"FRC's Brochure on Human Cloning at the U.N.: Serious Flaws, Dangerous Consequences"

28  See, e.g., (emphases added): Cloning researcher, Geraedts JP, de Wert GM., "Cloning is possible by nucleus transplantation and by embryo splitting. Nucleus transplantation does not result in a genetically completely identical individual because the mitochondrial DNA originates from the ovum donor. Embryo splitting may be regarded as the artificial production of a monozygotic multiplet," in "Cloning: applications in humans; Technical aspects." [Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 2001 Apr; 108 (4) :145-50]; [PMID: 11383357], http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11383357.

Famed infertility expert, Peter R. Brinsden, "The Authority has considered the ethical and social implications of cloning by splitting embryos, since this is not covered by the Act, whereas cloning of human embryos by nuclear replacement is." ["Regulation of assisted reproductive technology: The UK experience", in Peter R. Brinsden (ed.), A Textbook of in vitro Fertilization and Assisted Reproduction (2nd ed) (New York: The Parthenon Publishing Group, 1999)] [Bourn Hall Clinic, Cambridge, UK], p. 421.

British researcher, Dr Anne McLaren: "1.1 Cloning ... may involve division of a single embryo, in which case both the nuclear genes and the small number of mitochondrial genes would be identical, or it may involve nuclear transfer, in which case only the nuclear genes would be identical. ... 1.6 In contrast, cloning by embryo splitting, from the 2-cell up to the blastocyst stage, has been extensively used in sheep and cattle to increase the yield of progeny from genetically high-grade parents. [Opinion of the Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology to the European Commission, requested by the European Commission on 28 February 1997], http://europa.eu.int/comm/european_group_ethics/gaieb/en/opinion9.pdf.

Bioethics lawyer George Annas: "Twinning by splitting an extracorporeal human embryo in two is the most rudimentary form of human cloning, and the closest to natural twins." ["Human Cloning: A Choice or an Echo?; II. Cloning and Imagination", University of Dayton Law Review, Winter 1998, Vol. 23, Num. 2], http://www.bumc.bu.edu/www/sph/lw/pvl/html3-variant.html.

Lawyers, economists and ethicists Campbell et al: "Germ-line tinkering is the end to which these three lines of research that I mentioned earlier are headed. [Nuclear transplantation, genetic engineering, and reproductive medicine.] In 1983, when the first artificial twinning of horses was performed in this country using another type of cloning known as blastomere separation, [ftnt. 110] ethicists insisted that no one would ever attempt the procedure on humans because there was too much opposition within ethical review boards and other institutional oversight bodies to permit it. They were wrong. In 1993, Jerry Hall at George Washington University Medical Center performed blastomere separation using "genetically abnormal" human embryos. He told Science that he did it intentionally to "get the ethical discussion moving." The discussion did not "move", however, just as it did not move in the late 1960s, when scientists issued the same assurance that cloning of anything was impossible and unthinkable. We should have known better, but too often in our society, we react only to what exists. Now, we have the unthinkable and we must scramble to catch up. [ftnt. 110: In relation to cloning, blastomere separation "splits the cells or blastomeres of an early multicelled embryo before the cells have begun to differentiate. Because each blastomere at this stage is in theory totipotent (that is, capable of producing an entire organism itself), separated cells can become new embryos, all of which have the same genome." John A. Robertson, "The Question of Human Cloning", Hastings Center Report (Mar. 1, 1994), p. 6]. [P. Campbell, G. Maranto, C. R. Cantor, L. H. Glantz, and F. H. Miller, "Gene Therapy: Legal, Financial and Ethical Issues", Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, March 20, 1997, pp. 18-19 [http://www.bu.edu/law/scitech/volume4/4jstl03.pdf].

The Council of Europe: "The member States of the Council of Europe, the other States and the European Community Signatories to this Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, ... Noting scientific developments in the field of mammal cloning, particularly through embryo splitting and nuclear transfer ...". [Human Cloning Regulation in Europe, in American Center for Law and Justice, Info Letters,

CFJD MEMO, 2001-03-09], http://www.aclj.org/cloning/cloning_cfjd_europe.asp.

