Language and values in the human cloning debate: a web-based survey of scientists and christian fundamentalist pastors

Over the last seven years, a major debate has arisen over whether human cloning should remain legal in the United States. Given that this may be the ‘first real global and simultaneous news story on biotechnology’ (Einsiedel et al., 2002, p. 313), nations around the world have struggled with the implications of this newly viable scientific technology, which is often also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer. Since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997, and with increasing media attention paid to the likelihood of a successful human reproductive clone coupled with research suggesting the medical potential of therapeutic cloning in humans, members of the scientific community and Christian fundamentalist leaders have become increasingly vocal in the debate over U.S. policy decisions regarding human cloning (Wilmut, 2000). Yet despite a surfeit of public opinion polls and widespread opining in the news media on the topic of human cloning, there have been no empirical studies comparing the views of scientists and Christian fundamentalists in this debate (see Evans, 2002a for a recent study of opinion polls assessing religion and attitudes toward cloning).

In order to further investigate the values that underlie scientists' and Christian fundamentalist leader's understanding of human cloning, as well as their differential use of language in communicating about this issue, we conducted an open-ended, exploratory survey of practicing scientists in the field of molecular biology and Christian fundamentalist pastors. We then analyzed the responses from this survey using qualitative discourse analysis. While this was not necessarily a representative sample (in quantitative terms, see Gaskell & Bauer, 2000) of each of the groups and the response rate was limited, this approach was informative in identifying both commonalities between the two groups, such as a focus on ethical concerns about reproductive cloning and the use of scientific terminology, as well as significant differences including concerns over ‘playing God’ for the Christian pastors, focus on therapeutic cloning by scientists, and subtle but informative differences between the two groups in their use of scientific terminology and their interpretations of human cloning as scientific progress.     

Abortion rhetoric in American news coverage of the human cloning debate

Abstract

The issue of human cloning has received intense media and political attention since the cloning of Dolly the sheep was announced in 1997. This research explores the discursive basis for support and opposition to human cloning by examining the role of abortion-related rhetoric in constructing the concept of human cloning within the American press. An in-depth content analysis of human cloning news coverage was conducted on a sample of articles collected from the mainstream press as well as advocacy publications with either a pro-science or Christian fundamentalist orientation. Statistically significant differences were found indicating an important role for abortion rhetoric in the human cloning debate. This expansion of abortion rhetoric into the domain of science policy portends a unique and growing problem for resolving bioethical debates within American politics over the future development of biomedical technologies such as human cloning.     

Managing the boundaries between maverick cloners and mainstream scientists: the life cycle of a news event in a contested field

Abstract

In January 2004, the ‘maverick cloner’, Dr Panos Zavos called a press conference in London to announce that he had implanted a freshly cloned human embryo in the womb of an infertile woman. Reports of this press conference gained prominent coverage in the national newspapers the following day and led television bulletins that evening. This article discusses the ways in which expertise was claimed by or attributed to Dr Zavos and other key media sources. It argues that three key boundaries were demarcated in the coverage as journalists framed the stories in terms provided by Zavos's antagonists, ‘mainstream scientists’. It also discusses the engagement in tactics of news management by an organised grouping of UK scientists who attempted to shape the terrain of news coverage on the subject of cloning. The question of the extent to which interested scientists should be able to set the terms of media debate is explored.     

Regulating stem-cell research and human cloning in an Australian context: an exercise in protecting the status of the human subject

Over 12 months prior to the recent United Nations decision to defer a decision about what type of international treaty should be developed in the global stem-cell research and human cloning debate, the Federal Parliament of Australia passed two separate pieces of legislation relating to both these concerns. After a five-year long process of community consultation, media spectacle and parliamentary debate, reproductive cloning has been banned in Australia and only embryos considered to be excess to assisted reproductive technologies in existence on the 5th of April 2002 are currently valid research material. This paper argues that underpinning both pieces of legislation is a profound belief in the disruptive potential of all types of human cloning for the very nature and integrity of human species being. A belief, moreover, that is based on a presumption that it is apparently possible to conceptualise what being human even means for all Australians.     

