Weorleing

REMARKS ON HUMAN CLONING (by Maxine Singer)
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND HUMAN VALUES
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
September 11-13, 1998

Washington, DC

ar’ i oq i It is my real pleasure to be visiting with the Committee on Science and Human
wa

me
po |

Values again. As some of you know, I met with the Committee for some years, as a
consultant, trying to provide, when relevant, information on the progress of modern
biological research. My recollections of those meetings are of rigorous, interested and
very cordial discussions. Because the Bishops’ perspectives were, largely, quite different
from my own, I no doubt learned more from the Committee than it learned from me.
if\vetobae

A great deal has been written about human cloning in the scientific and popular
press and also in the various publications of your church. I don’t want to spend too much
time going back over the same ground again in the same context. I will spend just a few
minutes being sure that we are all talking about the same thing. Then, I will try to look at
the topic from the scientific point of view. I do this because I assume my job is to inform
you about the way scientists look at this issue. The ideas I will present are not

necessarily points of view that I myself advocate. My purpose is to provide constructive

insights.

unilateval withdvawal From scienee/ religion dekaTe *
C Byers)
What is human cloning? The principles and the definition are essentially the
same as those that Dr. Nell First has already described for other animals. Humans are
one species of mammalg and human biology is, in broad outline and many specifics, the
same as that of any mammal. But human biology also has unique features, as does the
biology of any other mammal such as mice, sheep, and cows. For example, we know
that drug trials in experimental animals do not always reliably predict the effects in
humans. Our cognitive and language skills are unique features of Homo Sapiens.

cSimilarly, We know that the mouse and human genomes have many similarities and many
differences, the significance of which should be informed by the work of the various
Genome Projects. The point is, that we should expect the precise details of successful
cloning of whole human organisms, should it ever be tried, to differ from those required

for the cloning of other mammals. Nevertheless, given the success with cloning several

mammalian species thus far, it is likely that human cloning is feasible and would work.

Before going on, it is important to provide a cautionary word about the term
‘cloning’. This may seem esoteric, but as institutions and people draft policy statements,
legislation or regulations, it is easy to say more than intended unless the words are
rigorously used. Scientists define the word clone or cloning in a variety of ways, for
example to make one or more identical organisms asexually, but fundamentally it means
making identical copies of DNA. The DNA can be a single gene, a whole genome
contained in single cells, or, when a whole organism is cloned, the trillions of copies of a

whole genome that are present in the trillions of cells in the organism -- a mouse or a
Ackicises Shretly spealung
human being. pocientifically it is probably incorrect to equate somatic cell nuclear

transfer with cloning an organism. To reproduce a whole organism would mean
on-the-spot, cote opeale

constructing a whole new adult organism. What nuclear transfer techniques do is start a

new developmental program leading to an organism with the same DNA as the donor.

But because development is strongly influenced by environmental factors, the adults will

not be identical. This may seem like splitting hairs, but, as you will see, the distinction

has serious implications.

Cloning is not new. Clones of plants have probably been made from the earliest
days of human history; that is what you do if you root a leaf, for example, and let it grow

into a new plant. . Each of us is in a sense constructed of a population of clonal cells that
cel\ Wivision, that is by

arose from a single fertilized egg by, asexual reproduction; each cell has the same

many
genome. Scientists have been making clones of viruses and bacterial cells for, decades.

For almost as long they have been making clones of individual cells from complex

’

organisms, including humans, in laboratory dishes. Since the mid-1970’s they have been tek
cloning individual genes; that is what the recombinant DNA technology permitted. And,

as you heard from Dr. First, for some time now, scientists have been making clones of

whole experimental or agricultural animals, primarily using embryonic or fetal cells as

the donors of the nucleus and its DNA. The new development is the use of adult cells to

provide the donor nucleus. That is why Dolly surprised us. However, for our

discussion today, I will assume that the donor of the genetic information may be a fetal

hotwr Hhuonding thats LTE | recpesctete

cell, an embryonic cell, or an adult cell. /It is, ithink, important when considering the
issues associated with human cloning, to keep in mind which of these three is discussed.

