The 20-Year Debate Among 4 US Presidents: Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning

Advanced cloning technologies related to human embryo stem cells has triggered decades of serious debate among Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden.

Save

The 20-Year Debate Among 4 US Presidents: Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning — (Anusorn Nakdee/Shutterstock)

By Yuhong Dong, M.D., Ph.D.

4/23/2024

Updated:

4/24/2024

0:00

From conception, a journey begins—a single fertilized egg embarks on a transformative path, first growing into an embryo and eventually into the marvel that is the human body.

This process reveals the powerful regenerative abilities of human embryonic stem cells.

Scientists have found that these fascinating cells can not only grow into humans but can also be used in research with the potential to cure human ailments. However, this has inadvertently ignited a fervent ethical debate spanning decades.

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning

Depending on the sources, there are two types of stem cells: somatic and embryonic.

Located in various human organs, somatic stem cells typically mature into cells of the same tissue or organ. For instance, a stem cell in the skin is destined to become a future skin cell, which is not the focus of this article.

Embryonic stem cells are even more marvelous.

In 1998, scientists successfully isolated embryonic stem cells (ESCs) from embryos aged between 4 to 7 days. ESCs can develop into nerve, bone, blood, and muscle cells. In theory, ESCs can serve as the basis of regenerative medicine for patients with chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and neurological disorders.

Later, scientists found that mature egg cells have an extraordinary power to change the identity of transplanted cell nuclei back to their early embryonic state by using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), leading to the creation of Dolly, the first cloned animal, in 1997, and to other animals.

Scientists have also used SCNT to transplant the nucleus of a patient’s cell into the egg cells of another woman to generate embryos that grow into tissues or organs that match the patient’s genes, minimizing concerns of rejection. This is known as “therapeutic cloning.”

Let’s say we want to create tissues for a patient suffering from a particular disease. We would take an egg cell from a woman and replace its cell nucleus with the nucleus from a cell taken from another person. This fused cell will grow into cells or tissues that can be used to treat the patient’s disease.

Attempts have been made to use this technology for cloning humans, which is known as “reproductive cloning.” However, this practice has been strictly banned and even considered a crime in many countries, such as the United States, Canada, France, Japan, and Britain. Despite this, research on therapeutic cloning is still ongoing amidst heated debates.

SCNT is used for both therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. (Illustration by The Epoch Times)

Bans and Dismissals

Despite its potential for treating diseases, embryonic stem cell research faces consistent opposition.

On Aug. 9, 2001, President George W. Bush implemented a pivotal policy restricting federal funding for research on new human ESC (hESC) lines. This policy prohibited the National Institutes of Health from supporting any new cell lines of research.

In 2005 and 2007, Congress attempted to overturn these prohibitions. However, President Bush vetoed both efforts.

The situation changed on March 9, 2009, when President Obama revoked Bush’s restrictions and opened the door for additional hESC lines. However, Obama said he was committed to never allow human cloning, a scenario he described as “dangerous, profoundly wrong” with “no place in our society or any society.”

Since then, scientists have produced human embryonic-like stem cells via the in vitro SCNT technique. Human organ-like masses of tissues, stem cell-derived 3D culture systems called organoids are increasingly being grown in the lab. In many cases, these organs are histologically indistinguishable from those of actual humans.

Although this technique appears to avoid directly destroying the life of the fetus, the lab-grown human-like tissues still have many issues, as results must be validated with fetal tissues. The use of fetal tissues for research purposes raises ethical concerns, as they come from prenatal humans, which can be seen as a violation of their human dignity.

In 2019, the Trump administration imposed significant barriers to fetal tissue research. The Department of Health and Human Services declared, “Promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the top priorities of President Trump’s administration.”

These restrictions were again lifted in 2021 following President Biden’s inauguration.

These alternating positions among U.S. presidents reflect the enduring political and ethical debate concerning the sanctity of human life.

The debate is happening not only in politics, but also within the scientific community. Some scientists, like Presidents Bush and Trump, lean toward a cautious approach, while others take a more assertive stance, like Presidents Obama and Biden.

When Does Life Begin?