National Institutes of Health, Office of Science Planning and Policy: "Cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer are not synonymous. Cloning can be successfully accomplished by using a number of different technologies." [CLONING: Present Uses and Promises, April 27, 1998], http://www1.od.nih.gov/osp/ospp/scipol/cloning.htm. See also, NIH Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluipotent Stem Cells: "If these cells separate, genetically identical embryos result, the basis of identical twinning." (p. A-3)

Australia, The Cloning of Humans (Prevention) Bill 2001 (Queensland): "The cloning of a cell or an individual may be achieved through a number of techniques, including: molecular cloning ..., blastomere separation(sometimes called "twinning" after the naturally occurring process that creates identical twins): splitting a developing embryo soon after fertilisation of the egg by a sperm (sexual reproduction) to give rise to two or more embryos. The resulting organisms are identical twins (clones) containing DNA from both the mother and the father. ... somatic cell nuclear transfer: the transfer of the nucleus of a somatic cell into an unfertilised egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. A number of scientific review bodies have noted that the term "cloning" is applicable in various contexts, as a result of the development of a range of cloning techniques with varying applications.", http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications_pdfs/books/2001036.pdf.

Human molecular geneticists, Strachan and Read: "Animal clones occur naturally .... For example, genetically identical twins are clones who happened to have received exactly the same set of genetic instructions from two donor individuals, a mother and a father. A form of animal cloning can also occur as a result of artificial manipulation to bring about a type of asexual reproduction. The genetic manipulation in this case uses nuclear transfer technology: a nucleus is removed from a donor cell then transplanted into an oocyte whose own nucleus has previously been removed. The resulting 'renucleated' oocyte can give rise to an individual who will carry the nuclear genome of only one donor individual, unlike genetically identical twins. The individual providing the donor nucleus and the individual that develops from the 'renucleated' oocyte are usually described as "clones", but it should be noted that they share only the same nuclear DNA; they do not share the same mitochondrial DNA, unlike genetically identical twins." [Human Molecular Genetics 2 (2nd ed.) (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999), pp. 508-509].

Human embryologists, O'Rahilly and Muller: "The embryo enters the uterine cavity after about half a week ... Each cell (blastomere) is considered to be still totipotent (capable, on isolation, of forming a complete embryo), and separation of these early cells is believed to account for one-third of cases of monozygotic twinning." [Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p. 37].

Human embryologist, Bruce Carlson: "Of the experimental techniques used to demonstrate regulative properties of early embryos, the simplest is to separate the blastomeres of early cleavage-stage embryos and determine whether each one can give rise to an entire embryo. This method has been used to demonstrate that single blastomeres, from two- and sometimes four-cell embryos can form normal embryos, ... " (p. 44); " ... Some types of twinning represent a natural experiment that demonstrates the highly regulative nature of early human embryos, ..." (p. 48); "... Monozygotic twins and some triplets, on the other hand, are the product of one fertilized egg. They arise by the subdivision and splitting of a single embryo. Although monozygotic twins could ... arise by the splitting of a two-cell embryo, it is commonly accepted that most arise by the subdivision of the inner cell mass in a blastocyst. Because the majority of monozygotic twins are perfectly normal, the early human embryo can obviously be subdivided and each component regulated to form a normal embryo." [Human Embryology and Developmental Biology (St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994); also, Carlson, ibid., (2nd ed., 1999), p. 49].

Human embryologist, William Larsen: "If the splitting occurred during cleavage -- for example, if the two blastomeres produced by the first cleavage division become separated -- the monozygotic twin blastomeres will implant separately, like dizygotic twin blastomeres, and will not share fetal membranes. Alternatively, if the twins are formed by splitting of the inner cell mass within the blastocyst, they will occupy the same chorion but will be enclosed by separate amnions and will use separate placentae, each placenta developing around the connecting stalk of its respective embryo. Finally, if the twins are formed by splitting of a bilaminar germ disc, they will occupy the same amnion." [Essentials of Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), p. 325]. [Back]

29  See, e.g.: American Society of Reproductive Medicine: "Because early embryonic cells are totipotent, the possibility of splitting or separating the blastomeres of early preimplantation embryos to increase the number of embryos that are available for IVF treatment of infertility is being discussed. Because embryo splitting could lead to two or more embryos with the same genome, the term "cloning" has been used to describe this practice. ... Whereas these ethical concerns raise important issues, neither alone nor together do they offer sufficient reasons for not proceeding with research into embryo splitting and blastomere separation. ... In sum, since embryo splitting has the potential to improve the efficacy of IVF treatments abuses of the technique are not sufficient to stop valid research in use of embryo splitting as a treatment for infertility." (http://www.asrm.com/Media/Ethics/embsplit.html).

