Andy, This is a bit OFF-TOPIC, but when Dolly was cloned, I predicted a human clone by the end of 2000. Looks like others are starting to take the possibilty seriously:
(Kate Lake/ABCNEWS.com)
By Tristanne L. Walliser
ABCNEWS.com
When news of a little sheep named Dolly hit the
headlines earlier this year, the world reacted with
surprise and horror.
Hypothetical debates about cloning-once the fantastical
realm of Mary Shelley and Aldous Huxley-had now
become a distinct possibility. Suddenly, scientists were
standing on an ethical slippery slope. If you can clone sheep,
are humans next?
Now, ten months after the successful arrival of Dolly in the
laboratories of Dr. Ian Wilmut and Dr. Keith Campbell at
Scotland's Roslin Institute, the tone of the debate has quietly
and swiftly changed.
"We've gone from being terrified and appalled to sort of
curious," explains Nanette Elster, a
professor at Chicago Kent Law School who does research
on genetic privacy and new reproductive technology issues.
"There were two levels of fuss," adds Dr. Lee Silver, a
molecular biologist at Princeton University. "First, there was
the fuss in the scientific community-scientists astounded by
something we didn't think could happen. Instead, scientists
were saying, `Oh my God, this can happen.'"
"Then there was the fuss of people not understanding
what cloning actually is," continues Silver."People have this
idea about cloning from movies like Multiplicity.Now that
they've actually figured out what cloning is, they've calmed
down."
Coming Soon to a Lab Near You
Some researchers now think it's only a matter of time before
human cloning actually happens. Dolly led the way, and
scientists in Oregon have since reported they've cloned
rhesus monkeys from early embryo cells.
"Human cloning will occur," says Silver. "It might take five
years, 10 years at the outermost. Right now, no ethical
doctor would do human cloning-the technology is not safe.
But if it's true for chimpanzees, it'll be true for humans."
The ethics of cloning, particularly human cloning, were the
focus of debate on Friday at the Chicago Kent Law School,
where medical ethicists, lawyers, scientists and sociologists
from across the globe joined to discuss the future of
procreative technology.
"I don't think (most people) are aware of the intricacies
and the implications of cloning," says Elster, who participated
in the symposium, appropriately titled "Changing
Conceptions."
"Science is just one part of it,"she says. "You can't
overlook the psychosocial, religious and legal issues. This is
one time when science can't function in a vacuum."
Murky Waters
The cloning of Dolly was a striking example of how
technology can easily outdistance ethical, social, legal and
political thinking. Discoveries first-questions later, science
seemed to be saying.
But the questions remain: Should the government regulate
cloning? How do we ensure scientific progress, and still
protect ourselves against
dangerous consequences? Do
the risks of cloning outweigh
the rewards? Should scientists
be allowed to conduct cloning
research if it may ultimately
benefit people?
And perhaps the most
important question: Do humans
have any business tinkering
with the building blocks of
humanity?
Thus far, the answers have
been murky at best.
Special Case
Cloning is essentially different from ordinary reproduction. It
involves taking a cell from an adult animal and an egg from
another adult animal. The DNA is removed from the egg, and
the cell's genetic material replaces it when the two are fused
together. The adult-cell DNA alone determines the genetic
make-up of the embryo. The offspring of this process-like
Dolly-is an identical twin of the adult who donated the initial
cell.
Immediately after Dolly came on the scene, a Presidential
Bioethics Committee recommended a limited ban on cloning
humans. Since then, numerous federal and state legislators
have introduced proposals to block or outlaw human cloning.
Thus far in this country, only California has actually made
cloning illegal. Britain, Spain, Denmark, Germany and
Australia have laws banning human cloning.
While acknowledging a need for caution, however, many
scientists emphasize the benefits of the new technologies.
They see cloning research as a vehicle for studying genetic
diseases, allowing grieving parents to reproduce a terminally
ill child, generating donors for transplanted tissues and
organs, enabling older women with defective embryos to bear
children, and giving homosexual couples a chance to bear
children.
These new technologies, researchers say, should not be
hindered by legal restrictions.
Research Barriers
Dr. James Grifo is director of the division of reproductive
endocrinology at New York University Medical Center. His
current research involves transferring genetic material from
one nucleus to another, with the ultimate goal of making such
transfers from the eggs of older women to those of younger
women.
"I can't do what I'm doing in the state of California," says
Grifo. "It's well-meaning on the part of the legislators, but
they don't understand what they are legislating. If cloning is
outlawed, my work may be outlawed."
Grifo emphasizes that his work is not cloning. "We are
using techniques to help infertile women have babies," he
says.
"Cloning has never been adequately defined in the media,"
he believes. "A lot of people are writing about it, and have no
idea what they are talking about. They just knee-jerk react to
sound bites.the public needs to do their homework, they
need to learn their science."
Cautious Science
A central question in the cloning debate is how to ensure that
scientific progress will proceed, but with caution. But some
experts suggest that all the worry and fuss is premature.
"People are not rushing out to do this," says Heather
Kowalksi, a spokeswoman for the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine. "These are rare cases. There's a
rush to judgment that everybody is going to be doing this. But
there is lots of thought behind the research."
In fact, 16 scientific and medical societies, representing
more than 60,000 scientists, were so concerned that last
September, they signed a voluntary moratorium on human
cloning, calling it an "unethical and reprehensible act." These
scientists believe the moratorium is an effective means of
controlling research that is potentially unsafe for humans.
"We think cloning human beings is a bad idea," says Dr.
Roger Pedersen, director of the Reproductive Genetics Unit
Director, at the University of California San Francisco, and a
signer of the moratorium.
"The chance of abnormal offspring is too high," he says.
"It's too unsafe if humans are considered. Dolly was lucky. In
other cloning experiments there have been enormous losses,
still-births, spontaneous abortions, and all sorts of legal and
medical liabilities."
Most scientists are ethical people, says Pedersen. "But it
is arrogant of us to say it should never happen. We cannot
foresee the future. This is a five-year moratorium, up for
reconsideration. This is never going to be easily resolved. But
for now, we have agreed not to do this."
A Matter for the Marketplace?
Others believe a moratorium may not be able to slow the
pace and direction of cloning anyway.
"Even if it dissuades some fertility specialists," says Silver,
"it's absolutely ridiculous and arises from the public hysteria
surrounding cloning."
During the initial press frenzy surrounding Dolly, Scottish
researcher Ian Wilmut was asked what he thought about
cloning humans.
"I would find it offensive," he said at the time.
Regardless of the sensibilities of 60,000 scientists and the
ethical preachings of churches and politicians, human cloning
may arrive sooner than the world thinks.
"Science will have no control over this," says Silver. "It's
going to be controlled by the marketplace."
A Brief History of Assisted Reproduction
1790: First successful human artificial insemination
1866: Concept of human sperm banking introduced
1940: Human eggs first fertilized in the lab
1953: First successful method for preserving human
semen developed
1960's: Debut of advanced cryopreservation method
for sperm
1978: Birth of Louise Brown in England: first
successful in vitro fertilization
1981: Birth of Elizabeth Carr: first successful first
successful in vitro fertilization in the U.S.
1986: First succesful pregnancy using GIFT (Gamete
Fallopian Transfer)
1986: First successful pregnancy using ZIFT ( Zygote
Intrafallopian Transfer)
1988: Baby M Case: New Jersey Supreme Court
invalidates surrogate contract between married
couple and woman who bore a child for them
1997: Dolly the Sheep: First successfully cloned adult
mammal |
