SCNT was initially used for treating bubble babies or children with adenosine deaminase (ADA) deficiency.

A child with ADA deficiency is most likely to develop cancer and opportunistic infections due to a compromised immune system. In 1991, doctors inserted healthy, normal cells into a child with blood from its umbilical cord. Immune defense fully formed and no gene rejection was observed. A major setback in gene therapy trial, however, happened in 1999 when a patient with ornithine transcarboxylase deficiency (OTCD) died from multiple organ failures after start of treatment. His death is believed to have been caused by a severe immune response to the adenoviral vector. Another blow came in January 2003, when the FDA temporarily banned gene therapy trials using retroviral carriers in blood stem cells after two patients developed a leukemia-like condition. Both though had been successfully treated by gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency disease (X-SCID). In April of the same year, the FDA eased the said ban. Recent developments in SCNT research have demonstrated a great leap since its infancy. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania cured two human subjects from chronic lymphocytic leukemia via genetically modified T cells (2011). Achromatopsia or complete color blindness in dogs was cured through SCNT (2010). Researchers succeeded at halting a fatal brain disease,

adrenoleukodystrophy, using an HIV-derived vector (2009). The School of Pharmacy in London (2009) utilized nano-particles as vector in SCNT treatment of torpedo cancer in mice. UK researchers (2008) successfully used SCNT to improve sight for an inherited type of blindness in dogs. Dual gene therapy done by the University of Texas suppressed human lung cancer tumors in mice (2007). The National Cancer Institute (NCI) reengineered lymphocytes using SCNT to attack cancer cells in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma (2006). Study had shown that SCNT therapy can cure diseases of the myeloid system (2006). Italian scientists used microRNAs to prevent the immune system from rejecting genes delivered during SCNT (2006). Using adenoviral vectors, deafness in guinea pigs was repaired through regrowth of cochlear hair cells triggered by SCNT (2005). In 2003, a research team from the University of California - Los Angeles made a breakthrough by successfully getting genes into the brain using polymer-coated liposomes, potentiating treatment for Parkinsons disease. Geneticists see gene repair and silencing through SCNT as possible treatment to Huntington's chorea, thalassaemia, cystic fibrosis and some cancers (2003). DNA nanoballs were created (2002), allowing DNA transfer across the

pores in the nuclear membrane. Sickle cell anaemia in mice was corrected via SCNT (2002). To date, the number of patients treated via SCNT is still too significantly small to fully assess its safety or efficacy. There has been a significant disagreement on the use of SCNT for genetic enhancement rather than therapeutic purposes. The issue stems out partly from drawing the line between therapy and enhancement. SCNT, for example, can be used in improving the capacity of bone marrow cells of cancer patients to resist unwanted effects of chemotherapy. The question is whether this will fall under therapy or enhancement. Some could argue that since the process is a necessary part of a procedure aimed at mitigating a pathological condition, then there is no reason to describe it as enhancement. Will the same reasoning apply in cases of immunization for positive health in which there is absence of pathology? Since this improves resistance to certain diseases beyond the normal capacity, it can be considered an enhancement. However, since its purpose is disease prevention, it can also be counted as therapeutic. Is it enhancement to improve ones body in a way that slows aging and inhibits certain diseases or is it preventive treatment for those ailments? These are only a few of the many questions concerning how therapy differs from enhancement. A need for a clear-cut distinction between therapy and enhancement, thus, arises. Naturalists define health as the absence of disease and pathology as a condition impairing body function. Therapy, then, is a response to a pathological condition in order to restore positive health. Processes aimed at other than preserving or restoring normal body functions are considered genetic enhancements. Robert Wachbroit suggests a classification scheme based on purpose or outcome. For instance, there are two people whose height is below five feet. While the first person has short parents, the second one has tall parents but suffers from a growth disorder. SCNT on the latter constitutes a modification as a response to a disease. In this case, height modification can be considered therapeutic. No doubt that the prospect of employing SCNT for human enhancement is a controversy surrounding its use. Critics of SCNT contend that the misuse of genetic enhancement is like opening Pandoras box. And some tend to associate all forms of genetic manipulation with the past abuses of the eugenics or the improvement of genetic qualities through selective breeding. Determining if SCNT use is ethically acceptable thus becomes crucial. Wachbroit and Zhang Xinqing identified assessment of product and process - what the enhancement is and how it is achieved as review principles. In an interview on Genetic Enhancement and the Future of Humanity, Nick Bostrom stresses the importance of understanding "existential risks" in implementing technological advancements. He points out that there is

