Ghassemi is a third-year political science student.
By Jeffrey Ghassemi
This weekend, the Los Angeles Times published an inconspicuous
article on California’s proposal to ban cloning of human
embryos for the purpose of producing babies (“Panel Urges
State to Limit Human Cloning to Research, Therapy,” Los
Angeles Times, Jan. 12).
The committee ““ a team of medical, legal and ethics
experts ““ stands in favor of attaching criminal penalties to
reproductive cloning while leaving the door open for therapeutic
cloning.
To many, the distinction between these two types of clonings
remains, well, fuzzy. So on behalf of more than 133 million
Americans who suffer from chronic diseases, I ask that you rethink
the issue of human cloning. It is critical to distinguish between
the two types of cloning technology we are working with.
Reproductive cloning would allow the cloned embryo to be
implanted in a womb for the purpose of giving birth to a child.
Therapeutic cloning would never lead to the creation of a mature
human being. Instead, researchers would extract stem cells from the
cloned embryo and use them to harvest the tissues and organs that
disease sufferers need for transplantation.
If such tissues were cultivated from a clone of the intended
patient, the possibility of transplantation rejection would be
minimized. Current advances in the field of therapeutic cloning
technology hold promise for effectively treating and possibly
curing such diseases as diabetes, various cancers,
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis.
The problem arises when the media fail to make clear this
cloning distinction. Rather than stating the facts, they have
chosen a more lucrative, albeit dangerous, route. With a touch of
spin and a dash of sensationalism, the media have done more to
enhance ratings than educate the public on the particulars of
cloning.
This presents two pitfalls: one, a widespread misapprehension
about the true intentions of human cloning; and two, a perpetuation
of ignorance. The resulting whirl of media-driven delirium
forewarns a future of human Xeroxes, a science fiction come to
life.
The cloning cause is further stymied by cleverly crafted
political rhetoric. The popular anti-cloning slogan “creating
life to destroy life” flies well with the impressionable and
uninformed, but does little to foster an objective understanding of
the issue.
Perhaps a more accurate ““ or, less politically motivated
““ slogan would be “creating life to save life.”
After all, the intention to clone human embryos does not stem from
a scientific perversity to kill, as some would have you believe.
The intention ““ better yet, the goal ““ is to eliminate
suffering and sustain the lives of our friends, neighbors and
family members stricken with disease.
I admit that, as it stands, reproductive human cloning is a
perilous and misguided act. With this admission, however, I must
advise against broadly crafted legislation that attempts to ban all
cloning technologies and techniques. Such a provincial extreme
would hinder the research and promise of therapeutic cloning to
treat and cure disease.
Cloning legislation must allow the proper use of cloning
technology to produce the cells and tissues for therapeutic
research, while restricting the implantation of cloned human
embryos.
The issues attached to cloning are glaringly profound. They
demand objectivity and a thorough consideration of the implications
that a broad ban on human cloning might have on medical research.
Just as it would be foolish to rush into research, so too would it
be unwise to institute a blanket ban without considering the
consequences.
The key is to understand before acting. Rendering cloning
unlawful must be done in such a way that it does not deprive those
facing debilitating chronic diseases the potential relief and cures
they so desperately need.