Missouri: Fairy Tales Abound in Human Cloning Debates

Dianne N. Irving
Copyright February 12, 2005
Reproduced with Permission


"Scientific" Fairy Tales about human cloning are out of control these days in the SHOW ME STATE, attracting foreign handlers and peddlers from as far away as California, New Jersey and abroad! The insane hype, the hard-ball organizing, the thrown-together petitions, the fake science, the media blitz - all very familiar PR by now. The goal seems to be to see who can twist and manipulate the objective scientific facts the most in order to win. Anything goes, everything is allowed, no holds barred, make it up as you go along - as long as it stops that human cloning ban!

But isn't that unfair? How can the public or legislators in a democratic society come to any intelligent or informed conclusions about human cloning if they are constantly deluged with false scientific snippets deviously designed only to confuse - especially confusing when they are doled out by "the experts" themselves. (It makes one wonder what else they would lie about.)

Of course it is unfair, admits NIH researcher MacKay - but that's what people need - Fairy Tales: "To start with, people need a fairy tale. ... Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."1 Now what's that old saying, "Fairy Tales in, Fairy Tales out"? And simple is one thing; fraud is quite another! Such "simple fraud" is especially dangerous in these debates since we are not just mulling over the fate of corn or porcupines. We are talking about the lives and deaths of millions of real living innocent human beings.

And so, the purpose of this short article: To attempt to level the playing field at least a bit with the naked objective scientific truth about human cloning. This accurate science - not Fairy Tales -- should be the starting point for any and all ethical and legal conclusions about human cloning.

None of the accurate science that I am about to present is my subjective "opinion" or "misreading" of that science; nor is it "prolife", "religious", or even "Catholic" science. Rather I will present only those secular objective scientific facts in concert with the long-acknowledged internationally recognized nomenclature in human embryology and human molecular genetics, which anyone involved in these human cloning issues is morally and professionally - and preferably legally -- bound to acknowledge.2 These accurate scientific facts can be found by anyone in the appropriate human embryology science texts in the local library. There is no "confusion". N-O-N-E.

In short, what is presented here is not "my" science. If you disagree with these references, you are really disagreeing with the international experts in the field from whom I am quoting. If any one can legitimately refute the scientific references presented here with those equally acknowledged to be in concert with the international nomenclature, kindly step forward with your proof and SHOW ME.


1. FAIRY TALE: As Jesuit Richard McCormick wrote, if it's just a "pre-embryo" then its not a human being, and thus can be used in medical research.

FACT: Wrong. Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick and frog embryologist Clifford Grobstein actually agreed that the immediate product of human reproduction through 14-days is a human being.

The unfortunate tangled and false scientific legacy of the "pre-embryo", propagated here years ago by McCormick and Grobstein lives on today in the current Missouri cloning battles! In a recent article, Mr. Neaves, president and CEO of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, MO, attributes the following astonishing statement to McCormick:

William Neaves, president of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, which wants to do embryonic stem cell research, pointed to the writings of Richard McCormick, a Catholic priest considered one of the American church's leading medical ethicists. McCormick noted that the majority of human eggs fertilized within a woman's body never implant in the uterus. Therefore, the fertilized egg is not a human being until implantation, he concluded. Because it is not a human being, the cells that result from fertilization could be used in medical research, McCormick wrote.3

No, Mr. Neaves, that is not what McCormick and Grobstein wrote at all.4 For them the "pre-embryo" is indeed a human being - a genetic individual, an organism. It is just not, in their scientifically misinformed and misguided view, a "developmental individual" (which, of course, it really is!), and it is certainly not "just a cell" or "a ball of cells! Mr. Neaves' rendition of the McCormick "pre-embryo" is fundamentally erroneous, and thus his conclusion -- that there is no human being there until implantation -- is likewise erroneous.

