Statement on Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer

Jim Cole, General Counsel

Many candidates for office have been told by sources they considered credible that the procedure known as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) does not create human life and thus does not violate pro-life principles. We want to provide further information to you on this topic.

SCNT is nothing more or less than a form of cloning. The purpose of the procedure is to create human beings to grow to the blastocyst stage, 150-200 cells, at which time stem cells will be harvested. The stem cells form the innermost mass of the somewhat hollow ball that the blastocyst has become at that stage. Harvesting the stem cells requires killing the human being. This will occur about the time that implantation would occur if normal reproduction was used, about a week in developmental age. At this stage, the human has already begun to specialize into layers of cells that will become skin, muscle/bone, and the internal organs. Scientists cannot even describe all the physiological processes that are going on.

The proponents of cloning stress that no egg cell has been "fertilized." "Fertilization" is a false issue. SCNT (cloning) creates individuals without fertilization. The normal cell nucleus of an egg cell is replaced by a nucleus from another, non-sexual (that is, "somatic") cell, and then the new combination egg cell is fooled, as it were, into acting as if it has been fertilized. It begins to grow and develop as a new individual. Cloned individuals of this stage (or at any stage, for that matter) cannot be told apart from the individuals produced by ordinary reproduction.

Dolly the sheep was a product of SCNT. If SCNT is used on a human egg cell, then a human being is produced who is, in essence, a delayed twin of the human whose somatic cell nucleus is transferred to the egg cell.

A biotechnology association has distributed a questionnaire to candidates in which the first two questions ask whether candidates will support SCNT and government subsidies for SCNT research. Pro-life principles indicate that the answer to both question should be "No." A third, somewhat confusingly worded question, is asked by the biotechnology association, which focuses on whether candidates would vote for restrictions on such research. Pro-life principles indicate that answer should be in favor of restrictions.

Further information on the pro-life implications of cloning is available from many sources, including Missouri Right to Life. Unfortunately, some legislators of past and present who have been pro-life on abortion, such as John Danforth and Orrin Hatch, have taken a different position on this issue. They do not authentically reflect the pro-life position and cannot be relied upon for pro-life guidance. Their stand on cloning is inconsistent with scientific fact and with the pro-life principles they once championed.

We hope that you will give serious consideration to the pro-life side of the cloning issue and support us in trying to prevent this type of cloning from becoming acceptable in our society.