The Pillars Of Hercules For Human And Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning

Author: Walter Nuñez

As a backgrounder: “Stem cells are the progenitors of all the different cell types in a human or other multi-cellular organism. They differ from all other kinds of cells in the body in three important ways: They replicate themselves many times over, often for long periods of time, they are unspecialized, and they can give rise to specialized cells, such as heart muscle, blood and skin cells. There are two basic types of stem cells: embryonic and adult. Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos. They are able to produce new cells of almost any type. Under certain conditions, they can replicate for a year or move in the laboratory without differentiating, yielding millions of unspecialized cells. Adult stem cells are found in the body tissues and typically generate the cell types of the tissue in which they reside. For example, blood-forming adult stem cells in the bone marrow normally give rise to red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. However, experimental work indicates that under the right conditions at least some kinds of adult stem cells appear to be able to differentiate into a number of different cell types. Adult stem cells do not proliferate for a long period of time without differentiating.” (Discover Science Almanac 2003: Genetics (pp. 468-469) by Stephen Petranek)

On the other hand, human cloning belongs to reproductive cloning whereby the whole organism is copied from a single cell. A classic example is “Dolly the Sheep” which was cloned by Ian Wilmut at Rosenberg Institute at Edinburgh, Scotland sometime in 1997.

Its Shortcomings And Downsides…

It’s way too dangerous to go over the edge in the quest for human cloning and such other morally sensitive cloning method like embryonic stem cell  owing to human fallibility and frailty.

To illustrate my point:  

“Embryonic cells splendid ability to metamorphose into various type is also their own limitation: not surprisingly, bladders infused with bone from stem cells gone awry aren’t clinically useful, says Jason Hipp, one of some 60 institute researchers working on how to keep the cells from going haywire.”(National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

“One of the greatest challenges  in this work is to harness and direct cell differentiation,” says Harvard cell biologist Douglas Melton. To tell one stem cell to form blood, another skin, and another liver tissue-what’s  nature’s secret? Complex combination of growth factors and chemical and genetic signals drive the process, which researchers are only beginning to pin down. Until they do, embryonic stem cell therapies won’t make the leap from lab mice to humans.” (National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

“Critics point to worrisome animal research. Showing that embryonic stem cells sometimes grow into tumors or morph into unwanted kinds of tissues-possibly forming, for example, dangerous bits of bone in those hearts they are supposedly repairing…Some countries, such as Germany, worried about a slippery slope toward unethical human experimentation, have already prohibited some types of stem cell research. Others, like the U.S., have imposed severe limits on government funding but have left the private sector to do what it wants.” (National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

Seoul National University is the center of operation for Woo Suk Hwang, the South Korean scientist who made headlines in May 2005 when he announced that his team, using Dolly the sheep techniques, had created 11 human stem cell lines perfectly matched to the DNA of human patients, a giant leap beyond anything any other lab has achieved Hwang does not want his work in therapeutic cloning to be confused with reproductive cloning which he deems “unsafe and unethical”. He thinks cloning fully grown humans may be biologically impossible, given the many miscarriage and genetic anomalies that have bedeviled attempts to clone animals.” (Time Almanac 2006: The Revolution in Therapeutic Cloning (p. 569) by Alice Park)

Although, as per verification and peer review in the following year, South Korean Scientist, Woo Suk Hwang work: the first to successfully produce human stem cell lines, had been discredited as hoax.

Cloning is an arduous process that requires great patience and almost ends in failure as cells burst, tears, or suffer damage to their DNA.” (National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

Reality Check

What is there in the real world is that the issue of human cloning and such other morally questionable technique or method of cloning, is a constant source of division and discord. The following excepts mirror such reality:

“But research on embryonic stem cells has been a subject of heated debate, since their extraction destroys the early stage embryo from which they are derived.” (The World Almanac, 2005: Science and Technology (p.332) by William A. Macgeverran, Jr.)

“It will be difficult to do an end run around the ethical quarrels”, says bio-ethicist Tom Murray, president of the Hastings Center in New York. We’re now having to confront subtle distinctions about life’s beginnings that have enormous scientific and religious implications.” (National Geographic.Com/Magazine July 2005: The Power to Divide (p.p. 6-22) by Rick Weiss)

Moral High Ground

There is no better way to put it, George W. Bush’s in an earnest political statement exemplifies what the moralist called the moral high ground:

“I am very concerned about cloning, “President Bush said in response to the news. I worry about a world in which cloning becomes accepted. Critics of the embryonic cloning contend that because it involves the destruction of an embryo it is tantamount to murder. As President Bush put it “he objects to promoting science which destroys life in order to save life.” (The World Almanac, 2005: Science and Technology (p.332) by William A. Macgeverran, Jr.)

Proper Perspective

Without proper perspective, one is at a loss to determine the real issues that lead us to better appreciate the valid and sound arguments in a given discourse.