Developments in stem cell research and therapeutic cloning: Islamic ethical positions, a review

Stem cell research is very promising. The use of human embryos has been confronted with objections based on ethical and religious positions. The recent production of reprogrammed adult (induced pluripotent) cells does not - in the opinion of scientists - reduce the need to continue human embryonic stem cell research. So the debate continues. Islam always encouraged scientific research, particularly research directed toward finding cures for human disease. Based on the expectation of potential benefits, Islamic teachings permit and support human embryonic stem cell research. The majority of Muslim scholars also support therapeutic cloning. This permissibility is conditional on the use of supernumerary early pre-embryos which are obtained during infertility treatment in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. The early pre-embryos are considered in Islamic jurisprudence as worthy of respect but do not have the full sanctity offered to the embryo after implantation in the uterus and especially after ensoulment. In this paper the Islamic positions regarding human embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are reviewed in some detail, whereas positions in other religious traditions are mentioned only briefly. The status of human embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning in different countries, including the USA and especially in Muslim countries, is discussed.     

Regulating stem-cell research and human cloning in an Australian context: an exercise in protecting the status of the human subject

Abstract

Over 12 months prior to the recent United Nations decision to defer a decision about what type of international treaty should be developed in the global stem-cell research and human cloning debate, the Federal Parliament of Australia passed two separate pieces of legislation relating to both these concerns. After a five-year long process of community consultation, media spectacle and parliamentary debate, reproductive cloning has been banned in Australia and only embryos considered to be excess to assisted reproductive technologies in existence on the 5th of April 2002 are currently valid research material. This paper argues that underpinning both pieces of legislation is a profound belief in the disruptive potential of all types of human cloning for the very nature and integrity of human species being. A belief, moreover, that is based on a presumption that it is apparently possible to conceptualise what being human even means for all Australians.     

Ethical issues in animal cloning

The issue of human reproductive cloning has recently received a great deal attention in public discourse. Bioethicists, policy makers, and the media have been quick to identify the key ethical issues involved in human reproductive cloning and to argue, almost unanimously, for an international ban on such attempts. Meanwhile, scientists have proceeded with extensive research agendas in the cloning of animals. Despite this research, there has been little public discussion of the ethical issues raised by animal cloning projects. Polling data show that the public is decidedly against the cloning of animals. To understand the public's reaction and fill the void of reasoned debate about the issue, we need to review the possible objections to animal cloning and assess the merits of the anti-animal cloning stance. Some objections to animal cloning (e.g., the impact of cloning on the population of unwanted animals) can be easily addressed, while others (e.g., the health of cloned animals) require more serious attention by the public and policy makers.     

Organotherapy and the emergence of reproductive endocrinology

Conclusions Early scientific investigation of the reproductive process was neither a cause nor a direct result of changing social attitudes toward sex. It was instead part of the continuing search, initiated in the 1890s, to discover internal secretions that might be isolated and prove useful in therapy. Laboratory scientists, nonetheless, were among the many groups altering understanding of human sexual physiology in the first quarter of this century. The new data they generated regarding the dependence of human sexuality and fertility on chemical substances elaborated by the ovaries and testes became part of the evidence which hastened that quite tortuous transformation called the sexual revolution.Increasingly, as social reformers demanded more information about human reproduction, scientists were asked to provide it, and scientific concerns were shaped in the process. In the 1920s, especially in the United States, studies of the physiology of reproduction began to receive financial backing from social reformers. This was because for many, contraception had become a fact of life. Expression rather than repression of sexuality was accepted as being necessary to the stability of the fundamental social unit, the family. Theoretical and practical incentives for continued study of the reproductive process could thus be joined in common effort. This convergence of goals occurred just as the gonadal hormones were being isolated. The 1920s, therefore, mark an important juncture in the congruence of interests represented by theoretical science on the one hand and expressed social needs on the other.As a result of this convergence of interests and goals, physiologists gained a new realm of influence, claiming authoritative knowledge over a subject which once had been allocated to the priest and then, by the mid-nineteenth century, transferred to the physician. Since that formative period other research scientists, such as Alfred Kinsey and, more recently, William Masters and Virginia Johnson, have explored that niche and applied the scientific method to study of behavioral and physiological aspects of the human sexual response. They have been beset by many of the same tactical issues that confronted the earliest investigators of reproductive physiology. The definition, specification, and measurement of phenomena relating to sexual and reproductive activity have been as inherently difficult as they have been taboo.⁷⁹ Traditional resistance to scientific study of the reproductive process was overcome in the early twentieth century by the expectation that this particular line of inquiry would lead to understanding and therefore medical control of the complex of disorders—physiological, psychological, and social — associated with the generative glands. Early investigators, particularly in Britain, did not wish to be social reformers. Especially in the 1910s such a stance would have threatened their credibility in a field determined to establish itself as a theoretical science. Once scientific progress was assured, as it was from about 1920, new problems opened for investigation and began to be motivated by social needs as well as by the concerns of a rapidly developing science. Especially in the United States new resources encouraged this work, allowing development of the specialized focus on gonadal hormones represented by the emerging field of reproductive endocrinology.     

