| THE ETHICS OF CLONING PEOPLE
From:
http://www.dti.gov.uk/hgac/papers/papers_c.htm
There are a number of situations where it has been suggested that cloning
technology could be applied to make a “copy” of another human being.
None of the activities suggested in these scenarios are permitted in the
UK. Such scenarios envisage single or multiple “copies” of a living
or dead fetus, baby, child or adult. For example:
1. Parents might wish to “replace” an aborted fetus, dead
baby or child killed in an accident. A grieving woman whose husband and daughter
have been killed in the same car crash, may wish to use the DNA from one
of her daughter’s cells and insert it into an egg supplied by another
woman. The child born would be a clone of her dead daughter. However, the
mother would not be “getting back” the same child that had died.
2. In the case of a child dying of kidney failure and where neither
parent can donate a compatible organ, parents might wish to have a further
sibling, produced by cloning, to be a compatible organ donor, as this would
avoid a rejection reaction. One of this child's kidneys might then be
transplanted to save the life of their older sibling.
3. An individual might seek to use cloning technology in an attempt,
as that individual might see it, to cheat death.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
http://web.bma.org.uk/public/ethics.nsf/webpagesvw/Cloning
Human "cloning"
Common misperceptions
Much of the debate about cloning in the popular media has been based on the
mistaken premise that a human clone would be an exact replica of the original
person (the nucleus donor). The technique used to create Dolly does not result
in the clone and the nucleus donor having exactly the same genetic make-up
(see below). But, even if they were genetically identical, the idea that
the clone would be a 'copy' or 'replica' of the nucleus donor is based on
extreme genetic determinism. The clone and the nucleus donor would not be
identical people. Personality, character and behaviour are not determined
by genetic factors alone but by a complex interaction of genetic,
social, political, historic and environmental factors. Experience of monozygotic
twins (which can be considered as naturally occurring clones) is
sufficient to illustrate that genetic identity is not the same as personal
identity.
Another common misperception is that the clone would be the same age as the
nucleus donor so that if the person to be cloned was an adult, the
clone would appear as an adult. Although the clone, or clones, would have
the same nuclear DNA as the nucleus donor, he or she would begin as an embryo,
develop into a fetus , a baby and years later, an adult (Some questions have
been raised, however, about whether Dolly's genetic age is the same as her
chronological age or whether it is the same as the sheep whose nuclear DNA
was used). The time difference between the birth and upbringing of the nucleus
donor and those of his or her clones, and the inevitable differences in factors
such as womb-environment, mother's diet, social, political and economic
circumstances, will undoubtedly increase the differences between the individuals
(If more than one clone is produced from an adult or child, the clones will
be the same age as each other but will not be the same age as the nucleus
donor).
Motives for using cell-nuclear replacement
A variety of reasons have been suggested as to why an individual may wish
to create a clone of him or herself, or of another person, some of
which are more likely to succeed than others. As discussed above, some are
based on a mistaken belief that the clone would be an exact replica of the
nucleus donor. Individuals, for example, who wish to use the technique to
'cheat death' or in a search for immortality are bound to be disappointed.
The child will be a different person, born at a different time and into a
different social, political and economic environment, with different choices
and life-chances. Although the clone may look very similar to how the nucleus
donor did at the same age, the clone will be an individual with his or her
own thoughts, wishes and personality. For the same reasons, those who wish
to use the technology to perpetuate outstanding talent, or to 're-create'
others, alive or dead, will not succeed. Personality traits and abilities
are only partially genetically determined, and even if an individual has
innate talent, he or she may choose not to use it either because of different
preferences or priorities, or in a deliberate attempt to be 'different' from
the nucleus donor. The more science-fiction type scenarios of an egocentric
dictator attempting to develop an army of clones for military purposes, are
fanciful for a variety of reasons, not least because of the vast number of
women who would be needed to carry the children (until some alternative method
of gestation is found).
An often quoted example of a potential beneficial use of human reproductive
cloning is to provide a perfectly-matched tissue or organ donor in order
to save a life. It is well-known that in desperate situations where there
is no compatible donor for a dying child, parents will sometimes conceive
another child in the hope that he or she will be compatible as a donor. The
use of cell-nuclear replacement, using the sick child as the cell donor,
would avoid this lottery by ensuring that the sibling would have identical
nuclear DNA and would be a perfect match.
Some people may wish to use cell-nuclear replacement in an attempt to create
a 'replacement' for a dead or dying child. A range of variations on this
theme have been suggested. The US National Bioethics Advisory Commission
(National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Cloning human Beings, Report and
Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, June 1997),
for example, considered the scenario of a family involved in a terrible accident
in which the father is killed and the only child is dying. The mother wishes
to use some of the cells from the dying infant for cell nuclear replacement
as her only chance to have a child biologically related to her late husband.
