WHY CLONING IS “UNNECESSARY & IMPRACTICAL”

Doctors and scientists explain…

“It is probable that such (adult) stem cell lines as these

will render therapeutic cloning irrelevant and impractical ”

Prof Alan Mackay- Sim , Griffith University , Lockhart submission.

Read his keynote article from the Courier Mail, August 2006

“There are no cell-based therapies for any disease that would warrant the preparation of human embryonic stem cells by SCNT (‘therapeutic cloning').”

Emeritus Prof TJ Martin FRS, Melbourne University .

Read his keynote article from the Age, July 2006

Part 1: ADULT STEM CELLS ARE ALREADY DOING THE JOB

The two important goals of stem cell science are (1) to use ‘patient-specific' stem cells as direct cell therapy to repair damaged tissue, (2) to use ‘disease-specific' stem cells as tools for exploring a disease process and testing drugs against that disease.

In both of these goals, cloning for embryonic stem cells (ESCs) is unnecessary, since adult stem cells ( ASCs ) are doing the job.

1. Human cloning is unnecessary for direct ‘cell therapies', because adult stem cells are already providing the required ‘patient-specific' stem cells for treatment.

Contrary to popular misconception, embryonic stem cells have never been used in any human condition, while adult stem cells are already safely used in over 70 human conditions .

The tumour tendency of ESCs and genetic damage accumulated in the cloning process makes cloned ESCs dangerous in animals and unthinkable for direct use in humans . By contrast, ASCs are proven to be safe and effective in humans.

Therefore, c ontrary to the hype of lobbyists, cloning is not proposed by serious scientists as a means to obtain embryonic stem cells (ESCs) for direct treatment of diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal injury. That is being left to adult stem cells ( ASCs ).

So Professor Bob Williamson of the Australian Academy of Science, a supporter of research cloning, stated in January this year : “ Nuclear transfer (‘therapeutic cloning') is not of importance to give cells to treat patients ; these are far more likely to come from so-called ‘adult stem cells'.”

Also Professor Alan Trounson of the Australian Stem Cell Centre stated in May 2005: "I don't call it therapeutic cloning because it's not about cells for therapy. This is about cells that give us an opportunity to discover what causes a disease and whether we can interfere with that."

And the Chief Executive of the Australian Stem Cell Centre, Stephen Livesey (Fin Review 10/9/06): “The reason why scientists want to create a nuclear transfer embryo is for the tiny mass of inner cells that are stem cells (which) could then provide a safe and sustainable way of testing, in the laboratory, new drugs and theories on cells that carry the human disease trait.”

Let's get the science straight: stem cells from cloning are NOT proposed for direct ‘repair kit' treatments, except by cynical campaigners. Cloning is only seriously proposed as providing ‘research' tools - a way to obtain “disease-specific” stem cells for drug testing and genetic research of disease.

Having said that...

2. Human cloning is unnecessary even for research purposes , because adult stem cells are already providing the required ‘disease-specific' stem cells for research.

Discoveries by teams like Prof Alan Mackay- Sim's at Griffith University show that adult stem cells from the back of your nose are already being used in exactly the same way as we hear proposed for ESCs from cloned embryos.

Cloning for research remains entirely speculative - since nobody in the world has ever made even a single ESC from a cloned human embryo – while Griffith is already using ‘disease-specific' ASC lines from over 40 patients for research into Parkinson's, motor neurone disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia etc.

Not only is it quick and simple to sample some cells from your nose (or a dozen other parts of the body) while cloning remains only an unproven fantasy, but ASCs are superior for research, since they are a true genetic match of the diseased patient. ESCs from the cloned embryo are damaged - in animal models, up to 20% of the genetic data is corrupted by the process of cloning - and the cloned embryo incorporates foreign DNA from the donor egg. Second rate research material.

Why pursue the fantasy of cloning, when a superior stem-cell research tool is accessible right there under your nose ? Or in your fat or blood or skin?

Read highlights of the Griffith research, which along with similar research worldwide shows the superiority of adult stem cells in research, and the irrelevancy of cloning.

Part 2: MEDIA MUDDLE ON ADULT STEM CELLS

1. Muddle: That adult stem cells ‘cannot turn into many different cell types' like ESCs can.

a. Clarification: Contrary to the claims of certain science journalists, adult stem cells have been shown beyond any doubt to be fully ‘ pluripotent ' – that is, able to turn into many other cell types, just like embryonic stem cells, only in a more controlled and useful fashion.

Here is documentation of published scientific articles showing many sources of pluripotent adult stem cells.

Here is an early news report on a very significant recent article from the journal Cell , which shows that pluripotent stem cells can be derived from simple cells in the skin.

2. Muddle: That embryonic stem cells have had great results in Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal cord injury, heart disease

a. Clarification: ESCs can only do tricks in rats, never treatments in humans, for the reasons noted above. Therefore ESC studies are only ever in animals – and show second-rate results compared to ASC studies in animals. And of course, only ASCs have studies in humans.

Judge for yourself. Here is a comparison of scientific literature of adult versus embryonic stem cells in the above key conditions:

Diabetes Treatments
Heart Treatments
Parkinson's Treatments
Spinal Cord Injury Treatments

3. Muddle: That the great advances in stem cells science we hear about every day involve BOTH embryonic and adult stem cells:

a. Clarification: this is a trick of the cloning lobby, blurring the reports so that people think ESCs are involved in human treatments when they NEVER HAVE BEEN. See our Blog on ‘Your weekend does of embryonic snake-oil' .

Monique Baldwin, neuroscientist, writes in the Australian :

“In contrast to the lack of proof of the benefits of cloning, there is ample evidence that alternatives such as adult stem cell research, which does not involve the same ethical problems, holds more promise.”

Dr David van Gend , GP and Senior Lecturer, writes in the Herald Sun:

“A patient of mine hopes to be the first man treated with stem cells from the back of his nose”.

Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filipini , medical ethicist, writes in the Age :

“The animal studies so far have not established proof of concept for stem cell therapies derived from cloned embryos. Lockhart served only to inflate the hype that so frustrates responsible scientists seeking to develop cellular therapies.”

Dr David van Gend , GP and Senior Lecturer, writes in the Courier Mail and Online Opinion :

“So let's not be fooled twice by embryo experimenters, now would-be cloners , who need another round of public funding for their redundant science.”

Interview with Prof James Sherley , stem cell researcher at MIT:

“Another reason that embryonic stem cells cannot be used directly is that they form tumours when transplanted into mature tissues.”

Interview with Dr. Peter Hollands , Chief Science Officer of the UK Cord Blood Bank:

“This means that in cord blood we have … just as much potential as embryonic stem cells but without all of the related objections and technical concerns.” Part 1 ; Part 2 .

Prof Jean Pedduzi -Nelson writes from the US on the true shape of stem cell science:

“If one looks at the human clinical trials or research using experimental animals, the record for adult stem cells compared to embryonic stem cells is extremely impressive. In examining only the scientific evidence, one wonders why the controversy even exists.”

The unethical pseudo-science of human cloning is unnecessary.

Let us support stem cell science that is both ethical and effective.