an intrinsic value in gene enhancements for improved cognition, comparing it with non-positional goods in economics. He opposes the view that man should inherently accept biological chance. He reasons that history has shown that man becoming familiar with new technologies has conquered repulsion against trans-humanism. In the 2006 Conference on Emerging Technologies for Enhancement, arguments in favor of genetic enhancement were noted: (1) We have performed enhancement as long as humans have existed. (2) Natural talent is as unfair as the inequality of access to enhancement products. (3) Enhancement boosts the economy and business competitiveness, and lowers the cost of doing business. (4) We are already changing what it means to be human. (5) Enhancement is a private individual choice. (6) One cannot deal with enhancement in a blanket way but has to do it on a case-by-case basis. The use of gene therapy for the purpose of enhancement has created the term gene doping. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) defined it as the non-therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements or modulation of gene expression having the capacity to enhance performance." In 2002, researchers inserted insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) gene into the muscle tissues of mice leading to the creation of the so-called Schwarzenegger mice. This provided invaluable insights on how to treat muscular degenerative diseases such as Duchenne muscle dystrophy. Another group reported in 2005 that injecting mice with the gene for fat-burning protein PPAR- allowed them to run faster, giving rise to "marathon mice." Related lines of research wanted to check if the gene has any bearing on obesity and type II diabetes. Although genetic modification on these animals produced enhanced traits, it required changes in the subjects environment such as health regime, exercise, etc. Gene doping to improve athletic abilities equally demanded the same type of rigorous training for these animal subjects. Hence, despite SCNT can be used to elicit competitive advantage, it is not a fully worked-up magic wand. An argument against SCNT, either as therapy or enhancement, is that changing the genetic makeup of cells is tampering with the very order of nature created by God. Genetic enhancements were criticized as overstepping the bounds of human intervention similar to playing God. In modern societies, human beings intervene with nature every day. To which extent we are playing God or not playing God, nobody can provide an explicit answer. Bio-conservatists often appeal to religion when objecting to technological advancements such as gene therapy. A number of religions though perceive gene therapy as a way of making up for the defects of nature, which is by all means moral. Judaism

encourages therapeutic interventions based on the importance of saving life. Islam places no limitations on pursuit of scientific knowledge, including genetic knowledge. Confucians support the full realization of one's mandate; there is no predetermined pattern or cosmic blueprint against which to check one's progress. A concern that also needs attention is the capacity of SCNT to cause a greater divide between the have and have not populations of our society. Like other emerging technologies, gene therapy entails high costs, possibly restricting its application among the rich. Man acquiring strong power to shape his evolutionary destiny could inadvertently result to inequity in privileges. How much ramifications we can further go might spell disaster for our society if we fail to carefully scrutinize the ethics of our own doings.

References Bostrom, Nick. (2011). Perfection Is Not A Useful Concept. Retrieved from http://theeuropeanmagazine.com Gene Therapy. (2012). From Wikipedia. Retrieved May 11, 2012 from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gene_therapy Murray, Thomas and Mehlman, Maxwell. (2001). Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues in Biotechnology. Wiley: New York Pray, Leslie. (2008). Sports, Gene Doping, and WADA. From Nature Education. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/sports-gene-doping-and-wada Wolbring, Gregor. (2006, June 15). Therapy Versus Enhancement: Not as Simple as It Sounds. Retrieved from http://www.innovationwatch-archive.com/choiceisyours.htm Xinqing, Zhang. (2003) Gene Therapy from the Lens of Confucian Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.eubios.info/ABC4.htm