Leading US and Canadian scientists have now taken the same path, also calling for a national stem cell bank to be established (Dayton, 1998, p.7). In addition, Dayton writes that reliable sources of human embryonic stem cells were ‘…essential if researchers were to develop therapies for debilitating conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, and replacement or repair for damaged spines, skin and other organs.’ With the advances in stem cell technology and its applications, combined with the increasing ambitions of the scientists, human cloning for therapeutic applications (e.g., mending severed spinal cords, injecting diabetics with insulin-producing cells) is becoming a real likelihood.
The development of procedures to inject patients with stem cells into different pathways with the intention of replacing damaged or malfunctioning cells with new ones, the real problem of the body’s immune system rejecting the new cells needs to be overcome (Best, 2002). According to Dr. Best, it has been proposed that this problem be overcome by creating a clone of the patient. The cloned embryo would be grown to around 6 days old before the stem cells are harvested, thus destroying the embryo.
But the idea of cloning, particularly if it leads to reproductive cloning, brings forth even more moral and ethical issues. One issue often raised by human cloning is that of identity. Some claim that a clone is not a unique identity. However, as argued by Honey (2003), uniqueness should not be an issue as offspring are frequently observed as having physical features and characteristics similar to that of their parents. Further, Honey adds that identical twins are ‘…naturally occurring clones’ derived from the same egg and sperm. Although genetically identical, maintain individual (and unique) identities and personalities. Moreover, a clone, although genetically identical, could also be unique in its behaviour, personality, interests, and way of thinking. The clone would always be younger than their genetic twin, mature in a different environment, would be raised differently, and have different external factors shaping its personality and thought processes. There are many reasons put forward to permit reproductive cloning.
Parents may wish to reproduce a dying child by cloning and in the process the clone would not carry the damaged or diseased cells causing the illness. Infertile couples (including gay and lesbian couples) may be able to have children genetically related to at least one of them. Cloning could also provide a suitable source of organs for transplant patients. In contrast, Dr. Best argues that therapeutic cloning is unethical because it relies on the ‘…utilitarian calculus’ that puts potential medical advances ahead of the life of the embryo. Dr. Best also adds that is unethical to destroy a human life for research that may only potentially benefit another, in essence, view a human life as a means to an end. Dr. Best also describes cloning as unethical because of concerns over the possibility that woman may be exploited due to the large number of eggs needing to be harvested to supply clones for stem cell research. Along the same lines, Cetron and Davies (2001 in Lucas 2002, pp. 27 - 42) note that as growing debate on these issues continues, one of the main areas of concern would be surrogate motherhood. However, ethical issues aside, there are other perspectives from which to view such these advances in medical science.
From a political perspective, the issues raised by advances in stem cell and cloning research and technology, in both Australia and internationally, could potentially have major diabolical consequences should governments not take appropriate and expedient steps to ensure that the use of such technology progresses within laws and guidelines that uphold moral and ethical values. Government has the most power to implement societal rules and enforce them (Lucas, 2002, p. 49). All Australian states and territories have enacted legislation regulating the donation and transplantation of human tissue. In New South Wales, the Human Tissue Act 1983 covers the removal and donation of tissue for transplant, scientific research or therapeutic use and post mortem examination. The legislation provides that living adults may consent to donate regenerative tissue for transplantation or for therapeutic, medical or scientific purposes. However, in regards to cloning and related research (i.e., stem cell research) the ownership of human tissue is a complex matter and the law is unclear. For example, it is not clear who, if anyone, owns genetic material or human tissue. And so, it is unclear who has the right to posses it or even use it. The issues relating to stem cell and cloning research has given rise to mixed public reactions.
The New South Wales Parliament website provides the results of a Morgon poll conducted in November 2001which found that 70 percent of Australians aged over 14 years of age felt that extracting stem cells from human embryos for the treatment of disease and injury was acceptable and that left over embryos from infertility treatments should be used for such research rather than be discarded (NSW Parliament, 2001). However, it is till unclear to what extent Australians’ will allow stem cell research and human embryo cloning particularly when it involves the destruction of human embryos. In the meantime, Australia’s Health Ministers have begun a consultation process that aims to gather scientific and community responses to research that would include the destruction of human embryos (Goldberg, 2002). In addition, there is the issue of who will benefit financially from the outcomes of such research.
