| 
|
|
| Cloning, the premise of Jurassic Park and the Pandoras' Box of science has been opened. Somewhere in the World, there can be no doubt, lives a cloned human being. The question is, what right does anyone have to be..... |
| Playing God |
|
 On June 17th 1999 the first pictures were released of a 12 day old, human, cloned embryo, created by the company, Advanced Cell Technology. On June 25th 1999 it was reported that the UK Government banned the cloning of human embryos to produce organs. Some unexpected voices were raised in opposition. Lord Winston, a Labour Peer and fertility expert said the decision was, "immoral". At some point in May or June 2003, Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, claimed to have implanted the first 'real' cloned human embryo into a surrogate mother. The child would have been expected to be born in the early months of 2004. This was never substantiated and remains somewhat of a myth. However, what is not a myth is that in 2004 a team of South Korean scientists led by Professor Woo Suk Hwang, succesfully cloned 30 human embryos. These embryos were later discarded after being harvested for stem cells in possibly the worlds first successful therapeutic cloning operation. Details have been published in the respected American journal, Science. At the end of 1999 we said, 'When Scientists and Doctors first grasped the nettle of In-Vitro gestation, whether they knew it or not, they had set themselves, and society, on a path which would inevitably lead to human cloning. We might be some time away from a full human clone in the UK, but the next step in whittling away at the issue is, "therapeutic cloning"; the cloning of embryos for medical research'. We were right. On 31st July 2000, a report from the UK Government's Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, supported 'theraputic cloning'; the cloning of human embryos to grow spare parts for transplants and to cure genetic diseases. UK Government Ministers backed his decision and the final bridge was crossed in February 2001, when the UK House of Lords approved the cloning of human embryos for research. Another interesting and unexpected voice raise her 'concerns'. Baroness Warnock, who many hold responsible for laying the foundation of human cloning when she chaired the first enquiry into human fertilisation in the 1980's, spoke of her fears. Her 'feelings' didn't help her support Lord Alton's amendment for ethics to take priority over research. Examining the Donaldson Report a bit closer and it can be seen as a master piece of pure scientific double-speak worthy of anything from the pages of Orwell's '1984'. Donaldson had a large hurdle; the issue of 'cloning' and what it represents in people's minds. The 'yuk' factor if you like. So, how do you overcome that? Simple, don't call it cloning at all. Call it something else entirely. How about, 'cell nuclear replacement' (CNR)? Yes, that'll do nicely! Now we are not talking about horrible old cloning, but something else. Cloning is dead, long live CNR. Finally, you underline how bad cloning is by only mentioning the word in the terms of, 'reproductive cloning', which everyone agrees is unacceptable. What was formerly cloning for therapeutic or research purposes isn't cloning after all, its CNR! In when bound our hero was free! Yes, a total piece of postmodern deception, and almost convincing for anyone who left their brain at home. The truth is that, "a rose by any other name.....". Cloning, by any other name is still cloning. Let's repeat - CNR IS CLONING. Why is there such effort going into making cloning acceptable to the public? The simple, distasteful truth is; that embryos are the newest 'product' in a world hungry for the new and the novel, and the potentially marketable. Scientists can now direct the growth of stem cells in embryos. This technique is essential for the cloning for 'spare parts'. It doesn't take much of a leap in the imagination to see what financial potential there is here. Companies, already cloning plants and patenting the result for commercial gain, are merely going to see this as another money making opportunity. American Dr. Richard Seed has already predicted that a woman could be pregnant with the first cloned baby by mid-2001. Designer babies: only a few years ago a kind of sick joke, are almost upon us. You will be able to enter into a contract with a company (probably known as something like, "organic facilitators") to grow your own spare body parts. Need a new heart? No problem! Well, yes there are problems. Scientists have discovered that there is evidence linking cloning to genetic flaws; clones are much more likely to develop life-threatening diseases and defects than normal offspring. In the most recent research, scientists using the 'Dolly' technique created 13 calf embryos in America. Half were found to have major genetic defects, four died in the womb, one at birth and two soon after birth. Also, it has been found that Dolly's biological clock has speeded up. Because she was cloned from a 6 year old sheep, it is thought that her cells were already aged at a genetic level. Dr. Harry Griffin, of the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, where Dolly was created, said, "There is general awareness that this technology is risky, that it would be wholly unsafe to use in humans ..... and there is more sanity coming into the debate about human cloning." Alongside the cloning debate is the related issue of genetically modifying humans and designer babies. In January 2001, American scientists revealed the birth of 'ANDi' the worlds first genetically modified monkey. The name comes form the backwards acronym for 'inserted DNA'. Worried about GM foods? There is far worse to come. It was announced on 12th February 2001, that scientists had finally unravelled the human genome - the map of the human genetic code. Hailed as a breakthrough that could lead to a disease free society in 50 years, it is also being seen as a way that insurance and big business could screen people before offering life insurance or, possibly, even jobs. Also, genetic screening in the womb hands one more tool to the medical world with which to excuse the further killing of unborn children. Advanced Cell Technologies announced, in November 2001, that researchers had created a human embryo without fertilisation. Technically known as, "parthenogenesis", it occurs naturally in insects and microbes but not naturally in higher animals and human beings. So, how did we get to this position? Here is how cloning has developed over the last few decades:
Are there any safeguards being put into place to prevent the unscrupulous and avaricious taking advantage of these incredible developments? In the UK, the group entrusted with guiding Government policy is made up entirely of scientist who have either strong links with embryo research, or are advocates of human cloning. The most controversial committee member is, Dr. George Poste of SmithKline Beecham (SB), which has backed the principle of human clone embryo research. The financial implications to companies such as SB, if such research became legal, is inestimable. Another member, Professor Christine Gosden, recently commented that, "An Embryo is a life-saving tissue generator". Third member, Dr. Anne McClaren is principle research associate for the Wellcome/CRC Institute of Cancer Research and Developmental Biology in Cambridge, UK., funded by the Wellcome Trust. So, an unbiased and balanced committee there then! Indeed, Lord Alton has called this blatant disregard for impartiality, "indefensible". But why all the fuss? If scientists can sort out the current problems with cloning; if cloned human embryos can save lives; if cloning embryos can aid research and the possible development of life-saving drugs; if cloning can result in extended lives through replacement parts, isn't this a good thing? Good question, but lots of 'ifs'. Cloning has to be seen against the backdrop of what, or rather, who, is being cloned. When there is talk of, 'embryos', it is always in the context of a 'thing' rather than a human. Make no mistake about it, we have the same mind set here as we have in the abortion industry world-wide; that an Embryo is a thing not a person, and therefore has no rights or claims. But this is wrong. Human Embryos are - Human, not even potentially human, but Human. They always are, and always will be. As such, they deserve every right as Human Beings. The right to life, the right to not be exploited for any reason whatsoever, and the right to be allowed to develop and live; what used to be referred to as, 'The Sanctity of Life'. The creation of human embryos, for 'therapeutic farming' or for any other reason is wrong, completely and utterly wrong, and their subsequent destruction is murder. Finally, the reason why cloning is so dangerous is unclear. But scientists suspect that mammals need both biological parents to have a healthy set of genes, and that cloning may create offspring with the wrong balance of maternal and paternal genes. Here's a thought. Isn't this the way God, the Creator, planned it in the first place? We play 'God' at our peril. It is time to call a stop to this nightmare which is almost upon us.
|
|
||
| 
| 
|
|
|
||
All original material ©2000 The Curious? Web Site