In this case, the motivation is to have her husband's child, not to have
a child who is genetically identical to another person. Does this make the
motive more acceptable? Similarly, an infertile couple where the man has
no sperm may opt for cell-nuclear replacement, using a cell from the husband,
in order to have a child genetically related to both of them (nuclear DNA
from the father and mitochondrial DNA from the mother), as an alternative
to donor insemination. The primary aim is to have a child, not to create
a genetic copy of the father, although the outcome is the same. A couple
who are both carriers of a serious genetic disorder and wish to avoid the
birth of an affected child, may prefer to use cell-nuclear replacement to
clone one of them, rather than the alternatives of prenatal diagnosis or
donated gametes. The efficiency of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) might be
greatly increased by using the 8 nuclei from an 8-cell IVF embryo to make
8 separate embryos by cell nuclear replacement.
Are any or all of these motives acceptable? Does it make a difference whether
the aim is to bring into existence a genetically identical individual, or
simply to have a child who may, incidentally be genetically identical? Is
it relevant whether reproductive cloning is to be used to overcome some
pathology, such as to avoid a genetic disorder, to provide a compatible organ
or tissue for donation or to overcome infertility? Or is creating an individual
with the same genetic identity as another existing person unacceptable,
regardless of the circumstances and motives of those concerned?
Ethical considerations
One of the most compelling arguments against using cell nuclear replacement
for human reproductive cloning is the evidence, from animal work, that the
techniques are hazardous and inefficient (Evidence from animal work indicates
a high incidence of malformations, stillbirths and postnatal deaths. Dolly
the sheep was the only successful outcome of 277 attempts). Until these matters
are resolved, the risks are likely to outweigh any potential benefits, but
whilst this may be sufficient to justify a temporary moratorium on the use
of the technique, this paper assumes that the time will come when these issues
of safety have been resolved.
Would there then be compelling arguments to prohibit or restrict the use
of reproductive cloning?
Rights of the child
Opponents of cell nuclear replacement focus primarily on concerns about the
welfare of the resulting child. Even if it were possible to ascertain that
the procedure could be used without physical harm to the embryo, fetus or
child, concerns remain about the likely psychological effect on the child
of being conceived in this way. One aspect of this is the child's possible
loss of a sense of uniqueness, individuality and personal autonomy although
appeals to a child's 'right to a unique genetic identity' have been roundly
rejected as meaningless. Rights are either liberties - such as a right to
walk along the road whistling - or claims against specific people, who would
have a correlative duty to observe the right - for example, a right against
a person to have a loan repaid. How one would enforce a claim to an individual
genetic identity is unclear unless it consisted in an absolute right to prevent
others coming into being with the same genetic constitution (this would present
particular problems with the case of naturally occurring monozygotic twins).
More important than genetic identity is personal identity which consists
of personality, character, temperament and life-style. If there is a right
in this context (a liberty) it is a right to be allowed to develop one's
own identity. This is where individuals cloned by cell nuclear replacement
are fundamentally different from monozygotic twins. Monozygotic twins begin
life simultaneously with an equal lack of knowledge about what the future
holds. For a 'delayed twin' cloned from an existing person, it may seem 'that
one's life has already been lived and played out by another, that one's fate
is already determined, and so the later twin will lose the spontaneity of
authentically creating and becoming his or her own self" (National Bioethics
Advisory Commission, 1997, Ibid). It is feared that this perception will
be compounded by the parents' expectations of the way the child will develop,
particularly if the primary motivation for using cloning was to replicate
an existing person. But parents often have high expectations for their children
and many children grow up in the shadow of an older successful sibling. To
what extent does the child's genetic make-up increase the parents' expectations
or make it more difficult for the child to resist such pressures?
Issues of identity also potentially arise from the confused genetic heritage
of a child born in this way. A woman, carrying a child derived from cell
nuclear replacement using one of her own cells, would give birth to her sister,
rather than her daughter. Although it is sometimes argued that, in this
situation, the child would have no genetic father - the woman's own father
would also be the father of the child. It has been argued that this provides
a less than ideal environment for a child's development. But evidence from
children born in other 'unusual' family arrangements does not show that these
children are necessarily harmed in any way by their experiences (See, for
example, Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Cook R, Giavazzi MT, Guerra D, Mantovani
A, van Hall E, Crosignani PG, Dexeus S. The European study of assisted
reproduction families: family functioning and child development, Human
Reproduction, 1996, 11(10) pp.2324-31 and Brewaeys A, Ponjaert I, van Hall
EV, Golombok S. Donor insemination: child development and family functioning
in lesbian mother families, Human Reproduction, 1997, 12(6) pp.1349-59).
