Tufts scientific, religious leaders weigh in on cloning controversy

It is a story that, until recently, would have seemed at home solely on the pages of The National Enquirer: the Raelians, a group whose members believe that human beings are descendants of aliens, claim to have successfully cloned a live human embryo and created a baby that is an exact replica of her mother.

The Raelians' failure to produce the cloned baby has resulted in skepticism among the public at large, and has generated enormous media attention and controversy to the extent that the story appeared on the front page of The New York Times. The debate over experimentation on stem cells from human embryos has pitted patients, scientists, and doctors (who believe that this research could lead to new treatments and cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and diabetes) against anti-abortion activists and others who oppose the destruction of the embryo.

The Tufts community's interest was similarly piqued by the Raelians' recent announcement. This semester, Professor Ronee Yashon's popular Experimental College course, Genetics Ethics and the Law, had an unprecedented amount of students vying for the 20 spaces available in both the regular and online versions of the class. At the time that the Ex College's online registration closed, over 100 students had signed up to take each of the two classes.

"Issues having to do with genetics and especially cloning are very prevalent today, especially as our research advances," sophomore Rebecca Plofker said. "I tried to get into the class to better understand what I hear in the news."

The concept of human cloning has stirred strong reactions from members of the University's faculty as well. Academics and religious figures on campus are both intrigued by the potential medical contributions of cloning, but are wary of potential health complications to a clone or to one who is cloned and that cloning might become a corrupt financial enterprise.

Although Biology Professor Eli Siegel finds it "hard to understand why anyone would want to clone a human being," and believes that the repercussions of cloning could be devastating, he suggests that cloning solely for therapeutic purposes might be beneficial to humanity.

There are significant differences between therapeutic and human cloning. In therapeutic cloning, leftover embryos from the in vitro fertilization process are used to clone stem cells which could possibly grow into new nerve cells and organs needed to cure diseases. The embryos used would otherwise have been frozen or discarded.

The process of human cloning is different: the nucleus is extracted from a donor egg, and the DNA is combined with that from a cell from the human who is being copied. Then, the new cell begins growing into a genetic double.

"[In therapeutic cloning] you are trying to create stem cells for people you are trying to treat or cure of diseases. Tissue typing (the matching of tissues between different individuals) is like matching blood types, but much more difficult. There is a one in 1,000 chance of tissue being matched, so stem cells could remove this problem," Siegel said.

For religious figures on campus, personal views must be reconciled against the dictates of higher religious authorities.

University Chaplain David O'Leary stated that the Roman Catholic Church has not issued a decree on animal cloning, but that he personally sees a benefit to cloning if it is to be used to better human lives, but not to make new ones. "There are two major questions that must be asked," explains O'Leary. "First, where are the cells being used for cloning coming from? And second, what purpose are the cloned cells serving? If the cells are being grown to produce skin, then I see that, as a medical ethicist and a theologian, as wonderful because it is vital in helping people such as burn victims survive."

O'Leary also cautions that scientists are uncertain as to the degree of success achieved in cloning Dolly the sheep. "We don't know what kind of pain she is in and why would you want to put a human through that kind of pain. Would it be a life of suffering?"

University Rabbi Jeffrey Summit also sees cloning as potentially beneficial if it is used on a limited basis. "The general Jewish approach to new techniques in medicine and now cloning _ when used to or applied to saving a life, which is considered the highest good _ is seen as positive usage," Summit said

Summit also has reservations which, like O'Leary's, deal with cloning's ethical implications. "Exploration for the sake of exploration, such as creating life in a Petri dish, is not seen as a valid direction to go," Summit said.

Biology Professor David Cochrane agrees that cloning merely to obtain scientific recognition is unethical. "Cloning of human beings is not a good idea, ethically and scientifically," he said. "There are many embryos in animals that they have attempted to clone and only a few have been viable, so scientifically it's not a good idea. But therapeutic cloning is a very different thing that offers great hope for the treatment of many diseases."

Higher religious authorities offer more decisive positions on cloning, whether or not it is done for therapeutic purposes. The Vatican has issued statements decrying human cloning, the Koran forbids humans from "playing God," and religious fundamentalists have linked stem cell research to abortion.

Despite the benefits cited by Siegel, Summit, O'Leary, and Cochrane, human cloning could be potentially employed for less idealistic means: particularly, as a moneymaking enterprise. The Raelians, for example, see cloning not as a solution to disease or infertility, but as a business to cash in upon. Also, the safety of the procedure is uncertain.

"They've cloned a cat, a mouse, a goat, a pig, and a sheep, so who knows, why can't people be done? But it's very hit or miss," Siegel said. "There have been a lot of problems with the cloned animals. They have been deformed or sick, and people don't want that to happen with human beings."

A bill outlawing human cloning but permitting therapeutic cloning will soon be introduced in Congress. Currently, though, there are strict federal restrictions on public funding of any kind of research involving human embryos. Stem cell researchers are eager to differentiate between cloning for medical purposes and cloning for reproduction, hoping to lift the restrictions on public funding of their research.