_WORLD WATCH______________________________
____________________ United States ________________

The battle begins
Firm announces human cloning
The political debate over the cloning of human beings, long the subject of theoretical disputes, was rushed abruptly into the arena of practical politics in November when a research firm in Worcester, Massachusetts (ironically enough, the same city in which the oral contraceptive pill was first developed) announced that it had successfully cloned a six-cell human embryo.

The firm, Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT), quickly published assurances that the embryos developed by their cloning process would not be implanted in women’s wombs, and so—the company said—they would not become living human beings. But critics were equally quick to point out that the embryos were already human beings, who were being harvested for the commercial value of their tissues.

While many political leaders were caught flat-footed by the ACT breakthrough, the Vatican issued a swift condemnation of the research. The Holy See issued a statement saying that the experiments deserve “unequivocal condemnation.” That condemnation should not be softened because of the “declared humanistic intentions” of the researchers, the Vatican statement added.

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that he hoped the report from America would “shock the human conscience into putting curbs” on such research. He explained the Catholic position simply: “Whatever is edifying to man, the Church accepts; that which destroys man, the Church rejects.”

In this case, the archbishop explained, human beings—the cloned embryos—have been brought into existence solely for the purpose of manipulation. Even if their cells are used for medical purposes, the deliberate manipulation and destruction of human life is unacceptable, he said.

Cardinal Alfonso Trujillo, the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, soon added his voice to the debate, saying that even if research into human cloning is undertaken with the desire to find cures for diseases, that motivation does not make the process ethical. “The production of a human being by the means of cloning is contrary to human dignity and the dignity of procreation that God entrusted to the union of a man and a woman,” the cardinal told Corriere della Serra.

Cardinal Trujillo affirmed that “the therapeutic intent does not change the fact that this is about the production of embryos who will be destroyed.” He added that he is not opposed to all genetic research, but only that which results in “the production and the destruction of embryos, because that constitutes a cruel process with respect to the human being.” And the cardinal said that it is the duty of “the governments, the parliaments, the United Nations, to intervene” to outlaw cloning. “Many countries have already expressed their reservations,” he noted. “The UN should consider the possibility that the current lack of regulation is becoming a serious threat to the common good of humanity, and we should encourage proposals to regulate this process.”

During his weekly public audience at the Vatican on November 28—his first public appearance after the announcement of the ACT breakthrough—Pope John Paul made his own contribution to the debate, speaking out against the “scientific and systematic threats against life.” Addressing himself to the young medical students among the approximately 6,000 faithful present, John Paul said he “appreciated their professional engagement” and encouraged them “to defend life and the dignity of the person without compromise, acting with respect to the moral law.” He added, “True humanism can never allow methods and experiments which constitute scientific and systematic threats against life.”

The announcement from Massachusetts prompted the UN General Assembly to take the first steps toward a limited worldwide ban on cloning. UN officials announced that a special committee of experts in the fields of bioethics and genetics would meet in February, and again in September 2002, to begin drafting guidelines for such research. However, any hopes for effective UN regulation were dimmed by the facts that 1) the UN has no authority to override national laws on the subject; 2) the UN proposals would not even be codified into a (non-binding) convention until 2003; and 3) the UN curbs would involved only one form of cloning.

The UN convention—if it is ever adopted—would curb “reproductive cloning,” which involves efforts to bring a cloned embryo to a live birth. But most current research, including the efforts made public by the American firm ACT, concentrate on “therapeutic cloning,” in which human embryos are produced only for the sake of their stem cells, or other tissues that might be useful to researchers. The distinction between “reproductive” and “therapeutic” cloning lies not in the way the embryo is produced, but in the intentions for which it is produced. In “therapeutic cloning,” researchers seek to avoid the Frankenstein label by promising that the embryos will be destroyed—that they will never become walking, talking human adults.

Some researchers, despite their serious moral reservations about “therapeutic cloning,” argue that a curb on “reproductive cloning” is better than no restraint at all. Particularly in light of the practical difficulties involved in regulating research that can take place in a small private laboratory, some scientists who offered testimony at UN hearings were prepared to accept a partial restraint on the research. Christian Much, a German expert on the subject, told UN officials, “I’m as concerned as you are about therapeutic cloning, but we want to win the race against irresponsible scientists who are attempting reproductive cloning right now.”

Archbishop Renato Martino, the Vatican’s envoy to the UN, voiced concern over a partial ban: “Therapeutic cloning—embryos to be used in the treatment of certain illnesses and then destroyed—must be addressed and prohibited,” he said. “This exploitation of human beings, sought by certain scientific and industrial circles, and pushed forward by related economic interests, retains all its ethical repugnance as a more serious offense against human dignity and the right to life.”

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, argued that a limited ban would be worse than no ban at all, since it would have the effect of legalizing cloning—as long as all cloned embryos are eventually destroyed. Johnson said that if live-birth cloning is outlawed, “the public will relax, thinking that the problem has been dealt with, while the biotech industry will be free to do whatever it wants. The industry sees a limited ban as the protection they need to establish human embryo farms.”

Testifying before legislators in Washington, the president of the company that had produced the first cloned human embryos argued against restraints on his research. Michael West of ACT told a US Senate committee, “We’re not talking about the cloning of humans. We’re talking about the cloning of cells.” And his appeal drew some sympathy from legislators. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa said, “I believe it would be tragic to allow our outrage about human cloning to blind us to the promise that this holds.”

In separate testimony before local Massachusetts legislators, the medical director of ACT promised that the research undertaken by his firm would open new doors to the treatment of serious ailments such as Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, and injuries to the spinal cord. Without bothering to cite any specific prospects in the treatment of those maladies—perhaps because the early indications have been discouraging—Dr. Robert Lanza offered this assessment: “It comes down to whether a completely undifferentiated ball of cells that’s microscopic—smaller than a pinhead—warrants the same respect as an adult, a child, or a loved one who may die because we failed to move the moral line.”

Back to Catholic World Report January 2002 Table of Contents