The first few children born in this way would inevitably be the subject of
intense interest and curiosity but is this so different from the first few
children born following in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or the first recipient
of a donated organ?
Undermining human dignity
Some people oppose human reproductive cloning because they believe that a
child born following cell nuclear replacement is being treated as an object
and is being used to achieve some benefit for another person. This argument
is based broadly on an interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative -
that we must never treat each other merely as means to an end but always
as ends in themselves. This argument is most clearly illustrated by the example
of a child who is born in order to be a compatible organ or tissue donor
for another person. It is said that the child is being used as an object,
as a means to someone else's end. But do people always have children for
the sake of the child itself or because they consider there to be a need
for another child in the world? In reality, the reason why most people have
children is more to do with their own wishes and desires than the child's.
Furthermore, it is not unusual for individuals to use each other as a means
to an end - indeed it is considered desirable that we should help each other
- but we do not treat others merely as a tool for achieving a set objective.
If the child were to be abandoned once the donation had taken place, he or
she would have been treated merely as a means, and this would be rightly
condemned, but the child will undoubtedly be loved and respected for him
or herself and, perhaps even more so for having saved the life of his or
her sibling (Gillon R. Human reproductive cloning - a look at the arguments
against it and a rejection of most of them, Journal of the Royal Society
of Medicine, 1992, 92 pp. 3-12).
Unnatural procedure
Many people's opposition to reproductive cloning is not clearly articulated
but rather is based on a 'gut reaction' that it is wrong, horrible, disgusting
or is, in some way, an affront to human dignity. Whilst intuitive reactions
cannot and should not easily be dismissed it would also be wrong always to
rely upon such reactions as necessarily reflecting an appropriate moral stance.
Gillon points out that moral gut responses may be morally admirable but they
may also be morally wrong, even morally atrocious. Without moral reflection,
these gut feelings provide no way of distinguishing between those which are
right and those which are wrong. He concludes therefore that "we need to
reflect on and educate our moral feelings so as to select and develop the
good ones, and deter and modify or preferably abolish the bad ones" (Gillon,
R. 1992, Ibid). Similarly, the fact that something is 'unnatural' does not
mean that it is necessarily wrong or bad. Many bad things happen naturally
and many things which are unnatural are nonetheless beneficial - including
many forms of medical treatment. Whilst these feelings are understandable
they need to be treated with some caution and, where appropriate, should
give way to moral reasoning.
Reports and surveys of public opinion show clear opposition to human reproductive
cloning. Some of the early reports on IVF and organ transplantation were
also negative, combining awe at what was possible with fear about where it
would all end. This comparison helps to illustrate, not only the common and
intuitive nature of fear of new developments but also, the way in which public
opinion shifts such that many things which were considered unnatural and
objectionable gradually become accepted as routine. Is opposition to reproductive
cloning by cell-nuclear replacement any more than an illogical and transient
fear of new technology?
Freedom of choice
Whenever any new or innovative treatment or procedure is proposed, the question
facing society is whether the onus should be on those who would permit the
technique to justify its use or whether the onus is on those who would prohibit
it to justify a prohibition. In other words, should it be permitted until
there is overriding evidence of harm or should it be prohibited until there
is overriding evidence of benefit? At the present time there is overwhelming
evidence, from animal work, that the techniques used for cell nuclear replacement
are both hazardous and inefficient. But, assuming a time when these problems
have been resolved, those who argue in favour of reproductive cloning claim
that the arguments against its use are based on 'gut reaction' and prejudice
and that no compelling reasons have been presented to justify a ban. Claiming
a right to 'procreative autonomy' (defined as "a right to control their own
role in procreation unless the state has a compelling reason for denying
them that control" (Dworkin R, Life's dominion,1993, as quoted in Harris
J, 'Goodbye Dolly?' The ethics of human cloning, Journal of Medical Ethics,
1997, 23, pp. 353-360) it is argued that there is insufficient evidence of
harm to justify interfering with an individual's freedom to choose. If the
use of reproductive cloning were to violate the rights of others or threaten
society there would be grounds for restricting procreative autonomy but,
some argue, such evidence has not been forthcoming (Harris J,1997, Ibid)
Balancing benefit and harm
Comparing benefits and harms can often help to resolve such ethical dilemmas
but, with reproductive cloning, both the benefits and harms are more theoretical
than real. There may be psychological harms to the resulting children or
problems of identity but we simply do not know; whether the risk of such
harms is worth taking may depend upon what else is at stake. Where the use
of reproductive cloning could save the life of another child, by providing
a compatible organ or tissue for donation, the risk of harm would arguably
need to be very high to deny the sick child the opportunity of a cure. It
is not unusual for young children to be exposed to procedures which have
known risks, including bone-marrow transplants, in order to save the life
of a sick sibling. Where the benefit is less clear, such as where an individual
simply wishes to have a child in his or her own image, the evidence of harms
required to warrant obstructing this aim may be lower. It could be argued
then, that motive is a critical factor in assessing the balance of risks
and benefits of reproductive cloning but so too is the harm of exposing children
to unknown and, therefore, unquantifiable risks.
