Scientist Successfully Clones Himself, Creates ‘Mature’ Embryos

By Anastacia Mott Austin

California research company Stemagen reported this week that they had successfully created five embryos from skin cells that had developed to the point at which they could potentially have been transferred to a woman’s uterus.

The finding is significant because it is the first time that cloned embryos have reached that advanced stage of development, and it thus removes any further scientific barrier to completely cloning human babies, say experts.

Dr. Samuel H. Wood, CEO of Stemagen in La Jolla, California, led the study along with scientist Andrew French, in which his own skin cells and those of one of the company’s investors were cloned and developed into advanced embryos.

When asked by reporters how it felt to be looking at embryos that were an exact replica of his own DNA, Wood responded, "I have to admit, it's a very strange feeling. It is very difficult to look at an embryo and realize it is what you were a few decades ago. It is you, in a way."

The results have prompted both praise and criticism. The study is promising for those who hope to develop "personalized" medicine in the future, with the ability to clone one’s own blood or organs in case of medical need, by creating a "genetic twin." The word "twin" is misleading, however, as even the scientists who performed the study are not suggesting or advocating the cloning of a full human being, just the stem cells.

"It’s unethical and it’s illegal, and we hope no one else does it either," said Wood, referring to cloning human beings.

The Vatican was quick to condemn the study, saying that with recent advances in creating stem cells directly from skin cells, developing those cells into embryos first is unnecessary and unethical.

Vatican representative Monsignor Elio Sgreccia told reporters, "This ranks among the most morally illicit acts, ethically speaking." Sgreccia is the president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life. "[It is] the worst type of exploitation of the human being."

Others were skeptical of the results, saying that until stem cells have been extracted from the embryos, the research is not complete.

"I'd really like to believe it, but I’m not sold yet," said Robert Lanza, a representative from the Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) company in Massachusetts.

Wood responded that the company wanted to be sure they could create the embryos first, and would be repeating their research to try to extract stem cell lines.

But he told reporters that what Stemagen had done was a very important first step. "We’ve at least shown the opening to the cave that has the holy grail," said Wood.

Wood explained his theory for why his company had been able to advance further than other scientists. His team used donor eggs from the fertility clinic he oversees, and he says that using eggs from young, healthy donors may have made the difference in the success the embryos. Usually eggs used in cloning research are older, "leftover" eggs, as donors cannot be paid to donate eggs for research. The eggs used in Stemagen’s research were given by donors at his clinic in what he called an "egg-sharing" arrangement.

Some question why Stemagen would need to go the route of creating embryos when skin cells have recently been shown to develop directly into stem cells, without the need for the controversy that surrounds creating embryos and then destroying them.

The scientists counter that there are still many potential problems with the skin-to-stem cell process, including the risk that the cells can develop into cancerous tumors.

The ethics of coming so close to actually creating cloned human beings remains an unsettling thought to many people, and reaction to the development reflects this.

"This study seems to confirm that human cloning . . . is technically possible," said Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to reporters. "It does not show that a viable or normal embryonic stem cell line can be derived this way, or that any such cell has ‘therapeutic’ value. It does not answer the ethical or social questions about the mass-production of developing human lives in order to destroy them. It only tells us that these questions are more urgent than ever."