work with pre-implantation diagnosis resulted in at least one misdagnosis and implantation of a fetus affected by cystic fibrosis. Dr. Hughes is a former Baylor University faculty member and held an appointment at Georgetown University while some of his work was done. ***************************************************************************** ******* 3. from jbelmont@bcm.tmc.edu I would like to express what I perceive to be a minority view that human cloning by nuclear transfer should be considered primarily as a reproductive option. Taken in that sense, it should be accorded the same rights of privacy given IVF, AID, donor egg, and surrogacy. I doubt that anyone would ever have the desire or resources to parent large numbers of identical offspring. I would envision nuclear transfer technology to be used in the rare instance in which reproductive problems preclude use of egg or sperm from one marriage partner. In the sense that cloning would not involve a third party in reproduction (like AID, donor egg etc) it might even be morally superior. Reproduction is a powerful biological imperative and reproductive freedom should be very carefully protected as a fundamental riight. I would like to see the "grave moral and ethical concerns" articulated plainly. Do these concerns stem mainly from religious values surrounding reproduction? Is there a compelling public interest involved? John W. Belmont, M.D.,Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Molecular and Human Genetics Baylor College of Medicine **************************************************************************** 4. From: IBiG-Genetica Medica <ibig@UNIGE.IT> Aside from moral and ethical considerations, I believe that human cloning should not be permitted because of severe scientific uncertainties about the results. The oocyte's cytoplasm into which the somatic nucleus is implanted is not at all neutral, and it certainly influences the implanted genome. This influence cannot be entirely predicted through animal experimentation. Aside from possible major malformations, subtle changes due to cytoplasmic effect may induce , for instance, light mental retardation. While an IQ of 65 can barely be detected on a sheep, it may severely affect a child. But this information can only be obtained a posteriori, when the child is 6-8 years old. In other words, human cloning becomes equivalent to human experimentation, which is only justified a) in the interest of the subject, b) with his consent and c) if there is no better alternative. Franco Ajmar, Institute of Biology and Genetics, U. of Genoa Institute of Biology and Genetics University of Genova Tel ++39 10 3537957 Fax ++39 10 3538978 -*- ***************************************************************************** **** 5. From: Ola Myklebost <ola.myklebost@LABMED.UIO.NO> I expect any society that allows a significant proportion of its population to be cloned will become much less "fit" due to inbreeding. Thus, only senseless rulers will allow cloning as a means to "improve" the population. Some crazy ruler might however find it useful to produce cloned soldiers or workers, but not let the breed, in a horrible night-mareish future. However, human cloning should be prohibited also beacuse of the rights of the individual. We must expect that cloned offspring will have multiple novel germ line mutations because they inherit everything from a single somatic cell. Thus we have no idea about what the result will be in terms of increased suffering of genetic disease and cancer. Such experimenation on humans is already prohibited by international agreements, and human cloning should also explicitly be prohibited in all countries. Allowing cloning in only some specific cases will let the technique get out of hand. Another issue is whether we may allow cloning of animals. This does not have the same ethical problems, but the usefulness is highly exaggerated, and mainly will be saved time and labor in producing manipulated offspring, or genocopying of valuable breeding animals. If this is allowed, laboratories may freely establish facilities and experience in the technique, and it will come out of control. I don't think we will then be able prevent this to be done however illegally in humans also. Who can check the origin of all the cells in the incubator or how an (imported) embryo was generated? Ola Myklebost ***************************************************************************** 7. From: "Stephen J. Meltzer, M.D." <smeltzer@UMABNET.AB.UMD.EDU> We have already seen how damaging moratoria on research can be (witness the recently lifted ban on fetal tissue research). Generally, the government and l awyers do not have the foggiest notion what they're talking about. Unfortunatel y, they are the ones who write these laws. Despite considering myself liberal, I find myself staunchly anti-government on this issue. I think government and l awyers should leave well enough alone. >Stephen J. Meltzer, M.D. University of Maryland 22 S. Greene St., N3W62 Baltimore, MD 21201 phone: (001)-410-706-3375 fax: (001)-410-328-6559 email: smeltzer@umabnet.ab.umd.edu ***************************************************************************** ** 8. From: meislerm@umich.edu (Miriam Meisler) THanks for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I am a researcher in human and