At the heart of the debate lies a profound ethical concern: The process of extracting stem cells from embryos unavoidably destroys what could potentially become human life. However, many believe a fetus is already a human life, not just holding the potential for human life.

Proponents of hESC research view the matter pragmatically, considering the embryo as a mere cluster of 100 cells, especially within the first 14 days, when considered devoid of personhood.

This is the so-called “14-day rule” by advocates of hESC research. They argue that until the 14th day post-conception, before the development of nerve tissues, the fetus lacks the capacity for sensation or memory and thus does not qualify as a sentient life form.

However, emerging research in prenatal memory challenges this belief by suggesting that the foundations of memory and consciousness may be established while still in the womb.

Dr. Akira Ikegawa, a Japanese obstetrician and gynecologist, conducted extensive surveys revealing that 33 percent of children from a study group of 3,061 parent-child pairs in Japan reported prenatal memories. In his published works, Ikegawa proposes that the origins of human memory might be traced back to stages as early as the gametic phase when individuals were merely sperm or eggs.

The latest scientific studies suggest that the current 14-day cutoff for human embryos may need to be reexamined. These findings reveal that there is still much to learn about the truth of human life and what it means to be human.

If a gardener loses tomato blossoms, it could result in losing future harvests. Similarly, the cluster of cells in embryos symbolizes the beginning of human life, just as the seeds in the lost blossoms. Destroying embryos is much more serious than losing crops because human beings should not be treated as commodities. Using human cells for research can destroy human life.

The Ramsey Colloquium, a group of theologians, ethicists, philosophers, and scholars, articulated a compelling rebuttal in 1995:

“If it is objected that, at five days or fifteen days, the embryo does not look like a human being, it must be pointed out that this is precisely what a human being looks like—and what each of us looked like—at five or fifteen days of development.”

Protecting Human Dignity

A primary public concern is whether the U.S. government should authorize and finance research on human ESCs.

Sacrificing the origins of human life for research challenges a fundamental principle of our society. We must always respect human beings as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end.

Former President Bush’s decision to prohibit hESC research was deeply rooted in his belief that “human life is a sacred gift from our Creator.”

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, fellow and director of the Bioethics and American Democracy Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told The Epoch Times in an email, “Human cloning—whether for research or to produce children—is morally impermissible since it violates the unique, intrinsic dignity of every human being. The current push for cloning for research is based on a desire to have a genetically matched embryo which can act as a control in genetic manipulation experiments. While the desire to better understand early human development is laudable, we cannot use methods that create human life, or clone human life, with the intention of destroying it.”

According to the foundational medical ethic of “do no harm,” human lives should never be destroyed or used for research or experimentation.

The unrestricted use of human embryos for research purposes poses a serious threat to the fundamental dignity of human beings.

“An instrumental view of human life at its early stages will eventually lead to the instrumentalization of human life at later stages—treating human beings as means rather than as ends.” Dr. Kheriaty said.

The essential step for conducting expanded hESC research involves in vitro fertilization (IVF), or the process of creating “test tube babies.”

Ramsey Colloquium panel member, Patricia A. King, an expert in law, medicine, ethics, and public policy, stated, “The fertilization of human oocytes [female eggs] for research purposes is unnerving because human life is being created solely for human use. I do not believe that this society has developed the conceptual frameworks necessary to guide us down this slope. ... At the very least, we should proceed with extreme caution.” An example of the conceptual framework is when the powerful justifies excluding various categories of the powerless from moral parity.

During the IVF process, more embryos are typically produced (an average of 12) than the two to three needed, and the extra ones are frozen for backup use. Advocates for hESC research rationalize using these surplus embryos for research, considering their eventual disposal.

The use of IVF deviates from natural conception and raises ethical concerns. Adoption has been proposed as a more ethical alternative for childless couples.

The High Stakes of Human Cloning

Although the clinical application of using human ESC cloning technology may appear attractive, it has not progressed as smoothly as initially expected. There have been numerous roadblocks, including complex safety and technical problems. ESC cloning has only been used in a few limited diseases, such as eye diseases.

The ethical debate around human cloning appears to be effectively settled at this point in time, due to widespread concerns that resonate with common sense.