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine: "Ethical Considerations for Assisted Reproductive Technologies covers the American Society for Reproductive Medicine's position on several aspects of reproductive medicine, including: ... the moral and legal status of the preembryo, ... micro techniques such as: zona drilling, microinjection, blastomere separation (cloning), and assisted hatching." ("'Ethical Considerations of Assisted Reproductive Technologies': Originally published as a supplement to the ASRM medical journal [Fertility and Sterility 1994;62:Suppl 1], http://www.asrm.com/Media/Ethics/ethics94.html.

The Twins Foundation: "Now, a new method of actually producing identical twins looms near. Called "blastomere separation" (the separation of a two- to eight-cell blastomere into two identical demi-embryos), it is potentially one method of helping infertile couples have children through in vitro fertilization (IVF)," in "New Ways to Produce Identical Twins -- A Continuing Controversy", http://twinsfoundation.com/ru-v9n1-1994.htm.

Dr. Mithhat Erenus: "In such cases, patients may benefit from embryo multiplication ... Since each early embryonic cell is totipotent (i.e., has the ability to develop and produce a normal adult), embryo multiplication is technically possible. ... Based on the results observed in lower order mammals, the critical period of development to ensure success in separating human blastomeres should be at the time of embryonic gene expression, which is reported in humans to be between the four- and eight-cell stages. .... The second potential method of embryo multiplication is blastocyst splitting." ("Embryo Multiplication", http://www.hekim.net/~erenus/20002001/asistedreproduction/micromanipulation/embryo_multiplication.htm, and at http://fertilitynetwork.com/articles/articles-blastocyst.htm).

For an extensive 31-page summary of selected bibliography of recent research studies on PubMed using such human materials for cloning and genetic engineering, see Irving, "Scientific References, Human Genetic Engineering (Including Cloning): Artificial Human Embryos, Oocytes, Sperms, Chromosomes and Genes" (May 25, 2004), at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_25scientificrefer1.html]. [Back]

30 See, e.g., Moore and Persaud (1998): "The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents. This mechanism forms the basis of biparental inheritance and variation of the human species. Meiosis allows independent assortment of maternal and paternal chromosomes among the germ cells." (p. 37) Carlson (1999): "Through the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species." (p. 32) O'Rahilly and Muller (2001): "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization ... is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." (emphases added) [Back]

31 See, e.g. (emphases added): (1) Congressional website, Cloning Basics: 101: "What is Cloning?" ... It is false to say that cloning solves the transplant rejection problem. Each embryo clone would still contain mitochondrial DNA from the egg donor; the clone is NOT an exact genetic copy of the nucleus donor, and its antigens would therefore provoke immune rejection when transplanted. There would still be the problem of immunological rejection that cloning is said to be indispensable for solving," at http://www.house.gov/weldon/issues/clone_basics.htm. (2) "Congressman Weldon's Cloning Facts", quoting testimony of Dr. Irving Weissman before the President's Council on Bioethics, "I should say that when you put the nucleus in from a somatic cell, the mitochondria still come from the host" [from the female egg] ... And in mouse studies it is clear that those genetic differences can lead to a mild but certainly effective transplant rejection and so immunosuppression, mild though it is, will be required for that", at http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/Weldoncloningfacts022603.hrml; also at: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Human_Cloning.pdf. (3) Transcript of House Hearing introducing Weldon Bill, Cliff Stearns (FL) testimony before Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, 1st Session on H.R. 1644 and H.R. 2172 (June 20, 2001), "Seven States' proposals ban the creation of genetically identical individuals, but that leaves another loophole. An egg cell, donated for cloning, has its own mytochondrial DNA, which is different from the mytochondrial DNA of the cell that provided the nucleus. The clone will, therefore, not truly be identical", at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/06202001Hearing291/print.htm. (4) Senator Sam Brownback, "Some proponents of human cloning claim that an embryo created in this manner will have cells that are a genetic match to the patient being cloned, and thus would not be rejected by the patient's immune system. This claim is overstated at best; in fact there are some scientific reports that show the presence of mitochondrial DNA in the donor egg can trigger an immune-response rejection in the patient being treated, in "A True Complete Ban", National Review Online, Feb. 26, 2003, at: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-brownback022603.asp. (5) Leon Kass, "Before one starts arguing the morality of embryo farming, we should know that the whole matter is science fiction. The egg containing my nucleus is not fully my genetic twin. It also contains residual DNA -- mitochondrial DNA -- from the woman who donated the egg. The cloned embryo and all cells derived from it remain partly 'foreign,' enough to cause transplant rejection", in The Chicago Tribune, July 31, 2001, quoted by Dave Andrusko in, "Averting a Catastrophe", at: http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL08/editA.html. (6) President's Council on Bioethics, "The technique of cloning ... bring to live birth a cloned animal that is genetically virtually identical (except for the mitochondrial DNA) to the animal that donated the adult cell nucleus", in Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry, "Executive Summary; Fair and Accurate Terminology; Scientific Background", at: http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/execsummary.html. (7) George Annas, "How could such stem-cell lines be generated? One way is by transferring somatic-cell nuclei into enucleated eggs (nuclear transplantation). When stimulated to divide, the cell can form blastocysts of predefined nuclear genotype (with the mitochondrial DNA coming from the egg)", The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 346:1576-1579 May 16, 200, "Stem Cells Scientific, Medical, and Political Issues", at: http://www.gardacuore.net/rigenerativa/ARTICOLI/NEJM_Issues.htm. [emphases added] [Back]

