10 "Report of the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning" (Jan. 11, 2002), Sacramento, CA, at http://scbe.stanford.edu/conference/cloning_cali.pdf. [Back]
11 "Drugmakers Blackmail the Public", BusinessWeekOnline (Aug. 18, 2004), http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040818_7567_tc121.htm. [Back]
12 G.P. Smith, "Genetic enhancement technologies and the new society", Catholic University Law School, Med Law Int. 2000;4(2):85-95, PMID: 14983869, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14983869. [Back]
13 For extensive critical analyses of the formal "birth" of bioethics in the U.S. in 1978 and the viability of its ethical "principles", see several articles by Irving at http://www.lifeissues.net/section.php?topic=ir, including: "What is 'bioethics'?", UFL Proceedings of the Conference 2000, in Joseph W. Koterski (ed.), Life and Learning X: Proceedings of the Tenth University Faculty For Life Conference (Washington, D.C.: University Faculty For Life, 2002), pp. 1-84, at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_36whatisbioethics01.html; "The bioethics mess", Crisis Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 5, May 2001, at: http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Crisis/2001-05/irving.html; "Which ethics for science and public policy?", Accountability in Research 1993, 3(2-3):77-99, at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_42whichethics1.html. [Back]
14 See their entire "report" on-line, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnolog, Information Technology and Cognitive Science, NSF/DOC-sponsored report, edited by Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge, National Science Foundation (June 2002), at: http://wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf. [Back]
15 For a fairly recent example of such gnostic mythology/"science", see Irving, "Historic roots of human genetic engineering: REASON, Duke, and parahuman reproduction - 1972" (July 11, 2004), http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_34winstonduke.html. Many of those mentioned by Duke in this article are among those top public policy makers still involved in these current human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research issues. For a short summary of the involvement of "bioethics" in this same agenda, including many of those same current policy makers, see section on "After World War II", in Irving, "What is 'bioethics'?", UFL Proceedings of the Conference 2000, in Joseph W. Koterski (ed.), Life and Learning X: Proceedings of the Tenth University Faculty For Life Conference (Washington, D.C.: University Faculty For Life, 2002), pp. 1-84, http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_36whatisbioethics01.html, and http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvwhatisbio.htm. For very scholarly philosophical presentations of the ancient gnostic streaks in the first "philosophers", see the first chapters in: G.S. Kirk and J.E. Raven, The Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964); Robert S. Brumbaugh, The Philosophers of Greece (New York: State University of New York Press, 1981). For historical explanations of such ancient roots expressed in post-Christian gnosticism, see Hans Jonas, "Gnosticism", in Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan Publ. Co., Inc. and The Free Press), Vol. 3 and 4, pp. 336-342; also, New Age and Christian Spirituality: A Christian Refletion on the New Age, Pontifical Council for Culture, and Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html#3. [Back]
16 "Analysis: Encouraging Public Acceptance of the New Eugenics; Advocacy by Supporters of 'Transhuman' and 'Post-Human' Ideologies", Center for Genetics and Society, at http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/promoencouraging/transhuman.html. [Back]
17 Again, the literature is immense, but see, e.g., The World Transhumanist Association, http://transhumanism.org/index.php; Extropy Institute, http://www.extropy.org/, and The World Futurist Society, http://www.wfs.org/. For a helpful explanation of "transhumanism", "post humanism", "futurism", etc., see lists of articles and websites at "Analysis: Encouraging Public Acceptance of the New Eugenics; Advocacy by Supporters of 'Transhuman' and 'Post-Human' Ideologies", Center for Genetics and Society, http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/promoencouraging/transhuman.html. See also, Nick Bostrom, "Transhumanist values" (April 18, 2001), Department of Philosophy, Yale University, http://www.nickbostrom.com/tra/values.html; Dongshin Yi, "Toward a posthuman ethics", http://www.reconstruction.ws/043/yi.htm. [Back]
18 See, e.g., Irving, "Who cares about genetic engineering?" (June 22, 2004), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_27whocaresgenetic.html; "Comments on 'Social and Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology: Lessons from Biotechnology and Other High Technologies'" (May 24, 2004), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_32biotechnology.html; and, "State of Delaware human cloning 'ban': loopholes form blueprints for human genetic engineering ", (April 14, 2004), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_30delawarecloningban1.html. [Back]
19 Tom Strachan and Andrew P. Read, Human Molecular Genetics 2 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999), pp. 508-509 (emphases added). See also: "The transplantation of a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg results in a major reprogramming of gene expression and switch in cell fate. ... Nuclear reprogramming is a term used to describe changes in gene activity that are induced experimentally by introducing nuclei into a new cytoplasmic environment." J. B. Gurdon, J. A. Byrne, and S. Simmonsson, "Nuclear Reprogramming and Stem Cell Creation", ([Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sept. 30, 2003; Vol. 100, Supplement 1, 11819-22] [Back]
20 See, for example: Ian Wilmut: "The majority of reconstructed embryos were cultured in ligated oviducts of sheep... Most embryos that developed to morula or blastocyst after 6 days of culture were transferred to recipients and allowed to develop to term," etc. [I. Wilmut et al., "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells," 385 Nature 810-813 (Feb. 27, 1997)], and also, "One potential use for this technique would be to take cells -- skin cells, for example -- from a human patient who had a genetic disease... You take these and get them back to the beginning of their life by nuclear transfer into an oocyte to produce a new embryo. From that new embryo, you would be able to obtain relatively simple, undifferentiated cells, which would retain the ability to colonize the tissues of the patient." - Ian Wilmut, in 7 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 138 (Spring 1988).