Some matters of concern are unique to the use of adult donor genomes.

Issues in thinking about cloned humans. The idea of making whole human
clones troubles all-ef-us, scientists, and nonscientists alike. Scientific societies have been
unanimous in calling for at least a 5 year moratorium on using SCNT for trying to make a

human. Why? To get at that question I will try to distinguish between those issues which

are scientifically valid and those which are not.

e One frequently voiced objection to human cloning is to the idea of producing people

with the same genomes. But that happens in nature and we accept it.

and

Human clones are themselves ancient, probably as ancient as our species.because about 2 ©.29°
births ; ; ;
percent of human pregraneies yield identical twins, which are clones fanether-estimatet-
read says one in 400 births,-or-0:25 percent, in the US; Lewontin). Lee Silver estimates Wemating
Ede,
that a million pairs of newborn identical twins are born each year, worldwide. There are

also a certain number of naturally occurring identical triplets and quadruplets. We have

obo
learned some very important things from the-stady-of natural human clones. We know
that they are not identical people. Regardless of identical genomes, twins are

individvals , . .
independent people. They grow into different adults depending on environmental

da Chern ew . . .
differences, both physical and cultural, hat start during gestation; even the environment
in the uterus is different for each twin. To assume that a cloned individual would be the
same person as the donor of the nucleus is incorrect. Thus, scientists find it difficult to

accept statements such as Dan Callahan’s “engineering someone’s entire genetic makeup

would compromise his or her right to a unique identity”. They would also disagree with
the assumptions made by Leon Kass, in his essay 26 years ago and summarized by
George F. Will to the effect that connections with parents, siblings, and ancestors would
be compromised for a clone, and that individuality, identity, and dignity cannot be
severed from genetic distinctiveness and from a belief in a person’s open future. We
know that this is incorrect from the experience of twins. We also know that it is the
parenting a child gets that establishes familial connections and that encourages
individuality and dignity. We know from many many examples that parents frequently
failin these respects. There is no reason to believe that the parents of clones will do any
better or worse. As a general point, if we assumed that identical genomes make two
individuals identical people, we would be saying, in a sense, that humans are
So £ 104.

indistinguishable from other animals. More to my point, such an assumption is
scientifically wrong because it ignores the interactions between genes and environment
that are fundamental biological processes. In other words, the so-called nature-nurture
debate is not an issue for science; it is settled; it is both. What is not fully known is the
extent to which each of these, nature and nurture, contribute to individual traits. To
summarize, it makes no sense from a scientific perspective to say, as some have, that
human cloning would seriously affect the reality _pereeptton of what it means to be a
human being. Similarly, it should not affect the perception of what it means to be human.
e Another objection to cloning is the perogétion that the parentage of the clone is

ambiguous. Parentage would certainly be complicated, but scientifically, it’s not

ambiguous. The biological parents are the parents of the donor of the nucleus. The

nurturing parent or parents are first the woman who gives birth to the child and then

those who raise the child.
¢ Anéthdr objection that is not scientifically pertinent is the notion that human

reproduction is God’s domain, that cloning humans would be ‘playing God’. Science
cannot contribute to discussions of this position. Scientists are not the ones to define
God’s domain though some scientists are knowledgeable about theology and would
have useful perspectives. The scientific perspective, however, is one that is defined
by and includes only physical phenomena—things that can be observed, measured,
tested, and interpreted on the basis of what we call the natural world. However, as
informed citizens, scientists do , from the scientific perspective, make observations on

Come. to mind
the views of religious people and authorities. Two such observations are-pertinent.
The first is that authorities from the different religions in our plural society take quite
different views of the acceptability of human cloning. The second is that since time
immemorial —at least since Prometheus determined that humans should have fire,
religious communities have seen new scientific concepts and capabilities as violating
God’s domain. In so doing they have met the resistance of the societies they serve
because those societies have generally been pragmatic in confronting their own self-
interests.