Further, to imply that killing early human embryos to derive their "stem cells" is OK because McCormick was "a Catholic priest considered one of the American church's leading medical ethicists" is also inaccurate and inappropriate. McCormick was and still is actually known as an interesting but clearly dissident Catholic theologian, and his equally dissident "medical ethics" is rarely read seriously today (except by other dissidents).

The formal teachings of the Catholic Church remain unchanged: the issue of "personhood" is basically irrelevant. The only relevant question, says the Church, is whether or not there is a living innocent human being present. And since we know empirically beyond any shadow of a doubt that the immediate product of any type of sexual or a-sexual human reproduction (such as cloning) is a single cell human being, the rhetorical answer is a firm empirical "yes". Since it is always wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being, and since the single-cell human organism and early human embryo throughout all of his/her development is an innocent human being, then it is always wrong to kill any early human embryos for their "stem cells" - regardless of some perceived "greater good".5 The "pre-embryo" is now acknowledged internationally as simply a ruse devised years ago by bioethics (including McCormick) in order to assuage our consciences.

For many years now some (invested) researchers and others have stubbornly and steadfastly refused to acknowledge the formal scientific rejection of the false term "pre-embryo" by the entire international nomenclature committee - the experts on human embryology world-wide. It is time for them to catch up with the 21st century and come to grips with this empirical reality: Get over it! There is no such thing as a "pre-embryo". As Swiss human embryologist Ronan O'Rahilly, longtime member of the international nomenclature committee, puts it so bluntly:

The term 'pre-embryo' is not used here for the following reasons: (1) it 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).6

Finally, and contra another "myth" involved with the McCormick/Grobstein mantra, twinning can take place after 14 days, as in Siamese twins and fetus-in-fetu twins.

2. FAIRY TALE: A cloned human embryo is not a human being because no sperm was involved.

FACT: Human beings can be reproduced both sexually (fertilization involving sperms and oocytes) and a-sexually (involving no sperm). That's exactly what the scientific term "a-sexual" human reproduction means!

Yet it seems that even many with medical backgrounds are apparently oblivious of what "a-sexual" human reproduction is:

Sen. Charles Wheeler, a Democrat and physician from Kansas City, repeatedly argued that because no sperm is used in SCNT, no person is created. "There has to be a sperm," he said. "It reminds me of that old ad: 'Where's the beef?' There's no beef in a somatic cell nuclear transfer."7

Here's the "beef", Dr. Wheeler: Not all human beings begin to exist at fertilization. Some begin to exist through a-sexual reproductive processes. For example, we are all familiar with naturally occurring monozygotic "twinning" in utero, where we know empirically that one twin/triplet did begin to exist through fertilization, but the other twin/triplet (its clones) began to exist later a-sexually after "blastomere separation" or "blastocyst splitting".8 No sperm was involved in the formation of the second twin or triplet, but surely we cannot claim that they are not human beings!

As in twinning, it is an established scientific fact that the immediate product of nuclear transfer is a new living single-cell cloned human being:

[G]enetically "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. ... Nuclear transfer technology was first employed in embryo cloning, in which the donor cell is derived from an early embryo, and has been long established in the case of amphibia. ... Wilmut et al (1997) reported successful cloning of an adult sheep. For the first time, an adult nucleus had been reprogrammed to become totipotent once more, just like the genetic material in the fertilized oocyte from which the donor cell had ultimately developed. ... Successful cloning of adult animals has forced us to accept that genome modifications once considered irreversible can be reversed and that the genomes of adult cells can be reprogrammed by factors in the oocyte to make them totipotent once again.9

Thus, in both twinning and in nuclear transfer the DNA in the donated nucleus is reprogrammed, dedifferentiated back to the same state as in a zygote. A mere "cell" has become an "organism" - a single-cell human being!

3. FAIRY TALE: The immediate product of sexual or a-sexual human reproduction is not a human organism; it is just a human "cell"; the human blastocyst is not a human organism but just a "ball of cells". Therefore all we're doing is "stem cell research". So what's the big deal?