Genes, language, cognition, and culture: towards productive inquiry

The Queen Mary conference on “Integrating Genetic and Cultural Evolutionary Approaches to Language,” and the papers in this special issue, clearly illustrate the excitement and potential of trans-disciplinary approaches to language as an evolved biological capacity (phylogeny) and an evolving cultural entity (glossogeny). Excepting the present author, the presenters/authors are mostly young rising stars in their respective fields, and include scientists with backgrounds in linguistics, animal communication, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, anthropology, and computer science. On display was a clear willingness to engage with different approaches and terminology and a commitment to shared standards of scientific rigor, empirically driven theory, and logical argument. Because the papers assembled here, together with the introduction, speak for themselves, I will focus in this “extro-duction” on some of the terminological and conceptual difficulties which threaten to block this exciting wave of scientific progress in understanding language evolution, in both senses of that term. In particular I will first argue against the regrettably widespread practice of opposing cultural and genetic explanations of human cognition as if they were dichotomous. Second, I will unpack the debate concerning “general-purpose” and “domain-specific” mechanisms, which masquerades as a debate about nativism but is nothing of the sort. I believe that framing discussions of language in these terms has generated more heat than light, and that a modern molecular understanding of genes, development, behavior, and evolution renders many of the assumptions underlying this debate invalid.     

The importance of valid disclosures in the human embryonic stem cell research debate

Abstract.  Misinformation erodes the legitimacy of any public debate. Since the start of human embryonic stem cell research deliberations in the USA, misinformation concerning the nature of human embryos, their availability for research, and the potential for using them to develop new medical therapies have been widespread and persistent. Basic facts, well understood by physicians and biologists, have been so misstated and misrepresented in the news media and political speeches that the general public has been put in a state of constant uncertainty. The solution to the present troubling condition is better education in the form of diligent, honest, and complete scientific disclosure by responsible scientists and physicians; and more care given to accurate reporting by news media. Several key aspects of newly emerging embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell technologies are defined and discussed as they relate to the debate over the use of human embryos for medical research. An important topic for consideration is how to disclose with clarity the scientific basis for human embryonic life. Thereafter, failings in proposed technologies for developing new therapies with human embryonic stem cells, that have been grossly under-reported, are examined. Finally, properties of adult stem cells are presented in contradistinction to embryonic stem cells, both in terms of adult stem cells as a scientifically better alternative to embryonic stem cells and in terms of the technological challenges that must be overcome to realize the potential of adult stem cells for new medical therapies.     

In vitro gametogenesis and reproductive cloning: Can we allow one while banning the other?

In vitro gametogenesis (IVG) is believed to be the next big breakthrough in reproductive medicine. The prima facie acceptance of this possible future technology is notable when compared to the general prohibition on human reproductive cloning. After all, if safety is the main reason for not allowing reproductive cloning, one might expect a similar conclusion for the reproductive application of IVG, since both technologies hold considerable and comparable risks. However, safety concerns may be overcome, and are presumably not the sole reason why cloning is being condemned. We therefore assess the non‐safety arguments against reproductive cloning, yet most of these can also be held against IVG. The few arguments that cannot be used against IVG are defective. We conclude from this that it will be hard to defend a ban on reproductive cloning while accepting the reproductive use of IVG.     

