cpt-emnn319-5551212

Almost as complex biologically, and almost as fraught with moral weight, as a human embryo is the human oocyte, variously defined as:

1. A cell from which an egg or ovum develops by meiosis; a female gametocyte
2. An egg before maturation : a female gametocyte called also ovocyte
3. A female gametocyte that develops into an ovum after two meiotic divisions

Although research efforts directed towards the creation of artificial/synthetic human oocytes and discussions of the advantages of doing so are both underway, at this point in time the only way to get these biological objects is to remove them from the bodies of women, usually after subjecting them to drug regimes designed to make them "hyperovulate."

Any large scale project for research into the functioning of embryonic stem cells created by the harvesting of "cell masses" from within the embryo at the blastocyst stage necessarily requires the use of numerous oocytes, ripened into viable eggs, which will, through the process of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) be de-nucleated, implanted with genetic material from a donor somatic cell, stimulated with electricity, and then opened up and destroyed to yield its "cell mass"/"embryonic stem cells."

At present, the only way to get these essential biological components of the embryonic stem cell manufacturing process is from human females.

Embryonic stem cells can also be derived from pre-existing (and frozen) or freshly-made human embryos resulting from the in vitro fertilization (IVF) process, in which male sperm containing the haploid number of human chromosomes are mechanically united with a female egg also containing this haploid number to create a fertilized egg with the requisite diploid number of human chromosomes necessary to create a viable embryo.

This required full complement of genetic material can, and is, alternatively provided in somatic cell nuclear transfer by using the already-diploid aggregation of chromosomes found in the cells of the individual being cloned through this process. Because all of this genetic material comes from this single individual, the resulting embryo, fetus, child and adult resulting from this process will be genetically identical to the individual who provided the "somatic cell" used to provide, on its own, the diploid number of chromosomes required before the egg will begin to divide and start its progression towards viability.

Harvesting the multitude of eggs available only from human females in order to do embryonic stem cell research and, if such research does yield therapeutic procedures, to carry out these treatments, could present something of a logistical and moral nightmare.

Concerns about the selection and treatment of the women whose eggs would be used to create embryos (either through IVF or SCNT) for embryonic stem cell research have recently been raised from various quarters.

In an article published on April 15, 2005, in the Norton Mirror in Massachusetts, which has recently been undergoing a heated debate regarding human cloning, Massachusetts State Representative Betty Poirier, in a guest column entitled "Why I opposed stem cell bill," writes:

"The issue that I wish to address concerns the millions of women this scientific process [SCNT] will affect as this research goes forward. The process requires women to undergo lengthy egg extraction procedures which include drug induced ovarian hyper-stimulation in order to produce an extraordinary number of eggs which then will be used for SCNT. This process is both painful and dangerous."

Turning millions of poor and otherwise-disadvantaged women into "egg farms" could end up creating more human suffering and misery than might ever be alleviated by any medical treatments derived from the SCNT-based stem cell research conducted at their expense, according to critics of this possible arrangement.

California State Senator Deborah Ortiz, a strong and active proponent last year of California's Proposition 71, which established a research fund of $3 billion to pursue embryonic stem cell research in that state, is now attempting to modify the explicitly-unmodifiable terms of that ballot initiative to protect the rights of egg-donating women.

You can read about her efforts and listen to an exclusive audio interview with Senator Ortiz by clicking here.

In Missouri, according to an article published April 10, 2005, by LifeNews.com entitled "Missouri Human Cloning Ban Pulled Due to Republican Division":

"A bill to ban human cloning has died in the Missouri legislature. Sen. Matt Bartle, the Republican bill sponsor, has decided to pull the bill after encountering strong dissent from within his own party….

"Bartle’s bill would have banned somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT. In SCNT, the nucleus of an unfertilized egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a body cell. The cell that results is then stimulated to divide and form an embryo of about 150 cells. Embryonic stem cells are extracted from the human embryo, and the embryo is destroyed."

On the federal level, in Washington, D.C., U.S. Representative Nancy Johnson (R-CT) has introduced a bill that would "provide federal aid for state-funded stem cell research."

According to a report by the Associated Press on April 14, 2005, in an article entitled Johnson proposes federal funding for stem cell research,":

"Johnson, a Republican, is part of a bipartisan group of House members introducing the proposal.

"It would provide $30 billion for bonding over three years to states pursuing research programs.,,,

"Under Johnson's bill, the funding would only cover interest payments on the bonds and would be spread out over the life of the borrowing. That would limit the federal government's actual costs to $1.5 billion a year."

According to another article published the same day, April 14, 2005, on the FT.com web site of the Financial Times (U.K.) entitled "Support grows in US for expansion of stem cell research", Financial Times reporter Holly Yeager writes:

"A bipartisan proposal to loosen restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research has gained unexpected momentum in Congress, forcing a re-examination of the delicate compromise President George W. Bush struck on the controversial science."

The article goes on in some detail to discuss the "The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005," co-authored by Representatives Mike Castle (R-DE) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) and U.S. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA). This bill "would allow federal funding of work on stem cells derived from embryos left over from fertility clinics, as long as the donors provide written consent."

Meanwhile, on the other side of the issue, U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), has introduced the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005" (S. 658), which would unequivocally ban both "reproductive human cloning," in which the products of SCNT are implanted in uteruses, and "therapeutic human cloning," in which they are destroyed to produce embryonic stem cells.

