Some Questions, Answers and Comments on Human Cloning

Article originally published in January, 1998

Tom Zinnen

University of Wisconsin Biotechnology Center & UW-Extension

On Tuesday, January 6, 1998, National Public Radio ran a story on Richard Seed, who has stated his intention to open a clinic to clone humans. Wednesday's and Thursday's papers featured articles on Seed's plans, and Ted Koppel interviewed him January 7 on Nightline.

Q. Is this a hoax?

A. No. Richard Seed previously announced his intent to clone humans using Dolly Technology back on December 5, 1997 at the "Changing Conceptions Symposium" sponsored by the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Q. What was the response then?

A. I was there, and his announcement generated quite a bit of interest among reporters, and consternation among the researchers and ethicists. I'm not sure if anything has changed since then, or if Seed is replanting stories to reap publicity. In December his story appeared in Chicago and Milwaukee newspapers, but this time around it has gone national.

Q. Will Seed be able to clone humans?

A. I believe it is fair to say that since the cloning of Dolly the sheep, it is now considered plausible to clone humans starting with cells from an adult. Cloning of humans is likely to happen if someone with skill and diligence tries it.

Ironically, the story is fueled more by Seed's stated intent rather than his likelihood of succeeding. His stated intent shifts the issue to the front burner of the stove of public policy. It's a busy kitchen with many customers clamoring for their dinners. No dish stays on the front burner for long. But this issue will continue to simmer--and it won't go back into the fridge as is.

Q. How does Seed propose to proceed?

A. He intends to use the Dolly Technology to clone a human adult. This involves this general strategy:

1) taking some cells from an adult,

2) growing the cells in a laboratory dish,

3) then with a microscope and tiny tools, taking the central nucleus from one of those cells (the nucleus contains the 46 chromosomes--almost all the genes in a cell) and

4) using an electric current, moving the nucleus into a human egg cell from which the researcher has previously removed the original egg nucleus.

At the end of these four steps, the researcher basically has an egg cell in a laboratory dish. That egg cell has a nucleus with 46 chromosomes, the same as a fertilized egg cell. The next step is to grow the cell in a lab dish and see if it starts to divide and develop into an embryo. If it does, then the embryo will be implanted into the uterus of a woman who will carry the fetus and who would be the surrogate mother. The next step is to see if the embryo develops into a fetus and grows to term and is born alive and well.

Q. Would the baby be a clone of the person who donated the cells that gave the nucleus?

Almost. It's more accurate to say it's a clone of the body that gave the cells from which the nucleus was taken. Our experience with identical twins, which are clones, shows that even if we are able to clone the human body, we won't necessarily clone the human being. The baby that would arise through cloning would likely be at least as distinct an individual and personality as one identical twin is distinct from the other.

Also, the baby will actually have genes from the egg cell, too--the genes from the egg's mitochondria--so in the most rigorous sense it won't be a genetic clone. But this biological distinction has little bearing on the legal and ethical issues.

Q. Is this strategy plausible in humans?

A. The birth of Dolly the sheep showed that at least in some cases such cells from mammals can act as fertilized eggs--and go through cell division and fetal development and result in a live birth. Scientists tend to consider this plausible in humans, but it has not yet been demonstrated. The only way to know is to try, and that is the issue--because trying to succeed means taking the risk of trying and failing.

Q. Is this legal?

A. Perhaps it is more apt to say that it is not yet illegal. In the US we have inherited from English law the idea that "Unless something is prohibited, it is permitted." This is in contrast to the Continental European approach that "Unless something is permitted, it is prohibited." Thus in the US it seems that a law would have to be passed to ban this specific research. (The Food and Drug Administration warned yesterday that it would regulate Seed's work as an experimental procedure, but to me that would appear to be triggered only at the step of implanting an embryo.) The federal government already bans the use of federal money in research into human cloning, but Seed is not affected by this ban since he proposes to use private money.

Some Comments.

Dolly Technology has changed how we look at our cells and has forced us to examine how we look at our selves.

We used to think that adult cells were differentiated or programmed in such a way that they couldn't be reprogrammed. We knew that a single fertilized egg could develop and differentiate into hundreds of different types of cells, but that these cells could not dedifferentiate into a single cell with the "totipotency" of the fertilized egg.

Now we know that it wasn't so much the cells with limited capacity, it was our understanding of the cells that was limited. Dolly has not changed how cells work. What has changed is our understanding and ignorance of how cells work. And the idea of cloning humans that once was thought impossible is now known to be plausible.

In assessing the potential ethical, legal and social impacts of cloning, I expect that philosophers, lawyers, scientists, and other citizens will draw on experience and precedents from natural procreation, from adoption and paternity and abortion issues, and from assisted reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, egg donation, and surrogate motherhood.

From natural procreation, including miscarriages and birth defects, we know that not all natural conceptions lead to healthy babies. We know that clones (identical twins) may be genetically identical yet they are distinct persons and personalities.

From adoption and paternity and abortion issues, we know that few issues are as divisive and present such a clash of competing rights of individuals and powers of governments. Here the ideals of self-determination, privacy, property, propriety, and protection of persons who cannot speak for or defend themselves all clamor for precedence.

From assisted reproductive technologies, we have seen a pattern in public response to new technologies. As Sophia Kleegman and Sherwin Kaufman wrote three decades ago in their book entitled Infertility in Women, "Any change in custom or practice in this emotionally charged area has always elicited a response from established custom and law of horrified negation at first; then negation without horror, then slow and gradual curiosity, study, evaluation, and finally a very slow but steady acceptance."

Take for example in vitro fertilization. Many people viewed the birth of Louise Brown in 1978 as an aberrant and abhorrent event. Yet she was just the first of some 250,000 people conceived in the past 20 years through test-tube fertilization. Now a generation later many people celebrate such technology as a gift, and even consider it as an option not to be denied to an infertile couple.

It remains to be seen what path the course of cloning will follow.