On being asked in an interview: "Do you think that society should allow cloning of human embryos because of the great promise of medical benefit?"]: "Yes. Cloning at the embryo stage -- to achieve cell dedifferentiation -- could provide benefits that are wide ranging..." - Keith Campbell, head of embryology at PPL Therapeutics and co-author of Dr. Wilmut's landmark paper, in 7 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 139 (Spring 1988).
Lee M. Silver, professor of molecular biology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University, "Yet there is nothing synthetic about the cells used in cloning... The newly created embryo can only develop inside the womb of a woman in the same way that all embryos and fetuses develop. Cloned children will be full-fledged human beings, indistinguishable in biological terms from all other members of the species. Thus, the notion of a soulless clone has no basis in reality.", in Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (Avon Books 1997), p. 107.
"This experiment [producing Dolly] demonstrated that, when appropriately manipulated and placed in the correct environment, to direct embryonic, fetal, and subsequent development." - National Institutes of Health, Background Paper: Cloning: Present uses and Promises, Jan. 29, 1998, p. 3.
"The Commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term." - Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (Rockville, MD: June 1997), p. 3.
[Expressing disbelief that some deny that human cloning produces an embryo]: "If it's not an embryo, what is it?" - Jonathan Van Blerkom, human embryologist at University of Colorado, in American Medical News, Feb. 23, 1998, p. 32 (Dr. Van Blerkom said researchers' efforts to avoid the word "embryo" in this context are "self-serving.") [Back]
21 See, e.g., Michelle Hibbert, Esq., "Artificial Womb Technology and the Constitutional Guarantees of Reproductive Freedom" (2004), The College of Law at Arizona State University, Center for the Study of Law, Science, & Technology, http://www.law.asu.edu/?id=8296; Ronald Bailey, "Babies in a bottle; artificial wombs and the beginning of human life" (Aug. 20, 2003), ReasonOnLine, http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082003.shtml; Jeremy Rifkin, "The end of pregnancy; within a generation there will probably be mass use of artificial wombs to grow babies", Guardian Unlimited (Jan. 17, 2002), http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4337092,00.html; "2020 Vision: The Bionic Future", Guardian Unlimited (Sept. 26, 1999), www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3905961,00.html; Brad Harrub, "In the news - artificial womb?", Apologetics Press, R & R Resources, April 2002, 1:16-R, http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/res0204c.htm; Science Fair Projects Encyclopedia for Schools: "Bioethics", genetic engineering, human cloning, the use of artificial wombs," etc., http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Bioethics; Christine Stolba, "Overcoming motherhood", Policy Review No. 116, Policy Review Online, http://www.policyreview.org/DEC02/stolba.html. See also Bill McKibben, "Too Clever Too Fast Too Happy", The Guardian (May 3, 2003), http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/20030503_guardian_mckibben.html; see also McKibben, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age (New York: Owl Books, February 1, 2004), and The End of Nature (New York: Anchor Press, October 1, 1999). [Back]
22 Irving Weissman, "Isolation of Candidate Human Stem Cells Using SCID Mice Implanted with Human Fetal Tissue", in Fetal Research and Applications: A Conference Summary (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, Institute of Medicine, 1994); http://books.nap.edu/books/0309051762/html/67.html. [Back]
23 For already published scientific studies using such other cells on PubMed, see Irving, "Scientific References, Human Genetic Engineering (Including Cloning): Artificial Human Embryos, Oocytes, Sperms, Chromosomes and Genes" (May 25, 2004), at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_25scientificrefer1.html. [Back]
24 See, for example, C.B. Allard and Anna Yu, "Germ cells derived from embryonic stem cells", at: http://220.127.116.11/biol430_2004/Lecture%20notes/Student%20Seminars/Germ%20cells%20from%20ES%20cells.3.ppt. Relevant and interesting statements and research results include: "A limitless supply of eggs could be derived from a single line of ES cells"; "Derivation of embryonic GCs and male gametes from ES cells (Geijsen et al 2003)"; "Intracytoplasmic injections into oocytes at two independent labs - same results, one in five developed into blastocysts"; "Derivation of Oocytes from Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells (Hubner et al 2003)"; "Oocytes were derived from male stem cells (diploid - XY)". [Back]
25 Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnolog, Information Technology and Cognitive Science, NSF/DOC-sponsored report, edited by Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge, National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce (June 2002), at: http://wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf. [Back]
