cpt-emnn408-5551212

During that interview, Ms. Felde asked the Chair of the ICOC:

"Can you help those of us who are not science majors understand the difference between 'human cloning' and 'therapeutic cloning'?"

Mr. Klein replied:

"Absolutely. The key here is that human reproductive cloning, which everyone, all responsible scientists and patient groups believe should be banned and is banned in California, is the reproducing of a human being through taking stem cells and implanting them in the womb of a woman as you would in [garbled] and that is already against the law in California, and in fact Proposition 71 put a ban on it in the state Constitution.

"Now, the alternative is using stem cell research to copy cells, sometimes called cloning, but, to copy cells to create stem cell therapy, or what's been called "therapeutic cloning," but in fact this is merely taking stem cells that are disease-specific stem cells and reproducing them so that you have enough cells to study the development of the disease or you have enough cells, for example, to use as a trial in place of human trials that would put people at risk, testing a drug and you have a therapeutic disease-specific stem cell line you can use those instead of putting a human at risk to test new drugs for heart disease, diabetes and other diseases that afflict Californians, and the nation, as well as the world."

Deliberately or inadvertently, Mr. Klein here fundamentally misrepresents what's involved in assisted human reproduction, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which his own initiative legalized in California.
Human reproductive cloning (or, to use the term favored by Dr. Leon Kass, Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, "cloning-to-produce-children") involves removing the haploid (half-a-set) genetic material (DNA) in the nucleus of a human egg and replacing it with the diploid (full-set) of genetic material taken from the nucleus of a differentiated (typically skin) cell of an adult (or, for that matter, of a child or a fetus).

Doing this gives the formerly-denucleated and now-renucleated human everything it needs to develop into an embryo, a fetus, and a live baby. Stem cell researchers then apply a mild jolt of electricity to the renucleated egg and, sometimes, this causes this single cell to begin dividing, a process that soon (after about 40 divisions) creates a "blastocyst," a hollow ball of cells with an outer shell that will (if the egg is implanted in a uterus) become the sheltering placenta and a central "egg mass" that will (again, only if the cells, all of them, together, with their protective shell, are implanted in a uterus) become the fetus and, eventually, possible be born as a live child.

Taking the genetic material from an adult animal cell and inserting it in place of the removed nucleus of an egg of the same or approximately the same species is called "cloning." Transferring a somatic (body) cell's nucleus into a denucleated egg is "somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)." Another word for that is "cloning." Another way of saying "human somatic cell nuclear transfer" is "human cloning."

Later in the interview, Ms. Felde asked Mr. Klein:

"Well, are we already just scientifically at that stage where we can use those stem cells from embyros in therapeutic purposes at this point? I know there's a lot of experimentation."

Instead of answering this core question, Mr. Klein says::

"Sure. Well, you used a very important word in that sentence and its quite appropriate because i because it's used frequently in the national debate and that word is "embryo" and what's important to realize is that somatic cell nucular [sic] transfer doesn't create new embryos. In fact if you look at the National Institute of Health, the nation's definitive research body and funding of research for around the country they define an embryo as requiring fertilization, that is, sperm is required for fertilization. There is no fertilization in somatic cell nucular [sic] transfer. So there is no embryo created."

After Mr. Klein's disingenuous "explanation" of how no embryos are created or destroyed in embryonic stem cell research, Ms. Felde asks him: "So these are just eggs, female eggs, that are being used?"

Exactly. They're egg cells that are joined with skin cells and they create, they are, through chemical and electrical impulses induced to copy themselves, which allows you to get a disease-specific stem cell line that you can explore treatments for and what's critical is that the scientists and physicians have not been heard. These are not embryos and it's important for those with religious belief concerning with destroying embryos that would otherwise be thrown away from in vitro fertilization clinics that what we're talking about with patient-specific stem cell treatments to create stem cell lines we do not create embryos and that's critical. Governor Blunt, a Republican Governor of Missouri has pointed this out; Senator Hatch, a pro-life Republican in the U.S. Senate, has pointed this out. So, the first point is these are not embryos, which is a fundamental point that's missed in the national debate."

Here's what the National Institutes of Health (NIH), at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm, actually says about this:

"When sperm is deposited in the vagina, it travels through the cervix and into the Fallopian tubes. Conception usually takes place in the Fallopian tube. A single sperm penetrates the mother's egg cell, and the resulting cell is called a zygote. The zygote contains all of the genetic information (DNA) necessary to become a child. Half of the genetic information comes from the mother’s egg, and half from the father’s sperm.

"The zygote spends the next few days traveling down the Fallopian tube and divides to form a ball of cells. Further cell division creates an inner group of cells with an outer shell. This stage is called a "blastocyst". The inner group of cells will become the embryo, while the outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it.

