Correspondence

Human Cloning Research

N Engl J Med 1998; 338:1770-1771June 11, 1998

Article

To the Editor:

I am disappointed by and take serious exception to the views you and Dr. Rosenthal express in your editorial on whether human cloning research should be off limits (March 26 issue).1 I suppose that in contemporary medical journalism, it is appropriate for a distinguished medical journal to express opinions in the sensitive areas of moral theology and ethics, but to champion research in human somatic-cell nuclear-transfer technology, arguing that those of us who oppose human cloning experimentation are “seriously misguided,” is totally inappropriate.

All of you, and particularly those who oppose the Ehlers bill, appear to be beating yourselves on the chest while pompously arguing that cloned human embryos will not be transferred to the uterus and will therefore never become full-term infants. What you seem to have forgotten is that there are many of us who believe that a human being is formed at the time of conception; thus, with this particular form of technology, a new person would be formed. Granted, you all want to limit the extent of embryonic development, but in your enthusiasm to embrace a new era of biotechnology, you have forgotten that the cloned embryo would be a human being entitled, in spite of its microscopic size, to the same rights and respect granted the fully formed child.

Robert J. White, M.D., Ph.D.
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH 44109-1998

1 References

1. 1

   Kassirer JP, Rosenthal NA. Should human cloning research be off limits? N Engl J Med 1998;338:905-906
   Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

To the Editor:

You and Dr. Rosenthal hold the opinion that human cloning research, including research involving human embryos, should not be off limits, because of the possibility of numerous therapeutic benefits. You call for a wide debate and give a precise methodologic direction. You say, “The difficult ethical judgments about how to apply this new technology can be made only with full knowledge of the scientific facts.”

For the progress of science, experimentation is inevitable. But experimentation on humans is appropriate only for therapeutic ends, which ought to respect the totality of the person on whom the experiment is done. Such experimentation cannot be approved for mere scientific curiosity. . . .

It is not possible to experiment on an embryo without violating the embryo's freedom. Already from the stage of zygote, the embryo is a person, or at least a human being. I hold that there are good reasons for supporting this opinion. Besides, of all beings, the embryo is one that is most vulnerable, and it cries out for greater protection from those who prognosticate medical progress. I believe that to carry out experiments on human embryonic cells is immoral unless there is a direct therapeutic application for that embryo. Human cloning should be barred permanently, and I hope that most countries ban it.

There is no doubt that biologic facts have their importance, but I do not agree that acting in “full knowledge of the scientific facts” should be the principal approach followed. Science, and biomedicine in particular, cannot escape from considerations that are typically ethical and anthropological, which ought to guide the scientific facts, not vice versa. In fact, only a strong philosophical foundation should permit scientists to decide what to do or what not to do for each human being and for the whole of humanity. . . .

Maurizio Soldini, M.D.
University of Rome “La Sapienza”, 00161 Rome, Italy

To the Editor:

You and Dr. Rosenthal warn that anticloning bills before Congress could stifle promising areas of research. The Bond–Frist bill in the Senate and the Ehlers bill in the House contain sweeping language that would ban research using cloned embryos.

Not only scientific and medical organizations but also at least one church, the United Church of Christ, have gone on record as opposing the Bond–Frist and Ehlers bills. In a March 27 letter addressed to members of Congress, national leaders of the United Church of Christ state,

We are opposed to a ban on nonreproductive uses [of cloning] in research and medicine. As Christians we believe that science and medicine should be used for the sake of those who are sick and suffering, and that research toward that end should receive our support. Therefore, we are open to consider the scientific and medical benefits that might come from nonreproductive human cloning.

The position taken in the letter is based on a statement on cloning released last June by the United Church of Christ Committee on Genetics and is consistent with a pronouncement made in 1989 by the General Synod, the national gathering of the United Church of Christ. The letter to Congress supports a 10-year moratorium on reproductive cloning, much like that proposed in the Kennedy–Feinstein bill that is also before the Senate.

Rev. Ronald Cole-Turner, Ph.D.
United Church of Christ Committee on Genetics, Cleveland, OH 44115

Author/Editor Response

Drs. Kassirer and Rosenthal reply:

We anticipated these kinds of diverse reactions to our call for continued research on somatic-cell nuclear-transfer technology with human cells, and we predicted (as these letters affirm) that people of good will would line up on both sides of the issue. We agree with Dr. Soldini that ethical issues should dominate the discussion about the cloning of human cells. Nonetheless, we argued that such judgments should be made only in the cold light of scientific facts, and we exhorted scientists in the field to be open and forthright about the state of the science and its promise.

Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D.
Nadia A. Rosenthal, Ph.D.

Citing Articles (3)

Citing Articles

1. 1

   Matthew Weed. (2005) Discourse on Embryo Science and Human Cloning in the United States and Great Britain: 1984?2002. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33:4, 802-810
   CrossRef

2. 2

   M. Kelm, B. E. Strauer. (2005) Das akute Koronarsyndrom. Der Internist 46:3, 265-274
   CrossRef

3. 3

   B R. Sharma. (2004) Medicolegal and Ethical Issues of Cloning. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 25:2, 145-149
   CrossRef