THE WORDS “somatic cell nuclear transfer” don’t slide gracefully off the tongue. Nor do they trigger a visceral response the way, for example, the word “cloning” does. That helps explain why Missouri’s Amendment 2 has prompted so much confusion and bitter acrimony.
Supported by a robust phalanx of public figures–including scientists, Democrats, Republican governor Matt Blunt, former GOP senator Jack Danforth, and one especially wealthy couple–the amendment purports to “ban human cloning or attempted cloning.” At least that’s what the ballot language says–the language Missourians will read in the voting booth on November 7th. But the text of Amendment 2 itself, which runs about 2,000 words, muddies the water.
Specifically, Amendment 2 offers a controversial definition of cloning: “‘Clone or attempt to clone a human being’ means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.” So anything that is not implanted cannot, per Amendment 2, be considered a “clone.”
The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, which has spent around $30 million championing Amendment 2, claims it would codify a moral framework for embryonic stem-cell research. It would, indeed, place a 14-day limit on any such research conducted on human blastocysts. (The 14 days start “after cell division begins.” So long as the blastocysts remain frozen, the 14-day window does not commence.)
But Amendment 2 does more than that. It also guarantees that Missouri scientists would be allowed to pursue not just embryonic stem-cell research, but also somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). And while it prohibits “for valuable consideration” the sale of human eggs for stem-cell research or stem-cell therapies, it also allows female egg donors to be reimbursed “for reasonable costs incurred” during the egg donation process.
Critics lodge several gripes. They insist that Amendment 2 would fuel an unhealthy and exploitative surge in egg trafficking, thus endangering Missouri women. They question its implications for state tax policy. But above all, they argue that it would actually make human cloning a constitutional right in Missouri and effectively place scientists above state and local statutes.
One amendment. Two very different interpretations. Or maybe not so different. Both sides agree that Amendment 2 would carve out a constitutional right for scientists to perform SCNT and use the products for stem-cell research. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, SCNT “involves removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a ‘somatic cell’ (a skin, heart, or nerve cell, for example), and stimulating this cell to begin dividing. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can be extracted 5-6 days later and used for research.” The Association defines SCNT as “therapeutic cloning,” and fervently supports such research. But it also takes care to distinguish “therapeutic cloning” from “reproductive cloning,” the latter of which “is intended to create human beings by cloning human embryos.” The Association recommends a ban on this type of cloning.
Which brings us to the root question: Does SCNT produce a “cloned” human embryo? President Bush’s bipartisan Council on Bioethics, which released its first report in 2002, said yes. Here’s how the council defined human cloning: “The asexual production of a new human organism that is, at all stages of development, genetically virtually identical to a currently existing or previously existing human being. It would be accomplished by introducing the nuclear material of a human somatic cell (donor) into an oocyte (egg) whose own nucleus has been removed or inactivated, yielding a product that has a human genetic constitution virtually identical to the donor of the somatic cell. (This procedure is known as ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer,’ or SCNT.)”
The Council went on to define “cloning-for-biomedical-research” as follows: “Production of a cloned human embryo, formed for the (proximate) purpose of using it in research or for extracting its stem cells, with the (ultimate) goals of gaining scientific knowledge of normal and abnormal development and of developing cures for human diseases.”
Its definition of “cloned human embryo” included “the immediate (and developing) product of the initial act of cloning, accomplished by successful SCNT, whether used subsequently in attempts to produce children or in biomedical research.”
Pardon the lengthy quotations, but precise terminology is vitally important to making sense of Amendment 2. Once you get past the medical lingo, the core issue is actually quite easy to understand: Amendment 2 would create a constitutional right for Missouri scientists to clone human embryos and then harvest their stem cells, placing such research beyond the purview of any state and local laws that “prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage” its progress.
Americans may reasonably ask: What is the moral worth of such embryos? What are their proper legal claims, if any? And should the right to clone and destroy human embryos be written into the Missouri constitution if it holds out promise for regenerative medicine?
These are among the most profound bioethical questions facing doctors and policymakers in the new century. There are no easy answers. But a good starting point, as the council suggested, would be to establish a common lexicon of “fair and accurate terminology.” Alas, that has been a tough slog in Missouri.
Duncan Currie is a reporter at The Weekly Standard.
