Cloning benefits still questionable
The Collegian Opinion

    America's clone wars have begun; but unlike the movies, there are not rows upon rows of identical clones on the front lines.

    The warriors in this real-life battle are the U.S. government, medical researchers and ethicists, a segment of the disease-stricken populace and a small cult that created a publicity frenzy because they claimed to have cloned the first human being.

    A storm of debate currently surrounds the morality of human cloning.

    The arguments are passionate and vary greatly; but like raindrops in violent wind that fall from Texas clouds and land in Mexico, the rationales can be confusing and often contradictory.

    Under the umbrella of present cloning technology are three subject headings: stem-cell research, therapeutic cloning and human cloning.

    The complexity of each heading has caused the foundation of public opinion to crack along bizarre lines; in effect, portions of the pro- and anti-abortion camps have lined up on some aspects and divided as usual on others.

    The cause for the recent fervor is a cult, the Raelians, who among other things believe humankind was begun on Earth by aliens who cloned themselves to begin the human race as we know it.

    The Raelians also created an independent business under the title of Clonaid and have been striving to clone a human being in their secret labs for several years.

    In late December, they announced their alleged first success.

    A swarm of controversy and doubt ensued because Dr. Brigitte Boisselier, Clonaid's managing director, refused to provide evidence, to allow independent scientists to inspect the cloned child or to publish their cloning procedures for scrutiny-the usual process for any scientific endeavor.

    It has been several weeks since the claim was issued, and they have yet to prove it, leading most to believe it to be a highly successful publicity stunt.

    Raelians and Clonaid aside, Americans are faced with a crucial decision regarding cloning.

    The cloning of a human being is in essence taking the DNA, or genetic code, of one human and creating an exact replica of that human, who would have the same DNA as the original human.

    As a result, the clone would be physically identical.

    But like identical twins, who also share the same DNA, the original human and the clone would have different personalities.

    Most U.S. lawmakers agree that human cloning should be banned, and several bills are being written currently to ban human cloning.

    The debate in America centers on whether stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning should also be included in that ban.

    Several countries in Europe, however, already have banned human cloning but kept stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning legal under rigid guidelines because of the potential benefits such research could grant.

    For instance, the treatment possibilities for therapeutic cloning include, according to the United Kingdom's Department of Health, curing diabetes by creating insulin secreting cells, curing Parkinson's, healing broken spines and creating new replacement organs.

    In theory, therapeutic cloning could one day make debilitating diseases such as cancer and AIDS a thing of the past.

    Therapeutic cloning's problem is the methods employed to execute it, which have roused ethical and moral questions throughout society.

    Therapeutic cloning begins with stem-cells. Stem cells are unique in that they are undifferentiated and can develop into any kind of cell in the body.

    Several different types of stem cells are available, including embryonic, adult, umbilical and the cells of an aborted fetus.

    The debate centers on using embryonic stem-cells from fertilized embryos that could potentially become a human.

    Embryonic stem-cell research would use a two-week-old embryo, which contains 128 cells and is an undifferentiated cell mass, Dr. Elizabeth Carrington, SE biology instructor, said.

    "All the cells in an embryonic stem-cell are exactly alike. There are no distinguishable human characteristics," she said.

    In theory, if a man broke his back in an automobile crash, his wife and he could use their egg and sperm to fertilize their own embryos and use the stem-cells to allow him to walk again; a son and daughter could fertilize their embryos to alleviate their mother's Parkinson's, and so on, Carrington said.

    The question is, when does the embryo become a life and, consequently, when should it garner protection under the law?

    The information contained in this editorial came from Dr. Elizabeth Carrington, Ph.D., www.doh.gov.uk and www.clonaid.com.