Cloning find triggers new round of controversy

By Mary Kaye Ritz
Religion and Ethics Writer

Ryuzo Yanagimachi, who runs the Institute for Biogenesis Research at the University of Hawai'i, knows the centrifugal ethics question at the heart of the cloning debate: When does life begin?

•	Information about the UH bioethics conference: bioethicshawaii.org

Stefan Moisyadi, a molecular biologist and research coordinator for Yanagimachi's research team, puts it this way: "I fail to see where the controversy is," he said. "Life is before fertilization. ... Biologically, organisms come from living organisms. Everything is alive. If life starts at fertilization, isn't a sperm alive? Isn't an egg alive?"

It was the research of Yanagimachi's team that a Massachusetts company used to produce the first cloned human embryo.

The news from the Advanced Cell Technology company a week ago prompted denunciations from anti-abortion groups and a call by President Bush for a ban on cloning. Bush said the breakthrough was "morally wrong. ... We should not, as a society, grow life to destroy it."

Are cloned cells life? That's the sticky issue debated in religious, medical and political circles as research brings human cloning closer to reality.

Yanagimachi said he does not see cloning as viable for humans, however. Besides the ethical implications, he said, he has scientific reasons for opposition. Only about one percent of cloned animals survive; in those that do survive, some genes "have been switched off," as Moisyadi said, and therefore aren't identical to normal animals.

But Yanagimachi said he does see cloning as technology. He likened it to atomic energy, which can be used to make a nuclear weapon or generate electrical power.

"Maybe we can make a peaceful use," he said.

Moisyadi adds: "You can use it for good or you can use it for bad."

Yanagimachi and his team are attempting to find a methodology that doesn't rely on use of human eggs.

"As long as we use eggs, ethics comes into play," he said, adding that the Massachusetts discovery was scientifically premature.

It was scientifically premature because researchers managed to coax the human cell to a six-cell organism, whereas cells double when they divide: one to two, two to four, four to what should be an eight-cell organism, points out Steven Ward, an IBR associate professor at UH, whose specialty is DNA structure.

But the use of cloned cells to grow a kidney for a dialysis patient, or for Yanagimachi's close boyhood friend who lost his leg in a car accident to walk again — well, that's research worth pursuing, Yanagimachi said. If, for example, instead of stem cells, skin cells are used, that bypasses the ethical issue, he added.

The Rev. Mark Alexander, a theologian for the Roman Catholic church, agrees on that point. He advocates adult cell research, from bone marrow and other material, but said philosophically and ethically, use of stem cells is a case where the ends don't justify the means. Stem cells — cells from human embryos — have the potential to become life, he said.

Alexander and the church see a bold line defining when life starts: when an egg is fertilized and becomes a zygote, or a cell formed by the union of two gametes. Translation: Life begins at conception.

Dr. S.Y. Tan, Medical practitioner and UH professor who will be host of a conference here in February on bioethics, agrees that the ends for therapeutic cloning research are indeed noble: the potential to cure diseases. But, Tan said, the means by which this is achieved are dangerous.

"One must differentiate between a living adult cell and an embryo, or at least a fertilized egg, which has potential for developing into a complete human person. Surely there is a difference," said Tan, who is a professor of medicine and law and practices at St. Francis Medical Center.

John Golenski, the president of Health Priorities Group, a consulting firm in Berkeley, Calif., trained the Queen's ethics committee and consulted with Kaiser on bioethics issues. He also said the release of the information was premature.

While it's theoretically possible that someday, science can allow the use of one's own umbilical cord material, stored from birth, to regrow a diseased organ, that isn't going to happen in this century, he said.

"Most researchers do have an ethical stance on it," he said, adding he's against human cloning for reproductive purposes.

Cloned mice have problems, which argues against cloning humans, said Ward, who added that a six-celled embryo is, by definition, a failed embryo.

"This is something we have to wrestle with as a society," he said. "No one group, no one person can answer it."