By Antonio D. French
Filed Thursday, November 02, 2006 at 9:03 AM
Over the next few days we'll be discussing Constitutional Amendment 2, the Stem Cell Research Initiative. Believe us, we're just as confused as you are. Feel free to leave your two cents. Labels: Health, Open_Thread
Last week on the Charlie Brennan Show on KMOX, representatives from both sides of this debate made their cases. In the end it all came down to this question: Is Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer cloning?
The supporter of Amendment 2 said no. The opponent said yes.
Our research shows that they were both right.
The Association of American Medical Colleges, as well as dozens of other resources on the Web, defines Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer as "Therapeutic Cloning". A definition on the website of Princeton University's Department of Molecular Biology includes this warning: "Because SCNT involves cloning, there are many ethical concerns in using this technique in humans. For this reason, experiments of this nature have only been conducted in mice."
Until now.
So the opponents are right, Amendment 2 does allow cloning. But the supporters are right too.
The language of Amendment 2 clearly states: "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being". It then goes on to provide this layman's definition of cloning:
"Clone or attempt to clone a human being" means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.
While that is clearly not the medical definition of cloning, which does include SCNT, it probably meets the definition of cloning as most of the people who will be voting on this question think of it.
So what do you think? Does Amendment 2 allow cloning or not?
Earlier Questions:
What about the role of those Kansas City billionaires?
13 Comments:
There's no doubt it's cloning; I was told straight up by Sandra Aust and the folks at Stowers it was. The question is, could it create a person if implanted? If it biologically cannot or would be damaged through the SCNT procedure in such a way that a person could not be made even if the cell was implanted, then the procedure seems ethically sound. If implantation is the only hurdle, then I have serious reservations about it.
11/02/2006 9:38 AM
Argh! 'If', 'then' 'hypothetically', I wish we could be debating other topics like global warming, tax relief for the middle class, an INTELLIGENT anti-terrorism foreign policy...topics which seems so much more IMMEDIATELY RELEVANT to our daily lives.
11/02/2006 9:59 AM
Antonio: the deeper question is why should the people make ANY medical or scientific experimentation of any kind a constitutional right? We are talking of amending the constitution for the possibility of some scientific discovery. In more than 200 years -- and ALL the advances -- it never required a constitutional right. This issue should be left for big business to hammer out in the legislature which itself can adapt as the science adapts. The vagueness of the amendment will only lead to our tax dollars being spent on lawyers arguing. It is simply nuts to create a constitutional right to any medical experimentation.
11/02/2006 1:19 PM
If a fertilized egg outside the womb is a "person," then fertility clinics must "kill" even more "people" than abortion clinics. But I'm not one to talk, since my sticky hands have then "killed" far too many potential persons. :)
11/02/2006 1:52 PM
Doesn't all this sound like a 1950's era science fiction novel? The actual amendment looks like cloning, the ballot text does not.
11/02/2006 3:57 PM
I'm voting yes. I choose to err on the side of hope.
11/02/2006 11:15 PM
I did a post on it today and linked to all my previous posts on it:
http://chatterboxchronicles.blogspot.com/
11/03/2006 12:30 AM
I don't mind saying that the full language of the bill is kinda spooky with it's ominous "hands off of this industry" talk, but I like the idea of government not being able to play politics with scientific research money. Especially research that has the real potential of significantly improving human health and life.
Anon2, I think skepticism and empirical exploration of claims is a human right. We ask questions, we test ideas, it's how we grow and progress. Scientific experimentation is, well, how we've sorted out our big and little questions, overcome our problems, since before we were using rocks as tools.
I think the most important thing this amendment is asking for is the full right to practice just this one form of empirical exploration. I'm ok with allowing that to be written into the constitution.
And you're right diane, it does sound like 1950s sci-fi, because last I checked a human being can't be created unless a zygote has a human womb for it to gestate in. Since SCNT doesn't involve that and this amendment explicitly bans it, than THIS IS NOT CLONING.
11/03/2006 12:37 AM
The main problem that I see in the representation of the issue by both sides is that there is a relation being drawn between SCNT and the clone of Dolly the sheep. SCNT is the process that was used to clone Dolly, but it came after more than 200 attempts to create an embryo, which created 29 viable embryos to implant into a sheep's uterus...three sheep were born and only one lived.SCNT is very very far away from being used to clone a human, and no one wants to use it for that.
