Stem Cells and Cloning
The Science behind the Rhetoric

 Submitted by Joan Blessington Snyder with the aid and assistance of
Dr. Raymond Barglow, Ph.D and Dr. KF Etzold, Ph.D
 

Out there on the political battlefield of stem celll research, sides have been taken, many round fired, and casualties sustained by both sides. So much smoke fills the air that it's almost impossible to think straight. The cause of the confusion is often language: words as powerful as flamethrowers ignite fierce reactions from both sides.

I am Joan Snyder. Many of you know me as a wife and mom and a parishioner at St. Edward Catholic Church in Chillicothe, Illinois. Others know me as a 51-year-old woman who has been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease for 13 years, who is an advocate and fundraiser on behalf of people with this condition. And those who know me well have seen for years now that I walk a moral tightrope regarding the controversial ethical problems that have challenged not only people with my disease, but also those with Alzheimer's (which killed my father), juvenile diabetes, ALS, spinal chord injury, stroke, heart disease, and other devastating conditions that could possibly be cured through stem cell research, including so-called "therapeutic cloning."

I am hopeful that medical research will provide us with new remedies whose approval will require neither that I compromise my Catholic Pro-Life beliefs, nor that I turn my back on the many thousands of fellow PWP's (people with Parkinson's). I have gotten to know a good number of them, both in person and on the web -and as if looking into a mirror; I've seen their slow, downward pantomime. And I've also learned about some of the complexities of this research, and about the confusions that cloud the essential scientific and ethical issues.

I'd like to begin by noting that there are some quite thoughtful, anti-abortion Christians - including people like Nancy Reagan and Senators Orrin Hatch and Strom Thurmond - who strongly support therapeutic cloning research. Some Catholic Theologians, such as Thomas Shannon, also support this research. Let's examine the issue, and see if we can understand why.

Here are definitions of some of the scary words out there:

STEM CELLS --Undifferentiated, primitive cells with the ability to reproduce themselves and to differentiate into specific kinds of cells. If we - or, I should say, the scientists among us -- can understand better how stem cells grow and specialize - then we can use them to
treat injuries and diseases. There are different types of stem cells and different ways of generating and gathering them.

BIOMEDICAL CLONING -- Cloning is a quite general term in biology that denotes the creation of multiple, identical copies of a cell. There are many types of cloning, some of which are now commonplace in biomedicine. Cloning has allowed scientists to develop powerful new drugs and to produce insulin and useful bacteria in the lab. It is one among several new genetic tools that allow researchers to track the origins of biological weapons, identify criminals, and produce foods more efficiently. Some of these scientific applications are rightly controversial, but what I've discovered is that so-called "therapeutic
cloning," in particular, is entirely safe and ethical…but more about that below.

REPRODUCTIVE CLONING - This is the use of cloning technology to create a child. It aims to take cells from a person (or sheep, creating Dolly) and use them to create a genetically identical organism. I find the concept of human reproductive cloning abhorrent and immoral. I think that this kind of research should be banned right away.

THERAPEUTIC CLONING (technically known as SOMATIC CELL NUCLEAR TRANSFER, or SCNT) --This involves removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, and replacing it with the nucleus of a "somatic cell" (for example, an adult skin, heart, or nerve cell) and stimulating this cell to divide. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can be extracted within one week and used for research. The SCNT cell remains in a laboratory on a Petri dish, and the process does NOT involve sperm at all, does NOT use a fertilized egg, and does NOT produce an embryo to be implanted in a woman's uterus.

The words "stem cell" sometimes evoke an explosive reaction in people on both sides of the abortion issue. The fact is that stem cells are in our own blood, brains, and other parts of our bodies. Scientists think that with further research, these adult stem cells may help us cure disease like Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes and many other diseases ... but no one knows for sure. There is the research being conducted right here in Peoria by Dr. Rick Weber who is an Associate Professor of Immunopharmacology and Microbiology here at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, who is working on stem cell research that uses a patient's own white blood cells to help cure that patient.

There are also stem cells that can be harvested from umbilical cord blood that is routinely discarded after a baby is born. Around the nation, cord blood banks are being set up to help doctors and families donate their umbilical cord for research.

We would all favor this humane stem cell research, if we understand it. The problem lies in the very mention of the words "stem cells." People tend to forget that there are many kinds of stem cells that scientists work with. "Embryonic stem cells" are the flashpoint that ignites both sides of the abortion issue. Sometimes these are harvested from "leftover" embryos that are created by a couple using in-vitro fertilization. These embryos are routinely destroyed by clinics and hospitals each day. Should they be discarded in this way? It is at this point that clouds of uncertainty obscure our vision and raise serious questions?

Which is more pro-life: to destroy these embryos, which will never become children because they are not transplanted into a woman's womb? Or is it to give these embryos value by using them to advance life-saving research? I have to admit that I don't how to handle this ethical hot potato. But I can tell you that over the years, watching this disease take my life and the lives of my friends away little by little, sometimes makes me deeply question my own beliefs. So, this brings us back to the issue of cloning. The key to understanding the issue lies in the distinction between reproductive cloning -- which should be banned immediately -- and life-saving, therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is entirely moral, in agreement with the fundamental values of all of the major religions, and offers great promise for curing terrible, fatal diseases that affect young and old people alike. Therapeutic cloning will save lives; it cannot create them.

I hope that I have helped to clear up some of the misconceptions about cloning, and to find common ground where pro-life and the pro-choice people can come together in a united effort to heal the devastation and suffering of so many.

A message from the author:

I'd like to thank everyone for the overwhelming response to my editorial. it must have pulled some emotional strings out there somewhere.  Now I must thank my  support team which consisted of Dr. R. Rajaraman, a retired professor specializing in cell and molecular biology of cancer-living in Nova Scotia , Canada; Dr. Raymond Barglow, Ph.D, who studies  and write about bioethics, and  lives in Berkeley California and Dr. K. F. Etzold, Ph.D, who's degree is in physics. it was with the help of these three men that i have come to see the flaws in my  first piece. Dr. Rajaraman went on to work up his own 10 page thesies on the subject and i didn't feel that in any way, my name belonged on his masterpiece. i think that his work stands on it's own.  However, I have taken to mind the considerations put forward by Drs. Barglow and Etzold, and we have come up with a shorter, more impassioned plea for understanding...for finding a common ground amidst this unsavory battle.