Taking advantage of semantic ambiguity of the word extra permits the so-called extra-zygotic, extra-embryonic and extra-fetal membranes, which are the exter-nal part of entire embryo – fetus – but essential (vital organs!) for the beginning of its development in tubal environment and for the continuation of its normal growth –long before their natural disintegration in uterus or their natural detachment (just after birth), to be considered as mere parts belonging to maternal environment, i.e. extra-neous to the entire embryo-fetus.
3.
A membrane – otherwise called: covering, holder, envelope, capsule (Serra, Colombo), pushchair (Serra), cummerbund (Sica), mechanical barrier (De Carli), non-cellular barrier, letter box (Giuli), micro incubator (Shapiro), protective shell, nonliving (glycoprotein) capsule in non-cellular form (Ford), etc.– inside which, the embryo as such (?) develops. Flamigni, in fact, asserts that <<si è formata nell'ovaio>> (FlamigniC.Lo sviluppo della struttura embrionale. in Le Scienze, quaderni, 100 (1998), 23). For this reason, all the experts cited assert it would not be a product of the oocytes, but – as Serra suggests – <<preparata con grande cura dalla mamma stessa>>. That is: an exclusive product of maternal environment; a part completely extraneous to the mature oocyte, as if it belonged to the external ovary tissue.
4.
SaphiroB.M.“Control of Oxidant Stress at Fertilization,” in Science252 (1991), 533–536.
5.
Biological identity (biological individuality) of the human embryo is represented by the dynamics and open self-organization of cellular DNA in its interaction with an environment (nuclear, cytoplasmic cellular, intercellular, embryonic, maternal). This self-organization – a conceptual term that is very different from order or structure! – is a four dimensional, coherent and autonomous net of biochemical processes which involve, in a singular and unrepeatable interaction, all cells of each human individual from the first moment of its development till death. It expresses the so-called “biological information” (or biological form), which is unique (singular) for each cell of an individual and for each individual, even for monozygotic (so-called “identical”) twins. Genetic identity (genetic individuality) of the human embryo, instead, is represented only by the molecular structure of DNA. A structure that is given by the sequence of bases of each gene and by the arrangement of genes within that molecule (see HGP = Human Genome Project). It expresses the <<genoma o l'informazione genetica>>, or the <<contenuto informazionale […] che determina la struttura (“forma molecolare”) […] di DNA>> (Serra and Colombo). It is unique (singular) for each human zygote, while it is identical for each cell of an individual and each “identical” twin of the same zygote.
6.
It is also referring to genetic identity, instead of biological identity, that each human individual, at the very beginning of its development, becomes a mere “clump” of “identical” cells, all autonomous and ontologically distinct. Consequently, each individual and each “identical” twin becomes indiscernible inside the embryo, until the distinct primitive streak “appears” – only visible under the optical microscope at the 14th day! See note 8 and 9.
7.
This serious mistake, among many others, are Finkel's own “dreadful distortions of the science” (FinkelE.Stem Cells. Controversy at the Frontiers of Science, ABC Books, Sydney, NSW, 2005: 1, 47; in the same essay, see her correct description on p. 26). Concerning them, compare my Notes on the Mistakes and the Ambiguities Found in E. Finkel's Book (not yet published). The same mistake it is found in the Spinner Press, Stem Cell Research, Sydney: Ed J. Healey, Issues in Society, 2003 (see schemes n? 1,3 and 4) and in Vescovi A. L., La cura ache viene da dentro, Mi: Mondatori, 2005: 58.
8.
Ford in his most famous book (N.M. Ford, When did I Begin? Conception of Human Individual in History, Philosophy and Science, New York 1988) repeatedly (regularly) creates confusion between the terms biological and genetic, “jumping” from one meaning to the other. Very many times he identifies both terms with <<or>>, sometimes he distinguishes them with <<and>>. E.g. (emphasis added): “Biologists speak about one's genetic or biological identity or [?] genome being established at fertilization […]”; “genetic or biological individuality” (Ivi, 117); “understood in a genetic or [?] biological sense”; “speaking genetically and biologically”; “same constitution or nature”; “biological human nature”; “human genetic constitution or [?] nature” (Ivi, 126, 127, 128, 129). A succession of “jumps” that is particularly repeated on p. 262 and more subtly on p. 192 (in heavy type, the page number of the Italian edition: N.M. Ford, Quando comincio io? Il concepimento nella storia, nella filsofia e nella scienza, Milano, 1997); an exclusive use of the term genetic (or genetically) until p. 62 and, later on, a prevalent use of it (xii, xv, xvi–xvii, 6-7, 17, 52, 60-62… 97-103, 109, 111, 124-125 … 179).