SCNT is cloning, but so is skin grafting and various other forms of medical treatments that use cells from one part of the body to heal other parts of the body. SCNT is not human cloning, it is therapeutic cloning in a petri dish. The opponents to this bill (and I think it's important to note that most of the most vocal opponents are members of a D.C. campaign company who have been hired to attack the ammendment...the same people who created the Swift Boat Veterans campaign) are viciously ripping apart the language of this ammendment with reckless disregard for the wellbeing of the people of Missouri.
The Missouri legislature has attempted to outlaw stem cell research several times over the past years, so despite the fact that I am uncomfortable with constitutionally protecting any sort of scientific research, I am even more uncomfortable with the conservative legislature feeling that they have the right to take the medical future of an entire state into their hands.
At least this ammendment would come from a popular vote rather than a vote in the general assembly.
11/03/2006 10:00 AM
Anon 10am -
Thanks for clearing up the distinction between cloning humans and therapeutic cloning. I've been wanting to explain that difference on this thread and couldn't quite find the words to explain it clearly. Your comparison to skin grafting is helpful.
The other point I've wanted to make relates to the "selling" of eggs. The amendment does NOT allow women to walk into a research facility and sell their eggs. They must be left over from fertility treatment. If I went to a fertility clinic and there were eggs left over that I would not be using to achieve pregnancy I would certainly prefer that they be used to find cures than to have them become biohazard. And I would do it whether I was paid or not.
As for this being a constitutional amendment, I think GRANTing rights to people is appropriate for a constitution. However, taking rights away in the constitution, such as the Gay Marriage amendment does, I have a big problem with.
11/03/2006 11:30 AM
Maggie this amendment doesn't give one right to Missourians that we don't already have.
11/03/2006 2:36 PM
Dear Friends,
I am deeply troubled by the inaccuracies that are being used to shape public opinion in favor of the Missouri stem cell amendment on the November ballot and I feel a responsibility to speak out since I understand the scientific and medical issues.
If you read nothing else, please read this: Amendment 2 is a deceptive piece of legislation that seeks to surrender the right of Missourians to regulate human cloning in our state. It would eliminate the right of Missourians to decide how we want to regulate this potentially dangerous procedure. This Amendment would create a uniquely privileged status for biotech special interests to do human cloning experiments in Missouri without proper democratic oversight.
Embryonic stem cells may seem to the lay person to offer greater promise for cures, but even if this were true (which it is not), embryonic stem cell therapies will create an insatiable and unceasing demand for more and more womens’ eggs. And once a huge biotech industrial complex is establish that is dependent on women's eggs to generate more and more cloned stem cells, it will be virtually impossible for us to get rid of it. In contrast, investing our resources in adult stem cells will ultimately result in similar or greater cures than embryonic stem cells without creating a biotech industrial complex that pursues women’s eggs.
The basic arguments for the stem cell amendment are essentially that (1) embryonic stem cell research has tremendous potential for curing a wide variety of diseases, and (2) any concerns that this research will be abused are unfounded because we can trust the medical and scientific community to regulate itself.
Being knowledgeable of stem cell biology and related medical research, I am deeply skeptical that either of these arguments is true. My goal in this letter is not to convince you of my personal opinions, but to make sure you have the facts from a doctor and scientist who understands the issues and does not have political or monetary motives.
As many of you know, I am a physician-scientist at Washington University School of Medicine and have received millions of dollars in research funding, part of which has been for stem cell research related to cancer. I approached this amendment without preconceived opinions and have read the amendment carefully. I have listened to the arguments on both sides. After sifting through the rhetoric, I can find no convincing evidence that embryonic stem cells are going to be better than adult stem cells for curing human disease. In fact, there are many problems with embryonic stem cells, such as rejection and cancer formation. Further, adult stem cell research and therapies do not endanger women who must donate eggs for embryonic stem cells.
Some of the most common arguments in favor of the amendment are as follows:
Argument # 1: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which is the type of process for creating stem cells that is at stake in this amendment, is not human cloning.