Human safety controversies surrounding nitrate and nitrite in the diet

Nitrate and nitrite are part of the human diet as nutrients in many vegetables and part of food preservation systems. In the 1950s and 1960s the potential for formation of nitrosamines in food was discovered and it ignited a debate about the safety of ingested nitrite which ultimately focused on cured meats. Nitrate impurities in salt used in the drying of meat in ancient times resulted in improved protection from spoilage during storage. This evolved into their deliberate modern use as curing ingredient responsible for 'fixing' the characteristic color associated with cured meats, creating a unique flavor profile, controlling the oxidation of lipids, and serving as an effective antimicrobial. Several critical reports and comprehensive reviews reporting weak associations and equivocal evidence of nitrite human health safety have fostered concerns and debate among scientists, regulators, press, consumer groups, and consumers. Despite periodic controversy regarding human health concerns from nitrite consumption, a building base of scientific evidence about nitrate, nitrite, heme chemistry, and the overall metabolism of nitrogen oxides in humans has and continues to affirm the general safety of nitrate/nitrite in human health. As nitrite based therapeutics emerge, it is important to consider the past controversies and also understand the beneficial role in the human diet.     

Philosophical arguments for and against human reproductive cloning

Can philosophers come up with persuasive reasons to allow or ban human reproductive cloning? Yes. Can philosophers agree, locally and temporarily, which practices related to cloning should be condoned and which should be rejected? Some of them can. Can philosophers reproduce universally convincing arguments for or against different kinds of human cloning? No. This paper analyses some of the main arguments presented by philosophers in the cloning debate, and some of the most important objections against them. The clashes between the schools of thought suggest that philosophers cannot be trusted to provide the public authorities, or the general public, a unified, universally applicable view of the morality of human reproductive cloning.     

Human cloning: category, dignity, and the role of bioethics

Human cloning has been simultaneously a running joke for massive worldwide publicity of fringe groups like the Raelians, and the core issue of an international movement at the United Nations in support of a treaty to ban the use of cloning techniques to produce a child (so called reproductive cloning). Yet, even though debates on human cloning have greatly increased since the birth of Dolly, the clone sheep, in 1997, we continue to wonder whether cloning is after all any different from other methods of medically assisted reproduction, and what exactly makes cloning an 'affront to the dignity of humans.' Categories we adopt matter mightily as they inform but can also misinform and lead to mistaken and unproductive decisions. And thus bioethicists have a responsibility to ensure that the proper categories are used in the cloning debates and denounce those who try to win the ethical debate through well-crafted labels rather than well-reasoned argumentations. But it is as important for bioethicists to take a position on broad issues such as human cloning and species altering interventions. One 'natural question' would be, for example, should there be an international treaty to ban human reproductive cloning?     

克隆技术引发的伦理之争

自从克隆羊多莉诞生以来,有关克隆人的伦理学争论就一直喋喋不休。世界上的各种政治组织和各国政府都明确反对生殖性克隆,而科学家们则对克隆技术的不完善心存疑虑。为了克服克隆过程中的伦理学障碍和技术缺陷,科学家们在核移植技术的基础上,又发展了异种核移植技术、诱导多能干细胞技术等。诱导的多能干细胞可以分化成各种组织,甚至能发育成个体,这些方法使克隆技术不再破坏胚胎,避免了伦理学纠纷。尽管科学技术在进步,但是人们对克隆人仍有很多不解和困惑。从自主、不伤害、行善和公正等四大生命伦理学原则着手,在技术层面上提出了尽管克隆人不会搞乱人际关系,不会减少人类基因多样性,也不会克隆出类似希特勒的战争狂人,但是,人类的生殖性克隆却剥夺了克隆人的自主性,对克隆人的生理和心理都有所伤害,违反了公正和行善的原则。因此,是否可以克隆人在伦理上仍然是需要长期讨论的问题。     

The pros and cons of human therapeutic cloning in the public debate

Few issues linked to genetic research have raised as much controversial debate as the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to create embryos specifically for stem cell research. Whereas European countries unanimously agree that reproductive cloning should be prohibited there is no agreement to be found on whether or not research into therapeutic cloning should be permitted. Since the UK took the lead and voted in favour of regulations allowing therapeutic cloning the public debate has intensified on the Continent. This debate reflects the wide spectrum of diverse religious and secular moralities that are prevalent in modern multicultural European democratic societies. Arguments range from putting forward strictly utilitarian views that weight the moral issues involved against the potential benefits that embryonic stem cell research may harbour to considering the embryo as a human being, endowed with human dignity and human rights from the moment of its creation, concluding that its use for research is unethical and should be strictly prohibited. Given the current state of dissension among the various European states, it is difficult to predict whether 'non-harmonisation' will prevail or whether in the long run 'harmonisation' of legislation that will allow stem cell research will evolve in the EU.     

