Reproductive Cloning: Is It Really Forbidden by Amendment 2?

James S. Cole, Esq.**

            Over and over again, the promoters of Amendment 2 have insisted that they oppose cloning.  They define cloning in Section 6(2) of the Amendment only to include what others call “reproductive cloning,” and they insist that what is normally called “therapeutic cloning” is not cloning at all.  One views ad nauseam the proponents’ broadcast advertising that says the Amendment “strictly bans human cloning.”  One reads articles by proponents earnestly pronouncing that “reproductive cloning” is an evil that the Amendment forbids.  But does it, really?

            The definition of “cloning” in the Amendment says that “cloning” means “to implant in a uterus  .  .  .  anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male .  .  .  .”  Note well that it says, to implant “in a uterus.”  An artificial womb is not a uterus.

            Artificial wombs are being perfected more rapidly than most people realize.  Dr. Hung-Ching Liu of Cornell University's Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility has been working on them for most of the last decade.  In 2002, she announced that she had succeeded in one important step of the process.  According to reports published in newspapers, Liu’s research team removed endometrium cells from wombs and grew layers of them on scaffolds of biodegradable material molded into the right shape.  The cells grew into tissue and the scaffolds dissolved.  After nutrients and hormones were added to the tissue, human embryos from IVF labs were placed in it.  The embryos attached themselves and began to develop.  Liu removed them, ending their lives, after six days.  “We hope to create complete artificial wombs using these techniques in a few years,” Dr. Liu stated.  See Robin McKie, “Men Redundant?” The Observer, February 10, 2002 (www.guardian.co.uk/Observer/international/story/0,6903, 648024,00.html ).

            In 2003, Dr. Liu grew mouse embryos in artificial wombs almost to term.  She found that the embryos were deformed.  She was undeterred, however, and now believes that full-scale artificial wombs could be available in as few as ten years.   Gretchen Reynolds, “Will We Grow Babies Outside Their Mothers’ Bodies?,” Popular Science, August, 2005 (http://www.popsci. com/popsci/futurebody/dc8d9371b1d75010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html). Researchers also point to experiments in Japan, where scientists have succeeded in keeping late-term goat embryos alive in containers of artificial amniotic fluid for extended periods of time.  Id.  The creation of artificial wombs appears to be likely within the next 10-20 years.

Clearly, an artificial womb that depends on biodegradable scaffolding, the cultivation of endometrial cells layers, the artificial addition of nutrients and hormones, and the constant attention of scientists during gestation, is not a “uterus.”  Amendment 2 only forbids the implantation of clones into a “uterus.”  Whether or not the proponents intended it, Amendment 2 allows the implantation of clones into artificial wombs, where they can be gestated to any stage that scientists have the ability to maintain them.  In short, if artificial wombs are used, Amendment 2 will not forbid reproductive cloning. 

            Even worse, Amendment 2 will actually safeguard reproductive cloning, so long as such cloning has some connection with “stem cell research” or “stem cell therapies.”   Section 7 of the Amendment provides, in part, “No state or local law, regulation, rule, charter, ordinance, or other governmental action shall (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by this section to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.”  Under this section, the Legislature cannot pass a law against using artificial wombs for reproductive cloning if there is any connection with stem cell studies, for such a law would “discourage” or provide a “disincentive” stem cell research.

Scientists are already talking about the need to use “differentiated” stem cells for the purposes of transplantation into injured organs.  “Differentiated” stem cells are stem cells that have developed into specialized types of tissue, such as heart cells, nerve cells, or kidney cells.  We call them “adult” stem cells.  They do not form cancerous tumors, as embryonic stem cells do.  They would be harvested from the unborn at later stages of development than embryonic stem cells.  Some writers propose that we need to harvest “differentiated” stem cells from unborn cloned infants at the age of perhaps 11 weeks—nearly the end of the first trimester of development—for the best “differentiated” cells.  See the series of articles by William Saletan in Slate online, titled “The Organ Factory,” beginning July 25, 2005, at http://www.slate.com/id/ 2123269/entry/2123270/#.

It is no matter of runaway imagination, then, but a matter of serious proposals, to say that scientists will want to clone humans and raise them in artificial wombs far past any arbitrary early deadline in order of obtain “differentiated” stem cells.  Amendment 2 will protect them from any law that citizens may want the Legislature to enact to stop them. 

Moreover, there is nothing in Amendment 2 to stop scientists from raising clones in artificial wombs past “term,” to join the ranks of the “born,” so long as a study of their stem cells was going to be made at some time in their lives.  Amendment 2 would keep society from interfering.

If this is not “reproductive cloning,” then nothing is.

Is it the case, then, that the promoters of Amendment 2 have intended to mislead the public about banning reproductive cloning?  Not necessarily.  Perhaps it did not occur to them to do any research on the subject.  Perhaps they never stopped to think that implantation could occur outside a uterus.  It is conceivable that the promoters, despite the readily available literature on the subject, just did not think of this possibility. 

But if that is what happened, a very important question arises: can we really trust the promoters’ work on Amendment 2?  Do we dare add it to the constitution of Missouri?  How many more problems will arise because of scientific advances that no one can possibly foresee at the present time? 

The answers are clear.  The promoters of Amendment 2 may or may not have not done their homework, but even the most thorough homework cannot reveal all the serious problems that arise in the future.  We cannot afford to tie the Legislature’s hands on unforeseen problems of cloning and stem cell research.  We cannot afford to enact Amendment 2.