hvs
e Still another scientifically important point is alluded to by Dave Byers in the very

interesting paper included with the materials for this meeting. He says that clones
would not “share fully in the mystery of human variability”. For a scientist, human
variability is not a mystery. It is a consequence of the genetic mechanisms associated

with sexual reproduction. From the scientific perspective, the chance mixing of

genes by sexual reproduction is one of the great inventions of evolution. Ashe
“the

Us scientific view agrees with that expressed by Byers i in a conciucing th that we should not

lightly tamper with these : mechanisms” {Byers position is consistent with my \

vo i

understanding of the long- “Standing acceptance of biological evolution by your }

\ church, (The: scientific import of the atgument: however, must t hinge on the

anticipated magnitude of the problem. I believe it would not be large. For many

Q\was
reasons, the overwhelming majority of children born on the planet will be the result

of natural conjugation.

e Another objection has to do with the safety and reliability of nuclear transfer as a way
to produce new humans. On this issue scientists, public commentators, and the
National Bioethics Advisory Committee all agree. Even if we were convinced that
cloning humans by nuclear transfer would work, it would be wrong to attempt it if we
weren’t certain that it would be safe; safe for the mother and the new child. This
means that the new human being should not suffer any disease or disability as a
consequence of the procedure! that it would be a normal individual in all ways. We
are not now able to assure such safety. That is why virtually all scientists—excepting
such clearly irresponsible and incredible people like the physicist Richard Seed---
agree that for now, no one should be allowed to attempt to produce a new human
being by SCNT or indeed any similar procedure using fetal or embryonic nuclear
donors.

How will we ever know whether the procedure is acceptably safe without trying

efterer
it? Lee Silver in his book Remaking Eden says that “If cloning is found to have Cus ycr>

oy

no effect on the health or life span of experimental animals, it would be ax a €
reasonable to conclude that the same would hold true for human beings.” There is
likely to be substantial debate over that view.
Yet another issue that troubles many people concerns the intentions of those who would
undertake human cloning. A totalitarian dictator who undertook development of a cloned
population is one fantasy. A vain adult who is interested in extending his or her own
existence is not so fantastic. Some object to the profit motive of those who would carry
out the procedure. Mh Socially unacceptable situations will need serious attention if and
when human cloning proves possible. But many people will have intentions and
motivations that are widely seen as good. Motives and intentions are not matters for
ws - ee assishk we
scientific decisions. But physician scientists will need to cenfrext those individuals or
hot
couples who have no other way to produce their own children. Adoption is always an
option. But we know that many people have an overwhelming desire to have their own
children to love and nurture. Will our society decide that it the disadvantages it sees
for individvale

outweigh this profound benefit? How will the manifold differing views of society and

the personal motivations of infertile people be resolved? There-is-some-question-about<_,

 

So far I have been addressing the question of human cloning defined as the
production of a whole new human organism. Now I will turn to the question of the
research that somatic, embryonic, and fetal cell nuclear transfer could permit. This shifts
the focus from individual prospective parents and children to society as a whole because

the research can have important significance for health problems.
One set of such problems has to do with infertility and spontaneous abortions,
what we call miscarriage. Our present knowledge about the very early development of
human embryos is scanty. Anatomical knowledge has been obtained by observation of
spontaneously aborted human embryos. Additional information has been gleaned from
studies on pregnant women and other mammals. Yet, understanding the early events in
human development is essential if we are to understand what goes wrong in the
perplexing instances of infertility or the large number of spontaneous abortions of very
early embryos. We don’t have very good data on the frequency of such abortions. If
they happen in the first 14 days after fertilization, prior to implantation, the mother is
unlikely even to suspect that she is pregnant. We do know that somewhere betweena

