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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 indistinguishable. 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 reproduction; the DNA of egg and sperm, each containing half the genes from two genetically unique individuals (parents), combine to create yet another genetically unique individual (offspring). Genetically identical individuals 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 reproduction 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 population; 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 experimental 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 experimental 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 intensely 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 reproductive 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 environment 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 animals, 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
MARCH 27.2002 OPINION THE REFLECTOR PAGE 3 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Editor downplays cloning controversy Brian Robbins Manaaina Editor A couple of months ago, I saw a segment on CNN Headline News about some scientists who had spliced spider genes into mice’s bone marrow. Apparently this caused the marrow to begin producing the substance spiders use to make their webs, thus hardening the bones and making them very resistant to breaking. The scientists hoped to eventually use their findings for gene therapy for humans. How cool does that sound? We could basically make a real-life Spider-Man! I think people who are worried about cloning and advanced gene therapies spelling the doom of society are making a mountain out of a molehill. I mean, seriously, our society is going to be destroyed because we learn how to circumvent nature? We do that every single day in our hospi- tals, doctor’s offices and even homes! From the time the first nomadic people decided to stay in one place and try some crazy idea called farming, we’ve been going against the way nature happens. Yeah, we’re omnivo- rous and supposed to eat plants and other animals, but do you really think we were intended to raise them ourselves? That’s not what Mother Nature wanted! Or is it? When we went from hunter-gatherers to farmers, the world did not end. What happened when we started living in large groups? Or what about when we figured out there were things we could do to avoid sickness or heal injuries? If whatever God is out there was going to strike us down for going against nature, I think helshelit would’ve surely done so by now! The fact is, humans charted their own course a long time ago. We were born with an advanced brain to learn and make complicated decisions and with opposable thumbs to make and use with lots of objects. We’ve been tinkering with things for our benefit for thousands upon thousands of years, and will continue to do so for millen- Staff writer says Spring Break destinations are over-rated Cara Silletto Staff Writer Hey, let’s go somewhere for Spring Break! I’m guessing you have all heard this line before. You may have even said it yourself. Okay, so when you heard it, was your response (A Sounds great, let’s go to Florida or (B I’d love to, but I can’t, ‘cause I’m poor? I’m guessing for most of you, it was the latter. Don’t worry. You’re not alone. Before Spring Break, I gave out a surirey to 82 U of I students asking what their plans were for this Spring Break. I was curious to see if I was the only person not going somewhere besides home. I was very pleased to see that over 60 percent of the people surveyed were either staying here in Indianapolis or going home. I have to admit that a smile crossed my face after seeing so many people answer “no” when asked if they were going anywhere besides home this year. Not because I like people to be miserable, I was just glad to see that I’m not the only poor college kid on this campus. Speaking of poor, money was the number one reason students gave for why they weren’t going anywhere fun. It was a “lack of finances” I believe someone called it, which sounds much better than what I like to call poor-dom. Other reasons people gave for staying home this year included the usual: work, homework, planning too late, looking for summer jobs and the need for relaxation. We all could have used that, no matter where we went for Spring Break. I found an interesting tidbit of information for all of this year’s non-Spring Break goers, though. Most of the people I surveyed who went somewhere for Spring Break went because they had family or friends who live in that very cool place we only dreamt about going. The other big reason was that they got really cheap tickets or hotel prices. If anyone knows how to do this, would you let the rest of us know the secrets. No matter how you spell it, Florida equals expen- sive in my book. nia to come. Personally, I don’t see what the point of cloning is. You create a different person who just happens to look exactly the same as someone who’s already lived. They will have different life experiences and come up with their own thoughts and ideas of the world around them. No rational scientist has once mentioned the possibility of making B clone that remembers his or her previous body’s life. That’s still in the domain of science fiction. So chill out. Gene therapy, however, seems like a good idea to me. We can use spliced genes from other animals to make people more resistant to injuries and even diseases. We can give people new organs when the ones they have don’t work. How is this really so different from vaccinations or antibiotics? It’s just taking the logical next step. All mankind has ever done is take the logical next step from where it is at right now. The hot spot this year, according to my 80 plus lovely volunteers, was of course Florida, with 53 percent of the votes. In fact, it looked like U of I had the state pretty well covered this year from Miami to Daytona to Panama City, the number one city. The other 47 percent were spread all over thi U.S. from coast to coast. Now while it’s all nice and good that everyone but me got to go somewhere, what are those of US who grew up in Indiana suppose to do? Like many others, I went home. Not only did I not have any money to spare this year on a trip to th beach, I also owed my dad a birthday present, so I offered tc work for him for a few days. It was actually a great trip after all. I got to see my dad, sister, grandma, and, of course. some old friends from high school, all of whom I had not seen since Christmas break. I got to relax, get some homework done, and was back in Indy for my weekend shifts at work. I’m sure Florida wouli have been great and a tan woul be nice, but all-in-all, I don’t think it could have topped my week in good ole Jeffersonvilk ~llIIIlIllllllIIIIllIllllQ I I I Please send us your suggestions. I I I I If there is something you I I I I I I would like to see in the next I I I I issue of The Reflector I I : I I stop by the Krannert Memorial Library, I I I I SW Room 213, I I I I or e-mail us at ,I I I I I I reflector@uindy.edu. I I I L I I l l I l I I I I I I l l I l I l l I I l I I I
Page 1: Dr. Fred Hill writes book documenti
Page 5 and 6: MARCH 27,2002 FEATURE THE REFLECTOR
Page 7 and 8: THE REFLECTOR PAGE 7 SPORTS MARCH 2
Page 9 and 10: ~~ ~ MARCH 27,2002 ENTERTAINMENT TH

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?