32  Many "prohibition" or "restriction" sections at the end of many bills and treaties state something like the following: "Nothing in this Bill (or Treaty) will prohibit the cloning of molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryo cells, or tissues", etc. It is this section that is meant to protect legitimate cloning activities, but which could actually allow a great deal of human cloning and human genetic engineering of new human beings to slip through loopholes - especially the use of artificial genes, chromosomes, sperms, oocytes and embryos. It is critical to understand that many if not most of the "genetic" materials used in such cloning and genetic engineering are just "molecules" of DNA - including cell nuclei, pronuclei, and sections of genes or chromosomes. Consider that:

1. "molecules, DNA": Some cloning of human embryos is accomplished by means of pronuclei transfer - often referred to as "hemi-cloning". For example, the male pronucleus from the just-fertilized oocyte of one human embryo, and the female pronucleus from the just-fertilized oocyte of another human embryo can be removed by micromanipulation and placed together in an enucleated oocyte (or other cell), which is then stimulated, and a new cloned single-cell human embryo would be reproduced. In fact, such embryos would be human/human chimeras, since the genetic material would come from more than one other human source. Human pronuclei are not whole cells, nor whole nuclei, but only parts of nuclei - just molecules, and they are molecules of DNA. Therefore this section would allow the cloning of human embryos by means of pronuclei transfer for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes. The same problem exists with the use of artificially constructed sperm, and oocytes, etc.

2. "cells other than human embryos": would not cover the cloning of a single cell -- such as the single-cell human zygote - using all cloning techniques for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes. Nor would it cover -- depending on when during the fertilization process a new human being begins to exist -- the use of pronuclei transfer for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes, since pronuclei are only parts of a single cell. Indeed, most human cloning and human genetic engineering uses the single-cell human being.

3. "tissues": many researchers use the phrase "human tissues" to refer to what are in reality totipotent diploid human primordial germ line cells. Thus the cloning of new human beings by means of twinning these totipotent cells, or cloning them by means of nuclear transfer, for both "therapeutic" and "reproductive" purposes, would not be covered if the researchers' deceptive definition of "tissues" is accepted. [Back]

33 For example (emphases added), see Weissman: "Human reproductive cloning would involve the deliberate production of born humans by implantation into the uterus of prepared subjects a blastocyst produced by nuclear transfer from a pre-defined donor. ... human reproductive cloning is medically dangerous and should be legally banned, but nuclear transplantation to produce human pluripotent stem cell lines is sufficiently important that it should not be banned ..." [Irving Weissman, M.D., "A Message from the Director of the Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine at Stanford", in The Stanford Report (Jan. 22,2003) http://newsservice.stanford.edu/news/2003/january22/message.html.] The National Academy of Sciences' two reports on human cloning and on human embryonic stem cell resarch - which Weissman chaired - state the same: "The goal of stem cell research using the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique must be sharply contrasted with the goal of reproductive cloning, which, using a similar technique, aims to develop an embryo that is genetically identical with the donor of its genes and then implant that embryo in a woman's uterus and allow it to mature to birth." [National Academy of Sciences, Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine (2002), Commission on Life Sciences, "Comparison of Stem Cell Production with Reproductive Cloning", at: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076307/html/11.html#pagetop.] Also: "The application of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or nuclear transplantation, offers an alternative route to obtaining stem cells that could be used for transplantation therapies with a minimal risk of transplant rejection. This procedure - sometimes called therapeutic cloning, research cloning, or non-reproductive cloning, and referred here as nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells - (p. 29) ... The preparation of embryonic stem cells by nuclear transplantation differs from reproductive cloning in that nothing is implanted in a uterus. (p. 31) ... The process of obtaining embryonic stem cells through nuclear transplantation does not involve the placement of an embryo in a uterus, and it cannot produce a new individual." [National Academy of Sciences, Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning (2002) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, p. 33, at: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076374/html/25.html.] [Back]