—gquarter-and a third of all known pregnancies do not result in a full term offspring (some
estimate that it is as high as 50 percent). Sometimes it is the mother’s physiology that
cannot support implantation. Often it is likely to be problems with the embryo and these
would almost always have a genetic explanation. Overall, some estimate the total
number of spontaneous abortions starting immediately after fertilization 95 percent
(Silver). What genes are important in the very early embryo? If we knew, we might be
in a position to design therapies. This would require research on early embryos. In the
past, such research was not technically feasible. Today it is because 1) embryos can be
initiated by in vitro fertilization and 2) there is sufficient knowledge about the genes
important in the early embryos of other mammals, particularly mice, that carefully
designed experiments can be planned. Initiating early development by nuclear transfer

would provide additional opportunities with some unique features.
Another possible advantage for the general society is new therapies. This is
highly speculative at this time because very little relevant research has been done. But it
is certainly conceivable that egg cells containing a transferred nucleus could be
programmed by genetic manipulation to produce whole tissues like skin, or livers, for
replacement of diseased organs. These possibilities would be foregone if all such work
were forbidden. Note that in this type of research there would be no intention of

implanting the cells and growing a whole organism. *****#*#* #4 HHH KER KE

Your church and some other organized religions and individuals object to
research with human embryos whether they are formed by in vitro fertilization or nuclear
transfer. The point of view is sufficiently widely held that federally funded research with
human embryos has been prohibited, by both presidential executive order and the
Congress in spite of a recommendation to the contrary by a broad-based advisory panel to
the NIH in 1994. Such research is, of course, essential to the development of safe and
effective procedures for cloning a human or for research on infertility and spontaneous

abortion or that could lead to therapies based on cloned tissues.

If the past is any predictor of the future, there will be people with justifiable and
substantial reasons who will want to use this technology. We should recall that organ
transplants were considered alarming at the start but now we accept them (Steve Jones),
for personal reasons and societal reasons. We will all be faced with evaluating our

positions and the consequences of permitting the technology to move forward or

10
prohibiting it. Some of these consequences are scientific. Others are the loss of personal
or societal advantages such as I have mentioned. Some of the consequences will be
measured in terms of particular religious or philosophical beliefs regarding the morality
and the ethics of the technology. Even these, however, can have two sides as is best

illustrated by the current situation with respect to experimentation on human embryos

made by fertilization in vitro.

As I have said, it is illegal, by presidential executive order and by legislation, to
use federal funds for such research. These restrictions reflect the sense of politicians that
many in the country object to such experiments as well as the views of politicians
themselves. Research done with private funds is not prohibited under these regulations.
No law has been passed that would cover private work. There seems to be a sense that
substantial political objections would arise from diverse directions if such a law were to
be proposed, including the question of constitutionality. Whatever the reason,
this situation has had consequences that are troubling both to those who would like to see
the research go forward and those who favor the prohibition. Private research, as well as
the therapeutic application of in vitro fertilization in private clinics is completely
unregulated. We have all sorts of laws and the FDA for regulating availability and
quality of therapeutic drugs, devices, and procedures. Nothing now protects people who
are interested in assisted reproductive therapies from charlatans, from shoddy practices,
from unsubstantiated promises. We have no mechanism for stopping or regulating or
even reviewing research on human embryos in most states, so long as it is not done with

federal funds. The polarization of our society over the questions of abortion and

11
reproductive rights is largely responsible for our inability to have reasonable and

constructive action on these issues.

Charting public policy in a country that respects the religions and cultures of
diverse groups and is, at the same time, enthusiastic in accepting the technological
advances brought by science is an unpredictable and sloppy venture. The clean logical
lines of neither the science nor the tenets of your church are likely to be very visible in
the outcome of our national debate on various aspects of human cloning. We all need to
be wary, as policy is set, of unexpected and undesirable consequences. We need to look,

with understanding and good will, for sensible, workable compromises.

REFERENCES

David M. Byers. An Absence of Love.

Daniel Callahan. New York Times, Feb. 27, 1997 A Step Too Far

Ira H. Carmen. Should Human Cloning be Criminalized. The Journal of Law and
Politics. University of Virginia. Vol. XUI pp645-758 1997

Steve Jones in the New York Times. March14, 1998 Arguing Ethics, Forfeiting
Progress

Lewontin, R.C. New York Review of Books, October 23, 1997. Confusion over
Cloning page 18

Lee M. Silver, 1997 Remaking Eden Avon Books, New York

12
George F. Will. In The Washington Post. February 26, 1997 The Moral Hazards of

Scientific Wonders

eet Gi Vou Dey el. Rush .

13