Reproductive cloning by embryo splitting
Another type of reproductive cloning, which has been proposed, is the splitting
of an in vitro embryo, at an early stage of development, to deliberately
produce identical twins. It has been suggested that this technique could
have benefits for those undergoing fertility treatment where only one embryo
is available for transfer, by splitting the embryo into two thereby,
theoretically, increasing the chance of a successful pregnancy. There are,
however, very serious doubts, based on experience from animals, about whether
this technique is ever likely to be a realistic option. Although the success
rates for IVF are consistently higher when two embryos are replaced rather
than one (See, for example, Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority,
Sixth Annual Report, 1997 p.14 and Human Fertilisation & Embryology
Authority, Fifth Annual Report, 1996 p.33), this may be linked to the quality
of the embryos rather than the number replaced. Arguably, splitting, even
a good quality, embryo into two will not increase the chance of pregnancy
because it will result in two poor quality embryos which are unlikely to
implant. If these problems can be overcome and it proves possible to produce
good quality embryos by embryo splitting, would there be strong arguments
for prohibiting this form of reproductive cloning?
Unlike children born following cell nuclear replacement, those born following
embryo splitting would be genetically identical, sharing both nuclear and
mitochondrial DNA. They would also share the same womb-environment and be
born into the same social, political and economic circumstances and, for
these reasons, should be far more alike than 'delayed twins'. Many of the
psychological harms predicted for children born following cell nuclear
replacement, which are discussed above, would not arise with embryo splitting
because although the children would share their genetic make-up with each
other they would not share it with any other existing, or previously existing
person. They are each, therefore, free to develop their own personality,
in the same way as naturally occurring monozygotic twins, with no more than
the usual parental expectations and pressures. The children would not have
a confused genetic heritage - the woman who carried them would be their mother
not their sister - and the parents' motive for having them would be no different
from any other parents' motives for having children. Furthermore, if motive
is important, the intention with embryo splitting is not to create
genetically identical individuals but to increase the chance of a successful
pregnancy.
The differences between children born following embryo splitting and naturally
occurring monozygotic twins would be few. One obvious difference is the
artificial nature of the twinning but this is arguably no more likely to
be a problem than for other children born following IVF treatment where medicine
mimics nature. The other difference is the potential for only one of the
embryos to be replaced with the other stored for use in the future. If the
stored embryo is replaced some time later, the result would be a 'delayed
twin' with the potential for the same psychological harms predicted following
cell nuclear replacement. Media reports have focussed on the possibility
of one of the embryos being stored indefinitely as a 'perfect replacement'
in case of the sibling's death or as a source of 'spare parts' in case of
future illness. Although such a scenario is unlikely, it could be guarded
against by, for example, restricting the use of embryo splitting to those
women who need fertility treatment, for whom only one embryo is available,
limiting the splitting of the embryo into two and requiring that both embryos
are replaced in the same treatment cycle. For those countries which have
a licensing or monitoring body for IVF, such restriction can be imposed on
those providing the treatment services. Even in countries without regulation,
many practitioners are, nonetheless, willing to follow established good practice
guidelines and limit their practice accordingly. It is questionable whether
those who would not adhere to restrictions on their practice would be any
more likely to adhere to a complete prohibition on embryo splitting.
Reproductive cloning by embryo splitting, with appropriate regulation, does
not raise the same problems predicted with cell nuclear replacement and may
be considered less problematic from an ethical perspective. But, the potential
benefits would apply to a very small number of people. Are the potential
benefits sufficient to outweigh the harms, including the possible damage
to public confidence, of crossing the currently accepted moral boundary,
by permitting any form of reproductive cloning? |
THE RAELIAN EFFORTS
FROM;
http://www.is.lk/times/010603/specrpt.html
Race for a double
A maverick cult leader and a team of top-notch scientists compete to clone
the world's first human. What will be the consequences of their success?