Scientific Citizenship and good governance: implications for biotechnology

In the wake of public distrust regarding biotechnology, it has been suggested that the debate should be moved "upstream", whereby the public help to set research priorities. Although many scientists see this as an illogical reaction to a loss of faith in science, we argue that the boundaries between science and its technological applications have become blurred and this produces conflicts of interests that have led to this crisis of trust. Furthermore, this distrust is also a crisis in governance that calls for a new open and democratic approach to scientific research. We propose that the concept of Scientific Citizenship, based on good governance, will help to restore public trust and bridge the gap between science and the society that it serves. Integral to this is the suggestion that the governance of science forms part of the training for scientists.     

Public reasoning about voluntary assisted dying: An analysis of submissions to the Queensland Parliament,Australia

The use of voluntary assisted dying as an end‐of‐life option has stimulated concerns and debates over the past decades. Although public attitudes towards voluntary assisted dying (including euthanasia and physician‐assisted suicide) are well researched, there has been relatively little study of the different reasons, normative reasoning and rhetorical strategies that people invoke in supporting or contesting voluntary assisted dying in everyday life. Using a mix of computational textual mining techniques, keyword study and qualitative thematic coding to analyse public submissions to a parliamentary inquiry into voluntary assisted dying in Australia, this study critically examines the different reasons, normative reasoning and rhetorical strategies that people invoke in supporting or contesting voluntary assisted dying in everyday life. The analysis identified complex and potentially contradictory ethical principles being invoked on both sides of the debate. These findings deepen our understanding of the moral basis of public reasoning about end‐of‐life matters and will help to inform future discussions on policy and law reform. The findings underscore the importance of sound normative reasoning and the use of caution when interpreting opinion polls to inform policy.     

No ethical divide between China and the West in human embryo research

This is a discussion of the reaction to the recent research article publication in the journal Protein & Cell by a group of scientists at Sun Yat‐sen University using the CRISPR/Cas9 technique on editing non‐viable human zygotes. Many commentators condemned the Chinese scientists for overstepping ethical boundaries long accepted in Western countries and accused China of having lax regulations on genomic research in general. We argue that not only did this research follow strict ethical standards and fully comply with current regulations, but China also has a well‐developed regulatory framework governing such research comparable to many developed countries. We see the reactions among Western commentators as a misunderstanding of the current situation and an expression of a lack of willingness to acknowledge China as an equal partner in the international debate about proper limits to the development of new biotechnologies.     

Stem cells and cell therapy. Contribution to the ethical debate

Divergent and sometimes conflicting positions with respect to human stem cells and cell therapy do not merely reflect disagreement among scientists and conflicts of interest. They attest the ethical tension resulting from recent progress in understanding the earliest stages of development of the human being that can be observed in vitro. Can the extremely potent notion of the human person starting with conception apply to the very first stage of artificial in vitro fertilisation and disregard the fact that to be a real substitute for natural conception, implantation in the uterus that enables the oocyte to nest and a new human being to develop must also be included? Several arguments are presented that plead in favour of making a clear distinction between the status of in vitro cells obtained by artificial fertilisation and that of the embryo, which becomes a developing human being from the moment it implants in the endometrium of the uterus. This subject could have remained in the sphere of the individual conscience, but it has now become a theme for social debate! The revision of the French 1994 so-called Bioethics Laws, which was recently approved on first reading on 22 January 2002, authorises research on spare embryos from in vitro fertilisation under certain conditions. However, for the sole reason that there is a risk of opening the door wide to reproductive cloning, which is unanimously rejected and condemned, all research on stem cells deriving from the nuclear transfer of a somatic cell is prohibited, irrespective of the distinction between cloning for therapeutic purposes and reproductive cloning. It is undeniable that if the efficacy of somatic stem cells could be demonstrated, they would offer a far more preferable solution, for several reasons, than those involving stem cells obtained from spare embryos from IVF or nuclear transfer. Nevertheless, how will a comparison of the two methods be possible if one of them is prohibited a priori? At present, many fear that French researchers will be prevented from doing essential research that, even if it has far to go, is indispensable if we wish to attempt to control the failures of natural procreation and open the way towards the new regenerative medicine that so many look forward to.