|
1
|
|
|
2
|
- Executive Director,
- World Family Policy Center
- Ph.D., Family Science,
- Brigham Young University
- J.D., J. Reuben Clark Law School
- The World Family Policy Center is
- an ECOSOC accredited nongovernmental,
- pro-family organization based at
- Brigham Young University
- www.worldfamilypolicy.org
|
|
3
|
- Ph.D., University of Kansas
- Professor of Life Sciences
- Indiana State University
- Adjunct Professor, Medical & Molecular Genetics, Indiana University
School of Medicine, Terre Haute Center for Medical Education
- Dr. Prentice is an
internationally recognized expert on
- stem cell research, a Founding
Member of Do No Harm:
- The Coalition of Americans for
Research Ethics, and a
- Fellow of the Council for
Biotechnology Policy,
- Wilberforce Forum. He has
testified before the U.S.
- Congress, U.S. National Academy
of Sciences, British
- Parliament, European Parliament,
Canadian Parliament,
- several state legislatures, and
given numerous briefings,
- invited talks, and media
interviews on stem cell research,
- cloning, and bioethics.
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
- Our results indicate that even apparently healthy cloned animals can
have gene expression abnormalities that are not severe enough to impede
development to birth but that may cause subtle physiological
abnormalities which could be difficult to detect.” Humpherys D et al.;
“Epigenetic instability in ES cells and cloned mice”; Science 293,
95-97; July 6, 2001
- Humpherys D et al.; “Abnormal gene expression in cloned mice derived
from embryonic stem cell and cumulus cell nuclei”; Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 99, 12889-12894; October 1, 2002
- A review of all the world’s cloned animals suggests that every one of
them is genetically and physically defective. “The widespread problems
associated with clones has led to questions as to whether any clone was
entirely normal,” Ian Wilmut said. “There is abundant evidence that
cloning can and does go wrong and no justification for believing that
this will not happen with humans.” “Gene defects emerge in all animal
clones”, Sunday Times of London, April 28, 2002
- Dolly the sheep, first cloned mammal:
1 live birth out of 277 cloned embryos (0.4%)
- Cloned mice: 5 live births out of
613 cloned embryos (0.8%)
5 live births out of 314
cloned embryos implanted (1.6%) (0.8%; 1 survived)
26 live births out of 312
cloned embryos implanted (8.3%) (4.2%; 13 survived)
- Cloned pigs: 5 live births out of
72 cloned embryos implanted (7%)
- Cloned goats: 3 live births out
of 85 cloned embryos implanted (3.5%)
- Cloned cattle: 30 live births out
of 496 cloned embryos implanted (6%) (4.8%; 24 survived)
- Cloned cat: 1 live birth out of
188 cloned embryos (0.5%); of 87
embryos implanted (1.1%)
- Cloned gaur: 1 live birth out of 692 cloned embryos (81 blastocysts)
(0.1%) (0%; 0 survived)
- Cloned rabbits: 6 live births out of 1852 cloned embryos (0.3%) (0.2%; 4
survived)
- Health risk for the surrogate mother—“large offspring syndrome”
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
- “Moreover, because therapeutic cloning requires the creation and
disaggregation ex utero of blastocyst stage embryos, this technique
raises complex ethical questions.”
“CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, a.k.a.
therapeutic cloning] requires the deliberate creation and disaggregation
of a human embryo.”
“It is true that the techniques developed in CRNT [cell
replacement through nuclear transfer, a.k.a. therapeutic cloning]
research can prepare the way scientifically and technically for efforts
at reproductive cloning.”
Robert P. Lanza, Arthur L. Caplan, Lee M. Silver, Jose B.
Cibelli, Michael D. West, Ronald M. Green; "The ethical validity of
using nuclear transfer in human transplantation"; The Journal of
the American Medical Association 284, 3175-3179; Dec 27, 2000.
- Thomas Okarma, chief executive officer, Geron Corporation says: “The
odds favoring success are vanishingly small, and the costs are
daunting.” “It would take
thousands of [human] eggs on an assembly line to produce a custom therapy
for a single person. The process
is a nonstarter, commercially.”
(Denise Gellene, “Clone Profit? Unlikely”, Los Angeles Times, May
10, 2002)
|
|
16
|
- Quotes regarding “therapeutic cloning”
- “[T]he poor availability of human oocytes, the low efficiency of the
nuclear transfer procedure, and the long population-doubling time of
human ES cells make it difficult to envision this [therapeutic cloning]
becoming a routine clinical procedure…”
Odorico JS, Kaufman DS, Thomson JA, “Multilineage differentiation
from human embryonic stem cell lines,” Stem Cells 19, 193-204; 2001
- “However, it is unlikely that large numbers of mature human oocytes
would be available for the production of ES cells, particularly if
hundreds are required to produce each ES line. The technical capability for nuclear
transfer would also need to be widely available and this is
unlikely. In addition, epigenetic
remnants of the somatic cell used as the nuclear donor can cause major
functional problems in development, which must remain a concern for ES
cells derived by nuclear transfer.”
“Although it is possible to customize ES cells by therapeutic
cloning or cytoplasmic transfer, it would appear unlikely that these
strategies will be used extensively for producing ES cells compatible
for transplantation.”
