Cloning

So, it has begun.

Or at least, sort of. Those clever people at Harvard are proceeding directly against the wishes of Mr. Bush and they are starting to clone human stem cells.

This is a link to the CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/06/06/stem-cells.html?ref=rss

This is a link to the BBC story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5056554.stm

This is a link to the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: http://stemcell.harvard.edu/index.jsp

So how do we feel about cloning? This particular project will not actually produce cloned individual humans. They are cloning human stem cells (or at least, that is what the stated goal is). There is a big difference.

For today's purposes, let's take them at their word and assume that they're just going to clone stem cells. Why is Mr. Bush so against this? He has apparently banned the use of federal funds for research in this area. What harm could there possibly be in cloning human stem cells?

First and foremost, stem cells are essentially the building blocks of the human body. These cells are the precursors to all of the other cells in the body so theoretically, any type of tissue can be grown from stem cells. That's why hospitals are saving babies' stem cells now; so that in case the child ever needs something in the future (blood, bone marrow, a new liver etc.) they will have their own stem cells available from which to grow the potential tissue.

Theoretically, this will eliminate the need for donor organs; or at least reduce the need. I don't mean tomorrow, I mean in the long term. Being able to grow new organs for replacement when the original ones give out will also mean that there will be a much greater chance of those organs being compatible and not being rejected by the rest of the body. Think of the lives this technology and skill will be able to save. At the very least, think about skin grafts. How many burn patients could be helped using grafts grown from stem cells and their DNA? Where is the harm in that?

Some people automatically look to the negative. They are the 'glass is half empty' type of people that we typically call pessimists. Others, like me, automatically look at the positives that are to be found. Strangely enough (I know, some of you may find this hard to believe) I am an optimist. I think that while there will almost always be moral quandaries, we cannot allow fear to hold us back from learning all that we can. I do not believe that we should allow a narrow view to hem in or create boundaries for science and our body of knowledge.

Yes, there will be negatives. Yes, there are possible harms; there almost always are. However, if the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms, then I don't think that we should hold ourselves back simply because there may be harm. There will always be people who will bring up the negatives. And there will always be people who will try to take advantage of any situation that they can. That is an unfortunate side effect of our current society. I don't want to come down too hard on capitalism (because once again, I don't have a better option at my fingertips), but some of the bigger moral dilemmas would arise from the gap between the haves and the have-nots and the distribution of the available technologies / services.

For example this technology is being developed in the US, using private funding at a private university. They do not support the idea of socialized or universal health care in the US. I doubt very much that the people who are funding this research are really doing so solely for the good of humankind. Not that one can ever truly know another's motivation, but certainly those funding the research will own any patents that will result from it and will profit from being the first across the line. The actual scientists will gain fame and acclaim and perhaps a certain degree of personal profit as well, and certainly there will be some amount of rigorous testing (any medical procedures require testing) which involves volunteers and double blind experiments etc. However, once the procedures are tried, tested and true, they will be offered to patients at a cost.

To begin with, how many of us have our stem cell blood available? Well, we don't, but some of our children do. But whose children do? In the GTA (greater Toronto area) there are some hospitals that offer the service for an initial harvesting fee then a yearly storage fee. This is in Canada, the land of universal health care. So, if you're not a yuppie, don't understand what the potential benefits of stem cell blood may be, or just can't afford the extra expenditure (which is relatively reasonable, less than most people spend on coffee in a year I believe), then you are excluded from this service. At least in the GTA. In Calgary or Edmonton (please forgive me for not remembering which) the hospitals have created a stem cell blood bank. Apparently, they harvest the stem cell blood from every birth at the hospitals and store it (they don't ask for permission and they don't charge) so that it can be used when and where needed. This resonates more with the universal health care chords in my head, except that your child's contribution is taken without your permission and may be used randomly, also without consent.

But I digress slightly. The moral issue I was intending to raise was the dilemma regarding distribution of services. It's one thing in Canada where we're saving our own stem cells, but what they're doing at Harvard is going to enable people to use stem cells to replicate anyone's cells. They will, theoretically, be able to remove the DNA from the donor stem cells and replace it with the DNA of the person who needs the new liver (for instance). Then the stem cells will generate a new liver according to the DNA of the intended recipient. It will be a clone (so to speak) of the person's original liver. So, the problem will arise in places like the US of A, where people will maybe not have to wait on lists for someone with compatible organs to die and have their loved ones consent to donate them. They will simply have to cough up a certain amount of money and wait for a new liver to grow in a lab somewhere. Then they can have their life-saving surgery. A person of lesser means on the other hand, may still have to wait for a donated organ. Once again, the haves will benefit and the have-nots will not.

Is this ethical? Well, I guess that depends on your basis of measurement, but my answer is no. Does that mean that I think the people at Harvard (or anywhere else) should stop their research until we can solve all of these possible moral dilemmas? Again, my answer is no. Some good will come of this. Some 'not so good' will also come along as well. We have to be prepared to deal with the bad along with the good, and we can't let the 'bad' prevent us from doing good.

Clearly there is a lot more to this subject, but that's all I have time for right now peeps.

a bientot,