26 See their Weismann committee report on human cloning, Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning (2002), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, at: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076374/html/29.html#pagetop: "The application of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or nuclear transplantation, offers an alternative route to obtaining stem cells that could be used for transplantation therapies with a minimal risk of transplant rejection. This procedure - sometimes called therapeutic cloning, research cloning, or non-reproductive cloning, and referred here as nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells - (p. 29) ... The experimental procedures required to produce stem cells through nuclear transplantation would consist of the transplantation of a somatic cell nucleus from a patient into an enucleated egg, the in vitro culture of the embryo to the blastocyst stage, and the derivation of a pluripotent ES cell line from the inner cell mass of this blastocyst." (p. 30) See also their Weissman committee report on stem cell research. The National Academy of Sciences uses for the basis of their conclusions of their report on stem cell research the false distinction between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning - i.e., only the goal or purpose of using the SCNT technique is considered. The objective scientific fact that in both cases the immediate product formed by this technique is a new living human being is totally ignored: "The goal of stem cell research using the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique must be sharply contrasted with the goal of reproductive cloning, which, using a similar technique, aims to develop an embryo that is genetically identical with the donor of its genes and then implant that embryo in a woman's uterus and allow it to mature to birth." Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine (2002), Commission on Life Sciences, "Comparison of Stem Cell Production with Reproductive Cloning", at: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309076307/html/11.html#pagetop. [Back]
27 See, National Academies News, at: http://18.104.22.168/search?q=cache:6jkRqTqW8IwJ:www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309076374%3FOpenDocument+%22National+Research+Council%22+%22United+States%22+%22human+cloning%22&hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8 [Back]
29 The 1974 National Research Act (Kennedy and McGovern) that gave "birth" to bioethics also mandated that the "ethical principles" identified by the National Commission be transformed into federal guidelines for the use of human subjects in research. Thus in 1981 the OPRR (now, OHRP) federal regulations were established, requiring that the use of federal funds in research be monitored by "institutional review boards" (IRB's), and they were to follow the "IRB Guidebooks" issued by DHHS. [It is this same OPRR that scientifically misdefines both "pregnancy" and "fetus" as beginning at implantation!).
Since that time the malfunctioning of and abuses of these IRB's have grown to epidemic proportions, resulting in numerous private, governmental and Congressional oversight hearings on these abuses. For example, in 1997 the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's Human Subjects Subcommittee held hearings. Also in 1997 Rep. Christopher Shays chaired a series of hearings, "Oversight of HHS (Department of Health and Human Services): Bioethics and the Adequacy of Informed Consent," conducted by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee's Human Resources subcommittee. Senators Frist and Kennedy held similar hearings in 2002, i.e., the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing entitled, "Protecting Human Subjects in Research: Are Current Safeguards Adequate?"
The literature on IRB's is enormous, but the following selection might help those unfamiliar with it at least get into the "ballpark". See, e.g., various testimonies by Alliance for Human Research Protection: Sharav, "Testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Human Subjects Subcommittee", Sept. 18, 1997, http://www.ahrp.org/testimonypresentations/NBAC1997/sharav.html; Sharav, "Chemically Induced Psychosis Experiments: An Inhumane Paradigm in Psychiatric Research", Submitted To U.S. Senate Sub-Committee: Public Health & Safety of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee Hearing Feb. 2, 2000, http://www.ahrp.org/testimonypresentations/InducedPsychosis.html; Sharav and Cassidy, "Testimony Submitted to the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP)", April, 2001, http://www.ahrp.org/testimonypresentations/sharavCassidyOHRP.html; Sharav and Noble, "Testimony before the Subcommittee on Public Health, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions, United States Senate at Hearing", "Protecting Human Subjects in Research: Are Current Safeguards Adequate?" on April 23, 2002, http://www.ahrp.org/testimonypresentations/childrenApril02.html; Sharav, "Human Experiments: A Chronology of Human Research".
