As authors and co-signers of a joint statement encouraging research into a potentially licit and feasible procedure for producing human pluripotent stem cells without creating and destroying embryos (oocyte assisted reprogramming, or ANT-OAR),¹  we applaud Senator Talent’s recent reaffirmation of the need for a comprehensive ban on all human cloning, particularly on the cloning of human embryos to be destroyed in biomedical research (Cong. Record, Feb. 10, 2006, S1050-53).

However, we wish to make clear that there is no conflict between research on ANT-OAR and the wording of the federal Human Cloning Prohibition Act, S. 658 (passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and introduced in the Senate by Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kansas). We support the effort to pass this law, and see it as entirely consistent with, and complementary to, responsible efforts to explore ANT-OAR. We hope that everyone, including Senator Talent, who joins us in encouraging research on ANT-OAR will stand with us in supporting S. 658.

The idea behind ANT – an idea clearly reflected in the language of S. 658 – is that “nuclear transfer” and other cloning techniques are only reprehensible if they are used to make a human embryo – a living organism of the human species at the earliest stage of development. If these techniques can be altered to produce embryonic or “pluripotent” stem cells without making an embryo, they could serve medical research without violating human dignity. ANT-OAR pursues this goal by changing the factors that guide gene expression before the nucleus of a body cell is joined to an enucleated egg. If the technique works as planned, the resulting product would have the gene expression pattern (hence the developmental trajectory) of a stem cell, and not that of an embryonic human organism, from the very beginning. This is not an effort to make a very damaged or short-lived embryo, but to create something that from the outset is not a human organism at all. Because the technique would be gravely unethical if it did create human embryos, it must be thoroughly tested using animal cells before anyone could responsibly pursue it in humans.

We support the idea of federal funding for this preliminary research, as do some of the co-sponsors of S. 658. Far from being in tension with this research, S. 658 provides the necessary outer limit that makes the research morally responsible. It bans only the use of the “nuclear transfer” cloning technique to make a living human organism whose genetic makeup is virtually identical to that of an existing or previously existing human. (Generally, clones are not absolutely genetically identical to the original organism.) The key term “organism” has been used in federal appropriations laws to define the human embryo for ten years. It has been construed by legal experts in both the Clinton and Bush administrations to draw a clear line between research using embryonic stem cells, which may sometimes receive federal funds, and research using embryos, which may not. The bill also explicitly permits the use of any cloning technique “to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.”

Like any federal law it can be further refined by implementing regulations if necessary; and it authorizes a federal agency to report back to Congress within four years on whether any aspect of the law warrants refining in light of new facts. Because it amends the federal criminal code, of course, it also places the burden of proof on the government to show that someone has used cloning to produce human embryos and therefore violated the law. We know of no existing or pending proposal that more clearly or carefully distinguishes human cloning from morally responsible research.

We applaud Senator Talent for wanting to advance promising research that can be supported by people on all sides of the cloning debate. For those of us who oppose human cloning, however, a law like S. 658 is made more necessary, not less so, by efforts to explore ANT-OAR. It is only by establishing a clear barrier against the misuse of this technology to create and mistreat fellow human beings that a decent society can pursue ANT-OAR in good conscience. ANT-OAR and the ban on cloning contained in S. 658 are not in conflict, but are complementary and mutually supporting aspects of the effort to advance promising medical research without undermining human dignity. We hope Senator Talent and other members of Congress will join in this effort, and support the Human Cloning Prohibition Act as well as the funding of morally responsible alternatives to human cloning.

ENDORSERS

Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.

Robert P. George, J.D., D.Phil.
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey

Hadley Arkes, Ph.D.
Edward N. Ney Profesor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions
Amherst College
Amherst, Massachusetts

Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Providence College
Providence, Rhode Island

Rev. Thomas Berg, L.C., Ph.D.
Executive Director
The Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person
Thornwood, New York

E. Christian Brugger, D. Phil.
Assistant Professor of Theology
Institute for Psychological Sciences
Arlington, Virginia

Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D.
President, Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future
Research Professor of Bioethics
Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology
Chicago, Illinois

Samuel B. Condic, M.A.
Department of Social Sciences
University of Houston - Downtown
Houston, Texas

Edward J. Furton, Ph.D.
Ethicist
The National Catholic Bioethics Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Timothy George, Th.D.
Dean
Beeson Divinity School
Samford University
Birmingham, Alabama

Markus Grompe, M.D.
Director
Oregon Stem Cell Center
Portland, Oregon

John M. Haas, Ph.D.
President
The National Catholic Bioethics Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Paul J. Hoehner, M.D., M.A., FAHA
Harvey Fellow in Theology, Ethics and Culture
The University of Virginia Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Associate Professor of Anesthesiology
The University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Charlottesville, Virginia

John F. Kilner, Ph.D.
Senior Scholar
The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
2065 Half Day Road
Bannockburn, Illinois

Patrick Lee, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Steubenville, Ohio

William E. May, Ph.D.
Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology
John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C.

C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Bioethics & Contemporary Culture
Trinity International University
Bannockburn, Illinois

Most Reverend John J. Myers, J.C.D., D.D.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey

Christopher Oleson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Center for Higher Studies
Thornwood, New York

Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, Ph.D.
Director of Education
The National Catholic Bioethics Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

William L. Saunders, J.D.
Senior Fellow and Director
The Center for Human Life & Bioethics
The Family Research Council
Washington, D.C.

Rev. Msgr. Stuart W. Swetland, S.T.D.
Director
The Newman Foundation
Adjunct Associate Professor
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, Illinois

M. Edward Whelan III, J.D.
President
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Washington, D.C.

NOTES

1. Joint Statement, "Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming," June 20, 2005, at www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2374/pub_detail.asp.