The guru wants to play God. That was the chorus from critics when the 54-year-old
sportswriter-turned-leader of the Raelians sect unveiled his plans for a
genetic leap forward. They reacted with disdain when he set up Clonaid, the
world's first company to clone a human, soon after the birth of Dolly, the
world's first cloned sheep, in 1996. Things have changed since then and the
disdain has been replaced by part-disbelief, part-dread.
More so after an American couple approached Clonaid last year with the preserved
skin cells of their 10-month-old son who didn't survive heart surgery. Rael's
scientists accepted the challenge, and the $500,000 that the couple offered
for a cloned child. Boasting the best equipment, geneticists and fertility
experts-and now loaded with cash-Rael is moving towards his goal.
Unless Dr. Panayiotis Zavos delivers first. The Cyprus-born, Kentucky-based
doctor has teamed up with Italian fertility specialist Dr Severino Antinori
in an international project to clone the first human. Zavos and Antinori,
who grabbed headlines six years ago when he helped a 62-year-old Italian
give birth, have the same objective as Rael: devising a new technique to
help infertile couples have children.
The speed with which the cloners are making progress would have surprised
Hans Spemann. Ninety-nine years ago, the German embryologist gingerly extended
a sliver of hair from the head of his infant son to splice two cells of a
salamander embryo. To his astonishment, the separated cells grew into two
robust salamanders. Spemann's was one of the earliest attempts to prove that
every living cell of an animal is loaded with the genetic map for the entire
creature. It took another nine decades for Dolly to arrive, then Cumulina
the cloned mouse, and Starbuck II the cloned prize bull. A few piglets and
some calves followed. Suddenly, it appeared that Aldous Huxley's Brave New
World was unfolding before our eyes.
The only missing characters from the cloning cast were humans. Now Rael,
Zavos and Co. promise to people the New Age Noah's Ark. "Our project is making
progress every day," Zavos told The Week. His international consortium will
apply "the human therapeutic cloning technology only for reproductive purposes
to help those who have exhausted every possible avenue in having their own
biological child."
Five years ago such talk would have tickled the critics. After Dolly, the
chuckles have been quieted by the refrain that someone is bound to clone
a human sooner than later. With every breakthrough since Dolly, researchers
have polished the craft of being copycats. So much so that the technology
isn't any great shakes today. Everyone knows that cloning involves the creation
of a genetic twin from a single cell-such as a skin cell-from an adult. The
way Scottish scientist Dr Ian Wilmut went about cloning Dolly was pretty
straightforward: the DNA-containing nucleus from the cell of an adult sheep
was transferred to a donor egg whose nucleus had been removed. The two were
fused with an electrical jolt, activating the growth of the embryo which
was then transferred to a surrogate mother's womb to develop. Scientists
believe that the process to clone a human will be more or less the same.
Sometimes cloning occurs without any electrical jolt-as in the case of twins-with
only the parents receiving a jolt at the double whammy! "Initially there
is one egg, but suddenly it bifurcates and they grow into two babies. It
does happen naturally," says Hinduja. "Thus cloning a human is quite possible."
Not just possible, says Zavos, but it is "inevitable that human cloning will
be done by someone." He argues that it will be better if the procedure is
handled by a group like his which will "develop this technology in the most
responsible way".
Maybe that's a dig at his competitor in Quebec, but the maverick cult leader
nursing a new-born religion could just be ahead in the race. In February,
Clonaid's scientific director Dr Brigitte Boisselier revealed her team had
started work on human eggs and was practising the technique of enucleation
or the removal of the nucleus. Next, they would practise the process of
transferring the nucleus of a cell into the enucleated cell. If things went
as expected, they would have begun work on the preserved cells of the dead
child by early April. Add the gestation period and you know when to expect
the results.
The only obstacle seems to be the large number of failed pregnancies during
the cloning process. Dolly came after 277 attempts at fusing the donor egg
in the womb of the surrogate ewe; Starbuck II was born after 68 tries. Indeed,
the cloners will have to make hundreds of attempts to create an embryo and
also to implant it successfully. And, most surrogate mothers with bulging
bellies face the certainty of an abortion because of defects in the embryo
or the placenta.
The numbers game will challenge the cloners, who know that the higher the
availability of donor eggs and surrogate wombs, the greater their chances
of success. On this score, the Raelians don't have a worry: 50 women followers
volunteered to become surrogate mothers. The advantage of such large numbers
is that even if one pregnancy is aborted, the experiment will continue through
other surrogate mothers instead of having to wait for the woman's next cycle.
Rael promises'Eternal life for all'
Last year a couple paid $500,000 to your company to clone their child. What
is the progress?
We are currently working on this project and hope to have a pregnancy real
soon.
What are the chances of success in cloning a human?
Today the success rate of mammal cloning is reaching levels of 15 per cent.