See also Sue McGreevey, "Almost half of all faculty on Institutional Review Boards have ties to industry", study by Harvard and Partners, Aug. 14, 2003, http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/084/nation/System_for_protecting_humans_in _research_faulted+.shtml; Michael Kranish, "System for protecting humans in research faulted", Boston Globe, Mar. 25, 2002, http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/084/nation/System_for_protecting_humans_in _research_faulted+.shtml; Dr. Angela J. Bowen, Institute for Health Freedom, "Testimony before "Institutional Review Boards: A System in Jeopardy?"", June 11, 1998, http://forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Children/hr61198/bowen.html; Sidney M. Wolfe and Peter Lurie "Comments before 'Institutional Review Boards: A System in Jeopardy'", June 11, 1998, http://www.comite.bioetica.org/biblio8.htm; "IRBs Come Under Scrutiny of Congressional Subcommittee", Psychiatric News, http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-08-07/irb.html; National Patient Safety Foundation, "Accountability in Clinical Research: Balancing Risk & Benefit Forum Report", April 24-26, 2002 http://www.researchsafety.org/download/2002ForumReport.pdf; a helpful mini-summary can be found by WashingtonFAX, "Protecting human research subjects", http://www.washingtonfax.com/samples/docs/bioethics/patients/index.html. [Back]
30 For an extensive 31-page summary of selected bibliography of recent research studies on PubMed using such human materials for cloning and genetic engineering, see Irving, "Scientific References, Human Genetic Engineering (Including Cloning): Artificial Human Embryos, Oocytes, Sperms, Chromosomes and Genes" (May 25, 2004), at http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_25scientificrefer1.html.
For those who are still unaware, there are already National Institutes of Nanotechnology in over 40 different countries, including the United States. Such cloning, using "artificially constructed" chromosomes, sperms, oocytes, and embryos, is included in the current New Zealand bill on human artificial reproductive technologies (HART Bill): "gamete means ---- (a) an egg or a sperm, whether mature or not; or (b) any other cell (whether naturally occurring or artificially formed or modified) that --- (i) contains only 1 copy of all or most chromosomes; and (ii) is capable of being used for reproductive purposes." http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2003/hart/Supp_order_paper.pdf.
The term "reprogenetics" is coined in a recent "Special Supplement" of The Hastings Center Report (July/August 2003) at: (http://www.thehastingscenter.org/news/features/repro%20supplement.pdf), the first sentence of which refers to reprogenetics as "one big embryo experiment". The term refers collectively to the converging of several scientific technologies, especially multiple artificial human reproductive techniques (e.g., IVF and cloning) and human genetics research - other wise known as eugenics. The term is similar to such others as "trans-humanism", "post-humanism", "futurism", etc. - i.e., the remaking of human nature by the use of experimental reproductive and genetic techniques. Such are the stated goals of "nano/bio/info/cogno", supported by this government and many internationally popular "futuristic" programs, e.g., see Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, June 2002); you can find the report at: http://itri.loyola.edu/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC pre publication.pdf (or at http://www.wtec.org/reports.htm). See also, for example, the current New Zealand cloning bill, which defines a "gamete" as including "any other cell (whether naturally occurring or artificially formed or modified) that contains only 1 copy of all or most chromosomes; and is capable of being used for reproductive purposes." [Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill: Supplementary Order Paper [HART SOP], April 2003, at http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2003/hart/Supp_order_paper.pdf.
See also recent legal analysis of "nanocloning": [addendum 6-3-04] "Nanotechnology can be used to clone machines as well as living creatures. Issues similar to those currently plaguing policy makers about biological cloning need to be raised early in the life of nanotechnology. ... Proponents of nanotechnology postulate a world where DNA strands can be custom built by repairing or replacing sequences in existing strands of DNA or even by building the entire strand, from scratch, one sequence at a time. With enough nanorobots working quickly enough, one could build a DNA strand that will produce a perfect clone. The same issues will arise, or re-arise, if nanotechnology is successful in promoting cloning of DNA segments, cells, organs, or entire organisms.
See also: "... It is likely that nanotechnology's efforts will lead to twists in the assumptions that lead to the resolution of cloning issues in terms of genetic bioengineering. Policy makers should anticipate, now, that in setting the boundaries for bioengineered cloning, the need to foresee issues that will arise from cloning by nanotechnology and be ready to reevaluate cloning regulation before nanotechnology perfects its own methods of cloning. If we do not anticipate the nanotechnology problems, the debate will emerge in an environment like the current one: one filled with a frenzy and uproar, rather than in an atmosphere of reflection and deliberateness." [Joel Rothstein Wolfson, "Social and Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology: Lessons from Biotechnology and Other High Technologies", 22 Biotechnology Law Report 376, No. 4 (August 2003), pp. 13-14; at: http://www.blankrome.com/publications/Articles/WolfsonNanotechnology.pdf. [Back]