Ian Wilmut, the scientist who made headlines exactly 10 years ago by cloning a sheep, Dolly, has now rejected what is commonly called “therapeutic cloning” or “Nuclear Transfer” in favor of newer, cutting-edge, and…get this…pro life alternatives being experimented with in Japan. This is even more significant considering that Wilmut was given the go-ahead in 2005 to begin research in human cloning. Here are a few excerpts from a recent report in the UK’s Telegraph:

Prof Wilmut, who works at Edinburgh University, believes a rival method pioneered in Japan has better potential for making human embryonic cells which can be used to grow a patient’s own cells and tissues for a vast range of treatments, from treating strokes to heart attacks and Parkinson’s, and will be less controversial than the Dolly method, known as “nuclear transfer.”
Most of his motivation is practical but he admits the Japanese approach is also “easier to accept socially.”

Notice that both ethical and practical issues are factoring into Wilmut’s decision. If he wasn’t the scientist who created Dolly, I imagine the establishment would be trying to dismiss him as quickly as possible right now, claiming that his decision was unduly influenced by “personal” ethical concerns. In a postmodern world such as ours, what does ethics (and just one, mostly conservative and/or religious view of ethics) have to do with scientific progress anyway?

Luckily, there is far more to this decision than mere moral qualms. The Scientist in Japan, Prof. Yamanaka, is experienting (so far very successfully) with converting adult cells to an embryonic state.

This work has profound significance because it suggests that after a heart attack, for example, skin cells from a patient might one day be manipulated by adding a cocktail of small molecules to form muscle cells to repair damage to the heart, or brain cells to repair the effects of Parkinson’s. Because they are the patient’s own cells, they would not be rejected.

In theory, these reprogrammed cells could be converted into any of the 200 other type in the body, even the collections of different cell types that make up tissues and, in the very long term, organs too. Prof Wilmut said it was “extremely exciting and astonishing” and that he now plans to do research in this area.

This is the kind of alternative to embryonic stem cell research that many in the liberal camp have been dismissing in recent years. Many were even making out as though embryonic stem cells were practically guaranteed to be curing every disease known to man, if it wasn’t for ignorant religious people standing in the way of progress. Now we’re beginning to see that such research is hardly the best option.

And Prof Wilmut believes there is still a long way to go for therapeutic cloning to work, despite the headlines greeting this week’s announcement in Nature by Dr Shoukhrat Mitalipov and colleagues at Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, that they cloned primate embryos.

In all Dr Mitalipov used 304 eggs from 14 rhesus monkeys to make two lines of embryonic stem cells, one of which was chromosomally abnormal. Dr Mitalipov himself admits the efficiency is low and, though his work is a “proof of principle” and the efficiency of his methods has improved, he admits it is not yet a cost effective medical option.

Cloning is still too wasteful of precious human eggs, which are in great demand for fertility treatments, to consider for creating embryonic stem cells. “It is a nice success but a bit limited,” commented Prof Wilmut. “Given the low efficiency, you wonder just how long nuclear transfer will have a useful life.”

It’s even worse than that. It took a total of 15,000 eggs to even develop the proper protocol for the procedure, which then took the aforementioned 304 eggs to derive only two line of cells, only one of which was viable. And it gets worse. The scientists aren’t really sure why the one protocol was successful and the others weren’t, so any attempt at experimenting with humans would likely require just as many eggs, and human eggs are far too precious to be wasted so frivolously.

In light of this, and apart from any ethical considerations whatsoever, it seems foolish to push forward in any radical way with nuclear transfer cloning when alternatives that are ten times more efficient are available, and currently making just as much progress. The only motive for rejecting such alternatives and pushing for cloning would be due to its relation to the abortion debate. A major front for the Pro-choice camp has been stem cell research. By linking said research, which was lauded as being able to cure countless diseases inflicting people who are already born, with the general abortion debate, pro-choicers were able to make strong cases not in favor of abortion itself, but in favor of their general view of personhood and the value of life. With that front gone, there would be little left for the pro-choice movement to use in their rhetoric.

Let’s hope rational discourse in favor of genuine (not to mention ethical) scientific progress will win the day.

Read the full Telegraph article here.