FACT: The immediate product of sexual or a-sexual human reproduction is a single-cell organism, a single-cell human being. The human embryonic blastocyst, containing totipotent10 "stem cells", is a 5-7 day old developing human organism, a human being. Thus to try to fool people that the only thing "therapeutic" cloning involves is just "stem cell research" is grossly inaccurate and self-serving. "Therapeutic" cloning is, more accurately, the deliberate reproduction of living human beings in order to kill them later for their "stem cells".

How can any real scientist claim with a straight face that the immediate product of cloning is "just a cell", that an embryo is "just a ball of cells", and that all they're doing is just "stem cell research"? How can any real scientist confuse a simple "cell" (which is part of an organism) with the single-cell human organism or with an older more complex multi-celled human "organism" itself? Well, they got away with it in California; they just might get away with it in Missouri. But it's a Big Fat Fairy Tale!

Here are the facts. There is a critical difference between an "organism" and its constituent cells. Even common dictionaries understand this, e.g., "In biology and ecology, an organism is a living being. The phrase complex organism describes any organism with more than one cell. Characteristics common to many organisms include: movement, feeding, respiration, growth, reproduction, sensitivity to stimuli."11 (emphases added) "In biology, the cell is the fundamental structural and functional unit of all living organisms. The cell theory, first developed in the 19th century, states that all organisms are composed of one or more cells."12 (emphases added)

Thus an "organism" is a whole being, an individual (terms used in the scientific textbooks) - even if that being is comprised of just one cell.

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). (p. 2)

Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.13 (emphases added)

In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.14 (emphases added)

... Coalescence of homologous chromosomes, resulting in a one-cell embryo. ... The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo and is a highly specialized cell.15 (p. 33)

In multi-cellular organisms, each of the cells that comprise it are only "parts" of that whole being. An organism is inherently capable of its growth and reproduction as a being; a cell can only multiply more cells, not more beings (unless they are totipotent, separated from the whole organism, and the state of differentiation of their DNA is reversed to "zero" by the process of "regulation" - the basis of cloning by "twinning".16

O'Rahilly addresses "human organisms", their distinction from just "cells", and their growth and development in his first chapter dealing with the science of human embryology. As O'Rahilly documents, the immediate product of human sexual reproduction is a single-cell organism:

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. This remains true even though the embryonic genome is not actually activated until 2-8 cells are present at about 2-3 days.17 (emphases added)

It is precisely because the immediate product is an organism that the international Nomina Embryologica Committee formally rejected the fake term "pre-embryo". As O'Rahilly put it:

(4) it [the term "pre-embryo"] is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization;18 [9] (emphases added)

Rather, the single-cell human organism - the human being, human embryo, human individual - simply then proceeds to grow bigger and bigger.

In sum: the immediate products of both sexual and a-sexual human reproduction are single-cell human organisms. Let me repeat that another way: a human organism that is only one cell big is the immediate product of any human reproductive process. That's the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. Indeed, the objective scientific fact is that this new single-cell human embryo is at Stage One in the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Development! By-passing this embryonic developmental stage - as well as Stage Two and Stage Three - and leaping from the "egg" straight to the "stem cells" inside an embryonic human being at the blastocyst stage is nothing but pure unadulterated deception.

Yet here, from Mr. Neaves again:

SCNT is the acronym for somatic cell nuclear transfer, commonly referred to as therapeutic cloning. The process transplants DNA into an unfertilized egg to grow stem cells, which are primitive cells that can develop into any other type of cell under certain conditions.

Where is his account of developmental stages 1, 2, and 3?? Or is he even aware of such human embryological stages? Perhaps he is not a human embryologist; but then, it is his professional obligation to go to the accurate sources in human embryology to find the right answer. As any scientist worth his/her salt knows well by now, once that human "egg" into which a foreign human nucleus has been transferred is activated, the differentiated DNA in that nucleus is de-differentiated, reprogrammed, back to a new single-cell human organism:

4. FAIRY TALE: To ban human cloning is anti-science.

FACT: To ban deviant and corrupt science such as human cloning protects good science.

