How stem cell research has nothing to do with abortion or cloning

By The Brooke Ellison Project
July 23, 2009

Now that you’ve begun to understand the fundamentals of stem cell research (See “What are stem cells and where do they come from?”), let’s delve into the controversy that surrounds it.  You may have heard terms like “cloning” and “abortion” used in relation to this research, so we should take some time to set a few things straight:

1) Embryonic stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses.  They come from a blastocyst, an early stage embryo, as described in our last article.  Embryonic stem cells can be extracted from the blastocyst only during the small window of 3-5 days after fertilization.  There is absolutely no abortion procedure that is performed within that window of time.  A blastocyst is only about 100 cells big, and has a diameter smaller than that of a strand of hair.  Blastocysts ARE NOT the products of abortion.  In fact, the derivation of embryonic stem cell lines is a delicate procedure, done under equally as delicate conditions, and these conditions could not be achieved through an abortion. 

To emphasize how separate a fetus is from embryonic stem cells, and subsequently how separate issue of abortion is from stem cell research, we can make the following points.  The window of time within which researchers can extract embryonic stem cells is so precise that regulations and guidelines have been put in place by lawmakers to prohibit the development of a potential research embryo to anything beyond 14 days. We can clearly see that the issues of stem cell research and abortion are inherently separate.  Missouri, a pro-life state, has shown how these issues can be understood differently, as they have not prohibited embryonic stem cell research.  A separate, personal ethical question as to when human life begins—whether a blastocyst (and not a fetus) has the same moral status as a living human.  A vast majority of Americans believes that, although it is in a unique category, a blastocyst does not have the same moral status as a living human being.  The real issue at hand involves how life can be restored through the promise of stem cell research, and how this research is the embodiment of hope for so many.  This is the idea we ought going to be giving our attention. 

2) Therapeutic cloning is completely unrelated to reproductive cloning.  The facet of stem cell research called “therapeutic cloning,” or “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” involves the replication (or cloning) of a piece of genetic material, not a person.  Many scientists look to this procedure for its potential in obtaining stem cell lines that are genetically matched to the donor organism.  On a practical level, these customized stem cell lines could be used for cell-based therapies to transplant to a patient.  If the therapeutic cells are genetically identical to those of the somatic cell donor, i.e. the patient, the patient can receive treatment without the possibility of immune system rejection.  What is also so promising about somatic cell nuclear transfer is that it allows researchers to create “disease specific” stem cell lines, which carry genetic information of particular diseases.  This is critically important because it provides a unique window for researchers to watch what takes place and goes wrong when diseases or disorders attack or cells. 

Throughout the entire process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning, there is absolutely no creation of a human being or “human clone.”  In fact, all reputable scientists consider reproductive cloning unethical, and believe it to be unachievable.  The word cloning is often used in science in terms of any sort of genetic replication, but in this case, it does not extend beyond the cellular level and has no connection to “clones” as people understand them.

The ideas of abortion and cloning have been unfairly, and unfortunately, introduced into the stem cell debate, without any justification or information behind them.  The intermingling of three inherently separate concepts has only served to cloud the issue and distract people from facts on the ground.