We know less about mammal reproduction than we do about human reproduction.
Our knowledge on human reproduction, thanks to IVF, is such that we are very
confident on the outcome of this research.
Your critics say that your project is unethical.
They are wrong. Ethical is only a word to hide superstitions and taboos.
Prof. Ian Wilmut says human cloning will be "absolutely criminal".
What is criminal is to deny the right to scientists to work on projects [like
these], the right to individuals to choose the way they want to reproduce,
the right for the future to be born.
Do you have the expertise to clone?
Our scientists are well-trained biologists and physicians.
Your critics say that your project is not legal.
It is perfectly legal to do these researches in the US. If it becomes illegal,
we will ask the US Supreme Court whether they want to deny the right of
reproduction choice to the hundreds of couples who have requested our services.
I doubt they will. In any event, we will always respect the laws of the country
in which we are located.
Will there be any development problems in a cloned child?
None. No more than in sexually-produced children.
There are fears that many of the surrogate mothers will suffer horrible
miscarriages.
If an embryo is not viable there will be miscarriages in the few days following
the implantation, just like in IVF.
The IVF success rate is in the range of 30 to 40 per cent meaning that 60
to 70 per cent of the implantations lead to miscarriages.
This is well documented. We do not know why these miscarriages [in cloning
projects] would be more horrible than the other ones. The surrogate mothers
know that they may have to face it.
How has life changed for you since you became Rael?
No more selfishness. I think only about the well-being of humanity, and I
devote my life to helping mankind to reach higher levels, both spiritually
and scientifically.
How do you see the world in the year 2020?
Cloning will be performed by hundreds every day as IVF is today. The media
was talking about monsters and Frankenstein after the birth of Louise Brown,
the first test-tube baby. Now 20,000 babies have been born using this technique.
It is well accepted. It will be the same with cloning.
Nanotechnology will make work obsolete, as well as money. Nanorobots or nanobots
will do all the work and production, and humans will be able to enjoy life.
All diseases will be cured thanks to genetics, cloning and stem cells. Schools
will disappear replaced by direct downloading of education in the brain,
jails will disappear, and eternal life will be available for all.
Interview with Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, human cloning project leader
'A human can be cloned safely'
Do you believe that a human can be cloned? Or is it all a dream?
The project is on its way to being executed and therefore it is not just
a dream. A human can be cloned and can be cloned safely. Please do not forget
that the effort of our consortium is to apply the human therapeutic cloning
technology for reproductive purposes only and to those who have exhausted
every possible avenue in reproducing their own biological child.
What is the progress of your project?
It is well under way and we're making progress every day.
Experts have criticised your project, not only because of the ethical issues
but because of the possibility that a cloned human will have serious
malformations.
The so-called experts in the field of animal cloning have created a monstrous
opinion about reproductive cloning. Since they have been unable to execute
their efforts successfully, because of a variety of reasons, they believe
that nobody else should attempt to apply this development in humans.
Most of the animal cloners have carried out their so-called experiments in
a "hit and miss" configuration and are driven by fame and fortune. We are
not driven by any of those qualities but rather by our desire to help our
fellow men and women to have a better life.
Experts say that serious malformations have occurred in all species cloned
so far, and they are sure it will happen in humans too. Are their fears
justified?
With further experimentation our consortium will be able to develop the proper
technology to bypass and overcome any of the so-called difficulties that
the animal cloners are referring to. We do not live in a perfect world and
therefore there will be mishaps and risks taken like any other technology
that is currently available for use in humans. The consortium will not step
on dead bodies and deformed babies to develop and apply this technology.
Furthermore, we will not do this unless it is safe. This is the responsible
way of going about it.
|
| NEWS OF THE FIRST CLONED BABY:
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (Dec. 27, 2002) - A chemist connected to a group that believes
life on Earth was created by extraterrestrials claimed Friday to have produced
the world's first human clone, a baby girl named Eve.
The 7-pound baby was born Thursday, said Brigitte Boisselier, head of Clonaid,
the company that claimed success in the project. She wouldn't say where the
baby was born.
Even before the announcement, other scientists expressed doubt that her group
could clone a human.
Boisselier, who spoke at a news conference, said the baby is a clone of the
30-year-old American woman who donated the DNA for the cloning process, had
the resulting embryo implanted and then gestated the baby. If confirmed,
that would make the child an exact genetic duplicate of her mother.
''It is very important to remember that we are talking about a baby,'' she
said. ''The baby is very healthy. She is fine, she doing fine. The parents
are happy. I hope that you remember them when you talk about this baby, not
like a monster, like some results of something that is disugusting.''
