the reflector - Frederick D. Hill Archives - University of Indianapolis

PAGE 2 THE REFLECTOR INION March 27,2002
H LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Human cloning on the horizon
Dear Editor:
The term “clone” is broadly used to
describe a group of individuals or
objects whose members are indistin-
guishable. Cloning occurs in our
factories, producing dozens of
identical red minivans, several size10
little black dresses, and millions of
brown M&Ms. Meanwhile, in the
research laboratory, cloning of
molecules, genes, chromosomes, and
cells is routine. Only recently has the
cloning of animals been accomplished.
Depending on your point of view, this
ability is either exciting, unsettling, or
horrifying as we approach the prospect
of cloning humans.
In nature, cloning commonly
occurs among those organisms that
reproduce asexually. Those who have
taken biology may recall binary
fission, the reproductive process of
bacteria. These organisms divide one
cell into two new cells that are
indistinguishable from each other or
the parent cell from which they were
derived. Other one-celled organisms
such as yeast and protists reproduce by
mitosis, a process that also produces
two identical one-celled organisms.
Cloning also occurs when multi-
cellular organisms, such as fungi or
plants, vegetatively reproduce - you
have facilitated this process if you
plucked off a branch of an attractive
houseplant, placed the stem in water
until roots formed, then transferred the
new plant to a fresh pot. In nature,
cloning occurs less frequently in
animals we are familiar with, since
most reproduce by sexual reproduc-
tion; the DNA of egg and sperm, each
containing half the genes from two
genetically unique individuals (par-
ents), combine to create yet another
genetically unique individual (off-
spring). Genetically identical individu-
als may be produced in some animals.
Examples of these are identical twins
in humans (rare) and identical quadru-
plets or sextuplets in armadillos
(common). However, unlike the case
in bacteria, yeast, or plants, these
clones are not identical to their parents
even though they are identical to each
other. These identical sibling animals
are produced when the embryo, that
develops after fertilization of an egg
with a sperm, splits into two or more
separate clumps of cells that then
develop independently of each other.
Whether produced by asexual repro-
duction or by the splitting of embryos,
organisms are called “clones” if they
are genetically, biochemically, and
morphologically identical to others in
their group.
It is generally recognized that a
population of any species is most
adaptable and healthy if there are
FEWER clones and MORE genetically
diverse members of the population.
Environmental conditions may favor
the survival of some individuals
compared to others within a popula-
tion; if so, genetic diversity may be
temporarily reduced. But, the long-
term survival of the entire population
is greatest with more genetic diversity.
For centuries, humans have desired to
oppose some trends of nature, one of
THE
REFLECTOR
University oflndianapolis
1400 East Hanna Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46227
reflector @ uindy.edu
which is the trend to maintain genetic
diversity among members of a species.
As humans began domesticating
plants and animals 10,000 or more
years ago, selective pressure for
certain features, such as lean muscle
mass in animals, short legs in
Dacshunds, and larger fruit in strawberry
plants, led to decreased diversity
in some species. Today, inbreeding is
routinely used to preserve desired
traits, although often with negative as
well as positive consequences (for ex.
hip dysplasia in Labrador Retrievers
and disease susceptibility in potatoes).
For humans, the challenge has been to
preserve the highly desirable traits of
plants and animals over many generations.
Even with inbreeding, the power
of sexual reproduction to increase
genetic diversity makes the preservation
of some traits and the elimination
of others temporary, especially in
animals. That is, traits that seemed to
have disappeared in a lineage after
several generations, often mysteriously
reappear. Perhaps you have
personally experienced this phenomenon
in your family when someone
exclaims, “why, Jessica, you look just
like your great-grandma,’’ even though
you share only 12 percent of her
genes!
In the last century or so, scientists
who conduct research with animals as
experimental subjects have also
desired genetically uniform, better yet,
identical animals. Because in experi-
mental science it is desirable to
minimize as many variables as
possible (except the one under study),
reducing genetic diversity is thought
to improve the validity of experimen-
tal data. More close to home than the
research lab, you probably know of
humans who are so attached to their
pets or show animals that they desire
to find a perfect, exact copy of their
aging companion, Fluffy or Fido the
Great Wonder. Others wish to find the
perfect replica of a prize milk cow or a
winning racehorse. These and many
other desires have motivated the
efforts of some scientists to develop a
method that circumvents sexual
reproduction, perhaps “reproductive
cloning,” to seemingly assure a
continuous generation to generation
line of identical, desirable individuals.
I find that most people (including
myself) who express an understanding
of, or opinions about, cloning are quite
comfortable with the prospect of
cloning plants and animals as a way to
obtain more of some “perfect”
biological specimens. Certainly there
are multiple justifications for advanc-
ing the reliability of animal models for
research, or to preserve nearly extinct
species. And yes, even I would LOVE
to have another dog exactly like
Cindy, the beloved part-Labrador (we
THOUGHT) and loyal companion (we
KNEW) for 12 years of my childhood.
