Cloning . . . Cloning . . . Cloning

In this second article on the subject, EN looks at the science involved in cloning.

Our aim is to explain the processes involved in the new bio-sciences, and so enable Christians to engage in the arguments regarding the associated ethical issues. If we fail to understand the issues, we run the risk of rejecting all developments in a blanket fashion, or, perhaps, the greater danger of basing any objections on just one part of the argument.
In the scientific community and among politicians there appears to be a genuine concern to pause and reflect on the way forward in these areas. As Christians we have a responsibility to contribute constructively to that debate.

Hello Dolly!

On February 23 1997 Dolly the sheep made her media debut in an array of disturbing headlines that blurred the distinctions between science-fact and science-fiction. The technique used to produce Dolly is known as nuclear transfer and as a process it is not new. It was used to produce frogs in 1952 and mice in 1977, but on these occasions the genetic material was taken from frog and mice embryos. Dolly stands out, because in her case the original genetic material came not from an embryo, but from a fully matured cell from an adult sheep. This development opens the possibility of bringing into being animals with the same genetic make-up as their prodiginator, but with a different biological age. The detailed procedure is set out below.

1) An unfertilised sheep egg is taken and the chromosomes (all of the genetic material) are removed by pipette.

2) A body cell is then taken from another animal (the one to be cloned, or the prodiginator). In Dolly's case it was taken from a line of salivary gland cells of a sheep who had actually already died. It could just as easily have been taken from a live sheep. (This ex-plains the absence of any photographs of the two sheep - Dolly and her prodiginator - together when the story hit the papers).

3) The genetic material from the body cell is then injected into the unfertilised egg.

4) A small electrical current is then passed across the cell fusing the chromosomes and the cytoplasm (the liquid contents of the cell).

5) The new embryo is then placed in the uterus of the original sheep and a new lamb develops with the same genetic material as the animal from which the body cell was derived.

6) The new individual is the exact equivalent of an identical twin, but clearly with a different chronological age.

The great surprise with Dolly was that a mature cell, that had developed specifically to make up a salivary gland, could be convinced to change and behave like an embryo, and begin dividing from the single cell stage to once again develop into a complete individual. Somehow - and no one understands how - the act of passing a small current across the cell and the presence of the cell cytoplasm from an unfertilised egg facilitated this change.

Uses and implications of human cloning

Nuclear transfer, such as that which produced Dolly, has a number of possible applications for humans. The first is reproductive cloning - the production of individuals genetically identical to another, and the second non-reproductive cloning where the technique is used to grow up tissues to be used for other purposes.

Reproductive cloning

There are a number of situations where reproductive cloning could be envisaged:

* To enhance IVF (in-vitro fertilisation) treatment for subfertile couples.
* To 'replace' a dying child.
* As a treatment for total infertility
* To enable a single woman, or a lesbian couple to have a child with the same genetic make-up of the parents
* To pass on the artistic or intellectual prowess of an individual
* Multiple cloning for political ends

Surveys of public opinion show that the majority of people are opposed to developments in this direction. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, there are definite and unanswered safety issues, both regarding the process of nuclear transfer itself and regarding the health of the offspring produced.
The potential for foetal abnormality is great as it took 277 attempts at nuclear transfer before Dolly was produced. All of the previous attempts either failed in the test-tube, resulted in early miscarriage, or in the birth of animals with genetic defects who failed to survive.
In June this year, scientists reported that Dolly was ageing at a faster rate than expected - perhaps not a surprising observation given that she developed from an adult cell already several years old.

I'm sure that I am not alone,
In querying this need to clone,
If they could make exactly me,
What age of creature would I be?
Would I be a babe of 72,
or an old man starting out anew?
To me it has such implications,
Doubling life, with its complications,
The scientists are in a jam -
Do they sell Dolly as mutton or lamb?

Dennis Green, nicely encapsulating real concerns about a clone's actual biological age.

There are also concerns around the issue of 'confused heritage' - what should a cloned child be told about his parentage, and what of the psychological weight of increased expectations upon an individual. Yet over and beyond all of this there is a sense that cloning is somehow a step too far, that it crosses over a line of what is appropriate to humanity. These sentiments are often not clearly expressed by those engaging in the debate, and tend to be lost in the midst of some of the more tangible objections.
Surely, with a clear understanding of our place in a created order, Christians should be articulating these concerns for ourselves and on behalf of others who sometimes find it hard to rationalise their misgivings. If our protests are only based on issues such as safety, we need to recognise that at some point in the future technical developments may overcome the safety concerns, and we will be left without a basis for our position.

Non-reproductive cloning

Here nuclear transfer is used to grow up cell cultures which would be genetically identical to the donor and which could then possibly be used to form tissues or organs for transplantation back into the donor. The great advantage of this approach, were it to be perfected, would be the lack of rejection, as the harvested tissues would have the same genetic make-up as the donor. For example a body cell could be taken from a child with leukaemia who required a life-saving bone marrow transplant. This cell could be fused with an unfertilised human egg - presumably one surplus to requirements after IVF therapy. The resulting cell, with the potential at that point to develop in the right environment into another individual, would then be used to form a tissue culture of cells.
This culture would then be prompted to develop into bone marrow cells -cells identical genetically to those of the donor but free from disease. These could then be returned to the donor as treatment. Although still at the experimental stage the current view is that the ability to grow up tissues to order in this way in animals is only 6-12 months away, with the possibilities in humans following close this behind.
As we have seen public opinion and that of many scientists is that reproductive cloning for humans should not be contemplated. Indeed a government report commissioned at the end of last year concluded that because of public concern human reproductive cloning should not be allowed. There is, however, the expectation that the use of nuclear transfer for non-reproductive cloning would be far less controversial in the public's view, than processes that would result in another person coming into the world. This, despite the fact that cloned tissue would be created only to be discarded when the relevant organ had been cultured, and with no consideration being given to the all important question of when a small cluster of dividing cells attains the status of personhood.

Surprise government decision

The Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill that regulates activity in this area, originally precluded any research that was designed to promote therapy, and thus prevented developments in the direction of non-reproductive cloning.
The expert committees in this area had recommended that the bill be amended, but in a surprise decision in June this year, the government opted to block any move towards the development of cloning for therapeutic purposes. Even if this decision may have been influenced by the media controversy surrounding genetically modified foods that was raging at the time, it is still to be warmly welcomed. In the same Commons statement, the government reaffirmed that reproductive cloning was 'ethically unacceptable', and that it could not be carried out in this country.
The government's decision, however, amounts to an interim moratorium, while an independent expert committee is set up to examine the potential benefits of the proposed new techniques. Its aim is to report early next year, when the matter will be reconsidered.
If experimental work on non-reproductive cloning is eventually allowed, the concern of some is that techniques may be developed which could be used to facilitate reproductive cloning at a future date. There are also worries that the technical know-how may reach those who work outside any regulatory framework, and who have no ethical objections to pursuing the replication of human beings.
As Christians we need to understand the issues and voice our concerns, especially during this further period of consultation. Christian Action Research and Education (CARE) is active in lobbying parliament in these matters, and indeed made a detailed submission to last year's government enquiry.

For further information about the current situation with the legislation, and for advice on how to voice your concerns, contact CARE, 53 Romney Street, London SW1P 3RF (0207 233 0455).

Dr. Klaus Green is part of a general practice in Godalming, Surrey.