34 E.g., see Weissman: "This and other experiments opens the door to produce by nuclear transplantation mouse and eventually human pluripotent stem cell lines using nuclei from patients with known genetic diseases such as adult and type 1 (juvenile onset) diabetes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's Disease), other neurodegenerative diseases, most cardiovascular diseases with a strong genetic component, all autoimmune diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis, allergies, etc. One might even try to use cancer stem cell nuclei to produce pluripotent stem cell lines to study how the genetic alterations in the progression to the cancer operate developmentally to recreate cancer cells from normal cells. [Irving Weissman, M.D., "A Message from the Director of the Institute of Cancer/Stem Cell Biology and Medicine at Stanford", in The Stanford Report (Jan. 22, 2003) http://newsservice.stanford.edu/news/2003/january22/message.html.] (emphases added) [Back]

35 It is important for understanding these cloning debates -- especially the definitions of these processes and the "products" formed -- that the human genome is not defined in terms of the nuclear genes alone, but in terms of the total DNA in the cell, including DNA found outside of the nucleus in the cytoplasm. Strachan and Read (1999): "The human genome is the term used to describe the total genetic information (DNA content) in human cells. It really comprises two genomes: a complex nuclear genome ..., and a simple mitochondrial genome ... Mitochondria possess their own ribosomes and the few polypeptide-encoding genes in the mitochondrial genome produce mRMAs which are translated on the mitochondrial ribosomes. (p. 139); In animal cells, DNA is found in both the nucleus and the mitochondria." (p. 10); "The mitochondria also have ribosomes and a limited capacity for protein synthesis." (p. 18) Lewin (2000): "A genome consists of the entire set of chromosomes for any particular organism, and therefore comprises a series of DNA molecules, each of which contains a series of many genes. The ultimate definition of a genome is to determine the sequence of the DNA of each chromosome." (p. 4); ... "Genes not residing within the nucleus are generally described as extranuclear; they are transcribed and translated in the same organelle compartment (mitochondrion or chloroplast) in which they reside. By contrast, nuclear genes are expressed by means of cytoplasmic protein synthesis." (p. 81) This is why the cloned human embryo reproduced by nuclear transfer is not "genetically identical" to any "existing or previously existing" human being. [Back]

36 The Nuremberg Code was actually part of the final legal decision against Nazi defendant Willie Brant in the first medical war crimes trial of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals. The original can be found in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Selected and Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission. London: H.M.S.O., 1947-49, 15 vols., Harvard Law School Library Nuremberg Trials Project, A Digital Document Collection, at: http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=bibliogr; the Code was first published in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law, No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1949; it can also be accessed on the NIH website for the U.S. federal guidelines for the use of human subjects in research, Office of Human Research Protection, at: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html. [Back]

37 See, e.g., "pros" and "cons" on the Nuremberg Codes, Discussions in JAMA, "50 JAHRE NUERNBERGER KODEX FUER FORSCHUNGEN AM MENSCHEN", Zentrum fur Medizinische Ethik, at: http://www.ruhr-unibochum.de/zme/Nuernberg.htm#katz. [Back]

38 See, World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 and amended by the:  29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975; 35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983; 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989; 48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996; 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000; at: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/helsinki.html. [Back]

39 See Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 Part 46, Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP, formerly OPPR), at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm. [Back]

40 International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, (CIOMS), at: http://www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002.htm. [Back]

41 See note 12 supra. [Back]

42 See scientific references from human embryology textbooks explaining the difference between human "cells" and human "organisms" in Irving, "Definitions of a 'human organism' and a 'cell'" (Oct. 3, 2004), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_78definitions.html. See also on-line encyclopedias, at: Open Encyclopedia, at: http://open-encyclopedia.com/Organism; also Wikipedia, at: http://en.widipedia.org/wiki/Organism; also Open Encyclopedia, at: http://open-encyclopedia.com/Cell_(biology). [Back]

