Science Ministries - Stem cell research and human cloning are about transforming the mystery and majesty of life into a mere malleable and marketable commodity. Supporters embrace a view of human life as merely biological, essentially no different from the rest of life on the planet. No doubt embryonic stem cell research and human cloning are intended, in the long term, to be a vehicle by which neo-eugenicists hope to control human evolution. In the short term, they are big business and offer great fame and fortune to the pioneers who master their secrets and harness the power of life.

On the issue of cloning, proponents attempt to distinguish reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research. But therapeutic cloning is a euphemism for embryonic stem cell research that depends on reproductive human cloning as a first step. Consider the following link between cloning and stem cell research.

When proponents talk about embryonic stem cell research the term “pluripotent stem cell” is often used with emphasis. The term pluripotent stem cell is used to imply that human embryonic stem cells can form all human tissues except “trophoblast” tissue. The trophoblast is an essential outer layer of cells in the early embryo, which allows implantation of the embryo into the mother’s uterine wall. To harvest embryonic stem cells, scientists must first remove this outer layer of the embryo and then put the inner embryonic cells into a petri dish. Once put into the petri dish, the embryonic cells can be manipulated to multiply and divide endlessly. Therefore, the term pluripotent stem cell is deliberately intended to imply that embryonic stem cells cannot reform an embryo because the trophoblast needed for implantation cannot be reformed.

The truth is, James Thompson, who led the effort that first isolated and grew embryonic stem cells in the laboratory at the University of Wisconsin, stated in the original paper (Science, 1998) that human embryonic stem cells may be able to form trophoblast in a petri dish even after months of continuous proliferation of the cells. That implies, similar to the process of twinning, which is nature’s way of cloning a human life, the embryonic stem cells grown to confluence and allowed to pile up in an array of petri dishes, hold the potential to form multiple identical embryos or human clones of the originally destroyed human life.

So use of the term “pluripotent stem cell” is not only deliberately confusing but also inaccurate scientifically. In addition to the likelihood of inadvertently creating human clones once the initial embryo has been destroyed, embryonic stem cell research will sometimes begin with human cloning. Understanding this procedure requires delineation between the two forms of human cloning: reproductive and therapeutic.

Reproductive cloning creates a later born twin from a single cell of another person by transplanting the DNA of that cell into a human egg whose nucleus has been removed. This process is also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. In this procedure, the resulting embryo is implanted in a woman and carried to birth. Proponents say that reproductive cloning is a logical extension of infertility treatments.

By contrast, therapeutic cloning occurs when an adult undergoes a cloning procedure to duplicate his own cells in order to stave off disease, illness or the effects from sudden and serious injury. But this procedure also begins by creating a clone of the adult through somatic cell transfer. More than one clone can be created by either multiple transfers or by “splitting” the cloned embryo as done in the process known to produce twins. In therapeutic cloning, the embryos are allowed to live up to 14 days, at which time their trophoblasts are removed, as in standard embryonic stem cell research, to provide the highly prized stem cells for the donor’s treatment.

In summary, therapeutic cloning begins with reproductive cloning to produce embryonic stem cells for research and or treatment. Additionally, whenever embryonic stem cell research results in the spontaneous reformation of the trophoblast around other stem cells, a new life is created however temporarily. The end result for the embryo in these procedures is the real difference. In reproductive cloning, the embryo is intended to live; in therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research the embryo is intended to die.

Recently a letter signed by 80 Nobel laureates, was sent to President Bush urging Federal funding for research using human embryonic stem cells. Interestingly, while none of the Nobel laureates are ethicists, they attempt to make the case for the moral imperative for human embryonic stem cell research. While all of these men may be eminent scientists, they are less than qualified to render ethical judgments about the morality of such research.

Even more telling perhaps are the non-laureates whose names are found on the list of signatories. Included among the names are several researchers with Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (ACT), the Worcester, Massachusetts biotechnology firm. Robert Lanza is identified, in fact, as a “corresponding author” of the letter.

“What,” one might ask, “is ACT’s stake in this matter?” Since the NIH Guidelines regulate government-funded research, why would they want to go on record on this issue? ‘ And why three of them?”

Clearly, ACT and other biotechnology companies have a huge financial stake in how the public views their research. The fortunes of private biotech companies rise or fall on the public’s trust in the morality and safety of their research projects. If public sentiment turns against human embryonic stem cell research and its close cousin human cloning, ACT and other biotech firms stand to lose millions of dollars in potential investment.

Sadly, as with many contemporary moral issues, one only needs to follow the money to see how one’s ethical convictions are formed.