I'm creating an article about legalising stem cell cloning in Canada, because we all need advances in this technology. If you have any questions, comments, feedback, hints ... I really need them here. This document has to be iron-clad before I can move forward, and I think we'll all benefit from whatever effort you put into this.
Definitions I need to clarify further below:
SCNT: The combining of an 'empty' egg with DNA from a donor. Making a clone cell.
ESC: A cell that is similar in function to a cell derived from an embryo. There is more than one way to get an ESC however. An ESC can become any cell in the human body
hESC: a embryonic stem cell made from a human.
Somatic: a cell taken from a 'normal' part of the body (ie, skin, liver, hair root). It contains the DNA of the person.
Gamete: a reproductive cell (ie, sperm or egg)
Autologous: an identical genetic match
Dedifferentiation: the process of making a cell 'more like' an embryo.
Any other definitions I should include for the reader?
My specific intention:
I believe that denying a woman the right to create an SCNT ESC line of herself is a violation of her rights as legislated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The denial of these rights is documented in the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.
- specific violations include:
- gametes cannot be donated unless they are no longer needed for reproductive uses
- SCNT clones cannot be created, even for research into autologous therapies
- a woman cannot receive compensation for donating her gametes
The reason why I am focusing on a woman's right to autologous SCNT clone creation is because I believe this prevention represents the greatest violation of rights in the Act.
This article assumes that you know what SCNT cloning is. However, like other definitions, you can check it here.. I intend to add more description down there if it's necessary.
Ownership and benefits
The first point I would like to make is who the donor materials belong to. To make a clone, a somatic cell is required, and an egg is required. In the ammendment I propose, both of these items would be donated by the woman. I believe that the ownership, and jurisdiction of these two goods is clearly the woman's. No one has a better claim to the use of her egg than the woman. No one has a better claim to the disposition of a woman's cells than the woman. Our prerequisites for autologous cloning belong solely, and clearly to the woman.
Secondly, any research done with an SCNT clone is expected to benefit the woman more than anyone else. Her cells are being used for the research, and any results of the research will apply to her. Other people, of course, could benefit from the research, but these benefits are predicted to occur based on genetic similarity. However, with the woman, questions of transplantation and genetic compatibility are already resolved. In addition, any unique discoveries regarding her cells will apply to her, before they can be extrapolated to other people.
Other benefactors
Duty to examine the issue carefully
There are a host of people who are expected to benefit from SCNT research and therapies. Because there are actual people who are actually suffering, people who are opposed to SCNT research have a duty to understand the process of what they are attempting to legislate against. They also have a moral duty to determine if their wishes (to prevent certain types of unethical research) preclude autologous SCNT clone creation. Remember, people are suffering, and SCNT can be predicted to lead to cures to:
- Alzheimer's (in Canada alone: 59,340 women are expected to be diagnosed in 2006 alone, going up to 67,680 per year in 2011. A total of 290,000 Canadians currently have Alzheimer's disease. Source
- Parkinson's (currently 100,000 sufferers in Canada) Source
- Glaucoma (1% of the Canadian population) Source
- Paralysis
The earlier a viable treatment can be discovered for any of these, the greater number of people who will benefit.
It is one thing to refuse to aid a person who is suffering; it is quite another issue to prevent others from aiding a person who is suffering.
Duty to create people
I would like to discuss whether we have a duty to create people when given the chance. I acknowledge that we have a moral duty to take care of people that already exist. Whether this involves feeding and educating a child, or providing comfort for the elderly, I believe that all will agree that helping people is morally acceptable.
Conversely, I do not believe that we have a duty to create people, even if the opportunity is present. A married couple is not under pressure to conceive, or to not waste a menstrual cycle. We have the ability to create twins from an embryo (1,2), but a pregnant woman is under no obligation to create twins if she is nurturing an embryo inside of her. These technologies have been availabe for quite some time, I believe that the obligation to create a human (if possible) is deemed to not be present.
Dedifferentiation
A fundamental aspect of my argument is that getting the desired product, an hESC line (a line of cells that can be used to treat those diseases), is theoretically possible without using the SCNT cloning process. A cell normally moves forward along its differentiation pathway, becoming more specialized for its end task (the embryo eventually divides into organ precursors, and those eventually become organs). However, in most cells, the DNA remains the same, but the 'mechanics' of the cell change. As a cell ages, some genes turn off, others turn on. Some proteins move to the cell surface, others are no longer created. However, the DNA of the cell remains the same.
Through a process called dedifferentiation, a laboratory is capable of moving a cell backwards along its regular pathway. For example, in theory, a laboratory could turn a skin cell into a skin stem cell. Then, with even more work, the cell could be turned into younger and younger versions of stem cells (3,4).
Researchers are exploring the process of dedifferentiation. The diseases that I have mentioned above can all be (hopefully) treated using this process to renew necessary cells. This is a viable path for needed therapies.
One issue with dedifferentiation is that there is no good reason why a researcher must stop once a stem cell is created. It is theoretically possible to continue the dedifferentiation pathway, and eventually turn the cell into a viable embryo. While nearly impossible, it is theoretically possible.
However, even if the technologies were in place, there is no duty to create an embryo out of a stem cell. There is no reason why a cell cannot be allowed to dedifferentiate into a stem cell and then used for therapy (for example, make a skin cell into a brain stem cell), we do not HAVE to make it into a viable embryo.. The desired end product of both SCNT cloning and dedifferentiation research (an hESC line) can be achieved through either method.
However, the research in this area is predicted to give viable therapies more slowly (in certain areas) than research using SCNT cloning. Remember, real people are really suffering in the mean time.
SCNT Clone Creation
The goal of SCNT therapeutic clone creation is to generate hESC lines. A bit of clarification is in order. An ESC did not need to come from an embryo, but an ESC is in a certain stage of development. If the cell was generated from using an embryo, it would be an ESC. If the cell was generated by dedifferentiation, it would still be an ESC. By analogy, we call a steering wheel a steering wheel because it comes from a car, however, it is possible to make a steering wheel without making (and destroying) a car. One could get a steering wheel by taking one from a car, or one could just make a steering wheel.
During SCNT clone creation, donor DNA replaces the DNA in the woman's egg. The cell then become 'embryo-like', but cannot be called a viable embryo. At this stage, positive nurturing steps would be required to convert this cell to become enough like an embryo to have a chance at developing into a person. Like with dedifferentiation, the possibilty to create a viable embryo is present, but there is no duty to create a viable embryo.
Alternatively, if these positive steps are not taken, then it is highly unlikely that the cell will become a person, even if implanted into a prepared woman [5]. However, from this 'embryo-like' cell, the process of developing an ESC line is direct, if technically difficult. This means that the desired end product (cells to deliver needed therapies) is achieved, and the process has not varied enough from dedifferentiation to stigmatize the process.
The brunt of this argument is that a viable embryo is never created, and thus is never destroyed. Developing an ESC line through dedifferentiation is morally similar to creation of an ESC line through SCNT cloning. Finally, the product of SCNT most closely resembles the woman - it has her DNA, it can be made into her cells, her body will accept it.
To conclude:
The prerequisites of the activity involve cells that are in the sole jurisdiction of the woman.
The results of the activity can directly benefit the woman.
The results could be gained through more difficult and costly research.
People are suffering from a lack of research, there is moral pressure to not delay the research.
No viable embryos are created.
We have no duty to create a viable embryo out of prerequisites.
The activity should be legal.
Any arguments that are weak, or should be clarified?
Edited by QJones, 19 January 2006 - 06:06 PM.