However, we become less comfortable
when the science of cloning arrives
ever closer to the human animal. As
intensely as some desire a clone of a
favorite pet, a prize horse, or a perfect
research animal, others who are unable
to bear children, desire just as in-
tensely an alternative to nature’s way
of predictably producing a child who
The Reflector is a student publication, and the
opinions contained herein are not necessarily
those of the University of Indianapolis. It is
dedicated to providing news to the university
community in a fair and accurate manner.
looks, thinks, andor acts like them.
Some individuals do not seek to
produce a full term human, but to
produce a reliable source of embryonic
stem cells or transplantable
organs that are genetically identical
to themselves or some person they
love. Doing so may provide the cure
to a fatal disease (in this context
scientists use the term “therapeutic
cloning” rather than “reproductive
cloning”).
As you can probably understand,
those directly involved in research to
produce reproductive or therapeutic
clones in animals are motivated by
the demand for these clones and the
ready availability of funds to make
them possible. In 1997, this led Ian
Wilmut and colleagues to produce
the first and most famous animal
“clone,” Dolly the Sheep, followed in
rapid succession by cloned cows,
goats, mice, pigs, a monkey, and of
course most recently (October 2001)
CC, the cloned calico cat.
Reproductive or therapeutic
animal cloning is carried out by
removing an entire cell nucleus (not
just the DNA, as has often been
erroneously implied in the popular
press) of an individual, then transfer-
ring that nucleus to an egg whose
nucleus has been removed. The
nucleus from the donor cell contains
the genes (blueprint) necessary to
direct the development of an organ-
ism. The egg, with its “new” nucleus
is then subjected to an electrical
shock to mimic the chemical changes
normally imparted by a sperm when
it fertilizes an egg (this stimulation is
required for the egg to divide and
produce an embryo). The shocked
egg is allowed to divide, forming an
embryo, in a petri dish. The four-to-
six cell embryo is transferred to a
surrogate mother. If the goal is
therapeutic cloning, the embryo is
harvested at an appropriate stage of
development. In the case of repro-
ductive cloning, the embryo is
allowed to develop to term. Although
seemingly healthy, full term animals
have been produced by this unusual
reproductive method, the efficiency
is incredibly low (usually only one to
four successful offspring among
hundreds of embryos implanted).
Most implanted embryos die early in
development and so far, all surviving
cloned animals had to be surgigally
delivered. In spite of these setbacks.
the motivation to ymmd
humans has been high,
a cloned human embryo (commis-
sioned in part by a patient with an
incurable illness) were released late
last year. This cloned embryo did not
survive beyond six cells, leading
some critics to argue that this was
NOT a human clone but a nuclear
clone. Because it died at six cells,
this embryo was not implanted in a
surrogate mother. Nevertheless, it
was clear that animal cloning is
-
moving from the relative comfort of *
research, agriculture, and companion
animals to humans.
Scientists are observing that even
though animal clones have the same
DNA as the donor cell from which
they were derived, they are NOT
Letters to the editor, suggestions, corrections, story ideas,
and other correspondence should be addressed to The
Reflector, Krannert Memorial Library, Room 2 13, or may
be sent via electronic mail to reflector@uindy.edu.
Anonymous letters will not be printed. To be considered
for publication, letters must include a valid name and
telephone number, which will be verified. Letters are
subject to condensation and editing to remove profanity.
The Reflector welcomes advertisers from both on and off
campus. Advertising rates vary according to the patrons’
specifications. Interested advertisers should call 3 17-788-
2517, Monday - Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 317-788-3269
after hours or (fax) 3 17-788-3490.
proving to be truly identical to their
clonal parents. This is because for
animals, genes are not the sole
determining force in shaping an
individual’s characteristics, a fact
most vividly illustrated by CC the
cloned calico cat bearing little
physical resemblance to her donor
“mother” (and reportedly not having
her donor mother’s personality).
Some geneticists think that most
genes only provide an initial frame-
work for the final form to be attained.
The chemical modification of genes
or their products by unique chemicals
found in the egg, the uterine environ-
ment of the embryo, the environment
that an animal matures in, and other
poorly understood factors are thought
to contribute significantly to the
physical, biochemical, and mental
traits of that individual. Indeed,
because these animal clones do not
always resemble their parents, many
scientists are losing favor with the
term animal “cloning.” Instead, they
have suggested alternative terms such
as “nuclear transplantation and
propagation” since the source of the
“clone” is a nucleus from a donor
adult animal. It is thought this term
does not erroneously imply that a
perfect replica of the nucleus donor
can be attained.