You can read more about Senator Brownback's proposal by clicking on the title of this recent California Politics Today article entitled "S. 658, U.S. Senator Sam Brownback's bill to ban "therapeutic" as well as "reproductive" human cloning will be opposed by organizational clone of Proposition 71 campaign committee.".

At the international level, as reported by the Associated Press and re-printed on Wired News in an article entitled, "U.N. Divided: Human Clone Ban," the General Assembly of the United Nations, on March 8, 2005, "approved a nonbinding resolution that seeks to ban human cloning, capping a four-year struggle that saw governments abandon efforts for stronger action because their divisions were too deep.

"From the beginning, the debate hinged on whether to outlaw all cloning or permit cloning for research. Nations that sought a total ban always had more votes, but never enough to achieve broad consensus or a binding worldwide treaty.

"The document, which has no legal force, passed 84 to 34, with 37 abstentions. The United States was joined by many African, Arab and Latin American states in voting for it; mostly European and Asian countries opposed."

This non-binding decision by the U.N. followed months of controversy there about what stand the international organization would take on the issue of human cloning. For more reports on the U.N.'s consideration of the human cloning issue, click on these earlier Wired article titles:

"U.N. Deadlocks on Cloning Ban" (November 19, 2004)

"U.N. Calls for Clone Ban" (February 20, 2005)

In the latest of these articles, "U.N. Divided: Human Clone Ban,", it is reported that:

"The debate over cloning began in 2001 with proposals by France and Germany for a treaty to ban reproductive cloning, an idea that has near universal national support. But governments led by the United States and Costa Rica sought to add language banning therapeutic cloning as well. President George W. Bush went before the U.N. General Assembly in September urging the world to back a total ban."

When the U.N. General Assembly approved the non-binding resolution regarding human cloning on March 8, 2005, President Bush said:

"I applaud the strong vote of the United Nations General Assembly today urging countries to ban all forms of human cloning. I am also grateful for the strong statement against practices that exploit women.

"Human life must not be created for the purpose of destroying it. The United States and the international community have now spoken clearly that human cloning is an affront to human dignity and that we must work together to protect human life. I look forward to working with Members of Congress to enact legislation to ban all human cloning in the United States."

As far back as July 30, 2001, President Bush was on the record opposed to both "reproductive human cloning" and "therapeutic human cloning." In remarks by the President in support of H.R. 2505, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, authored by U.S. Representative Dave Weldon (R-FL), President Bush said:

"The Administration supports a ban on the cloning of human beings by somatic cell nuclear transfer. The Administration unequivocally is opposed to the cloning of human beings either for reproduction or for research. The moral and ethical issues posed by human cloning are profound and cannot be ignored in the quest for scientific discovery.

"At the same time, the Administration strongly approves of the development of cell and tissue-based therapies based on research involving the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans."

The current version of the bill to ban all forms of human cloning, U.S. Senator Sam Brownback's "Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005" (S. 658), includes a provision, Section 2(e), which states:

"(e) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.—Nothing in this section restricts areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this section, including research in the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos, tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than human."

U.S. Representative Weldon, along with U.S. Senator Brownback, held a news conference on June 25, 2003 "with bioethics expert and Member of the European Parliament, Dr. Peter Liese, to discuss European support for a ban on all human cloning."
To read, listen to, or watch President Bush's remarks in support of a Senate vote in favor of banning all forms of human cloning, delivered in the White House on April 10, 2002, click here.

To read a "Fact Sheet-- Embryonic Stem Cell Research" prepared by the White House and released on August 9, 2001, click here.

To access a statement made to California Politics Today by White House spokesperson David Almacy on April 14, 2005, in which President Bush "strongly endorses Senator Brownback's bill, S. 658, which would ban the practice of human cloning," click here.

Meanwhile, on April 16, 2005, abc NEWS INTERNATIONAL reprinted an Associated Press article entitled "Italian Scientists Claim to Clone a Horse—Scientists Claim They Have Cloned a Horse for the Second Time From the DNA of an Arabian Gelding.".

The story, datelined "Cremona, Italy, April 16, 2005," says that:

"Italian scientists have reported cloning a horse for the second time, a new foal created from the DNA of a thoroughbred Arabian gelding that was twice world endurance champion.

"The foal, named Pieraz-Cryozootech-Stallion, was born Feb. 25, weighed 93 pounds and was pronounced "in excellent health" in a statement from scientists at the Laboratory of Reproductive Technology in the northern Italian city of Cremona, which claimed the cloning was only the second-ever of a horse."

This equine clone's castrated first iteration "was the winner of the endurance world championships in Den Haag, Netherlands in 1994 and again in Fort Riley, U.S., in 1996."

For more details about the cloning of Pieraz 2, and a discussion of some of the implications of this event, click here.

For a larger version of the photo of the cloned colt with his creator, Eric Palmer, founder of Cryozootech, on the web site of sina.com, self-described as "a leading online media company and value-added information service provider for China and for global Chinese communities," on the other side of the world from Cremona, Italy, but published simultaneously, click here.

If this experiment in equine re-creation succeeds, as evidenced by the continuing good health and the ability to sire equally-healthy and viable offspring of Pieraz2, it should then be possible, using the Roslin Institute protocols that were used to create Dolly the Sheep and now Pieraz the Horse, and their continually-enhanced upgrades, to perpetuate the life of any horse, albeit in successive cloned re-incarnations, for an indefinite period.

Such a capability would make that individual horse, and any other animal for whom this procedure is successfully employed, including humans, in effect, immortal.