The Age of Human Cloning

This era of American history is evolving from one significant redefinition of our society's moral standards and individual freedoms to another. Controversy and confusion is rampant on many issues, whether it be abortion, embryo-stem cell research, the many other facets of human cloning, and/or the validity of the United States Constitution on these and many other issues. Stem Cell research is at the forefront of political and religious debates as there are many difficult moral issues to address. Finding a balance that most of us can live with will take education, critical thought, personal involvement, and patience. The facts around human cloning and embryonic stem cell research are controversial, and unclear. Even so, the most important issue at hand is the question of life. Are embryos alive, and are they innocent life? The next matter to address is the results to date on embryonic stem cell research. Has embryonic stem cell cloning cured or healed anyone; and, what are the results of adult stem cell research? The last issue to address is the misuse of the embryos or human DNA.

Many believe that politics are at the forefront of American citizen's decisions, which can leave regular Joe/Jane completely in the dark through all-too-common fallacies created to divert public attention from the real issues, in order to fulfill the agendas of political parties and their leaders. Unfortunately, the political arena is manipulating decisions around Stem Cell research, and the effects are blatantly apparent. For example, President Obama released researchers to pursue embryonic stem cell research. In the National Prayer meeting held on February 5, 2009 the president stated; "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know. Unfortunately, there is no consistency between this profound statement and today's executive order - as destroying human embryos is, in fact, taking the life of an innocent human being" (2009 Michigan Catholic Conference). With all do respect, this sounds like political rhetoric to me. By stating the obvious, the President down played the sacredness of life, reproduction, and the facts that a-little research will unveil. Scientifically, no one can debate whether-or-not embryos are human by the grounds of molecular structure, and because embryos are uninformed of evil, it is hard to imagine that they are anything but innocent life. Case in point, I find his reasoning (not so much his position on the issue) hard to swallow. Clearly, the president must know after conducting the research necessary to make his decision that embryonic stem cell extraction happens after the embryo begins to develop in the mother's womb; when the stem cells are matured and extracted the developing embryo is destroyed (2009, SPUS).

For the most part, the scientific standard of the definition of life is; "Living beings are systems that have three simultaneous features: they are self-supported, they reproduce themselves, and they evolve through interaction with the environment" (2001 Haboku Nakamura). These statements are true of human embryos regardless of when they do these things; they are capable of doing them. My position on this issue (excluding the other issues we will cover) is simple; if there is the slightest possibility we are destroying an innocent life (and there is), why not find an alternative, or at least gather more facts before taking the plunge. Interestingly, President Bush had a different approach to the issues of human cloning. He actually implemented an acceptable solution to the ethical and scientific concerns presented by advocates on both sides of the issue. Featured in the 2005 Official White House Transcript is a breakdown of the program successes. Within the conference, he featured 22 children alive today because of the healthy embryo adoption program. The plan also funded adult stem cell, and umbilical cord stem cell research, and embryonic stem cell research on damaged embryos that retained live stem cells. The majority of Americans received the plan as a major breakthrough for both sides (Andrusko2005).

The next issue is the success or failure of embryonic stem cell research and alternatives available. Since . . . 1990 "Between 300,000 and half a million human embryos have been used in research" (1999 SPUC, Tribune). Throughout this time, embryonic stem cell researchers haven't discovered any cures or benefits. All the while, there has been a great deal of progress with adult stem cell research and stem cells extracted from the umbilical cord after the birth of a baby (2009 Michigan Catholic Conference video). In these procedures, researchers take no human life nor are the destruction of embryos required. In my opinion, the later is a win-win situation, and the former is a destructive scientific project that puts our humanity in question, women at great physical risk, recipients at risk, and alters our perception of life and individual liberty.

The last significant issue around human cloning is the potential for misuse of an individuals DNA. Several instances of DNA theft have caused concern around the world and with human cloning on the forefront of scientific research the mounting concerns are well founded (2009 Minister of Home Affairs). The problem of misuse and misrepresentation is complex; even so, authorities seem to be leaning toward new and stiffer laws. In my opinion, by throwing moral-caution to the wind, and funding embryonic stem cell research, we've opened Pandora's Box to many demoralizing evils. For instance, DNA theft puts the American citizens at risk of loosing their individuality, identity, and opens the door for entrapment violations. In retrospect, most professionals believe that closing this powerful box of tricks (if possible) will take more than implementing a few laws.