Yet another misleading statement by Mr. Neaves:

"This kind of legislation would harm the state's growing life sciences effort and would seriously diminish the ability of universities to recruit and retain biomedical scientists," said Bill Neaves, president and CEO of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo. "Such a law would be viewed around the world as a serious antiscience measure."19

On the contrary, Mr. Neaves. It would be seen around the world as a serious breath of fresh air!

It is not people or states that are "anti-science" or "out to get" science. Rather they are justifiably and dutifully concerned about "rogue scientists" - i.e., self-proclaiming "experts" who continue to take appalling advantage of vulnerable patients, conscientious legislators and the public at large as they have for so many years by lying through their teeth about the accurate science involved in human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research -- and in the process gutting the state of precious research funds for research studies that are legitimate. These crooked scientists can look to their own self-imposed ignorance or wanton deceitfulness for their own eventual private and professional failures. Apparently the only way to stop them is to hold them and/or their organizations legally accountable for scientific fraud - for a change. Missouri - the "Show Me!" state, is just the right place to start!

5. FAIRY TALE: Banning human cloning would bring financial disaster to the State of Missouri and destroy life sciences research.

FACT: As experience in other states demonstrates, Missouri will do quite well financially, and research in the life sciences will bloom - even without unethical human cloning research.

Contrary to the massive internationally-led hype forced on our legislators and governors by Big Biotech, local and state governments will do economically just fine thank you by supporting ethical research to find cures for these diseases - and more. There are many ways to hunt big game, and more to science than human cloning.

For example, the following is taken verbatim from a recent study written and compiled by one of Missouri's most dedicated and trusted policy analysts:20

The State of Michigan banned all human cloning in 1998. Since then Michigan's life sciences industry has dramatically increased. According to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (http://medc.michigan.org/ttc/LifeSciences)

With over $2 billion invested in R&D each year and nearly 100 new companies since 2000, Michigan leads the nation as one of the fastest growing life sciences states.

According to the Anderson Economic Group "[e]mployment in Michigan's Life Sciences industry grew more than 12.5% from 1998 - 2001. Total employment in Michigan grew by only 2.3% during the same period." (The Life Sciences Industry in Michigan: Employment, Economic, and Fiscal Contributions to the State's Economy, Anderson, Economic Group, 2/25/2004, p. 3, full report available at: http://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/Projects/econ_fisc_impact/lifesci/lifesci_mi.pdf) While there were 731 life sciences establishments with 28,164 employees in Michigan in 1998 (ibid., Table 4 on p. 13), it is estimated that there will be 1,132 life sciences establishments with 41,555 employees in Michigan by 2005 (ibid., Table 5, p. 14.). Further, "it is estimated that more than $3.0 billion in total Michigan payroll is attributable to the Life Sciences industry. This accounts for about 2% of payroll income in the State." (Ibid., p. 22.)

A selection of newspaper articles indicates that Michigan's life sciences industry is doing quite well, and no indication is made that Michigan's cloning ban has had any negative impact on the burgeoning life sciences industry:

Interestingly, one of the top cloning researchers in the country, who in 2001 while with the Massachusetts company Advanced Cell Technology announced the first successful cloned human embryos, is now conducting research in Michigan. In 2002, Dr. Jose B. Cibelli joined the faculty of Michigan State University, even though he is no longer permitted to engage in human cloning experiments. See, "U.S. Cloning Pioneer Resigns to Accept University Position," Wall Street Journal, 11/11/2002, reprinted at http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/20021111_wsj_regalado.html.