MY RESPONSE: When scientists talk about cloning, SCNT is exactly what they are talking about. SCNT is the medical dictionary definition of cloning. The amendment proponents claim that SCNT is not cloning unless the cell is placed into a woman’s womb, but that has never been the medical definition of cloning. That is like saying that a nuclear bomb is not a weapon unless it is dropped on people. The potential for harm and abuse is great, even if one does not intend to act on this potential!
Read the amendment carefully! The fact is that this amendment not only allows human cloning, it creates a uniquely protected right to perform human cloning and surrenders the right of Missourians to regulate it in our state.
Argument #2: Embryonic stem cell research has the potential for curing many more diseases than adult stem cells.
MY RESPONSE: I can find no scientific evidence for this claim. Many people have been led to believe that we have not yet seen the incredible curative potential of embryonic stem cells because this research is banned. The truth is that embryonic stem cells is not banned and never has been. Embryonic stem cells have been researched for many years and have been reported in the medical literature as early as 1963! And yet, there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells have cured any disease, even in animals.
But what is really frustrating for someone like me who is involved in stem cell research is that the success of adult stem cells is being ignored by the amendment proponents. Adult stem cells are the only stem cells that have been shown to cure disease in animals. Adult stem cells do not require egg extraction and the associated risks to women. Adult stem cells have amazing plasticity (the ability to change into many different cell types) that far exceeds anyone's expectations. For example, stem cells from bone marrow can be turned into brain cells.
If adult stem cells are likely to be just as good, if not better, than embryonic stem cells, why expose women to risky egg extraction and create a huge demand for eggs that will surely end up in ethical compromises and exploitation of women?
Argument #3: SCNT will not endanger women.
RESPONSE: To be honest, this is my greatest concern. Despite loud cries to the contrary, the widespread use of SCNT for medical research and treatment will unquestionably jeopardize the health of women, particularly poor disadvantaged women and young, college-age women with limited financial resources who will be tempted to allow themselves to be given synthetic hormones and undergo surgical procedures to extract eggs in exchange for monetary awards. We are not talking about a few hundred cloned embryos, but rather, millions and millions will be needed for this research!. And the need for more eggs will never end. Even if laws are passed to regulate this process, profiteers will undoubtedly go to third world countries to find willing subjects.
Argument #4. How could this amendment be a bad idea when leading scientists and physicians support it?
RESPONSE: Many scientists and physicians, including myself, support adult stem cell research, but are deeply concerned about embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. You do not hear more experts speak out against this amendment because their voices have been muted. The amendment proponents have identified one wealthy couple in Kansas City who established a biotech institute and donated over $20 million to saturate the media with pro-amendment information. Disturbingly, I just learned that this couple owns companies that stand to make millions of dollars if this amendment is approved. Meanwhile, the many doctors and scientists against this amendment do not have the big business biotech money to mount a similar ad campaign, and many do not speak out in fear of retribution. Our medical schools and universities have not been interesting in public debate and have tried to silence the voices of scientists and physicians who are against this amendment. You will have to decide for yourself whether you think this is the way democracy is supposed to work.
Final Thoughts
My practice focuses on patients with cancer, and I am profoundly saddened when one of them dies of their disease. I am in the trenches every day, and I understand what is at stake. But I am convinced that this amendment is not the right direction for our state. There are much more effective ways we can spend our money and time without endangering women and creating an ethically ambiguous world where body parts are cannibalized from cloned embryos.
We all have to make our own decisions, and democracy only works well if we make those decisions based on facts. Whatever opinion you develop on this issue, I hope that it is based on facts.
Please note that my comments are made as a private citizen on the basis of my training and expertise as a medical doctor and research scientist in the field of oncology. I do not, nor do I mean to imply, that I represent the views of Washington University, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, or any other organization with which I am affiliated.
Thanks for your attention.
J. William Harbour, MD
Distinguished Professor
Washington University School of Medicine
11/05/2006 7:46 AM
I have been planning to vote yes on Am. 2 because after reading the text I felt morally comfortable with it. However, after reading Dr. Harbour's letter I have changed my mind. I much prefer to get my information from doctors, not celebrities. My concern is not so much for the embryos as for the exploitation of women for their eggs. As a woman and a mother of daughters that bothers me. If there were hope in this research I would feel otherwise, but when those who know best say there is not, but the adult stem cell research yields results, then I listen to them.
Thank you, Dr. Harbour, for taking the time to write the letter.
11/06/2006 10:50 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home