Some advocates of embryonic stem cell research are appalled that any American would give the life-force of embryos precedence over a suffering human being. In fact, they find it unbelievable that anyone is questioning the validity of this type of research based on an organism. The most prevalent belief in embryonic stem cell research (ESR) acknowledges the embryo as live, as human, just not important enough in the scope of 'live things.' Case in point, the Utilitarian viewpoint is simple: "The benefits of embryonic stem cell research out weigh the cost in terms of the embryonic life" or "The ends justify the means" (2002-2009 Ganish, Nathaniel, Peng). Those supporters of this mindset claim,
"Embryonic research advocates argue that the tiny blastocyst has no human features. Further, new stem cell lines already exist due to the common practice of in vitro fertilization. Research advocates conclude that many fertilized human cells have already been banked, but are not being made available for research. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research claim new human lives will not be created for the sole purpose of experimentation" (2002-2009 All About Popular Issues).

Another liberal belief centers around the idea that the destruction of these embryos is inevitable, so why not use them for research (2002-2009 Ganish, Nathaniel, Peng). When the quality of life can be improved by preserving these embryos for research, why would pro-lifers rather they be wasted? It is logical and practical to help the less fortunate; furthermore, it is our moral obligation to search out cures for the world's disabled and disease ridden citizens even at the cost of embryos. Essentially, the embryos in question are tiny human organisms that are destined to destruction anyway. David A. Shaywitz, M.D., an endocrinologist and stem cell researcher at Harvard University, advocates (ESC) research, and believe that the media and health professionals must urge the American public to be patient. He explains science as "a slow and messy process" and believes that the benefits of the research our children and our children's children will realize, and any advancement in research now, will revolutionize the medical care available to future generations (2005 Jacoby).

An additional argument stresses the overall speed in which embryo stem cells (ESC) reproduce, compared to the slower rate of adult stem cell reproduction (2002-2009 Ganish, Nathaniel, Peng). The emphasis here is obvious; some medical treatment must be speedy to be successful, and using the adult stem cell is slower and more limiting than the embryonic stem cell. They believe that releasing funds toward (ESC) research is the only way to stop human suffering. Included is a quote from a popular website that focuses on the Liberal's political views on ESC research: "Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that eventually may be treated more effectively or even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics" (2009 White).
Even though there isn't one break-through, the possibilities are endless; and clearly there is a feeling of excitement within the Liberal arenas. After all, its time America became a leader of the World in medical breakthroughs instead of a follower. If American researchers had, unlimited resources devoted to embryonic stem cell research the breakthroughs would come, and although the medical community doesn't expect any real results for at least a generation, the possibilities are at our fingertips.

As stated earlier, the results from adult stem cell research and Umbilical cord stem cells featured in the video produced by the 'Michigan Catholic conference' in (2009) are phenomenal. Clearly, these milestones have just scratched the surface of the most vital and promising research to come, and best of all, there is no moral or ethical controversy. In retrospect, I personally struggle with the hurry up and just do it approach that the Liberal message conveys, and wonder, "When has doing the right thing or-to error on the side of caution--ever been easy or quick?" These pertinent points fall on deaf-ears even though there hasn't been one breakthrough on embryonic stem cell research. Case in point, embryonic stem cell research hasn't had any successes, in contrast to the amazing breakthroughs of adult stem cell (ASC) research and umbilical cord stem cell (UCSC) research. Even so, the liberal position on cloning embryos remains steadfast.

Undoubtedly, there are many reasons to be cautious when it comes to the delicate balance of life verses scientific progress; like, what really happens when-we as human beings-see our potential offspring as 'biological material' instead of the beginning stage of 'precious living beings.' Where will we draw the line between the 'drive for scientific progress,' and the 'sanctity of human life? How do we trust researchers to maintain ethical boundaries, especially when faced with decisions that affect our view of humanity and our moral standards? What goes through the researcher's mind when these ethical boundaries threaten and/or slow the scientific progress that drives them? For instance, consider the excitement of the researcher that discovers a huge breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research. If progress begins to develop rapidly, and his/her work shows promise, the researcher's obsession and personal agenda may override standards of scientific ethics. Proof positive is found within the last sentence of the quote featured in "All About Popular Issues," when Advocates of embryonic stem cell exploration clearly acknowledged the terrifying possibility of researchers creating, 'human lab-rats' from embryos. It states, "Advocates of embryonic stem cell research claim new human lives will not be created for the sole purpose of experimentation" (2002-2009 All About Popular Issues). The reasons they deny such motives are that the motives behind such actions are abominable. If a research 'test' embryo developed into a fully formed live human being, the opportunities for more invasive experimentation on the helpless test-tube baby would become endless, although it would undoubtedly advance the progress of embryonic stem cell research rapidly (2009 Michigan Catholic Conference).

