By Tiffany Smith
Dolly, a sheep cloned six years ago from an adult human cell, was put to death on Friday after being diagnosed with a lung disease.
Some scientists suspect that her premature death was caused by cloning-related issues and are calling her death a warning, re-igniting the stem cell and cloning debate.
One Utahn, at least, is making his position on the issue clear. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, recently introduced a bill protecting the legality of therapeutic cloning. He is pitted against political conservatives - traditionally his allies - who say the practice is akin to abortion.
Hatch''s bill counters a White House-backed attempt to outlaw all cloning; Hatch''s measure bans certain types of cloning but defends others.
Hatch''s position is that because stem cells have 'the potential of curing millions of debilitating and life-threatening diseases,' every effort should be made to acquire them and research their effective use.
Stem cells are precious because they can be stimulated by scientists to develop into any other type of cell in the body. As BYU microbiology and molecular biology professor Byron Murray said, scientists can use stem cells to regenerate nerves and portions of destroyed tissues or organs. They can even improve cognitive abilities lost due to brain damage.
But it is over the methods of acquisition of the cells that the stem-cell controversy rages. The most basic and obvious source of human stem cells is the human embryo, an organism in an early enough stage of development that most of its cells have not differentiated.
Scientists have developed a method known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, which allows them to artificially create an embryo using donated human cells. The process, known as therapeutic cloning, differs from reproductive cloning because it doesn''t produce entire human beings.
The difficulty for Hatch and his supporters is that SCNT could potentially be used for both reproductive and therapeutic cloning.
Laura Bridgewater, a BYU assistant professor of microbiology and molecular biology, said, 'The difference is really what you do with the cell once the nucleus is transplanted into it.'
Theoretically, Bridgewater said, a SCNT-produced embryo could be transplanted into a surrogate mother''s womb and allowed to develop.
But SCNT has its advantages. Bridgewater said because the cell involved in the replication process is a patient''s own, there is less chance of rejection by the immune system. After traditional organ transplants, many patients must spend a lifetime taking immuno-suppressant drugs.
But the process is not perfect. When stem cells are harvested, the donor embryo is destroyed.
'One philosophical approach is that if a cell has the potential to become a human, it is a human and should be treated as such,' Bridgewater said.
Hatch stated in an April 2002 news release that he did not think the destruction of the embryos for research purposes was immoral, but some BYU science professors disagree.
'If someone''s got a production line, deliberately producing embryos for the purpose of killing them as a source of stem cells -- that would be problematic,' Murray said. 'I think it depends on the source. You can use non-embryotic stem cells which are already in existence for the acquisition of stem cell lines. I don''t see a problem with that myself.'
Murray and Bridgewater explained that stem cells can also be derived from less controversial sources, including adult fat and bone marrow. Bridgewater said stem cells from embryos might be more flexible, but not enough study has been made to draw firm conclusions.
'We really haven''t exhausted that potential,' she said. 'It may not work out, but with more research, we might be able to avoid the ethical problems with SCNT.'
The eventual use of stem cells in cloning is also a hotly contested issue. Science professors at BYU said reproductive cloning in particular might have little value for the community.
Some professors think even if reproductive cloning were ever consistently successful, a cloned human being could experience a host of difficulties including malformation and premature aging.
Alexander Parent, a senior chemistry major, said, 'If you take a cell from a 40-year-old person, it''s still a 40-year-old cell.'
The idea that a cloned person might feel pressure to measure up to 'the original,' and the expense of reproductive cloning as a substitute for natural reproduction were also cited as concerns by professors.
Oregon State professor Courtney Campbell said in his six years of researching human reproductive cloning, he has never heard a case in which an infertile couple could not use another method of assisted reproduction to have a child.
'If the goal of the parents is just to have a child, we have the technology to do that many-fold over,' Campbell said.
In short, BYU scientists at least do not find reproductive cloning to be an attractive option.
'Most reputable scientists have no desire to engage in reproductive cloning,' said Michael Stark, BYU assistant professor of developmental biology. 'It''s something that can be done, but what would be the benefit of cloning a human being? It wouldn''t benefit our progress in cures of disease or in biomedical research.'