Therapeutic cloning requires the destruction of human embryos, making it ethically problematic, regardless of its potential benefits to those who are sick or injured.

It is essential to recognize that significant scientific advances may come at a high cost.

Cloned animals often exhibit premature aging and shortened lifespans, suggesting consequential yet hidden flaws within this novel technology.

These animals often suffer from significant health issues, such as severe obesity, malformed limbs, and impaired immunity, liver, and kidney function. For example, Dolly, the famous cloned sheep, had to be euthanized at the young age of 6 due to rapidly deteriorating health, marked by progressive lung disease and arthritis.

Further research has shown that premature death was related to abnormal gene expression during embryo development, suggesting that human manipulation of animal embryos may have detrimental effects on their health.

Another notable example recently published in Nature reported that researchers inadvertently caused a mouse to develop two extra legs in place of its genitalia. Despite the mistake, this was heralded as a significant discovery of a new genetic function.

Scientific research unintentionally resulted in a mouse growing six legs in place of genitalia. (Lozovska et al., Nature Communications, 2024)

The behavior of hESCs remains poorly understood, posing significant safety risks if the technology is misapplied. For instance, human hESCs injected into mice have been shown to produce teratomas, benign tumors containing diverse tissue types, including teeth, hair, and neural cells.

“It’s worth noting that embryonic stem cells have yet to lead to the promised cures and therapeutics,” said Dr. Kheriaty. “It turns out that these cells are very difficult to control and often result in tumors rather than the desired tissue. So far, all the approved stem cell therapies in the U.S. use induced pluripotent stem cells from adult tissues—which are not ethically problematic—since they have proven easier to direct in terms of the desired tissue development.”

There are also significant negative consequences of IVF, including the health risks associated with “snowflake babies,” which are babies grown from frozen left-over embryos after IVF procedures. These can range from poor perinatal outcomes to birth defects and epigenetic disorders.

What’s Behind the Push to Clone?

As scientists, we fully acknowledge and appreciate technology’s immense potential to enhance our lives, save lives, and combat diseases. For example, using bone marrow stem cells to treat individuals with leukemia demonstrates technology’s potential for good when used responsibly.

However, unrestrained technological advancement can pose significant risks if no ethical guidelines exist to regulate it.

Sometimes, even restrictions cannot entirely stop risky technology from being used. Although it has been banned worldwide, some scientists still engage in human reproductive cloning. The majority of cloned embryos develop abnormally, which poses a significant risk of creating seriously handicapped human beings.

The more advanced a technology becomes, the more cautious we should be. Just because we can do something does not mean we should do it.

Given the serious risks associated with this technology, it’s essential to evaluate what’s driving such innovation and question whether the benefits of advancements in science and technology are worth it if they come at the expense of ethical boundaries.

To answer this question, we must go back to 1859 to the creation of an unproven yet influential biological hypothesis that has been deeply ingrained in the minds of most scientists for over 160 years.

Evolutionary theory treats humans as nothing more than cells and proteins, explaining their origin as evolving from monkeys. It also suggests that organisms continuously evolve to survive. This leads to a societal emphasis on gaining strength through persistent competition.

As a result, biomedical science has become a battlefield of technological competition, driving a continuous cycle of rigorous innovation.

For example, when the gene-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9 was invented, the international scientific community was shocked when Chinese biophysicist He Jiankui abruptly and prematurely used the technique to edit the CCR5 gene of twin babies born from an HIV-infected father.

Scientists raised profound concerns about the necessity of this action and the safety of the babies, including over 100 Chinese scientists who condemned the action, saying, “Directly jumping into human experiments can only be described as crazy.”

The influence of evolutionary theory on scientists defending the manipulation of human embryonic stem cells cannot be overlooked. It is important to consider how this theory has shaped scientific perspective on this issue.

For thousands of years throughout human history, many traditional cultures have believed in humanity’s divine origin, which inherently grants them dignity, respect, and value.

Darwin’s theory of evolution neglects to address these traditional beliefs about the spiritual origin of human life.

Recognizing the value of human life and morality is crucial in guiding scientific progress. Without these guiding principles, science can easily lose its way.

Thanks to Makai Allbert for his contributions to this article.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.