Other than the potentially unpre-
dictable traits of some cloned ani-
mals, more serious problems with
animal cloning are beginning to
emerge. For example, the first animal
clone, Dolly (but not her sexually
reproduced daughter Polly) suffers
from early onset of arthritis. Just this
past week in Nature Genetics it was
reported that cloned mice suffered
from failing livers, defective immune
systems and early death (all died by
half the normal mouse life expect-
ancy). Many cloned embryos that
have not survived gestation were
found to be enlarged andor their
placentas to show abnormal amounts
of tissue and blood vessels. There is
growing concern that these problems,
whose source is not known, will also
be presented in human clones.
The technological and financial
motivations available to some are
now sufficient to overcome the ethical
and moral discomforts of others. The
scientists of the Missyplicity Project,
who cloned CC the Cat, did so for an
jndiyidual who wanted to imrtalize
his or her beloved cat, and are well-
.anonymous dog lover
er of U. of Phoenix,
John Sperling. The scientists of
Advanced Cell Technology, who
cloned the six-celled human embryo
last year, were provided the financial
resources to do so on behalf of
individuals with incurable chronic
diseases. Not to be overlooked is the
quiet but intense need of many
humans to immortalize themselves
and their loved ones (humans or
animals).
In the mid- 1990s many of my
scientist peers and I felt that cloning
in humans was many years in the
future, that there would be little
motivation to do so, that resources to
clone humans were limited, and
surely that committees overseeing
research in humans would erect
barriers to or outright ban the cloning
of humans. However, in just a few
years it seems inevitable that soon a
human “clone” will be delivered.
As a scientist, I expected to be
totally objective in assessing the
acceptance of scientific models. In the
context of human cloning this means I
am to objectively weigh the benefits
and risks of human cloning before
determining if it is a “bad” or “good”
thing. In doing so, I see valid arguments
for both sides of this issue.
There are concerns about increased
aging and the potential for creating
“defective” or fragile humans that
argue against reproductive cloning.
The efficiency of this type of reproduction
is low and the cost is high,
making it unlikely significant
numbers of humans can benefit from
these efforts. On the other hand, the
ability to dissect the source of the
problems mentioned above seems
likely and the ability to produce cells
for therapeutic purposes (stem cells
and transplantable organs) seems
justifiable. Increasing our knowledge
of factors affecting embryonic
development in humans could lead to
decreasing the incidences of birth
defects. Who can argue with that?
And if individuals have the financial
resources to clone themselves, to fill
the void in their lives that can only be
filled with a biological child, who am
I to judge that desire as selfish?
However, I am also a member of a
unique social species that has totally
subjective feelings, emotions, and
maybe selfishly believes that we
humans are not just another research
animal. I appreciate, respect, understand,
and empathize with the views
of those whose moral and ethical
principles are violated by humans
creating humans. I am also
empathetic to those who are just as
passionate in feeling it is morally
wrong NOT to exploit the potential
benefits of human cloning; that our
ability to do so is a God given gift,
meant to benefit the human species.
With the first, soon-to-be-delivered
human clone, we are going to be
presented with new spiritual, moral,
ethical, and legal issues, even more
difficult than those associated with
stem cell development. Will this
clone have its own soul or does it
share a soul with its nuclear donorldf
it shares a soul with its donor and the
donoz d t e an un-atoned sin, must
the clone be damned? Doeg this clone
have individual rights or must it share
those rights with, or have its rights
superceded by, its nuclear donor? If
this clone hates performing music and
its nuclear donor longed for a
musically gifted child to share the
concert stage with, does the donor
have a right to sue the lab that
produced the child? If the donor is
found to have a degenerative genetic
disease, can its clone be denied
medical insurance? Perhaps you can
think of additional difficult questions
that will present themselves when a
bouncing baby clone is born.
Sincerely,
Dr. Mary Ritke
Assistant Professor of Biology
How do you feel about
dodgeball games
being banned in gym classes?
Write and send ?he Reflector
your thoughts at
reflectoraui ndy.edu .
Editor-in-Chief.. ....................................... Gretchen Rush
Managing Editor ....................................... Brian Robbins
News Editor ............................................ Jessica Roberts
Feature Editor.. ........................................ Julie Anderson
Sports Editor ............................................. Anthony King
Photo Editor ............................................ Kathy Osborne
Opinion Editor ......................................... Kathryn Hicks
Entertainment Editor .................................. Katie Farmer
Online Editor ............................... Nyaradzo Madzongwe
Business Manager .................................... Angela Belviy
Distribution Manager.. ........................ Kyle Wehrenberg
Staff ......................................................... Joanne Grizzle
...................................................................... Amy Haick
................................................................. Lucas Klipsch
................................................................ Jennifer Marks
.......................................................... January Newbanks
..................................................................... Bristy Rusk
..................................................................... Cara Silletto
Adviser.. ................................................. Jeanne Criswell