"The blastocyst reaches the uterus at roughly the fifth day, and implants into the uterine wall on about day six. At this point in the mother's menstrual cycle, the endometrium (lining of the uterus) has grown and is ready to support a fetus. The blastocyst adheres tightly to the endometrium, where it receives nourishment via the mother's bloodstream. The cells of the embryo now multiply and begin to take on specific functions. This process is called differentiation, which produces the varied cell types that make up a human being (such as blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells)."

To be strictly accurate about this, the fertilized egg is a "zygote." A human egg that's had its haploid nucleus replaced with a diploid nucleus from an adult animal and been activated artificially and is as capable of dividing and developing as a "naturally fertilized" or an "artificially fertilized" human egg is also a zygote.

As the statement from NIH indicates, the zygote, if all goes well, will develop into both an "embryo" and a "placenta," the placenta being the organ that supports the development of the embryo within the uterus.

While the natural or artificial fertilization of a human egg, or the human cloning process of transferring somatic nuclear material into a denucleated human egg does not, strictly speaking create an "embryo" it does create something that will, in the "natural" or "artificial" course of events, give rise to an "embryo."

One does not "use" "stem cell research" to "copy cells," even though copying cells is part of the stem cell research process. Creating "disease-specific stem cells," as South Korean stem cell researchers under the leadership of Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk have famously done involves some specific steps that Mr. Klein leaves completely out of the formulation in his presentation, either because he doesn't understand the process himself and/or, as is more likely, because he doesn't want his listeners and the taxpayers of California to understand it either.

As clarified above, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which is explicitly legalized by Proposition 71 (which outlaws "human cloning," in a provision, which, taken together with the endorsement of SCNT, defies logic) involves creating a zygote which evolves into a blastocyst which is can either be destroyed in the process of harvesting the "cell mass" that would otherwise become an embryo or implanted in a uterus in an effort to bring it to term.

Proposition 71 outlaws implanting such an object in a uterus and growing it to term. It explicitly allows the harvesting of the cell mass from zygotes created by SCNT within 14 days of their creation.

The cloning takes place during the SCNT; SCNT is cloning. Patient-specific stem cells lines, ones presumed not to elicit an unwanted immune response from their patient-recipients when new, healthy, regenerative versions of the heart, nerve, or pancreatic cells into which it is hoped stem cell researchers will be able to differentiate them, may eventually be generated in any number of ways someday, some possibly without eliciting ethical alarm from anyone, but right now the approach thought to have the greatest chance of success in the near term is to make them through the process of SCNT discusses here.

This is the method used by Dr. Hwang and his colleagues at Seoul National University, and this is the approach that Proposition 71 was written to legalize and fund in California.

Now, in an effort to deflect the ethical criticisms and consolidated litigation being leveled against this project, the Chair of the ICOC goes on public radio speaking pseudo-scientific gibberish that conflates, confuses, and falsely presents the facts of the research his initiative was designed to fund and facilitate.

Mr. Klein tells the interviewer, who, indicating an incomplete grasp of the science involved, asks "So these are just eggs, femal eggs, that are being used?" and the ICOC Chair answers, "Exactly." Then he goes on to say that the "egg cells…are joined with skin cells" and so on into intellectual oblivion. The "joining" of egg cells with skin cells is, truth be told, exactly the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer that Mr. Klein is doing his best to obscure for the public. This "joining" creates a human zygote, capable of developing into an embryo (and a placenta), a fetus, and a child.

Some people may believe that destroying that object to harvest blastocystic stem cells (as we now call them) is tantamount to, the moral equivalent and a clear case of murdering innocent unborn children, while others may believe it is something that must be done with dignity but nevertheless ought to be done (and/or publicly funded) because of the promise it holds to alleviate human suffering, prolong life, and/or revitalize California's bio-tech sector.

Honest people of good will can hold either of these two positions, but no good is served by obscuring and confusing what is involved. Things need to be called by their proper names and the objective and factual nature of what is proposed to be done needs to be understood by everyone participating in this discussion/debate. Only then can serious ethical discussions leading to principled political decisions take place.

Mr. Klein's contention that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) does not "create an embryo" is true only in the most tendentious and legalistic sense. Doing SCNT creates embryos. Doing human SCNT creates human embryos.

Or does it? According to the accounts above, SCNT creates a zygote that in turn gives rise to a "blastocyst" of about 100 cells. The "cell mass" on the inside of the blastocyst will develop into the embryo, if it's allowed to. "Harvesting embryonic stem cells" from the product of SCNT involves penetrating the blastocyst's shell and scooping out the "inner cell mass," which would have become the "embryo" and, using a pipette, depositing these cells into or onto a nutrient medium, in a Petri dish or other glassware.