From an economic viewpoint, the technological advances in such genetic research would surely bring forth great opportunities for companies or entrepreneurial individuals to make tremendous financial gains should greater freedom for research and experimentation on stem cells and cloning be allowed. If laboratories have strong corporate backing, it may mean that the medical advances could well be more about making money for shareholders and entrepreneurs than it is about helping those with serious medical problems. Perhaps it is possible that without regulation of the industry should it become commonplace, those who can most afford treatments and cures for illnesses, such as diabetes and spinal cord damage, would have greater access to treatment. Governments may need to develop and implement a framework of regulations that have some control over unfair or unethical practices of individuals or business groups (e.g., the exploitation of women).
From a sociological perspective, the possible exploitation of woman, coerced by money to donate large amounts of eggs, was noted as real concern for Dr. Best (2002). Dr. Best claims that women would undoubtedly be exploited as research laboratories require and seek huge numbers of human eggs. Dr. Best also feels that ‘…woman may be treated with superovulatory drugs and must undergo an invasive procedure’. Further, Dr. Best contends that woman have in the past been paid up to $4,000 to donate eggs for cloning experiments. The offer such high fees to donate eggs could well encourage woman, in particular those at the lower socio-economic level, to submit to egg harvesting procedures. Thus, leading to exploitation of the woman involved.
As research and technological advances in stem cell and cloning research continue to develop, along with the increased promises of medical breakthrough, debate over how such research and its application will undoubtedly continue. In an article titled, Human Cloning, by Norman Swan, 1999, Swan reports on some of the issues discussed at a conference of the Human Genome Organization. According to swan, According to Swan, the Ethics Committee of the Human Genome Organization released a statement declaring that reproductive cloning of humans should not be permitted or attempted. In contrast, the Committee did say that they supported the cloning of cells for tissue transplantation in order to avoid disease. Personally, I am in support of research into stem cell research from both adult and embryonic sources for the purposes of disease and other illness prevention and for the possible reversal of diseases and illnesses already affecting a patient. However, I would like to see that the research and the subsequent application of it’s findings be monitored and tightly regulated by the Government to ensure moral and ethical frameworks are developed. Such a framework would include laws that aim to prevent the exploitation of woman or the ill, and that ensure the reproductive human cloning is not attempted or allowed.
Research on cloning and related technologies is progressing worldwide and Australia’s scientists are playing a role in this. While the scientific potential of embryonic stem cell research is great, the fact remains that the embryos must be destroyed in the process. This will undoubtedly continue to attract debate from both the community and pro-life groups. It has been demonstrated that there is far more to consider than just the scientific potential of the research. In addition, the political issues need to be considered and the governments obviously have an obligation to be aware of, and listen to, the concerns of from within the community and those opposing the directions of the research. Moreover, steps should be taken to ensure that people, in particular woman and those at the lower end of the socio-economic level, are not exploited. It is clear that governments need to weigh up the respective merits of promoting research and development in medical technologies that may improve the quality of life for many people on the one hand, and respecting early human life and dignity on the other.
References
Best, M. 2002, ‘Implications for Cloning in Embryonic Stem Cell Research’, Social Issues Committee, Anglican Diocese Sydney (online), [Accessed 7 May 2003].
Cetron,
Dayton, L. 2003, ‘Human stem bank critical for research’, The Weekend Australian, 10-11 May, p.7.
Goldberg, D. 2001, ‘Cloning around with stem cells’, ABC (online), [Accessed 25 May 2003].
Honey, C. 2003, ‘The case for cloning humans’, The Age (online), [Accessed 25 May 2003].
Lucas, T. 2002, Study Guide: Approaches to Social Science, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.
NSW Parliament 2001, Stem Cells and Cloning Paper, (online), [Accessed 7 May 2003].
Swan, N. 19999, ‘Human cloning’, ABC Radio Health Report (online), [Accessed 7 May 2003].
