|
July 22, 2003
Could Women Beat the Cloning Ban?
What separates the men from the women? Women have
eggs, men have sperm. If the congress has their way, that distinction
could doom male patients.
By Scott Anderson
The House of Representatives has twice voted overwhelmingly
to ban all human cloning - including therapeutic cloning. The President
has urged the Senate to follow suit with a similar bill that would
put researchers in prison for ten years and fine them a million
dollars if they attempt to clone so much as a single human cell.
The Senate would be wise to ignore this presidential recommendation
for two reasons, one of them political and the other scientific.
Politically, a ban on therapeutic cloning may come
back to haunt those politicians who vote for it. Once their sick
or injured constituents realize that their own representatives are
trying to ban one of the most promising medical breakthroughs in
history - one that has the potential to cure Parkinson's, Alzheimer's,
heart disease, cancer, diabetes, liver disease and more - they could
easily hound them out of office.
Scientifically, the House ban represents a triumph
of Christian evangelism over a startling new understanding of biological
regeneration. If the Senate follows suit, it could doom millions
of Americans to suffer and die needlessly. Incredibly, the ban may
only apply to half the population, namely those who don't have egg
cells -- otherwise known as men.
How is this possible? To understand, we need to look
at the science. Although the new biology is strange and exotic,
it's not that difficult to follow - and the stakes are too high
to ignore it. Here, therefore, are the Cliff Notes for Stem Cells
101:
Nuclear transfer requires the removal of the egg's
nucleus, which guarantees that there is no mixing of genes. For
the therapy to work without causing an immune reaction, the cultured
cells must be genetically identical to the patient's own. To that
end, a bit of skin is snipped from the patient, and a nucleus is
removed from one of the cells. This nucleus is placed into the hollowed-out
egg, giving rise to the term "nuclear transfer."
From a scientific point of view, this is nothing like
conception, because there is no sperm, no maternal DNA, no fertilization
and no mixing of genes. Nevertheless, to certain religious scholars,
the presence of an egg implies that these cells are actual human
beings - not just cultured tissue - deserving of the full protection
of the law. Could these cells go on to create a baby? It's unlikely,
but if you were following along, you may have noticed that a skin
cell was the starter material. If skin cells have the potential
to make a baby, does that make skin cells sacred? Common sense and
science say no, but on this issue, congress - not noted for its
biological acumen - gets to write the laws.
Notice that the whole point of nuclear transfer --
the procedure the House has voted to ban -- is to create genetically
identical tissue. But if you're a woman, why would you go to the
trouble of transplanting your DNA into someone else's egg? Why wouldn't
you just use one of your own eggs? Indeed, that is a possible scenario.
Researchers at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., and
Stemron Corp of Gaithersburg, Md., have been able to electrically
and chemically stimulate unfertilized eggs to divide into stem cells
all on their own. The process is called parthenogenesis. Since no
nuclei are transferred, it nicely skirts the House ban.
Parthenogenesis should produce embryonic stem cells
just as nuclear transfer does. But embryos produced by parthenogenesis
are not viable. Being reproductive dead-ends, their use as therapy
is not considered to be an abortion.
In their zeal to forestall some fevered vision of
embryo farms, the Senate could end up banning the most potent medical
treatment of our time. But due to the oddities of the underlying
biology, the ban would only apply to men. Women, because they have
their own eggs, would have a lifesaving option available exclusively
to them. The congress, which is overwhelmingly male, obviously hasn't
had a good chance to wrap their collective minds around this new
reality. Among other things, it makes a shambles of equal-access
laws. And, speaking as an eggless male, it seems downright unfair.
These politicians are influenced by a few feisty fundamentalists
(with marvelously focused constituencies) who have a proven track
record: they have already managed to stifle federally funded embryo
research in America for over fifteen years. But for every fundamentalist,
there are a thousand sick patients who are eager to see stem cell
research bear fruit. The House vote shows that these citizens haven't
yet found their voice. When they do, the government will likely
get out of the business of banning medical miracles. It might even
redeem itself by starting up a new Manhattan Project to properly
fund this amazing science.
Copyright © 2003 by Scott Anderson
For reprint rights, email the author:
Scott_Anderson@ScienceForPeople.com
Here are some other suggested readings on stem
cell therapies:
|