So, again, strictly speaking Mr. Klein is right when he says that "no embryos are created" in the process of SCNT, but only because the cells that would become the embryo are removed from their protective shell and deposited in vitro, where they are now designated as "embryonic stem cells," even though what they were previously was an "inner cell mass" rather than an "embryo."

Clearly, the pro-life forces that oppose embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that it destroys innocent human life might want to start referring to what they consider to be that innocent human life as a "zygote" or a "blastocyst," and not as an "embryo." But would the change in nomenclature have any bearing on the validity of the underlying issues?

For their part, since these "embryonic stem cells" are derived, not from "embryos" but from "blastocysts," researchers and pro-stem cell research advocates ought properly speak of these cells as "blastocystic stem cells," since they, as we now all understand, come from "blastocysts," not "embryos."

Mr. Klein's claim that "no embryos are created by somatic cell nuclear transfer" (implying that none are destroyed either) is only true because their creation is interrupted by the "harvesting" of the cells that would otherwise develop into one. It is, in short, a distinction without a difference.

Later still, the interviewer asked the Chair of the ICOC:

"So when's the soonest you think the State of California could begin selling bonds?"

Mr. Klein replied:

"We have created a very special financing approach to protect the State of California and to move this forward and those are called bond anticipation notes. [Kitty: ah] and those bond anticipation notes specifically say that in the five percent case that we were to lose this lawsuit those individuals and foundations that buy these bond anticipation notes will make these loans to the state a grant, so they'll contribute the money. Basically, philanthropic foundations and individuals interested in moving medical research forward, who would normally be making general grants for research, are agreeing to buy these bond anticipation notes with the knowledge that they will, at the very least accomplish their purpose of advancing research and with the expectation that when we win the suit bonds can be issued that will pay them back."

Klein continued:

"We intend to approve our first grants September 9th, that creates a training program for post-doctoral fellows and post-doctoral clinical fellows across California at 18 different instititutions, the most comprehensive foundation for academic research and clinical or physician treatment of chronic disease in the history of any recent medical breakthrough.

One might ask, "Which medical breakthough is that, exactly?"

Ms. Felde's comment was: "Wow, so September 9th is right around the corner then."

Mr. Klein continued: "September 9th will be the approval given that the opposition will probably try a preliminary injunction. It will probably be the middle of October before the funding comes through."

Those interested in a more dispassionate evaluation of the likelihood that these "bond anticipation notes" ("BANs") will go on sale anytime soon might want to take a look at these two California Politics Today articles:

"California Family Bioethics Council files "reverse validation action" to shut down Proposition 71 and all its progeny," published July 14, 2005, and "California cannot sell $3 billion in embryonic stem cell research bonds until a lawsuit challenging its right to do so is resolved," published on May 11, 2005.

History buffs might also be interested in "Newly-reformatted version of May 13, 1984 article in The Fresno Bee entitled "County bond consultant's role questioned," makes it easier to read about ICOC Chair and CIRM Interim President Robert Klein II's operational style and methods back in the day".

California Politics Today sent a transcript of Mr. Klein's remarks about the issuance of these BANs to the media relations department in the office of California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, the state constitutional officer responsible for decisions regarding the sale of these bonds and is awaiting that office's comments.

For more about the status of federal action on the various approaches to allowing, funding, or banning various types of what the politicians are still calling "embryonic" stem cell research, following U.S. Senator and presumed presidential aspirant Bill Frist's surprise switch to supporting, with "appropriate" modifications, H.R. 810, which would allow federal funding for stem cell research using "discarded" fertilized human eggs, a type of research long ago, as these things go, surpassed in South Korea, click "Stem cell update, August 4, 2005".

Of related interest may be the May 28, 2005, article on the American Politics Today website entitled "Saying "We simply should not go down the road of using taxpayer dollars to kill young humans," U.S Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) condemns House vote on embryonic stem cell research".

That vote was on the stem cell research bill recently endorsed, with reservations, by Senator Frist.

How can the Chair of the largest single bio-medical project ever devised, one that plans to invest $3 billion in research (to be borrowed by the State and People of California and repaid by them with at least $6 billion in their tax money) a significant part of which has already been accomplished for $200,000 by a dedicated team of South Korean researchers, go on the radio and say "that human reproductive cloning, which everyone, all responsible scientists and patient groups believe should be banned and is banned in California, is the reproducing of a human being through taking stem cells and implanting them in the womb of a woman," with all that that statement implies about either his lack of knowledge or his inability to address the real issues involved and not be asked just what is he talking about?