Man Clones Himself

In one of the most controversial breakthroughs in years, a California scientist has cloned himself, the first-ever report of a human clone being created from an adult.

Humans have been cloned before, but all the previous efforts have been focused on embryos. Never has a fully viable human undergone the procedure.

Using the same technology that brought the world Dolly the sheep, Samuel Wood created genetic duplicates of himself by extracting the DNA from his skin cells, and implanting it into a woman's egg.

The embryonic clones were only kept for five days before they were harvested for stem cells, a process that destroys an embryo.

All previous stem cells lines were created using other stem cells. It is an understatement to say it is 'difficult' to manipulate an adult cell, one already matured into a specialized form, to revert to a stem cell state. Ethics aside, the achievement is beyond merely remarkable.

Stem cells are used in research geared towards developing treatments - or even cures - for numerous diseases, including Parkinson's, M.S., Alzheimer's, and Diabetes, among others.

Stem cells are invaluable tools, not just for research, but for medical treatments. They each possess the capability to become any kind of cell, form any tissue, in the whole of the human body.

Now that humanity has the capability to produce a stem cell line from a fully viable individual, possibly one who actually suffers from one of these disorders, the quest to find answers has taken a vast leap forward.

Cloned embryonic stem cells have the advantage of being perfect genetic matches to their donors. Meaning, among other things, that any tissues or organs grown from them will be rejection-proof: they literally are the same as the donor's original organs.

But the moral implications are not to be overshadowed. Many critics accuse Dr. Wood of paving the way for the mass-production of designer humans, or, possibly, laying the foundation of a 'spare parts' industry.

Also, because embryos are destroyed in the harvesting process, segments of the population are in an uproar over the matter. Many see the practice as killing a human in order to experiment on the corpse.

This is an especially touchy issue in this case. Since the clones are genetic duplicates of humans who are clearly viable, there can be no question that, if allowed to follow their due course, and barring a miscarriage, the embryos would definitely develop into fully functional, living humans.

With other stem cell lines, the question of viability leans towards positive, but there is no certain answer. In this case, there is. Scientists are artificially creating human life with the specific intent to destroy it, a concept that opponents find rather more than repugnant.

"We have people creating human beings with the intention of destroying them. That's appalling," said John Smeaton, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. "We have got scientists wandering around in an ethical wilderness, forgetting about matters of justice relating to our fellow human beings."

The Vatican is also taking a stand against the practice, condemning it as the "worst type of exploitation of the human being."

The Scottish Council on Human Bioethics called the creation and destruction of human embryos "extremely offensive to millions."

But spokespeople on the other side of the debate don't see the matter that way. Many argue that the clones, like all early embryos, aren't technically "alive." What's more, since they are created to do research, their destruction is irrelevant. They would not exist at all, if not for the purpose of the research.

There is no capacity for pain, no awareness to feel loss or death, and, most importantly, they are literally the tissue of an adult, and therefore that person's property. Some would even say they are, by extension, a part of that person's own body.

"Nobody tells me I can't get a tattoo, because it might 'damage some cells'," a blogger writes.

But the crux of the argument rests on the concept of 'the greater good'. Is it right to destroy a potential life - even one created specifically for research - if it will help countless people living with a debilitating or life-threatening disease?

Is ending what could be a person's life an acceptable cost, when not doing so places millions in jeopardy? And is this even a question that should be reduced to a 'lesser of two evils' argument?

While the controversy rages on, the fact remains: humans have crossed an important threshold. There is no going back. The clones have arrived.