Boisselier did not immediately present DNA evidence showing a genetic match
between mother and daughter, however. That omission leaves her claim
scientifically unsupported.
The group expects four more babies to be born in the next few weeks, another
from North America, one from Europe and two from Asia.
She said the baby will go home in three days, and an independent expert will
take DNA samples from the baby to prove she had been cloned. Those test results
are expected within a week after the testing.
Most scientists, already skeptical of Boisellier's ability to produce a human
clone, will probably demand to know exactly how the DNA testing was done
before they believe the announcement.
Clonaid was founded in the Bahamas in 1997 by Claude Vorilhon, a former French
journalist and leader of a group called the Raelians. Vorilhon and his followers
claim aliens visiting him in the 1970s revealed they had created all life
on Earth through genetic engineering.
Cloning produces a new individual using only one person's DNA. The process
is technically difficult but conceptually simple. Scientists remove the genetic
material from an unfertilized egg, then introduce new DNA from a cell of
the animal to be cloned. Under the proper conditions, the egg begins dividing
into new cells according to the instructions in the introduced DNA.
Boisselier, who claims two chemistry degrees and previously was marketing
director for a chemical company in France, identifies herself as a Raelian
''bishop'' and said Clonaid retains philosophical but not economic links
to the Raelians. She is not a specialist in reproductive medicine.
Human cloning for reproductive purposes is banned in several countries. There
is no specific law against it in the United States, but the Food and Drug
Administration contends it must approve any human experiments in this country.
Boisselier would not say where Clonaid has been carrying out its experiments.
Bush administration officials said in Washington on Thursday they were aware
of rumors of an announcement but had no plans to comment on the matter until
after the details were known.
In Rome, fertility doctor Severino Antinori, who said weeks ago he had engineered
a cloned baby boy who would be born in January, dismissed Clonaid's claims
and said the group has no scientific credibility.
The news ''makes me laugh and at the same time disconcerts me, because it
creates confusion between those who make serious scientific research'' and
those who don't, Antinori said.
''We keep up our scientific work, without making announcements,'' he added.
''I don't take part in this ... race.''
So far scientists have succeeded in cloning sheep, mice, cows, pigs, goats
and cats. Last year, scientists in Massachusetts produced cloned human embryos
with the intention of using them as a source of stem cells, but the cloned
embryos never grew bigger than six cells.
Many scientists oppose cloning to produce humans, saying it's too risky because
of abnormalities seen in cloned animals.
AP-NY-12-27-02 0942EST
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. |
Retired
Gen. Colin Powell. The ultimate Washington insider, Powell, who has served
four presidents, himself considered a run for the presidency in 1996. He
boasts a long and formidable résumé, and a G.I. Joe action
figure bears his likeness. Powell did a four-year stint as the chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, serving under both President Bush and
President Clinton.
He retired in 1993, and in 1997 he established America's Promise—the
Alliance for Youth, a charitable organization formed to help needy and
at-risk U.S. children.
Paul H.
O'Neill. O'Neill, who has served as chairman of aluminum giant
Alcoa since 1987, will lead the country's economic policy at a time
when the economy is in the midst of a sharp slowdown, the
stock market has
been in steady decline, and many experts say a
recession may
be looming. The direction he will take is uncertain; he's been known for
his independence and has endorsed Democratic views on some social issues
and called for an increase in the oil tax during the Bush administration.
O'Neill served under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush.
Donald H. Rumsfeld. The role as secretary of defense is not
a new one for Rumsfeld. He held the same position under President Ford. The
role of the U.S. military, however, has changed dramatically since 1975.
Rumsfeld has indicated that he favors building an impenetrable national missile
defense system. He and Vice President
Dick Cheney have
strong ties that date back to the Nixon administration, when Cheney served
as Rumsfeld's assistant in the Office of Economic Opportunity. In
1974, Rumsfeld led
President Ford's
transition team, and he brought Cheney, his protégé, to the
executive office. When Rumsfeld was named secretary of defense in 1975, Cheney
was appointed Ford's chief of staff. Rumsfeld served in Congress from 1962
to 1969 as a representative from Illinois. When President Carter was elected
in 1976, Rumsfeld entered the private sector. He recently headed a panel
that concluded countries such as
North Korea and
Iran could eventually
have the capacity to launch ballistic missiles at the United States. The
commission's report helped to reinvigorate the debate over the need for a
national missile defense.
John
Ashcroft. Arguably the most controversial and conservative of all Bush
appointees, Ashcroft faced harsh questioning by Democrats at his confirmation
hearings. He was widely criticized for blocking the nomination of Ronnie
White to a judgeship on the federal district court. Ashcroft opposed
White, who was the first black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court, saying
he was "pro-criminal" and "anti-death penalty." However, records indicate
that White voted for the death penalty in 41 out of 59 cases. Democrats fear
that Ashcroft will use his position to help to overturn
Roe v.
