Not all cloning is the same. You may think, quite ignorantly in fact, that the distinction between therapeutic and human reproductive cloning is nothing but political talk and the use of made-up jargon. But talk to any professor in biology and he or she will tell you there is a real difference.
Therapeutic cloning refers to making copies (hence, letting them divide in a flask) of cells that have — or have not yet — differentiated into a certain tissue type. This is accomplished by removing the first dividing cells from a recently fertilized embryo.
This way, this cell has the potential to turn into virtually any cell type. If you are able to make the stem cell differentiate into a muscle cell, you could, in theory, replace lost tissue from muscular dystrophy.
Human reproductive cloning exists for an entirely different purpose. Dolly the sheep was the purpose for reproductive cloning; the realm of science fiction and religious cults looking for publicity.
It turns out the rest of the civilized world can make this distinction.
Some years ago the world's scientific community wanted to get together to ban reproductive cloning. They realized the potential for therapeutic cloning. Can you guess the one country that said, "No, we don't understand the difference, we want to ban all cloning. Let's shoot first and ask questions later?" The United States.
Some experts claim that adult stem cells can achieve some of the properties that embryonic cells can. That is also true, but note that it is only some of the properties.
So, for the time being, that may be the best alternative, but it should not stay that way. Why deprive a researcher the best tools around to investigate such a potentially groundbreaking treatment? I don't want to and neither does someone like Michael J. Fox. Can you guess why?
One argument frequently presented is that you are destroying life in the process of either forms of cloning.
With narrow vision, this is true. However, the sources for these embryonic stem cells are fertility clinics that possess and continue to produce as we speak (murder!) fertilized embryos that are leftover from in vitro fertilizations. If you make arguments against the destruction of life, advocate shutting down these clinics that create unwanted embryos and throw them away (some will freeze them down, but it is essentially the same thing).
Instead of throwing them away, why not harvest the cells and develop tools for therapeutic cloning? People argue that we could get by with the lines already in use. Unfortunately, establishing cells lines, especially primary ones in vitro, is a ton harder than you might think. Not all of the lines Bush declared OK are still around. If government funding stopped for medical research, discovery would move at the pace of the Stone Age. The juggernauts of research funding in this field are the NIH and NSF. You would be surprised at how many professors on campus (in the medical research field) have at one time or another received an NIH grant to fund research.
In addition, discoveries made in academia (where the brightest and most talented researchers likely reside) are made public when published. This, in turn, benefits others in the field and accelerates discovery. They may take out a patent for sales rights, but that does not stop someone from using the information gained. Private sector researchers usually do not attend and present innovative research at symposiums, or publish results in the mainstream journals.
They do this because the company has something at stake: profits. By restricting research to the private sector, progress is slowed because of an inherent lack of information sharing and collaboration.
The purpose of science is to exhaust all possibilities to prove a hypothesis wrong. Right now, we have a very enticing hypothesis that could cure the misery of countless people, which researchers want desperately to prove wrong. Neglecting this opportunity by using ignorance and naivety is absolutely moronic, plain and simple.
Jason Wojcechowskyj
student