Pro-Cloning Group Needs to Tell the Truth 
By John E. Dunsford 

It is strange that an organization identifying itself as a "Coalition for Lifesaving Cures" needs to sponsor a professional advertising campaign at a cost of millions of dollars seeking to persuade Missouri voters to support stem-cell research. If prospects for life-saving cures are so bright, why do private investors find it too risky and shy away?

No one has ever yet been cured of a disease by the research sought in Amendment 2, yet the impression is conveyed by its sponsors that a range of terrible diseases such as Parkinson's, cancer, multiple sclerosis, etc. will soon be conquered. Unfortunately, the proponents of the Amendment have chosen to advertise the plan with the hype of a commercial for lottery tickets. That inevitably generates further suspicion that something must be going on that is not being disclosed. Are the voters being misled on matters they ought to be aware of when they cast their votes Nov. 7?

Is the public aware, for example, that the goal of Amendment 2 is to allow the production of human embryos through cloning to produce cells that can be "harvested" with the inevitable result that the embryos are destroyed? Or, in other instances, to procure leftover human embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures and "harvest" their cells in the same way and with the same results. 
As the public has come to know, stem cells are building blocks in the body that come in two different types. One type comes from adults, children, fetuses and are called adult cells. These stem cells are obtained from tissues and organs, and have the capacity to become more differentiated cells (skin, muscle, nerve) to heal damaged bodies. While considerably less flexible than the other type, they have nevertheless produced a number of medical advances. Moreover, they can be obtained without destroying human life. 
The second type, embryonic stem cells, are obtained by harvesting living human embryos that are 5 to 7 days old. They are multipotent, potentially able to differentiate into any tissue in the body. However, the removal of the cells in research means the destruction of the embryo. There are also some concerns these cells may later produce cancer in recipients. 
In its very title, the Amendment uses sleight of hand in maintaining that its object is the preservation of stem cell research and cures. In fact, stem cell research is already well accepted as far as adult stem cells are concerned. That research has been pursued for upward of 40 years, resulting recently in some notable benefits. As previously noted, that type of research does not destroy human life, is endorsed on all sides, and there is no obstacle to its preservation. 
The controversy regarding the Amendment results solely from the fact that it seeks to palm off the phrase "stem cell research" to include experimentation on human embryos. Does it matter that the term "stem cell" does not distinguish between research on adult cells and research on embryonic stem cells? Well, of course it does, since the latter reference is to research on human life in its earliest form. That is what embryonic signifies. Essentially, in this type of research, human life is being created in order to destroy or kill it. That is the only way to obtain the cells. 
If they are aware of what is at stake, how many people would vote for the destruction of one human life to obtain the embryonic stem cells to help another? Does the end justify the means? That is what Amendment 2 is asking the voter to approve. 
In the official summary that the voter will receive in the election booth, the claim is made that the constitutional amendment will "ban human cloning or attempted cloning." By accepted definitions of "cloning," however, this statement is unequivocally false. The procedure being put forward by the amendment to create the human embryo is called a somatic cell nuclear transfer, and entails using a patient's own cell and a donated unfertilized human egg to produce embryonic cells in a lab dish. But somatic cell nuclear transfer is merely another term for cloning. An assertion to the contrary is a shell game. 
The sponsors point out that it is not their intention to produce a complete baby. In other words, their rationalization is that the embryo will be destroyed in the research before it can grow into a baby. But, of course, it still remains nascent human life at the embryonic stage when it will be cut apart. 
To accomplish their purpose, the drafters in another section of the Amendment have simply rewritten the definition of cloning to suit their purpose of pretending somatic cell nuclear transfer is not cloning. In fact, they are actually endorsing therapeutic cloning, instead of reproductive cloning. But it is human cloning nevertheless. Others engaged in this type of research have not hesitated to identify the process in question as cloning. Amendment 2 proponents are relying on the fact that the Missouri voters will not be aware they have been misled in this regard because they will not have the definition section before them in the election booth to alert them to what is going on. 
If coalition proponents wish to endorse "clone and destroy" as their mantra, they ought to be upfront about it. They should not be permitted to abuse the state constitution by a pretense. As they have in the past, Missourians will support every honest effort to find cures for the afflicted, but not at the price of destroying human life. The end does not justify the means. 




John E. Dunsford is Chester A. Myers Professor of Law at the St. Louis University School of Law, where he teaches a seminar in religion, morality and law.