From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 17:51:06 MST
Ron wrote:
> In a message dated 12/29/2002 11:46:10 PM Central Standard Time,
> rms2g@virginia.edu writes: all in all, could be a couple hundred thousand
$
> if new and top of the line, but I am sure you could cobble together a
cheaper
> set from second-hand sources
>
> Rafal,
> So I assume that for a million dollars or so I can buy the
equipment,
> space, and pay salaries if I wish to finance a cloning experiment.
> I am further assuming that I won't necessarily use top flight
talent
> -- only talent that has the ego to think they are up to the job and who
will
> have successes after trial and error. Okay, the potential doctor has to
be
> persuasive enough to convince an uninformed financier -- there are plenty
of
> those around.
> I can't begin to do the marketing study to determine how many
> potential financiers & doctors there are for a project of this kind but it
> must run several thousand across the globe.
> In light of this I have to ask -- can we outlaw cloning or are we
> merely deluding ourselves?
Sorry to cut in. Rafal or anyone can feel free to disagree if my facts
are wrong.
Some further distinctions are necessary.
1) Outlawing and stopping are two different things. Laws have
juridictions. It would definately be possible (given the political will) to
outlaw cloning in a jursidiction like the US (though they haven't
actually done so yet) but that would mean that offenders could be
prosecuted, once the law is broken, whether or not the law is actual
broken is a separate matter. Prohibition didn't stop drinking and laws
against murder don't stop murders. By outlawing "cloning" in the US
you would just drive it out of the country.
2) Somatic cell nuclear transfer or nuclear reprogramming
(sometimes called therapeutic cloning or the Dolly procedure) is
*exactly* the same process as is used for "reproductive cloning"
up until the point where the embryo is ready to be transplanted into
a woman. That is up until the 4-5 day stage when the embryo
(actually called a blastocyst) consists of around 150 cells with
about 30 cells in the inner cell mass that are embryonic stem cells.
The cells around the outside that make up the tropoderm (which
normally goes on to form the placenta etc) have already lost some
of their capacity to become the full range of cells so those interested
in getting embryonic cells for embryonic cell lines (for use in research
aimed at therapies) must necessarily, on current technlogy, "cut
throught" the tropoderm to collect the 30 or so cells in the inner cell
mass that still retain the capacity to become any type of cell. This
"cutting through" necessarily destroys the embryo (blastocyst) and is
one of the major reasons those who oppose "therapeutic cloning" do
so. They say, correctly, that there is no part of this process that
is "therapeutic" to the embryo and that the term therefore is
potentially misleading. They think its unacceptable to destroy an
"embryo" even at that early stage to "harvest" the stem cells for use
in therapies.
Whilst all the scientists I know of active in the area of embryonic
stem cells and somatic cell nuclear transfer are opposed to using
the process to produce an embryo to implant it in a woman, they
are very much in favour of using the process to collect the 30 or
so cells from the embryo's inner cell mas (thus ending its viability
as an embryo) as a side effect of deriving new embryonic stem
cell lines that could be extremely useful for therapies. And *would*
be useful in understanding cellular biology and in accelerating the
process of drug discovery.
Now here's the answer to the question I think your asking.
Because the technique of "cloning" to produce a embryo for
reproductive purposes and the technique of cloning to derive
embryonic stem cells are the same right up until the point at which
the embryo is either used for reasearch or implanted in a woman
and many legitimate reputable ethical scientists are not only willing
but permitted (legally) to do somatic cell nuclear transfer in many
countries. For example, Irving Weissman at Standford is
proposing to do this sort of somatic cell nuclear transfer with private
money and it isn't illegal (yet) for him to do so in the US. In the
UK. Ian Wilmut, Austin Smith and a US expat Pederson (I think)
would all be able to do somatic cell nuclear transfer (and train
students to do it) and the UK government allows "therapeutic
cloning". Japan, Singapore, Israel, China all don't have laws
against it. The list goes on and on as most countries have talked
a lot but haven't got to the banning stage yet and some have
decided not to ban somatic cell nuclear transfer when it is to
be used for therapeutic puposes.
Now, any country that allows somatic cell nuclear transfer (for
therapy) and also allows IVF has (or more accurately could
have) the two types of knowledge necessary to do
"reproductive cloning". Some Arab countries have IVF too
and neither standard Jewish traditions (Israel) or standard
Arabian traditions have the same ethical problems with
therapeutic cloning as the standard christian tradition. Ie.
Neither of these cultures think an embryo is a "person" or
the moral equivalent of a person. So they are more inclined to
allow somatic cell nuclear transfer for therapeutic purposes.
(Aside: Its worth noting that most human embryonic stem
lines, including all those approved for use by the Bush
administration were derived not from embryos specifically
created for the purposes of extracting the cells but from
IVF embryos. To my knowledge there is not currently
any embryonic stem cell lines in existence, (thought there
certainly are plans for some and excellent scientific
grounds for wanting to proceed with the creating of
some new lines).
So, given the strong drive to allow therapeutic cloning in
some parts of the "civilised" world, the widespread use of IVF
facilities and the ability for "know how" as well as experts to
travel across borders and legal jurisductions. Given also that
cloning for animal husbandry has strong commercial drivers
and gives rise to patents which get onto publicly available
databases then sooner or later, probably sooner, reproductive
cloning *will* occur.
This is not comparable to nuclear weapons making say where
the raw materials are hard to get hold of. The materials, the
knowledge and the financial backing will all be there.
And the knowledge will get easier and easier to obtain over time
especially once somatic cell nuclear transfer is done in humans for
therapeutic purposes. As I've said many reputable, ethical
scientists are headed in that direction now with the active consent
of some national governments who want to accelerate the
discovery of treatments for diseases such as diabetes and
Parkinson's. Within a couple of years maximum scientists in
counties like the UK, Singapore, Japan, Israel and possible
the US will have produced legally what are embryo clones for
therapeutic use. Once that is done the knowledge to do
reproductive cloning *in humans* is out there also as the
technique is the same.
Any politician who thinks reproductive cloning can be prevented
from happening somewhere on the globe as opposed to delayed
is "misinformed". You could say deluded.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:57 MST