9.
In Ford's understanding the embryo's cells are all identical (?), totipotent (?) and autonomous (or only “in a weak interaction”) and, consequently, inside each human embryo there are as many “identical and indiscernible” cells as there are potential and identical (?) twins. Ford, in his cited book always writes the term identical without inverted commas and he uses it persistently (FordN.M.When did I…, op, cit, xvii, 61, 92, 102, 109, 111-112, 117, 119-120, 122-123, 125, 128, 136) and apparently in a needless manner. The term, in fact, in case of monozygotic twins, is not used correctly, because it is not understood in the meaning of genetically identical only. That is, identical (in cursive), or “identical” (within inverted commas), or “humanely” identical (Ford). Very often, he uses it in the meaning of <<very similar>>; <<identical from every point of view […] with exactly the same characteristics>> (Ivi, 92, 122); <<identical as molecules of water>> (Ivi, 74); <<equal>> (Ivi, 117, 121, 139); <<the exact copy>> (Ivi, 103)… i.e. in the – wrong – meaning of the exactly (perfectly, very) identical.
10.
Although a zygote <<si distingue da ogni altro zigote>> (see SenaA.Lo stato biologico dell’ embrione umano. Quando inicia l'esserre umano? In PONTIFICA ACADEMIA PER LA VITA (a cura di) Commento interdisciplinare alla “Evangelium Vitae”, Città del Vaticano 1997: 587) <<per la sua nuova e singolare struttura informazionale>> (Ivi, 578), it is never genetically identical to any other, the use of the term genetic instead of biological to define the identity (individuality) of the human embryo during the development, is wrong. Genetic understood as biological involves an important conceptual mistake, which gives rise to serious misunderstanding. This misunderstanding has been skillfully exploited by “lay” bioethics experts (especially by Goldberg, Mori). Even the most authoritative “Catholic” experts (Ford, Colombo and Jesuits McCormick and Serra) have failed to sufficiently highlight this conceptual mistake. Compare with note 14.
11.
Primitive streak represents the sketch (the vestige) of that part of the entire human individual human at birth, which, being deprived of his own fetal membrane, can survive, as such, only after birth.
12.
Ford, in this way, has succeeded in ascribing to the corporal shape of the human being – after birth! – <<the criterion>> to establish the moment – the “mystical moment”, in the “chaotic microcosm [?]” (J. Walker) – of ontological beginning of each human being – before birth! Yet, he has only succeeded because he has reduced (has made to coincide) the biological form of the human individual to its genetic form, which, being identical for “identical” twins, makes them “visible” and distinguishable (inside the entire embryo) only when the initial sketch of what will be their distinct corporal part only (the shape of the primitive streak) appears. A synchronic shape, that is singular for each human individual, but that would render it distinguishable (individualize) inside the “clump” of identical (?) cells – that would render identical (?) twins distinguishable (individualize) inside the pre-embryo – only from the 14th day on. Ford's criterion, besides, is based on semantic confusion between: the “embryo's development” (already human individual) and “embryonic development” (into a human individual); “embryo's formation” (already human individual) “embryonic formation” (into a human individual) (so, the Anglican Primate Peter Carnley quoted in the Editorial of The Australian, 2 April 2002, p. 8); “(individual) human life” and “(cellular) human life”; or rather between the “formation” of the human individual (the moment of its constitution, when it is in act and its existence begins at fertilization) and the “form” (the “potential” to the “form”) of his (own) corporal anatomic/body part only marked, from 14th day of the embryo's development on, by the primitive streak. As well as Cryosite (www.cryosite.com.au). Stem Cell Storage: the Facts, The Spinner Press, Stem Cell Research… p. 11; MyDr, Stem Cells Research and Cloning: What You Need to Know, The Spinner Press, Stem Cell Research. p. 8. The formation of the human individual, in fact, coincides with the moment when its biological form begins (see again note 5). A diachronic form, as singular as genetic form, but which renders human individual recognizable and distinguishable – which renders “identical” twins identifiable, localizable and distinguishable (individualizes) inside the embryo – long before the “appearance” of primitive streak. Biological form, in fact, is a self organization dynamic form which includes the genetic form (“static”, “invariable” molecular order of genome) and which always precedes the corporeal “form” (i.e. the corporal shape). This last, in fact, is the fruit – visible by optical microscope only from the 14th day on! – of the previous invisible unitary biological processes which have their very beginning, for each human individual – even if “identical” twins!– always and in any case, from the zygote (about this last assertion, see BOZZATOG.El embriòon no es nunca nadie, es siempre alguien, in Berit International, Istituto de la Famiglia, 1 (2003), 69–88).