mouse genetics. I am not aware of any compelling reason to permit nuclear transfer in human embryos. The scientific questions can be answered in other mammals. The medical scenarios that I have heard mentioned can be better treated with other existing technology. I am in favor of a ban on nuclear transfer in human embryos! Miriam Meisler Miriam Meisler, Human Genetics Department, 4708 Med Sci II, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0618. Phone: (313) 763 5546 Fax : (313) 763 9691 e-mail: meislerm@umich.edu **************************************************************************** 9. From: IN%"dmmckali@email.unc.edu" "David Mckalip" I understand the outcry among the public and among high-ranking federal officials (Clinton, Varmus) to preclude human cloning. However, I am a bit dismayed that most seem to fear the creation of pure-bred populations,clones for organ and tissue donation and the like and not see the practical benefits of a carefully and reasonably applied cloning program. The area I see that is being overlooked in the public arena is the tremendous potential this presents for reproductive medicine. While all other efforts must be first exhausted, what is wrong with cloning an adult and implanting the embryo in utero for development and raising this new human being as your child? The suggestion of this to many in conversations I have had lately quite frankly "creeps them out". However, I think once people get past the initial fears instilled by popular culture and science fiction they will begin to see the huge benefit. As with all human embryo and fetal research, strict, readily enforceable guidelines must be established. But please, let's do so. Let's not ignore such a significant step. David McKalip, M.D. Neurosurgery Resident david_mckalip@unc.edu University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill ***************************************************************************** **** 10. From: IN%"eblyden@khepera.com" 4-MAR-1997 17:26:50.86 I believe the debates will settle on your last statement. Is "elimination and cure of disease" really the ultimate goal of genetic research? A greater driving force in all medical research today is profit. This should not be viewed as an unfair attack on the individual scientist, though greater moral initiative is sorely needed in a scientific community enamoured of technology. The consequences are that not all potential human "clonees" have the same value in the eyes of our society. Would there be any genetic research in a world where more resources were focused on eradicating hunger and starvation (let alone common infectious diseases)? The problem with cloning research is that it is another expression of disparity between haves and have-nots. Why do we spend millions of dollars debating the ability to clone human beings concurrently with spending millions on curbing human reproduction? The answers is found in WHERE (geographically) these monies are being spent. Cloning is likely to be safest and most meaningful in the worlds most genetically diverse populations- in Africa and the Indian subcontinent. extensive cloning in these populations will pose much less of a threat..... > 3. Are the medical benefits from such practices ever likely to benefit a > significant number of people? > No, but they will almost certainly benefit a number of significant people! -- Eluemuno R. Blyden,PH.D. Khepera http://www.khepera.com ***************************************************************************** ***** 11. From: "R. Scott Jokerst" <scott_jokerst@DATA-TRANSPORT.COM> #2 first: Beyond reproduction, you asked for arguments for embryo transfer beyond those popularly discussed and perceived, which may bring medical or scientific benefit. The assumption would be that the practice should bring benefits which cannot be realized through other avenues. One such area, of course, may be the realm of tissue/cell replacement therapy. Even this, however, treads within the realm of when to consider an organizing collection of cells (at any stage of development) to be an individual. Let's assume you are a female with a condition leading to the destruction of cells or tissues for which transplantation replacement is not an option - for whatever reason. Could be immunological, developmental, etc. Yet, these may be replaced if suitable developmentally competent cells could be found to replace the lost population. Finally, lets' assume that this competence cannot be found naturally, but that cloning would produce such competence. Potential examples might be discovered one day which would address certain neurological, immunological, or structural problems, etc. Many consider it OK to graft tissues, collect stem cells, or related technologies, for healing purposes. With cloning (or for that matter, induction of a parthenogenic event), the issue is that the resultant collection of animated cells is destined for (or has acheived) individuality. Yet, it too, in this case, has been derived solely from the benefiting recipient. So, have we simply activated a cell in some way which renders it and its destined product a suitable tissue donor? Or, have we purposefully created a "detached" Siamese twin, to be canibalized for parts? Or both? R. Scott Jokerst (510-648-8229) scott_jokerst@data-transport.com Biological Data Transport