43 As succinctly stated by Ronan O'Rahilly, the term "pre-embryo" "(1) is ill-defined because it is said to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation; (2) it is inaccurate because purely embryonic cells can already be distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic (not pre-embryonic!) disc; (3) it is unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4) it is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization; and (5) it was introduced in 1986 'largely for public policy reasons' (Biggers). ... Just as postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization." [O'Rahilly and Muller (2001), p. 88.] (emphases added) [Back]

44 In Weissman's own words: "We define non-reproductive human cloning as the transfer of human cell nuclei into enucleated oocytes to produce human pre-embryos without implanting the preembryos to produce a human child. Such a process would likely be used to create early pre-embryos to be used as sources of embryonic stem cells. As set out below, we would limit the use of such pre-embryos to the period before the appearance in the pre-embryo of the so-called primitive streak, which occurs 14 to 18 days after the pre-embryo's creation. This developmental stage has also been termed the blastocyst or pre-embryo. ... Various committees, in the United States and elsewhere, that have studied embryo research have concluded that the appearance of the primitive streak marks an important step in the moral status of the pre-embryo, and hence, the ethical arguments concerning pre-embryo research. ... Before the appearance of the primitive streak, the pre-embryo is not necessarily one individual --- it could lead to identical twins." [Report of the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning (Jan. 11, 2002), Sacramento, CA, at: http://scbe.stanford.edu/conference/cloning_cali.pdf.] (emphases added) [Back]

45 See the already passed California human cloning law (SB 1230), at: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1201-1250/sb_1230_bill_20020923_chaptered.html; their already passed law on human embryonic stem cell research (SB 253) is at: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_253_bill_20020922_chaptered.html; Proposition 71 (which thus allows the use of stem cells derived from cloned human embryos) is heavily supported by Weissman and the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, at: http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/. [Back]

46 "Infertility researchers take pains to define cloning in the narrowest terms, as a process that would use the nucleus from a single mature cell and place it in a woman's egg from which the nucleus had been removed - then jolting that hybrid cell to life with electricity. No sperm need be involved, so the baby's genetic material would all come from just one person. While many infertility specialists recoil at the prospect of such 'solo' cloning, there are critical aspects of the process that could help infertile couples. A number of infertility programs across the country are working on treatments that might be called 'near-cloning'. "Doctor Jamie Grifo, a leading infertility researcher at New York University, as quoted in Stephen Smith, "Cloning bans could have impact on infertility treatments", Jan. 9, 1998, at http://www.geometry.net/detail/basic_i/infertility_family_science_page_no_3.html. (emphases added) [Back]

47 Although Paul Ramsey fought heroically to prevent the abuses he foresaw evident in some of the new technologies rapidly approaching, he was sometimes constrained in debating such issues because of his acceptance of the false scientific term "pre-embryo". See, e.g., Ramsey's testimony in support of fetal research in The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Report and Recommendations; Research on the Fetus; U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1975, pp. 35-36. See also Ramsey, "Reference Points in Deciding About Abortion" in J.T. Noonan (ed.), The Morality of Abortion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 60-100, esp. p. 75. Ramsey also supported the use of the term "pre-embryo" in his testimony before the British Warnock Report (Dame Mary Warnock, Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology, (London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1984). See also: "One reason for affirming that embryos are not human is that prior to 14 days the embryo can split forming mono-zygotic twins. This argument originates in the work of Joseph Donceel and was widely debated amongst Theologians in the seventies, finding endorsement from Protestant ethicist Paul Ramsey, Catholic ethicists Richard McCormick and Catholic Theologian John Ford before entering secular discussions on the topic. In more recent times this argument has gained a wide hearing, It was behind many of the recommendations of the Warnock report and influenced legislative changes in several European jurisdictions.", Submission on Reproductive Technology Bill To The Parliamentary Health Committee, by Justice Spokesperson Matthew Flannagan, Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand, July 2003, at: http://www.chp.org.nz/index.php?cid=124&mpid=12. (emphases added) [Back]

48 For a review and analysis of about 23 of these bioethics arguments using the wrong interpretation of the term "potential" to support "delayed personhood" positions, see Irving, "Scientific and philosophical expertise: An evaluation of the arguments on 'personhood'", Linacre Quarterly February 1993, 60:1:18-46, at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_04person1.html, and http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvsci.htm. This is a mini-summary of my 400-page doctoral dissertation, Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human Embryo (Washington, D.C: Georgetown University, 1991). [Back]

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

1, 2, 3, 4,