Unfortunately, it is apparent that once we cross the line, and delve into embryonic stem cell research, we open more than one can-of-worms. For instance, researchers must make other moral decisions besides limiting their profound curiosities, especially once the cloning process is complete. According to Alfonso Gomez-Lobo, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and professor of metaphysics and moral philosophy at Georgetown University, says, "Once you have a cloned human embryo, you can do two different things with it-implant it or destroy it. Do we want a society in which laboratory technicians make that decision (2005 Jacoby)?" Personally, I fear the very-real possibility of unwittingly putting my children or my grandchildren's rights at risk. I'm talking about relinquishing precious human rights like; human individuality, personal identity, and personal freedoms into the hands of technicians conducting scientific research. No matter how awesome the breakthroughs might be, it is a fearful end for our unborn babies.
In retrospect, stem cell research is at the forefront of world-wide political and religious debates, as there are many difficult moral issues to address. Finding a balance that most of us can live with will take education, critical thought, personal involvement, and patience. Therefore, while humanity explores and conquers new frontier, using our history as a roadmap will prove wise. One beautiful reflection of history that we must never forget is penned by C.S. Lewis, and I quote; "If man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be" (2002-2009 All About Popular Issues).

In conclusion, it is through our humanity that we find fulfillment, vitality, and hope, and although new scientific breakthroughs can make our lives more comfortable, our society more progressive, and our health better, we uphold basic moral standards that include the sanctity of life to preserve humanity while making progress, not to stop progress. Clearly, it is imperative that men and women "error on the side of caution" when delving into the possibility of altering the very fabric of human life.

References
All About Popular Issues (2002-2009) [unknown author] Pros and Cons of stem Cell Research. Retrieved on June 1, 2009 from : http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pros-and-cons-of-stem-cell-research.htm

Andrusko D. (2005 May 24), National Right to Life President Bush Discusses Embryo Adoption and Ethical Stem Cell Research. Retrieved on June 1, 2009 from: http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/May05/nv052505part2.html

Ganesh G., Nathaniel D. & Peng C. (2002-2009) Genetic engineering, Arguments For Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Retrieved on June 1, 2009 from: http://www.bootstrike.com/Genetics/StemCells/debate.html

Haboku Nakamura -(2001 November 4) Biology Institute, Konan University, Kobe, Japan: Life In The Universe Scientific Definitions. Retrieved on May 29, 2009 from http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/Lifedefinition-04-01.html

Jacoby S. (2005 August 07) AARP Bulletin Stem Cells: The Rush Is On Retrieved on June 1, 2009 from:http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/stem_cells__the_rush.html

Michigan Catholic Conference (2009 may 29) video; The Science of Stem Cells: Finding cures and Protecting Life Retrieved on May 29, 2009 from: http://www.micatholicconference.org/media_gallery/displayimage.php?album=12&pos=0

Minister of Home Affairs (2009 November 6). Discussion Paper On DNA Theft Retrieved on May 29, 2009 from: http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/www/ministers/ministerdebus.nsf/Page/MediaReleases_2008_FourthQuarter_6November2008-DiscussionPaperonDNATheftreleased

Official White House Transcript (2005) President Bush Discusses Embryo Adoption and Ethical Stem Cell Research [electronic version] Retrieved on May 29, 2009 from: http://www.nrlc.org/news/2005/NRL06/BushStemCellRemarks.html

SPUC (2009 May, 29) Alison Davis (2002 June) Designer Babies Published by 'No Less Human' Westminster London. The Daily Tribune (1999 June 25) Retrieved [electronic version] on May 29, 2009 from http://www.spucscotland.org/education/students/humancloning/index.html

White D. (2009) About.Com US Liberal Politics: Pros and Cons Stem Cell Research. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from: http://usliberals.about.com/od/stemcellresearch/i/StemCell1_2.htm