13.
A singular potential (natural, passive and extrinsic possibility), that Ford and the experts of Italian CNB (National Committee for the Bioethics) have succeeded in transforming into a true potency (natural, actual-active and intrinsic capacity). Compare notes 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28.
14.
As “lay” bioethicists have confused genetic with biological, so, too, have Savalescu and Finkel (see note 27) have also confused potential (a possibility) of the embryo's cells with the exclusive potency (the capacity) of the zygote-embryo to develop and acquire its definitive human shape. Based on this double confusion, Savalescu even claims that (emphasis added): <<… we now know that every cell in our body has a chance of producing a baby. Every cell – every skin, heart, lung, liver cell – has the complete genetic code or blueprint (just like an embryo) to produce a human being. There is no moral difference between a fertilized egg sitting in a laboratory and a skin cell. Both could produce a baby if very advanced technology were applied to them>> (SavulescuJ.Why Human Research Cannot be Locked in a Cell, The Spinner Press, Stem Cell Research…, p. 31). This is not true! The “very advanced technology” is essential only for cells.
15.
The mistake is found in schemes n° 1, 3 and 4 on The Spinner Press, Stem Cell Research…, pp. 4, 5 and 6.
16.
As the pellucid membrane is an external part of an embryo, but not extraneous to it, because it is vital at the very beginning of its development inside the tubal environment – even though the embryo at nestle must “lose” it, as it is no longer necessary – so the trophoblast is an external part of the embryo, but not extraneous to it, because it is vital inside the uterine environment – even though the newborn, at birth, in order to survive outside its mother's womb, must lose it (or rather, must lose its own fetal membranes, which descend from that trophoblast) as they are no longer necessary. Cytoplasmic membrane is the real skin of any cell. Since the zygote is different from any other human cell, because it is the entire human individual at the beginning of its growth and development – oriented to acquire its definitive shape – the pellucid membrane (which covers the zygote's cytoplasmic membrane) is its very skin. In fact, during pregnancy: not only the fetus would die, if we removed its own fetal membrane – not only <<il processo di sviluppo si arresta immediamente se il disco embrionale viene separate dai suoi annessi, amnios, chorion>> (SerraA.Lo stato biologico…, p. 582) – but contrary to what all the experts quoted in this article claim, the pre-implanted zygote-embryo would also die if we removed (or, if we considered it, as such, devoid of) its (own) pellucid membrane.
17.
Ford in this way, reduces the entire human individual which, during its development in the mother's womb (until birth), includes its own fetal membranes, to its inner part only. The more strictly corporal part, deprived of those membranes – because considered <<non-animate tissues>> (?) also by Finkel (Finkel E., Stem Cells… p. 25) – is only able to survive, as such, after birth!
18.
A part (a half, a piece) of the entire embryo, that “Lay” bioethics continues to refer to as the embryo (rarely <<entire>> or <<true and proper embryo>>) masks the unique (true) entire embryo – which begins its development at the zygote stage – with its “entire” (half, a piece, false) embryo – which, instead, begins its own development (begins to form its corporal shape) inside the so-called pre-embryo (the entire embryo!) – from the 14th day onwards (As well in FinkelE.Stem Cells… p. 26–27)
19.