Wade. Republicans have praised him as a highly ethical and fair-minded
politician.
Gale A. Norton. A controversial appointee and a foe of environmentalists,
Norton has long advocated opening the Alaska National Refuge to oil
exploration, a position shared by President George W. Bush. She is also a
proponent of giving states and localities broader jurisdiction over environmental
issues. A protégé of President Reagan's interior secretary,
James Watt, Norton was associate solicitor in the Interior Department from
1985 to 1987, and she served as attorney general of Colorado from 1990 to
1998.
Ann M. Veneman. Veneman brings vast experience to Bush's cabinet,
having served as President Bush's deputy secretary of agriculture for
international affairs and commodities. She is the first woman to head the
department. She was California's secretary of food and agriculture from 1995
to 1999.
Donald Evans. President Bush's best friend, Evans is about to undertake
his first position in government. The Commerce Department has traditionally
been the area in which presidents position close friends and party stalwarts.
Evans headed up the Bush-Cheney campaign and served as national finance chairman
for Gov. George W. Bush's gubernatorial campaigns. He has been the chairman
and chief executive of Tom Brown, Inc., an oil company, since 1975.
Elaine
Chao. Chao has a distinguished career in public service, having served
as President Bush's deputy secretary of transportation from 1989 to 1991.
She was the director of the Peace
Corps from 1991 to 1992 and then led the United Way from 1992
to 1996. She's currently a distinguished fellow at the Heritage
Foundation, a conservative research organization. She's married to Kentucky
senator Mitch McConnell. A Chinese immigrant, Chao has said she opposes
affirmative action but favors equal opportunity for all. She was appointed
two days after Linda Chavez, Bush's first pick for labor secretary, withdrew
her name.
Tommy
G. Thompson. Thompson was the governor of Wisconsin for an unprecedented
14 years. During his tenure, he was an activist leader and ushered in the
nation's most stringent—and innovative—welfare-to-work
program. Thompson is pro-life, and as secretary of health and human services,
he'll oversee how federal funds are used to fund abortions and family-planning
clinics. He served a 20-year stint in the Wisconsin State Assembly.
Melquiades
Rafael Martinez. Cuban-born Martinez came to the United States in 1962,
as a participant in an airlift operation in which about 14,000
Cuban children entered the country in the early 1960s. Martinez was elected
chairman of Orange County, Fla., in 1998. Prior to that, he served
as president of the Orlando Utilities Commission from 1994 to 1997, while
maintaining a private law practice. In early 2000, he proposed placing a
moratorium on new construction in cities in Orlando County where overcrowding
was compromising the quality of life for residents. Builders were outraged
and are fighting the proposal.
Norman
Yoshiro Mineta. The lone Democrat appointed to Bush's cabinet, Mineta
was offered the same job in the Clinton administration, but passed so he
could continue as chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation
Committee. He served for 20 years in the U.S. House of Representatives.
When he retired in 1995, he became senior vice president in the Transportation
and Services Division of Lockheed Martin. In July 2000, he became
President Clinton's secretary of commerce. When he was 10 years old, Mineta
and his family were sent to a Japanese-American internment camp. As a
congressman, he sponsored a bill to compensate internees. The legislation
passed, and former internees were paid $20,000.
Spencer
Abraham. As a senator from Michigan, Abraham on three occasions proposed
eliminating the department he is now slated to head, saying it had "no core
mission." Energy was not the only department on his hit list; he also suggested
the Commerce Department be eliminated. He served one term as a senator, and
was defeated in the November elections. Abraham served as co-chairman of
the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1990 to 1992 and briefly
as the deputy chief of staff to Vice President
Dan Quayle.
Roderick
Paige. As superintendent of the Houston Independent School District,
Paige has revitalized the country's seventh-largest district, forcing students
caught with weapons to be expelled or placed in alternative schools, penalizing
administrators who head failing schools, prorating principals' salaries to
student performance, and markedly increasing student test scores. He has
indicated he would consider vouchers to help send students to private school
using public funds. He was elected to the Houston Independent School District
Board of Education in 1989, and from 1971 to 1990, he held several positions
with Texas Southern University.
Anthony J. Principi. This is Principi's second time as head
of Veterans' Affairs. He served as deputy secretary of the department under
President George Bush, and became acting secretary when Secretary Edward
Derwinski stepped down, under pressure from the president. Veterans groups
hailed Principi as an experienced leader well equipped to guide the
department.
