Gazizza.Net

Personally, I'm scared that those supporting ECSR will make false claims and misrepresent facts.

Ms. O'Donnell has twisted words that mean one thing into something completely different -- and false. S.B. 5 specifically outlaws the creation of human versions of Dolly the sheep. It does not outlaw the procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transplantation when, and only when, it is used for medical research and therapeutic purposes.

Here, David Dietz (the author of the article) attempts to draw a distinction where none exists. Cloning and somatic cell nuclear transplantation are the exact same thing. The sole difference lies in what happens afterwards. In cloning, the clone is allowed to grow and live. In SCNT, the clone is killed and harvested for its parts. There is no difference between cloning and SCNT; a "ban on cloning" that does not include a ban on SCNT is not a ban on cloning.

Ms. O'Donnell claims that she fears that enactment of S.B. 5 "will open the floodgates to human egg trafficking, exploitation and even the death of thousands of women." This is absolutely absurd.

The in vitro fertilization process is a completely voluntary procedure undergone by women with fertility problems who are trying to conceive. It is a difficult and unpleasant process, and women routinely allow a number of eggs to be harvested so that they won't have to go through it again. The eggs are then mixed with sperm in a petri dish and some of the resulting embryos are implanted in the woman, hopefully leading to a successful pregnancy. The remaining surplus embryos are then frozen in nitrogen and stored, sometimes for years in case they are needed again, or they are disposed of.

What Mr. Dietz fails to address is Christine O'Donnell's point that, given the high rate of failure of the cloning process used in SCNT, a huge quantity of egg cells will be needed from women. It's not just take a few and you're done. Only a very small percentage of cloning attempts are successful. It took 430 attempts to successfully clone Dolly. That's 430 eggs that were taken in order to create one clone. Here's the full breakdown of the failure points:

Each empty egg was then filled with an adult cell taken from a sheep and zapped with an electric current to fuse the two. Of the original 430, only 270 eggs were successfully hollowed out and fused with other cells and only 29 of those grew into small balls of cells known as blastocysts, the precursors of embryos. Of these, only one that was implanted developed successfully, dividing and growing inside a surrogate female until, five months later, Dolly was born.

So, let's say the ratio improves due to more experience with cloning. That's still 215 eggs for each successful clone. And that doesn't even take into account the embryos that will be used in unsuccessful experiments, or in the entire process just to get to the point where scientists have a good process built up.

Mr. Dietz is clearly off the mark when he claims there won't be any great demand for embryos. We're easily talking millions of eggs to get to even the first cure. Women will have to be exploited for their eggs, and it will be poor women who are most likely to be taken advantage of. Ms. O'Donnell and the women at Hands Off Our Ovaries are correct, contrary to Mr. Dietz's claims.

He then brings up the non sequitur of in vitro fertilization. As I mentioned recently, I would like to see in vitro banned, but am aware it's not happening any time soon. But the debate over IVF has nothing to do with the current debate over ESCR. IVF is not cloning. Mr. Dietz brings it up to attempt to discredit by association Ms. O'Donnell's points, especially since HB 76 is being rewritten to make sure IVF isn't covered by the anti-cloning regulations contained in that bill. This point is a complete non sequitur.

Since the majority of his editorial is actually about IVF, should we take this editorial as a tacit admission that ESCR is not that beneficial and can only be supported by attacking unrelated points?