|
|
ASCIENTIFIC breakthrough in 1898 promised a bright new tomorrow for the human race--and megaprofits
for its manufacturer. A new drug would alleviate agony without the problems created by then-popular morphine. Death from the devastating diseases of the day (tuberculosis and pneumonia) would be thwarted. And researchers on whom the drug was tested loved it. They claimed it made them feel "heroic."
This wonderful advance in medicine was the brainchild of Heinrich Dreser, a chemist working for the Bayer company. Faced with the opportunity to introduce to the world two different drugs, Dreser declared the first "of no value" but the second he enthusiastically endorsed.
The name of the first drug? Aspirin. The second? Heroin.
By 1899, Bayer was producing a ton of heroin a year, and shipping it to 23 countries. Free samples were widely distributed in the United States, where it was eagerly embraced.
But the enticingly beautiful creation turned out to be a deadly deception. Soon, addictions began to be reported. Patients developed tolerances too easily and a devastating dependency on the drug followed.
In 1913 Bayer decided to stop making heroin. By 1924 it was banned in the United States. The former wonder drug, the scientific breakthrough of the century, continues today to turn peoples' lives to junk. Literally.
Fortunately for Bayer, Dreser reversed himself on aspirin in 1899, and the company was able to ride profits from that drug into the 21st century. But the lesson learned is still applicable: Beware the promises of science.
Today we are perched on the edge of another "scientific breakthrough," a miracle that will cure diseases and make the lame walk; one that has an almost infinite potential for making this life all that we know it should be. The name of this highly-touted wonder? Therapeutic cloning.
The U.S. Senate is due to address the issue of cloning in June (Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle reneged on a promise to allow floor debate by Memorial Day). The question on the floor is, should the United States ban all human cloning? The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly said "yes." The Senate is divided.
Is cloning a miracle or is it a lovely but deadly deception?
A quick review, for those who have not sat through Family Life Education recently: In normal human reproduction, a sperm with one-half of the DNA "ladder," unites with an egg with one-half, and voilà! A unique human being is created.
All cells in the human body except those reproductive cells have full DNA strands. In cloning, the DNA from a regular body cell is extracted and inserted into an egg that has had its single-strand DNA removed. The egg, now completed, is, by scientific definition, an embryo--in this case, an embryo whose entire genetic code is from one individual. (Think, "Heather's Mommy and Daddy are the Same Person.")
As in normal reproduction, the embryo grows and "stem cells" (generic cells that can differentiate into muscle cells, nerve cells, brain cells, etc.) form.
It is these stem cells that scientists think might prove to be the cure for diabetes, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, and a plethora of other conditions. If the stem cells can be coaxed into producing, say, a new pancreas, diabetes might be cured. And so on.
Sounds good, doesn't it? After all, who doesn't want to see Christopher Reeves walk again? Who wouldn't love to have Mohammed Ali and Michael J. Fox fully restored to health?
There is, of course, a catch. In order to harvest the stem cells created by the clone, the embryo must be killed. And therein lies the problem.
The humanistic, utilitarian worldview would hold that the relief of suffering is worth the sacrifice of a few cells in a petri dish. But others see a danger in that view. If sacrificing an embryo is permissible, how about sacrificing a baby? Or a child? Or an adult?
Shall we assign relative value
to different stages of human life? Shall we declare it OK to destroy an unnamed fetus so a famous person might have relief from a traumatic illness? Since when has experimentation without consent on human beings been ethical?
Advocates of cloning would deny the embryo is a human being, but science affirms that the cells in the petri dish, if allowed to develop, would indeed become a human baby.
Any way you look at it, cloning walks us into a labyrinth of moral dilemmas. An example: Even advocates of therapeutic cloning say cloning to produce a baby (reproductive cloning) is out of bounds. But who will enforce this standard once research makes cloning possible? When a rogue scientist implants a cloned embryo into a willing woman's womb, what will we do? Insist on an abortion?
Therapeutic cloning is impractical. David Prentice, a professor in the department of life sciences at Indiana State University says that 800 million human eggs would be necessary to treat the nation's 16 million diabetics alone. That's 80 million women who would have to undergo painful and expensive procedures to donate eggs to the cause of curing just one illness mentioned by advocates. Where will these eggs come from? Poor women?
Research without moral restraint is science run amok. Can anyone say for sure where cloning will lead us? Eugenics, perhaps? Human engineering? To humans making decisions about what kind of human life is acceptable and what is not?
Cloning for any reason cheapens human life. It makes embryos a commodity and the production and destruction of human life a factory operation. It takes the absolutely weakest members of society--barely formed embryos--and sacrifices them for stronger members.
Furthermore, the 95 percent of Americans who say they believe
in God just may see cloning as stepping over the line of the Creator's prerogative.
All the fuss about cloning is especially frustrating for those who recognize that its same promise holds true for "adult" stem-cell research--stem cells recovered from umbilical cords, bone marrow, etc. Yet funds for this research are often diverted to cloning--potentially more lucrative for biotech companies.
It is a perfectly legitimate function of government to establish by law boundaries within which scientists can operate, be they rules for care of laboratory animals or laws regarding human embryos. The House of Representatives has stepped up to the plate and overwhelmingly said "No" to cloning research. The Senate should do the same. Let's cure our diseases without artificially creating--and destroying--human life.