Demystifying the process of `therapeutic cloning'

May 21, 2004|By Jack Kessler, MD, Chairman, Davee Department of Neurology, Northwestern University, Feinberg Medical School.

Chicago — The recent editorial regarding stem-cell legislation in the state of Illinois took a positive step by supporting use of frozen embryos for research purposes ("Returning to the stem-cell debate," May 12). It has always been difficult to understand how anyone could believe that it is morally or ethically superior to discard such embryos in the trash rather than using them for research devoted to curing human disease.

The editorial was disappointing, however, not only because of its opposition to somatic cell nuclear transfer ("therapeutic cloning") but also because the wording of the editorial indicated a lack of clear understanding of the biology.

The editorial speaks of opposition to "the creation of human life forms purely for experimentation and destruction." Any scientist would tell you that no human being has the power or knowledge to create life. The process of somatic cell nuclear transfer starts with a living cell and ends with a living cell. Clearly the objection cannot be that life is being created.

Is the opposition, therefore, that a different "form" of life is being created? Presumably there would be no objection if structures other than the nucleus (the structure containing DNA) were transferred into the oocyte (egg cell) even though this would change the "form" of the living human cell.

Again it is clear that this is not the objection.

The objection must then be the misperception that this process creates a human being, or at least a potential human being. But there is not even the "potential" for this cell to become a human being unless it is implanted into a woman's uterus ("reproductive cloning").

The proposed legislation would strictly ban such reproductive cloning and the entire community of stem-cell biologists agrees with such a ban.

It is important for research on somatic cell nuclear transfer to continue since this process will eventually allow scientists and physicians to generate stem cells that contain the patient's own DNA, which could be transplanted without being rejected or requiring treatment with harsh immunosuppressive drugs.

It is unlikely that the editors of the Tribune have ever actually seen the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, just as it is unlikely that most opponents of the process have ever seen it performed. I invite the editors to visit our laboratory to see how this is done using animals cells. Perhaps if the process were demystified, the editors would have a clearer understanding and would no longer oppose the process.

If the opposition persists, then the editors might be able to state their objections with more clarity than the vague and ambiguous phrase "creation of human life forms."