Gregory Stock is the director of the UCLA Program on
Medicine, Technology and Society. The Daily Bruin sat down with
Stock to discuss the impact and importance of stem cell
research. Ңbull;Ӣbull;Ӣbull; Daily Bruin: What is the
major significance of the breakthrough that happened in Korea in
the last few weeks? Gregory Stock: The medical significance is
that this is a significant step toward the development of nuclear
transfer and embryonic stem cell technology, which hold the
possibility of creating matched tissue that could be transplanted
without threat of rejection. This is why the medical community is
so interested in this. The exact same technology, though, would be
suitable for reproductive cloning ““ the creation of a child
who is a genetic copy of an adult donor and thus essentially a
delayed identical twin. So, the political significance is that the
arrival of a cloned baby may not be far off. Frankly, I’d be
surprised if we don’t see a clone within five years.
DB: Why do you believe there is such a huge gap between the
mentality of the South Koreans and the Americans in terms of stem
cell research? GS: I do not believe that there is a huge gap.
But the politics are different in the two countries. In the United
States, there is a huge debate about when human personhood begins;
it is an issue of theology and philosophy, not science. The cloning
debate in the United States is being greatly distorted by the
abortion debate here. That’s why it has been so passionate
and why there has been such a willingness to try to stop basic
biomedical research clearly intended to benefit large numbers of
people with serious diseases. In Korea, I do not think that the
same context exists. In the scientific community, there is very
little opposition to the idea of doing therapeutic cloning “¦
or to doing reproductive cloning, for that matter, if it were safe
and reliable ““ which it clearly is not. Most scientists who
say it would be horrible to try to clone a child feel that way
because the technique is so unsafe and because there are such
obvious risks of ending up with a seriously damaged child that no
responsible physician would do such a thing. But what they do not
add ““ even though they’d likely admit as much if you
talked with them in private ““ is that if cloning were safe
and reliable and developed somewhere else, then though they
wouldn’t do it personally they really don’t see it as a
big deal.
DB: Is there an ultimate goal of stem cell research, or is
this just an ongoing process? GS: This is just one part of a
whole area of medicine, called regenerative medicine, that is very
exciting. It embodies the idea of being able to generate fresh
tissue that would not be rejected but considered by the body as
“self,” and incorporated into existing tissue. Is there
a single goal? No. Researchers on Parkinson’s (disease) are
thinking about Parkinson’s therapies. Researchers of
Alzheimer’s (disease) are thinking about Alzheimer’s
therapies. Every researcher has his or her own goals and pet
projects. Mainly, this would just be a huge step in our ability to
control and regulate human cells.
DB: Do ethical responsibilities lie with the scientists, the
government or the people of a country? GS: The idea that
scientists should be thinking about the distant applications of the
knowledge they are developing and using these reflections to screen
fundamental research is not a useful model for innovation.
Scientists are narrow specialists who are not well prepared to be
insightful about the social consequences of their work. They may
have an idea, of course, but so does everyone. Breakthroughs are
built upon a foundation of tiny steps applied in ways that may
never have been imagined. In my view, knowledge from basic
biomedical research is a general good that leads to many unforeseen
benefits. The government should not restrict it. The government can
make decisions about the applications of technologies in clinical
settings. But I think (it) should be fairly loose even about this
and by and large allow people to use technologies that they
personally see as beneficial to themselves. And the government
already controls research when it comes to drug regulation. It
decides what drugs are allowed to be sold on the market. It
regulates commerce; it regulates biological experimentation, and it
regulates human experimentation. So it is already very active in
this realm. There is no need, in my view, for another layer of
regulation just because we are dealing with embryonic stem cell
research.
DB: What do you think of reproductive cloning? GS: I
have no real problem with using cloning for reproduction. Right
now, it is far too dangerous for a responsible physician to
attempt. But once it is not terribly dangerous, I think it will
become just one of many reproductive choices. The idea of a delayed
identical twin does not fill me with revulsion. Cloning just does
not put our society at risk in some deep way. I see it as a
technology that will not be very broadly used even when it becomes
relatively easy.
DB: With the hesitancy in America in terms of stem cell
research and with the fears of certain procedures’ being
banned, do you think American companies and universities will fall
behind their counterparts around the world? GS: I’m
often asked what will happen if we pass a ban on therapeutic stem
cell work in the United States. My response is that we have already
made the economics of such research so uncertain because of the
threat of such laws that interesting work has already moved
overseas. It is legal in Britain, Australia, Japan, Korea and
China, so we are handing over leadership in this realm to
operations in those areas. To me this is very unfortunate because
we have always been very open-minded about research and
technological advance, very eager to face the uncertain future. It
would be very sad for the United States to pull back now in fear,
retreating in realms so filled with promise. Will we really turn
these explorations over to other braver souls in other more
adventurous societies?
DB: How far away are we from having genetically modified
babies? GS: I think we are at least 30 years away from direct
genetic modifications of human embryos. But, effectively, the same
thing is accomplished by screening and selecting embryos produced
by in-vitro fertilization, and we are already doing that to avoid
genetic diseases. I see these screening technologies advancing
rapidly so that in a decade or two we may be able to to select for
aspects of personality, temperament and physical attributes. If you
are able to do that, which would be safe because you would not be
altering an embryo, the decision of whether to modify an embryo or
select one becomes an engineering choice rather than a moral one.
And don’t forget that we are already doing sex selection
today, which is a pretty significant choice about a future
child.
Interview conducted by Roman Barbalat, Bruin senior
staff.