(Alan O.Trounson, “The derivation and potential use of human
embryonic stem cells”, Reproduction, Fertility, and Development 13,
523-532; 2001)
|
|
17
|
- Quotes regarding “therapeutic cloning”
- “Robert Lanza, chief scientist at Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester,
Mass., an ardent advocate for both embryonic stem cell studies and
therapeutic cloning, agreed that in the course of the political debate,
the need for cloning to overcome immune system rejection has been
overstated. ‘It’s not all or nothing.
You can move ahead.’”
San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, March 18, 2002 Page E – 1)
- “[John] Gearhart [of Johns Hopkins University] also says that many
scientists ‘feel there are ways of getting around [the rejection
problem] without the nuclear transfer paradigm.’ ”
Constance Holden, “Would cloning ban affect stem cells?”, Science
293, 1025; Aug 10, 2001
- DR. GEARHART: “There is no
question in my mind that the possibility exists that if you are doing an
egg donor, and nuclear transfer into an egg, that there possibly exists
that that cell -- that the embryonic stem cells derived from that could
be rejected. Absolutely.”
[Dr. John Gearhart; transcript of the April 25, 2002 meeting of
the President’s Council on Bioethics; p.47;
http://www.bioethics.gov/meetings/200204/0425.doc]
- Dr. Irving Weissman, Stanford, told the President's Council on Bioethics
on February 13, 2002 that embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos would
require immune suppression: “I should say that when you put the nucleus
in from a somatic cell, the mitochondria still come from the host.” He
concluded, “And in mouse studies it is clear that those genetic
differences can lead to a mild but certainly effective transplant
rejection and so immunosuppression, mild though it is, will be required
for that.”
|
|
18
|
- --leading embryonic stem cell expert
- Alan Trounson, Australian embryonic stem cell expert and a leader in the
field worldwide, says that stem cell research has advanced so rapidly in
the past few months that therapeutic cloning is now unnecessary. “My view is there are at least three
or four other alternatives that are more attractive already,” he
said.
Trounson abandoned his call for therapeutic cloning, saying
scientific breakthroughs mean there is now no need for the controversial
technique.
Professor Trounson said therapeutic cloning faced logistical
problems, and that other techniques were showing great promise and
offered better options. “I can't
see why, then, you would argue for therapeutic cloning in the long term
because it is so difficult to get eggs and you've got this issue of
(destroying) embryos as well.”
“Stem-cell cloning not needed, says scientist”, The Age
(Melbourne), pg. 2, July 29, 2002;
“Stem-cell research outpaces cloning”, The Australian, pg. 3,
July 29, 2002;
“Therapeutic cloning no longer necessary: expert”, AAP Newsfeed,
July 29, 2002
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
- Promises, Premises, and Published Data…
- Claims for embryonic stem cells unsubstantiated
- Current and potential embryonic stem cell problems:
- No current clinical treatments
- Few successes in animal models
- Difficulty in obtaining pure cultures in the dish
- Difficult to establish and maintain
- Problem of immune rejection
- Potential for tumor formation
- Genomic instability
|
|
26
|
- Quotes from proponents of human embryonic stem cell research
- “Rarely have specific growth factors or culture conditions led to
establishment of cultures containing a single cell type.” “Furthermore, there is significant
culture-to-culture variability in the development of a particular
phenotype under identical growth factor conditions.” “[T]he possibility arises that
transplantation of differentiated human ES cell derivatives into human
recipients may result in the formation of ES cell-derived tumors.”
Odorico JS, Kaufman DS, Thomson JA, “Multilineage differentiation
from human embryonic stem cell lines,” Stem Cells 19, 193-204; 2001
- “The work presented here shows that none of the eight growth factors
tested directs a completely uniform and singular differentiation of
cells.”
Schuldiner M et al.; “Effects of eight growth factors on the
differentiation of cells derived from human embryonic stem cells”; Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 11307-11312; Oct. 10, 2000
- “Transplanted ES cells spontaneously differentiate into any of a variety
of ectodermal, endodermal and mesodermal cell types—sometimes into a
disorganized mass of neurons, cartilage and muscle; sometimes into
teratomas containing an eye, hair or even teeth.”
Robert P. Lanza, Jose B. Cibelli, & Michael D. West; “Human
therapeutic cloning”; Nature Medicine 5, 975-977; September 1999.
- “Normally, if you take an embryonic stem cell, it will make all kinds of
things, sort of willy-nilly," says [Doug] Melton.”
(Jacqueline S. Mitchell, “Stem Cells 101”, PBS “Scientific
American Frontiers”, May 28th, 2002;
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1209/features/stemcell.htm)
|
|
27
|
- THE ETHICAL ALTERNATIVE TO
- EMBRYONIC STEM CELL CLONING
|
|
28
|
|
|
29
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
33
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
45
|
- Arguments Against Human Embryo Cloning
- No evidence that cloning is necessary or useful for medical treatments
- Cloning research will divert resources and delay cures
- Banning only implantation is unenforceable
- Creates a class of humans who exist only as means to achieve the ends of
others
- Risking health and exploitation of women
- Leading to commodification, commercialization of human life
- Gateway to genetic manipulation and control of human beings
- Unsafe, Unethical, Unnecessary
|
|
46
|
|
|
47
|
|
Notes