Thus with strong and bold - and, yes, ethical - leadership, Michigan's Governor Granholm is hunting big game and bringing Michigan face to face with the 21st century with "a plan that will put people to work now making Michigan a better place to live and do business. It's a plan that will make Michigan a world center of research and home to the high-wage industries and jobs which that research will generate."21 The same is true in many other states.

And all without the need for "scientific" Fairy Tales that promote cloning and killing living innocent human beings for research fodder.

1 In Rick Weiss, "Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer's: Reagan-Inspired Zeal For Study Continues", Washington Post, June 10, 2004, A03, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29561-2004Jun9.html. McKay, along with cloning researchers Irving Weissman and Ann McLaren, recently presented their Fairy Tales to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, see http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/400_ann/program.htm [Back]

2  The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Development is the basis for the Nomina Embryologica which was part of the larger Nomina Anatomica for decades until 1989. In 1999 the name was changed by the International Associations of Anatomists to Terminologia Embryologica and Terminologia Anatomica, which was published in 1999 by the IFAA and is available for sale in book or CD-Rom format at: http://www.thieme.com/SID2194056226451/productsubpages/pubid-1163116455.html. For on-line access to information about the international Nomina Embryologica Committee and the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Development, see U.S. national website at the National Museum of Health and Medicine, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology: http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/, Human Developmental Anatomy Center; http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/index.htm, the Carnegie Collection of Embryology; http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/Carnegie_collection.htm.

The scientific quotes on human embryology herein are taken directly from the following internationally recognized human embryology textbooks in concert with the Carnegie Stages and the international nomenclature on human embryology: Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001): "In preparing this book, the authors have made full use of the [Carnegie Embryological] Collection and of the various published studies, whether by themselves or by others, based on what George W. Corner felicitously termed that "Bureau of Standards." ... Serious work in human embryology now depends on staging and the internationally accepted system of Carnegie embryonic stages (a term introduced by the senior author) has been adopted throughout. ... A scheme of embryonic stages can be found on the inside front cover of this book. These developmental stages are indicated by superscripts throughout this book, thereby avoiding interruptions in the flow of the text. (p. ix)

Ibid, O'Rahilly and Muller (1994): Wilhelm His, Senior (1831-1904), the founder of human embryology [Fig. 1-1]. ... [H]uman embryology is more than one hundred years old. The first to study the human embryo systematically was Wilhelm His, Senior, who established the basis of reconstruction, i.e., the assembling of three-dimensional form from microscopic sections. His, who has been called the "Vesalium of human embryology," published his three-volume masterpiece Anatomie menschlicher Embryonen in 1880-85 [His, Vogel, Leipzig]. In it the human embryo was studied as a whole for the first time. ... A detailed Handbook of Human Embryology by Keibel and Mall appeared in 1910-12. Franklin P. Mall, who studied under His, established the Carnegie Embryological Collection in Baltimore and was the first person to stage human embryos (in 1914). Mall's collection soon became the most important repository of human embryos in the world and has ever since served as a "Bureau of Standards". Mall's successor, George L. Streeter, laid down the basis of the currently used staging system for human embryos (1942-48), which was completed by O'Rahilly (1973) and revised by O'Rahilly and Muller (1987)." (p. 3)

Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed. only) (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998): "Schleiden and Schwann were responsible for great advances being made in embryology when they formulated the cell theory in 1839. This concept stated that the body is composed of cells and cell products. The cell theory soon led to the realization that the embryo developed from a single cell, the zygote, which underwent many cell divisions as the tissues and organs formed. (p. 12)

For more historical information on the development of these international standards, see, e.g., article on Wilhelm Hiss, at: http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2606.html. See also international experts in human molecular genetics: Tom Strachan and Andrew P. Read, Human Molecular Genetics 2 (2nd ed.) (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999). [Back]

3 In Kit Wagar, "Stem cell research ban: Debating life, morality, hope", The Kansas City Star (Feb. 11, 2005), at: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/10870693.htm?1c. [Back]