This is why for Ford the embryo, at very beginning of its development, is not yet! And, obviously, it is not yet because the sketch of that corporal part has not yet begun to form itself inside the entire embryo, neither at the zygote stage nor at the blastocyst stage. Ford's rationality forces him to “detach” from the entire pre-implant zygote-embryo – which, at beginning of his development is still in the mother's womb! – its (own) pellucid membrane; then to “detach” from the entire embryo – already during pregnancy! – its (own) trophoblast; then to “detach”, from the entire fetus – already before birth! – its (own) fetal membrane. In Ford's logic, therefore, only the butterfly is the entire insect, while the same insect at larval stage from which the metamorphosed butterfly emerges (losing its own empty exoskeleton as it is no longer necessary), is a pre-insect, i.e. nobody. A simple (living) thing that precedes the butterfly and takes its origins from it. By exactly the same odd argument Ford and “lay” bioethics experts view the entire zygote-embryo simply as biological <<human material>> (as well in Yeo J., “A Christian Role in Stem Cell Research,” in The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 August 2002, p. 11). The refuse of two human beings, floating and roving in uterine fluid, fortuitously organizes itself to make a “nest” (Ford). A useful receptacle, still empty, of a possible (potential) <<entire embryo>> that is totally extraneous to it till the 14th day of embryo (!) development, when all of a sudden and only after that day – <<and not before it>> (Ford) – a human individual begins (sic!). Compare next note.
20.
Ford considers the embryonic membrane, and corresponding fetal membrane as simple <<support tissues>>, external – and extraneous!– with respect to <<entire embryo>> and to <<true and proper fetus>> (FordN.M., HerbertP.Stem Cells…, pp. 10, 36; Ford N., When did I…, pp. 133, 143. So that, these membranes, even if they are essential (vital organs) to the embryo-fetus during development in the mother's womb, are not considered essential and integrant parts of the entire (true) human individual (Ivi, 20). Ford, in fact, does not consider them – as they really are – as essential and integrant parts of embryo and fetus because they are soon <<nascoste>> and <<non battezzate e private di sepoltura>>(!?) (Ford N., Quando comincio io…, p. 203 and, only in the Italian edition, also on p. 233). These justifications, though they may be anthropologically acceptable, are simply incoherent from a scientific point of view.
21.
As Ford says <<An embryo cannot exist before human development begins>> (FordM.N., HerbertP.Stem Cells, Strathfild (NSW) 2003, 74), then the “entire” human individual – i.e. the <<entire embryo>> – is (is in act, is in existence, begins to exist) only from the 14th day on, when, inside the inner cell mass (ICM) of entire blastocyst (which is, with its own pellucid membrane, the entire human individual!) the primitive streak begins to develop (or rather, only when it “appears” under optical microscope!), See M.N. Ford, The Prenatal Person…, pp. 66, 55, 244, 56; M.N. Ford, P, Herbert, Stem Cells…, p. 10). We must understand only the meaning of inside – avoiding the semantic equivocation inside/entire – for the term “entire” that we find in Ford's recent book. As well in A. L. Vescovi and L. Spinardi, “La natura biologica dell'embrione,” in Medicina e Morale 1 (2004), 55-58; 60).
22.
<<E’ sufficiente ricordare, allora, che le prime 2 o 4 cellule (blastomeri) dell'embrione sono quelle che definiamo “totipotenti” [within inverted commas! (author's note)], vale a dire che ciascuna di esse possiede nel suo genoma [!] la capacità di generare un intero organismo>> (emphasis added) (SureauC.Come la clonazione riproduttiva umana può cambiare la nostra vita: alcuni scenari, in McLarenA. (ed), La clonazione – uno sguardo etico – Rm: Sapere 2000 edizioni multimediali: 93).
23.
Using this conceptual reduction (confusion, exchange, substitution, identification), between nuclear totipotency (clearly underlined in previous note) and cellular totipotency, “Lay” bioethics may – artfully – maintain that (naked) cells of the embryo, would be, till the 6th day of development (CNB), as totipotent as the (entire) zygote. That is, each of them would have not only the potential but exactly the same (spontaneously, actively, inherently, naturally, biologically, deterministically) potency of zygote to develop as a new embryo (inside the original embryo!).
Natural (as a mere possibility or potential) should not be confused with natural as a biologically determinate capacity or potency. Natural is also what may accidentally (rarely and fortuitously) happen. “Identical” twinning, which has a very low incidence, is exactly the same in every human population in the world (unlike fraternal twinning), is natural only in this last meaning.
26.
