In 2001, President Bush outlined a policy that banned federal funding for new stem-cell lines while allowing already existing lines to remain. At his State of the Union address, however, Bush called for a ban on all human cloning. Though only potentially contradictory, his broad statement has exposed the lack of general knowledge on the complicated topic.
While it is not uncommon to associate cloning with the replication of a human being, there are many more faces to the issue. Existing stem-cell lines at UW-Madison which are eligible for federal funds under Bush's guidelines for research, are incapable of producing a human being. What they are capable of doing is aiding those with maladies such as heart conditions and Parkinson's disease. This is where therapeutic cloning comes in.
Therapeutic cloning, in short, would involve the creation of cells that not only have the potential to become any cell type, but also carry the same genetic information as the desired recipient, negating the possibility of rejection.
For example, one who suffers from a deficiency in islet cells, the underlying cause in one type of diabetes, could have new cells cloned and inserted into their body that, experts hope, would replace the nonfunctional cells and do away with the condition. The benefits do not stop here.
We believe that therapeutic cloning offers potential for a breakthrough in the field of human health and is in danger of being lumped into the same category as the more morally controversial reproductive cloning. Referring to cloning in its broadest sense is problematic as its specific facets are too different to be evaluated side by side.
Interest groups and organizations both endorse and denounce cloning without knowing all that there is to know. Being that the field is varied, complicated and always updating, it is inappropriate to simply voice disapproval of all types of cloning. Ethical and moral dilemmas that have long been brought up in regards to reproductive cloning may not apply to therapeutic cloning, further convoluting currently held opinions.
What is needed is more education on the subject. It is everyone's obligation to become informed on this ever-changing topic before coming to a conclusion. What makes this task particularly difficult is the fact that there is no finished product to judge. Scientists make progress every day but are still working towards the day when humankind will be able to reap the benefits of their work.
We believe that all the facts need to be discerned before legislation is put forth. Being that we can only take into account what has been learned, it should be noted that the time to finalize a stance, for many, may not be in the immediate future. Through education people may find that they are unwittingly opposing something that may aid all of humankind.