4 See Richard McCormick, S.J., "Who or what is the Preembryo?", Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1(1), 1991; for a very extensive scientific and philosophical analysis of McCormick and Grobstein's "pre-embryo", see Irving, Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on "Personhood", Linacre Quarterly February 1993, 60:1:18-46; edited and posted on Sept. 20, 1996, at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_04person1.html. [Back]

5 For a 17-page list of direct quotations from the Church's formal documents that apply to this issue, see Appendix of Church Teachings on Human Cloning and Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research attached to Irving, "Playing God by manipulating man: Facts and frauds of human cloning" (October 4, 2003), Missouri Catholic Conference Annual Assembly Workshop, Jefferson City, MO, at: http://www.mocatholic.org/uploads/IrvingCloning3.pdf, and at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_22manipulatingman1.html. [Back]

6 Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 88. [Back]

7 In Josh Flory, "Stem cell issue stirs both sides; Disabled add their voices to debate on cloning ban" (Columbia Tribune, February 3, 2005), at: http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Feb/20050203News008.asp [Back]

8 For a brief scientific explanation of cloning by "twinning", see Irving, "You don't need a sperm!" (February 3, 2005, at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irv_57donotneedsperm.html. For a more detailed scientific explanation see Irving, "Playing God by manipulating man: Facts and frauds of human cloning" (October 4, 2003), Missouri Catholic Conference Annual Assembly Workshop, Jefferson City, MO, at: http://www.mocatholic.org/uploads/IrvingCloning3.pdf, and http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_22manipulatingman1.html [Back]

9 Tom Strachan and Andrew P. Read, Human Molecular Genetics 2 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1999), pp. 508-509. [Back]

10 O'Rahilly and Muller (2001): "The cells of the ICM (inner cell mass) [of the blastocyst] are considered to be totipotent initially. They give rise directly to various lines of embryonic stem cells." (p. 39). Ibid (1994): "Each cell (blastomere) is considered to be still totipotent (capable, on isolation, of forming a complete embryo), and separations of these early cells is believed to account for one-third of cases of monozygotic twinning. (p. 23) [Back]

11 Open Encyclopedia, at: http://open-encyclopedia.com/Organism; also Wikipedia, at: http://en.widipedia.org/wiki/Organism. [Back]

12 Open Encyclopedia, at: http://open-encyclopedia.com/Cell_(biology). [Back]

13 Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed. only) (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), p. 18. [Back]

14 William J. Larsen, Human Embryology (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997), p. 1. [Back]

15 Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 87. [Back]

16 For a scientific explanation (with extensive scientific references) of the role of "regulation" in both sexual and asexual reproduction, see Irving, "Playing God by manipulating man: Facts and frauds of human cloning" (October 4, 2003), presented twice at the Missouri Catholic Conference Annual Assembly Workshop, Jefferson City, MO, at: http://www.mocatholic.org/uploads/IrvingCloning3.pdf, and at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_22manipulatingman1.html; see also "Stem cells that could become embryos: Implications for the NIH Guidelines on stem cell research, the NIH stem cell report, informed consent, and patient safety in clinical trials" (July 22, 2001); written as consultant on human embryology and human embryo research as Fellow of The Linacre Institute (CMA), The Catholic Medical Association (USA), and The International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_39anlystemcel1.html. [Back]

17 Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 31. [Back]

18 Ibid., p. 88. [Back]

19 Laurence Journal World, "Ban could harm science reputation" (Feb 11, 2005), at: http://www.ljworld.com/section/stateregional/story/195917. [Back]

20 I am indebted to Samuel Lee for this entire section, and literally copying parts of his thoughtful and careful analysis of the issue as prepared for other policy makers in the state. [Back]

21 Address of Governor Jennifer Granholm, "Michigan: Jobs Today - Jobs Tomorrow" (February 8, 2005), at: http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192--110164--,00.html. [Back]