A toti-potential which, as such, is only a passive and extrinsic possibility that may take place in a given embryo by a rare and fortuitous natural event – <<a noise in the genetic programme>> (H. Atlan) – or by an artificial experimental operation of embryo splitting (but then only by including each “part” of the dead embryo into an artificial pellucid membrane!). Compare last note.
27.
The confusion (the substitution) between may (might) and can – i.e. between natural (as a passive extrinsic potential) and natural (as an active-actual intrinsic potency) – is made by Finkel in his book quoted above (see on: p. 8: <<can also still split>>; p. 26: <<capable of splitting>>; p. 34: <<can split>>; p. 36: <<able to twin>>).
28.
The same confusion (mistake) is made by Ford (emphasis added): <<[…] the zygote has a natural actual potency for cell multiplication and differentiation to form one or more human individuals.>> (FordM.N.The Prenatal Person…, op. cit., p. 66; see M. N. Ford, P. Herbert, Stem Cells…, op. cit., p. 74). Also for the Italian CNB (cursive and square brackets added): human embryo is <<[…] una struttura blologica umana specificatamente orginizzata, nonché specificatamente e autonomamente – “spontanea” [-mente]” – tesa a dar luogo alla produzione di [più] individui umani chlaramente discernibili […]>> (COMITATO NAZIONALE PER LA BIOETICA, identitià e statuto dell'embrione umano, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Misnistri, Roma, 1996, 14, 15 e 17).
29.
Called also: “primitive embryo”; “human material” (Yeo J.); “potential individual”, “test-tube embryo”, “excess embryo”, “fertilized egg” (FinkelE.); “proembryo” (Ford N.); “[cellular!] human life” (Muelenberg B.); “human cells” (Savulescu); “laboratory material” (Agazzi E.); “ball of cells”, “surplus embryo” (www.biotechnology.gov.au); “collection of undifferentiated blank cells”, “isolated human cell tissue”, “random process of cell division” and “chaotic microcosm” (sic!) (Walker J.).
30.
Tuziorism is also well expressed in Evangelium Vitae n° 60.
31.
More precisely, the Catholic experts of the Bioethical Centre of Catholic University “Sacred Heart” in Rome.
32.
SerraA., ColumboR.“Idenlità e statuto dell'embrione umano: il contributo della biologia,” in PONTIFICIA ACADMEIA PRO VITA (a cum di), Identità e statute dell’ embrione umano, Città del Vaticano 1998, p. 132): <<la capsula di fertilizzazione [i.e. the pellucid membrane (author's note)] (…) essa è centrale per uno sviluppo normale e costituisce una elegante soluzione nella morfogensi>>. Serra e Colombo (Ivi. pp. 151 e 154) referring to experiments performed by Hall-Stillman – and cited by Kolberg – on human embryos with abnormal chromosomes, textually reports that: <<Singoli blastomeri separati […] furono revestiti di una zona pellucida artificiale e posti in un terreno nutritivo dove potessero cominciare a dividersi di nuovo […] >>; <<Nell'altro modello sperimentale, due o più sets di cellule embrionali di stadi pre-blastocistici sono aggregati insieme entro la stessa zona pellucida […] il processo epigenetico procede così […]>> (compare also A. Serra, L'uomo-embrione: il grande misconosciuto, Siena 2003, 118). Ford, as well (cursive and square bracket added): <<Blastomeri provenienti da diversi embrioni possono [devono!] essere aggregati e sigillati con agar in un cilindro fino a determinarne la blastulazione […]>> (N. M. Ford, Quando comincio io?…, p. 209; ID, When did I …, p. 139). And more recently: <<When a single cell from four-cell white, black and brown sheep embryos is aggregated in an empty pellucid zone […] a […] sheep can be formed>> (ID, The Prenatal Person. Ethics from Conception to Birth, Vic-Australia 2002: 66. See M. L. Di Pietro, E. Sgreccia, Procreazione assistita e fecondazione artificiale, tra scienza bioetia e diritto, Brescia 1999, 110-111: <<Kolberg riporta che i due ricercatori americani hanno deciso di intraprendere questo progetto – che è stato premiato come migliore lavoro presentato al meeting annuale dall'American Fertility Society – dopo che nel 1991 erano riusciti a realizzare una membrana pellucida sintelica con la quale rivestire le due cellule embrionali separate. Prima di arrivare a questo artificio, infatti, i tentativi di duplicare l'embrione umano non erano mai riusciti>>.
