NEWS: It's difficult to argue against genetic progress

[Murray Charters <Murray_Charters@xxxxxxxxx>]

BostonHerald com
It's difficult to argue against genetic progress
by Bonnie Erbe
Monday, February 5, 2001
It is with a stomach-churning combination of excitement, horror,
fascination and fear that we greet the news of Britain's decision to
legalize the ``therapeutic'' cloning of human embryos. Odd, isn't it, that
Britain's House of Lords should act to do so in the same week when
President Bush signaled opposition to stem-cell research? One wonders
what impact these two events will have on each country's position in the
race for global prominence in the scientific arena.
To some, Britain's highly controversial move propelled that nation into
first place. To others, it thrust the United Kingdom ever closer to the
borders of hell.
Scientists predict within a matter of months or years, British researchers
will create human embryos primarily for extraction of their nascent stem
cells. But lest we horrified Americans be left with freakish images of
hundreds of full-term fetuses living in man-made placentas, we need to
take into account that the new British law specifically forbids the
research of cloning technology to reproduce full humans.
``Therapeutic'' cloning only allows the use of a patient's DNA to create
an embryo of no more than two weeks gestation. The stems cells are
usually harvested in the first few days of development, ending the
embryo's existence. Doubtless, however, those who believe that life
begins at conception will still view Britain's research as murderous, a
point which will be endlessly debated in this country.
Meanwhile, British researchers will be working to discover whether they can use 
these ``unprogrammed'' master cells to cure Parkinson's patients or diabetics. 
Stem cells are at such an early point of development they can
become nearly any type of cell in the body. Scientists plan to ``train'' these 
cells to replace the defective pancreatic cells of diabetics, replace tissue 
damaged by cancer, fix spinal cord injuries or allow Cystic Fibro
sis patients to breathe normally. As an aside, an American fertility doctor has 
announced he is forming an international team to attempt to clone a human as 
well. But other private doctors have made similar announcements,
 and without government backing they have been unable to succeed.
While such advances are so futuristic as to flabbergast, they come with 
profound ethical questions. Will scientific renegades clone babies and ``sell'' 
them on the Internet (as we saw with the American twins from St. Loui
s)? Worse yet, will babies be cloned for the purpose of removing their organs 
for resale? One need not possess the imagination of a science fiction writer to 
envision the creation of a class of cloned ``serfs.'' Wealthy b
ut terminally ill patients could clone themselves just to take the clone's
kidney or heart. Such scenarios are not so daft in a world driven by
market demand.
Then there are the more mundane and practical questions about America
maintaining its scientific prominence. We lead the world in technology
development. Yet the research community fears a massive brain drain of
top biologists leaving the United States for the United Kingdom. There's
already talk of the European Community replacing the United States as
the world's economic engine. Britain's move could leave us trailing badly
in one significant scientific arena as well.
Who's to say which side is wrong or right here? It is clearly troublesome
to watch mankind play God. At the same time, imagine the hope such
research can inspire for those afflicted with disease or injuries, and we
see Britain's move from a very different perspective. Americans can (and
surely will) debate the morality of cloning humans. As we debate, others
proceed and the future could be passing us by.
Bonnie Erbe hosts the PBS program ``To the Contrary.''