VOA-TV?s ?NewsLine? program sought out two experts on the subject of cloning, who debated two dimensions of the topic. Richard Doerflinger, with the U.S. Conference of Bishops thinks the ethical and moral issues should stop scientists from creating human clones. Sean Tipton, Director of Public Affairs for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, speaks in favor of therapeutic cloning of human cells. Their debate was moderated by VOA?s David Borgida.
MR. BORGIDA:
Joining us now for our Pro and Con debate, in favor of cloning human cells, Sean Tipton of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and against, Richard Doerflinger, from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Thank you both, gentlemen, for coming in on a very hot day in Washington, but this is, to some extent, a hot topic that we will be discussing. Could you both give me your sort of very short view of where your group and you stand on this? Let's begin first with Mr. Tipton, please.
MR. TIPTON:
What I want to make clear is that no legitimate group is in favor of reproductive cloning. However, we need to distinguish that from cloning, which is a replication of cells, which might be used for research into important therapies, which could be used to help people suffering from Parkinson's disease or diabetes to regenerate tissues, which could be used to cure themselves.
MR. BORGIDA:
Mr. Doerflinger, your thoughts?
MR. DOERFLINGER:
Well, there is only one procedure called human cloning, and that is this procedure called somatic cell nuclear transfer. And that makes a cloned embryo. Then there are two things you can do with that embryo. You can destroy that life for the sake of its stem cells, as Mr. Tipton wants to allow. Or you can put that embryo in a womb and allow it to be born alive.
The difference between the two is that if you try to get a live birth, you probably have about a 99 percent death rate. And if you destroy it in the laboratory, you get a 100 percent death rate. We are not in favor of either one of those death rates. We think human cloning is an inherently morally objectionable way of turning human reproduction into ?manufacture to order? of fellow human beings. It shouldn't be used for any purpose.
MR. BORGIDA:
Is that what you're talking about?
MR. TIPTON:
Well, I think it is important to distinguish at what stage of development these entities are. What we are talking about is using the somatic cell nuclear transfer process. That is, taking an adult cell out of the body, putting it into an egg from which the nucleus and genetic material has been removed, then you spark it and it begins development. And when it gets about five days into the process, you can then remove one of the cells from that blastocyst -- which is what it is known as at that stage -- and you can use that then to grow up different kinds of tissues.
So while these are worthy of respect, we don't think that it is the equivalent of a human being. So we think at some level you have to choose which is more important -- this entity in this petri dish or this patient with diabetes or with Parkinson's.
MR. DOERFLINGER:
Well, that's the false dilemma that we have been presented with by groups like Mr. Tipton's. Because right now we have announcements from Dr. Michel Levesque, for example, that he has managed, using adult stem cells from the patient's own brain, to reverse Parkinson's disease. We have new announcements from Canada, and now from several medical centers in Washington State, enormous advances in reversing diabetes. Ninety percent of the patients in these initial trials have been able to reduce their insulin injections. Half of them were able to throw away their insulin needles.
Progress in medicine is moving forward as we speak. And it is moving forward most quickly in many areas with things that are completely morally acceptable -- adult stem cells, umbilical cord cells, stem cells from the bone marrow. You don't need cloning to do any of that. In fact, the growing scientific consensus from experts in stem cell research is that what some call therapeutic cloning is simply not necessary. It is too ineffective, wasteful, expensive, has too many practical and moral problems to really pursue.
MR. TIPTON: