Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Interview With Dr. Glenn McGee About Human Cloning
Aired December 28, 2002 - 09:40 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Back now to one of the top stories we're talking about this morning, human cloning. So many questions surround the announcement yesterday that the world's first human being has been cloned, including the most basic one, whether or not it's actually true.
For some answers, we turn to Dr. Glenn McGee. He is the associate director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics and the author of the upcoming book "Generation Genome."
Dr. McGee, good to have you with us.
DR. GLENN MCGEE, CENTER FOR BIOETHICS, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Good morning, Miles.
O'BRIEN: Let's start off, we've spent a lot of time about the skepticism. Let me ask you this. What would you need in the way of proof positive to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that in fact a human has been cloned?
MCGEE: Well, I think that most scientists agree that what you need in order to understand that you've got a real clone is a well- supervised sampling of genetic material from the parent or the progenitor whose DNA has been used to make the clone and from the baby. I say well supervised because, of course, you could take DNA from any one person and say you had a clone at any point.
And then you'd need to identify that certain individual pieces of DNA are the same across those two individuals, parts we call RFLPs (ph) that you may remember from the debate, for example, about O.J. Simpson's guilt or innocence.
It will take a long time. And just this morning, Brigitte Bosselier, the scientist associated with this group, the only one we have yet seen, said that they would not be taking the sample by independent scientists until the baby went home, wherever that is. And as you know, we have yet to see a baby or a mother.
O'BRIEN: OK. So -- and I hearken back to the effort to just map out the human genome. That took years. Is it that amount of time to match up a full genetic profile, two genetic profiles?
MCGEE: No.
O'BRIEN: No? MCGEE: No, no, no. Again, so-called RFLPs, or restriction fragment link polymorphisms, really are only tiny bits of genetic information. And then there's a statistical probability that a person is or is not a match.
RFLPs are much more useful for falsifying a claim like this. It's easy to show that you have someone who is not -- who -- one -- someone's purported that they are. It's much more difficult to use them to show that you've got the right criminal, or the right potential suspect.
O'BRIEN: All right. But it doesn't sound like this group, the Raelians and Clonaid, are headed down the path of squeaky-clean independent assessment.
MCGEE: Well, I mean, you know, I think even if you're charitable, the notion that they've selected an independent journalist who is going to pick scientists that we have yet to hear names of is at best suspicious. I mean, in any kind of real scientific experiment involving something this significant, you'd want first a peer review of the methods involved.
And then second, and most importantly, you'd want a review of what would count as success. I mean, when have you crossed, as it were, the line to the touchdown? Have they in fact done nuclear transfer, Dolly-style, in the way that Miss Bosselier claimed yesterday, or is this really just the splitting of an embryo? And if in fact this is a clone, is it a healthy clone?
I mean, we know that success rates for cows and sheep and mice and so on are no better than one or two in 100, and there is yet to be a real success in the cloning of a primate. So in order to get to the point where the Raelians say they are, there would have to have been hundreds of miscarriages, abortions, spontaneous terminations.
The way they tell the story in the press conference yesterday, it sounds like this was just ordinary in vitro fertilization. But scientists will tell you that the truth is much different.
O'BRIEN: You know, this story seems to be a cross between the Biosphere story and the cold fusion announcement of a few years back. And I'm left with the feeling that we're headed nowhere with this particular group.
But having said all of that, is it safe to say that it is just a matter of time before someone, somewhere, perhaps more credible, succeeds in cloning a human being?
MCGEE: I have heard my colleagues say in the last 24 hours that perhaps the Raelians were attempting to beat Severino Antinori (ph), the Italian fertility scientist who has said that he will be announcing the birth of a clone in January, just hoping to beat him to market, as it were.
I don't know whether or not in the long run there will be a human clone. I tell you that the best primate scientists with whom I have spoken have said again and again and again that human cloning may be a theoretical and practical impossibility. I think it's more likely we'll see a baby born to a man than that we'll see a human clone in my lifetime.
O'BRIEN: Really? (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
MCGEE: But, hey, you know, I've been wrong before.
O'BRIEN: Well, now, scientists don't often say that, though, a practical impossibility. They like to leave -- they like to hedge their bets.
MCGEE: That's absolutely right.
O'BRIEN: Being scientists and all.
MCGEE: That's absolutely right.
O'BRIEN: And so I'm surprised to hear you say that.
MCGEE: Well, that's right. But again now, there are around the United States and indeed around the world, a number of very, very prominent primate biologists working on exactly the sort of project that one would have to have accomplished in order to get human cloning off the launching pad.
And many of them -- for example, if the Yerkes Primate Research Center have reported fundamental scientific problems, not little problems you might overcome in the long run or problems like those encountered in the 290-some-odd eggs that had to be implanted to make Dolly, and the nine malformed sheep that resulted, but fundamental problems associated with something called a centrial (ph), which has to pass across in order to correctly create what one could call an embryo.
O'BRIEN: All right, one final thought here, we are pretty much of time, but I got to ask you this. Is any harm done through all of this?
MCGEE: Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, yesterday I heard again and again, and I'll repeat, because I think it's true, those of us who are in favor of human embryonic stem cell research are scratching our heads yet again at where these stories come from.
I mean, if anything will motivate the Senate to take action on something like a ban on all things related to cloning, it's going to be action like this that's irresponsible, scares people half to death, and confuses them about the difference between making a baby and trying to do something like cure Parkinson's and Alzheimer's using cells that may or may not come from embryos.
We want to be very, very clear that what we're talking about today is an offshore, not so credible attempt to make a human baby, and that is not the same thing as stem cell research.
But I can say it until I'm blue in the face, and a lot of people will still be confused this afternoon.
O'BRIEN: All right. Dr. Glenn McGee, good words.
MCGEE: My pleasure.
O'BRIEN: Thank you for putting that all in perspective for us. He's with the University of Pennsylvania, the Center for Bioethics there. Appreciate your being with us.
MCGEE: Miles, have a good day.
O'BRIEN: All right. You too.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired December 28, 2002 - 09:40 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Back now to one of the top stories we're talking about this morning, human cloning. So many questions surround the announcement yesterday that the world's first human being has been cloned, including the most basic one, whether or not it's actually true.
For some answers, we turn to Dr. Glenn McGee. He is the associate director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics and the author of the upcoming book "Generation Genome."
Dr. McGee, good to have you with us.
DR. GLENN MCGEE, CENTER FOR BIOETHICS, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Good morning, Miles.
O'BRIEN: Let's start off, we've spent a lot of time about the skepticism. Let me ask you this. What would you need in the way of proof positive to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that in fact a human has been cloned?
MCGEE: Well, I think that most scientists agree that what you need in order to understand that you've got a real clone is a well- supervised sampling of genetic material from the parent or the progenitor whose DNA has been used to make the clone and from the baby. I say well supervised because, of course, you could take DNA from any one person and say you had a clone at any point.
And then you'd need to identify that certain individual pieces of DNA are the same across those two individuals, parts we call RFLPs (ph) that you may remember from the debate, for example, about O.J. Simpson's guilt or innocence.
It will take a long time. And just this morning, Brigitte Bosselier, the scientist associated with this group, the only one we have yet seen, said that they would not be taking the sample by independent scientists until the baby went home, wherever that is. And as you know, we have yet to see a baby or a mother.
O'BRIEN: OK. So -- and I hearken back to the effort to just map out the human genome. That took years. Is it that amount of time to match up a full genetic profile, two genetic profiles?
MCGEE: No.
O'BRIEN: No? MCGEE: No, no, no. Again, so-called RFLPs, or restriction fragment link polymorphisms, really are only tiny bits of genetic information. And then there's a statistical probability that a person is or is not a match.
RFLPs are much more useful for falsifying a claim like this. It's easy to show that you have someone who is not -- who -- one -- someone's purported that they are. It's much more difficult to use them to show that you've got the right criminal, or the right potential suspect.
O'BRIEN: All right. But it doesn't sound like this group, the Raelians and Clonaid, are headed down the path of squeaky-clean independent assessment.
MCGEE: Well, I mean, you know, I think even if you're charitable, the notion that they've selected an independent journalist who is going to pick scientists that we have yet to hear names of is at best suspicious. I mean, in any kind of real scientific experiment involving something this significant, you'd want first a peer review of the methods involved.
And then second, and most importantly, you'd want a review of what would count as success. I mean, when have you crossed, as it were, the line to the touchdown? Have they in fact done nuclear transfer, Dolly-style, in the way that Miss Bosselier claimed yesterday, or is this really just the splitting of an embryo? And if in fact this is a clone, is it a healthy clone?
I mean, we know that success rates for cows and sheep and mice and so on are no better than one or two in 100, and there is yet to be a real success in the cloning of a primate. So in order to get to the point where the Raelians say they are, there would have to have been hundreds of miscarriages, abortions, spontaneous terminations.
The way they tell the story in the press conference yesterday, it sounds like this was just ordinary in vitro fertilization. But scientists will tell you that the truth is much different.
O'BRIEN: You know, this story seems to be a cross between the Biosphere story and the cold fusion announcement of a few years back. And I'm left with the feeling that we're headed nowhere with this particular group.
But having said all of that, is it safe to say that it is just a matter of time before someone, somewhere, perhaps more credible, succeeds in cloning a human being?
MCGEE: I have heard my colleagues say in the last 24 hours that perhaps the Raelians were attempting to beat Severino Antinori (ph), the Italian fertility scientist who has said that he will be announcing the birth of a clone in January, just hoping to beat him to market, as it were.
I don't know whether or not in the long run there will be a human clone. I tell you that the best primate scientists with whom I have spoken have said again and again and again that human cloning may be a theoretical and practical impossibility. I think it's more likely we'll see a baby born to a man than that we'll see a human clone in my lifetime.
O'BRIEN: Really? (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
MCGEE: But, hey, you know, I've been wrong before.
O'BRIEN: Well, now, scientists don't often say that, though, a practical impossibility. They like to leave -- they like to hedge their bets.
MCGEE: That's absolutely right.
O'BRIEN: Being scientists and all.
MCGEE: That's absolutely right.
O'BRIEN: And so I'm surprised to hear you say that.
MCGEE: Well, that's right. But again now, there are around the United States and indeed around the world, a number of very, very prominent primate biologists working on exactly the sort of project that one would have to have accomplished in order to get human cloning off the launching pad.
And many of them -- for example, if the Yerkes Primate Research Center have reported fundamental scientific problems, not little problems you might overcome in the long run or problems like those encountered in the 290-some-odd eggs that had to be implanted to make Dolly, and the nine malformed sheep that resulted, but fundamental problems associated with something called a centrial (ph), which has to pass across in order to correctly create what one could call an embryo.
O'BRIEN: All right, one final thought here, we are pretty much of time, but I got to ask you this. Is any harm done through all of this?
MCGEE: Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, yesterday I heard again and again, and I'll repeat, because I think it's true, those of us who are in favor of human embryonic stem cell research are scratching our heads yet again at where these stories come from.
I mean, if anything will motivate the Senate to take action on something like a ban on all things related to cloning, it's going to be action like this that's irresponsible, scares people half to death, and confuses them about the difference between making a baby and trying to do something like cure Parkinson's and Alzheimer's using cells that may or may not come from embryos.
We want to be very, very clear that what we're talking about today is an offshore, not so credible attempt to make a human baby, and that is not the same thing as stem cell research.
But I can say it until I'm blue in the face, and a lot of people will still be confused this afternoon.
O'BRIEN: All right. Dr. Glenn McGee, good words.
MCGEE: My pleasure.
O'BRIEN: Thank you for putting that all in perspective for us. He's with the University of Pennsylvania, the Center for Bioethics there. Appreciate your being with us.
MCGEE: Miles, have a good day.
O'BRIEN: All right. You too.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