Going back to the issue. There are those who claim that science itself is amoral, viz., that it is neither moral nor immoral. They say: it is not science that makes such act as either moral or immoral, but the man (scientist) behind it. Well, that may be granted in the interim. But this is a misplaced argument. This point is already moot. The more relevant point is: Should science by itself be able to regulate such action?

Value Judgment Outside From The Province of Science

Science, therefore, has no business telling us what is right from wrong? According to standard and objective sources:

“Without an operational definition (observable and measurable description), the scientific method cannot be employed. Science cannot, for example, tell us whether or not a biblical heaven or hell exists. Such metaphysical concepts are generally not reducible to operational terms. They lie outside the realm of observation and are best left to the areas of religion and philosophy.”

“Besides metaphysical questions, questions of values and ethics also lie outside the domain of science.”

On the other hand…

“The scientific method can be further understood by distinguishing it from other ways of knowing, such as philosophy…Philosophy, on the other hand, often makes its inquiry outside the empirical world, investigating values, meaning, existence, and so on.” (p.p. 196-200 Critical Thinking, 2000 Chapter 10: Scientific Thinking by Gary R. Kirby, Jeffry R. Goodpaster and Marvin Levine)

“Today, philosophy is used to signify the critical evaluation of facts of experience. The key word in this definition is evaluation, rather than critical. This is so since philosophy differs from the positive sciences, especially assigns values to human experience. Scientists, though they must be concerned about truth and validity of their work, nevertheless, do not, as scientists, make value judgments. Philosophy has been reserved the right to render value judgments.” (Logic For Filipinos, 1994 Chapter 2: The Nature of Philosophy (p. 10-11) by Prisciliano T. Bauzon)

Definition of Terms

It is imperative to define the terms involved in order to have a meeting of minds on key points of this discourse. Among the terms in need of operational definitions are:

“Philosophy”(Greek philosophia “love of wisdom”)” the rational and critical inquiry into the basic principles.” One of the main branches of philosopy is ethics, “the study of the nature of morality and judgment”

“Morality is a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2004 (p. 551) Margery S. Berube

“Ethics comes from the Greek word ethos which in the plural means character. Ethical actions may be right or obligatory, or disapproved of because they are bad, wrong, undesirable or evil. In philosophy ethics is the study of moral principles . A traditional philosophical question is whether right and wrong are inherent in the nature of things and therefore absolute, or mere conventions, and thus relative to time and place.” (The New Desk Encyclopedia, 1993: Ethics (p. 427) by Robert A. Rosenbaum)

Furthermore: “Ethics is the science of morality, also called moral philosophy and seeks to discover consistent principle by which human actions can be judged. Until about a century ago, ethics aimed to be a guide to human conduct. Now it is more descriptive , attempting to discover how moral decisions are actually made.” (Oxford Concise Encyclopedia, 2004: Ethics (p.313) by Alan Isaacs and Jonathan Law)

Conclusion

Cloning per se is not downright immoral. What makes it so is when it degrades the dignity of man (his unique identity and individuality) in the case of human reproductive cloning, where the whole organism is copied genetically from a single cell. And, when it takes out other life, in the case of embryonic stem cell cloning. Even though, it (embryo) is still in the incipient stage of development. But one  should not lose sight of the fact that the procreation of a human being is a process. Hence, it should be taken from the point of its origin or beginning: from the fertilization stage (when the sperm fertilized the egg cell) to its ultimate end: death (complete cessation of life). On the contrary, there should be no discrimination in between such processes: whether or not when can a human being be called as such. A process is taken from the point of its beginning up to its end, otherwise, it ceases to be a process. It is taken as a whole, not by parts.

Human reproductive cloning, either as byproduct of embryonic or adult stem cell cloning is and always will be considered as inherently evil insofar as ethics is concerned. This also includes embryonic stem cell cloning, however, good is its therapeutic applications. On the other hand, therapeutic cloning which makes use of adult stem cell cloning, may, after all, be free from the so called moral restraint.

Bottom line is: what is scientific may not necessarily be ethical. The fundamental principle of morality still holds true: “the end does not justify the means.” No matter how ennobling and good the intentions of such actions are? But if the the means of achieving it are wrong, then it is downright immoral and inherently evil. No ifs and buts. On the contrary, the principle of double effect (both undesirable acts, but the good act is intended, while the evil one is not intended), may not apply in the case of human reproductive cloning and embryonic stem cell cloning. Since, in the first place, the very act itself precludes the willing of good intention.

In conclusion: “The Pillars of Hercules, (the classical and medieval symbol for what lies at the edge of the known: Ne plus ultra-No further) for modern science may become moral and spiritual. Scientist-and society-will have to decide…whether to tinker with the very genes that make us human.” (p. 2 National Geographic Vol. 196, No. 4 October 1999: Science-Asking Infinite Questions by Joel L. Swerdlow, 1999)