Arguing about the rights and wrongs of cloning humans ignores the fact that it’s not technically possible at present, writes David Shapshak Sensationalising human cloning ignores the simple fact that, at the moment, it cannot be done.
Claims last weekend that South Africa was ready to start cloning humans have not only been met with public and ethical outcries, but also with a disclaimer by the doctor allegedly involved, Johannesburg gynaecologist Dr Mohamed Cassim.
The world was stunned last February when Scottish scientists unveiled a sheep cloned from the udder cells of an ewe, the world’s first mammal cloned from an adult cell.
Human cloning was automatically considered the next step.
But Dolly, named after the country and western singer of mammary superiority, is now the focus of intense scrutiny again, this time to ascertain if she truly is the exact genetic replica of her mother. Dolly’s mother’s udder cells were given to scientists at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh by the Hannah Research Institute three years after the mother had died.
And it appears that it may have been a fluke. Other scientists have been unable to duplicate the experiment, calling into question the veracity of Dolly’s cloning.
The method used, nuclear transfer technology, involves the genetic material from the nucleus of a donor cell, or its DNA, being inserted into an unfertilised egg cell, whose chromosomes have been removed by micro-manipulation. An electric current, which is used to fuse the cells, triggers the egg’s development.
But it appears to be more of a hit-or-miss affair than was at first reported. It took more than 400 attempts to clone Dolly. And the technique has only been successful on sheep.
Dolly’s technological parents – the Roslin Institute and PPL Therapeutics, who hold the commercial rights to the cloning technique- have instituted an independent veracity check to be done by an unnamed American university.
Another complication has emerged: Dolly’s mother was pregnant when the cell scraping was taken, opening the possibility that Dolly was cloned from a foetal cell, which are known to pass into the bloodstream of pregnant animals.
The soft underbelly of the human cloning debate is providing infants for infertile couples, a seemingly expedient ploy to appeal to desperate people willing to suspend their ethical reasoning.
There would be no genetic fusion between parents. The “child” would be a carbon copy of one of the respective parents – a twin being born 30 or so years later into circumstances with different social and cultural stimuli. The sins of the father would take on a whole new meaning, becoming the sins of the (preceding) self.
Once only conceivable by science fiction writers and thought to be the domain of crackpots and conmen – the last doctor, the ironically named Dr Richard Seed from Chicago, who pronounced last month he would clone humans for infertile couples, was dismissed as a charlatan and technically unable to do what he promised – cloning has gained the appearance to the public of being
realistically possible.
This may in part be due to sensationalist and under-researched reporting, as much as it has to do with a reading public that has not been educated in the basic principles of science and is unlikely to pick up inaccuracies.
Some would argue that it is unlikely human cloning will ever make it past this present ethical conflict. Opposition to Cassim’s and Seed’s announcements, let alone any physical attempts, has been so resoundingly negative from all quarters, it is highly unlikely to be implemented at all. Everyone from President Bill Clinton down has condemned it in the United States, usually the fertile breeding home of crackpot physicians practising ethically questionable medical techniques.
Cassim, who was presented to newspaper readers as “set to clone humans”, was quoted as saying that he had applied to Wits University’s ethics committee for permission to go ahead with his research and had not yet received permission to proceed. Given the controversial nature of human cloning, he might not have received the go-ahead, but now, as a result of the huge splash of publicity surrounding his work, he is extremely unlikely to get permission.
Most of the world’s researchers and scientists are regulated in a similar fashion by the institutions within which they work, and it is only free agents (some would say loose cannons) like Seed, who don’t have careers to risk, who would flout such conventions. The danger, therefore, of mad scientists in white coats replicating Hitler is small.
But before that stage, if it’s proved Dolly is not an exact replica or other scientists cannot replicate the experiment, then the cloning debate will find itself in limbo. Even if Dolly proves to be a genuine clone, researchers will need to create clones of other animals, particularly species more closely related to us. Human beings, after all, are not sheep.