Altered Nuclear Transfer: An Ethical Cloning Alternative?
A new cloning technique could change the debate over destructive embryonic stem cell research.
Dr. William Hurlbut, a pro-life bioethicist at Stanford and member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, has proposed a new human cloning process described as “altered nuclear transfer” that would, in theory, create “non-embryos” that contain embryonic stem cells.
The proposal involves human cloning and genetic modification to create genetically disabled “embryos” that cannot develop past the blastocyst (i.e., early embryo) stage. These “embryos” would then be destroyed for their stem cells. Hurlbut argues that the supposed inability of these human entities to continue the developmental process renders this a moral research option.
One of the primary questions being raised regarding altered nuclear transfer (ANT) is, “does this create a human embryo?”
Dr. Hurlbut presents an interesting argument and we commend the presentation of novel alternatives to destructive embryonic stem cell research. If the proposed entity is not an embryo at its inception and lacks the ability to ever become an embryo, this technique might be an ethical way to create and collect embryonic stem cells.
However, we have concerns about the intentional creation of what may be developmentally disabled human “embryos” for the sole purpose of destroying them to harvest their stem cells.
While we appreciate the opportunity to have a dialogue on the ethics of this technique before it is conducted in the laboratory setting, Dr. Hurlbut’s proposal raises several ethical concerns:
- It appears that ANT might produce an entire genetically defective human “embryo” rather than the small cluster of cells (the “inner cell mass”) that are composed of human embryonic stem cells.
- The development of the complete blastocyst (young embryo) begs the question, “Would this technique prevent the formation of a human embryo or create a genetically defective human embryo?”
- The existence of human embryonic stem cells is normally evidence that an embryo was present and then destroyed in order to yield these cells. The burden to prove otherwise is on those who want to destroy these disabled “embryos” for human embryonic stem cells.
Finally, if the goal is to find cures for debilitating diseases and injuries, we would question the continued fascination with embryonic stem cells when adult stem cells are providing the most scientifically and ethically sound way of treating patients. Unlike human embryonic stem cells which have not cured a single patient, adult stem cells are currently being used to treat more than 70 diseases.
Carrie Gordon Earll is the Senior Policy Analyst for Bioethics at Focus on the Family and a fellow with the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity; Dawn Vargo is Associate Analyst for Bioethics in the Public Policy Division of Focus on the Family.
If you enjoy reading stories like this one, sign up for the free CitizenLink Daily Update e-mail. You'll get news and commentary from Focus on the Family Action delivered right to your computer.
