Ethics of Human Cloning | Introduction
To clone a living thing is to make an exact genetic copy of that organism. Individual genes—the biochemical building blocks that govern the structure and function of all living creatures—can be cloned, as can whole cells. Both gene and cell cloning are common research tools in current genetic and biomedical research.
Entire organisms can also be cloned. For example, humans have cloned plants for centuries by use of small cuttings—a process called vegetative propagation. Some invertebrate animals—starfish and earthworms, for example,—grow into two identical organisms when split apart, but most animals differ from plants in that they cannot be cloned so readily.
In the 1980s scientists began researching methods of cloning higherorder animals—mammals in particular. The accelerating success of their experiments has led to widespread discussion over the possibility of human cloning. This discussion has revealed widespread disagreement, both within the scientific community and the general public, over whether human cloning research should be allowed.
Two types of cloning
There are two general methods of cloning in higher animals, and both have been the subject of scientific study. One already occurs naturally for some humans when identical twins or triplets are born. This happens when the fertilized egg (a zygote), early in the process of development, divides into two separate parts, each of which develops into a genetically identical individual. In the 1980s this same process was artificially stimulated in cattle. The first experiments in artificially stimulating twinning in humans were done in 1993 by researchers in George Washington University in Washington, D.C. (The researchers deliberately performed their cloning experiments on genetically abnormal embryos that had no chance of survival.)
The other method of cloning is called nuclear transplantation. In this procedure, the nucleus of a cell (where virtually all the genetic material is located) is transplanted into or fused with an egg whose nucleus has been removed. When most people talk about the prospect of human cloning, they envision the use of some kind of nuclear transplantation. This is something that, as of September 2000, has yet to be done in humans, and is not even known to have been attempted.
For many years, most scientists have maintained that using nuclear transplantation to create a clone from a mature cell of a mammal was impossible because of formidable biological barriers. While all mammalian cells contain the same full genetic information as the original fertilized egg, they have become specialized. As cells develop some genetic instructions are turned off and others turned on so that some cells become skin cells, others form nerves, still others form blood cells, and so on. What scientists could not figure out was how to take, for example, a skin cell and reprogram it to not create more skin cells, but instead to subdivide into different cells and develop into a whole new animal. In the 1980s and 1990s scientists successfully cloned mammals via nuclear transplantation, but these experiments used cell nuclei from developing embryos, not from adult animals.
Then, in early 1997, researchers in Scotland stunned the world by announcing that they had successfully used nuclear transplantation to create a clone of an adult sheep. In a sense, the clone, named “Dolly,” had three female parents: The nucleus of an udder cell from one sheep was fused with an enucleated egg cell from a second sheep and the resulting embryo was then placed in the uterus of a third. Dolly became a celebrity of sorts, and later became a mother (through ordinary reproductive methods), demonstrating that she was a fully functioning adult.
The scientists who created Dolly disavowed any intention of cloning humans, saying the purpose of their research was to perfect methods of mass-producing genetically identical animals. However, the announcement caused much public furor centered on the prospect of cloning human beings. A Time/CNN poll found 93 percent of Americans expressing disapproval of human cloning. Many bioethicists and scientists spoke out against human cloning. The Roman Catholic Church called for a universal ban on human cloning, while President Bill Clinton announced a moratorium on federal funding of cloning research.
In response to public concern, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), an expert panel created by Clinton to explore ethical issues surrounding the biotechnology industry, was given the task of investigating the issue. After taking testimony from scientists, ethicists, religious leaders, and others, NBAC recommended in June 1997 a threeto- five-year continuation of the previously announced moratorium on cloning research designed to create a human child. Research on cloning of human cells and tissues, the NBAC said, should be continued.
Ethical questions
The ethical questions people have raised about human cloning exist on several levels. Some objections concern the safety of human cloning experiments. Cloning is far from being an infallible process. It took 277 attempts to create Dolly—the other fused egg cells failed to develop or had abnormalities that proved fatal during gestation. The prospect of a similar failure/success ratio involving humans is grounds enough to ban cloning research, some argue. In addition, questions linger as to the long-term physical health and possible premature aging of clones such as Dolly the sheep. NBAC concluded in its June 1997 report that such safety questions warranted a moratorium on human cloning reproduction experiments.
The safety and premature aging concerns surrounding cloning are technical barriers that may or may not fall as the science of cloning advances. However, many people have raised ethical objections to cloning that go beyond questions of safety. For some, cloning violates fundamental religious beliefs on how human reproduction should occur. Others worry that cloning could blur traditional family relationships. A clone could be seen as both a person’s daughter and twin sister, for instance.
Other ethical questions focus on motives for human cloning and whether some reasons are more acceptable than others. For instance, people might deem it ethical for a couple at risk of bearing children with a genetic disorder to clone one of the clearly healthy parents. But would it be ethical for a couple to clone a child simply because the father desired a genetic replica of himself? Would it be ethical for parents to take cells from a child who had died suddenly in an accident and clone a “replacement,” since that second child could be subject to unfair expectations? Moreover, some people question whether society has any right to intrude on the reproductive decisions of couples and individuals by imposing any restrictions on cloning.
A principle that forms the basis for many human cloning arguments is the assertion by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant that humans must be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. Perhaps the starkest application of such reasoning is the possibility that humans might be cloned in order to provide organs that could be transplanted into the genetic donor without fear of rejection. The use of cloned embryos and fetuses for such purposes is defended by some cloning advocates and dismissed by others as a far-fetched scenario that would never really happen. But many would agree that creating a clone of a person simply as a source of “spare parts” is a gross violation of Kant’s principle.
Some people go further and argue that cloning for any purpose violates Kant’s principle on some level because a “manufactured” clone would be burdened by specific expectations on what kind of person he or she would become. “There is a profound ethical difference,” argued the late Catholic archbishop John O’Connor, “between ‘having a child’ and ‘making a child.’ A child begotten can always be seen as a gift, whereas a child made or manufactured can always be seen as a thing—a product for use not to be respected for what he/she is, but priced for what it can do.” But others reject the argument that just because a person is a clone, he or she would not be treated and loved as any other human would be. “Why suppose that cloned persons wouldn’t share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us?” asks bioethics professor Ruth Macklin.
Supporters of human cloning argue that the initial negative reaction is simply a common human response to something new and unknown, and compare cloning to other assisted reproductive techniques such as in vitro fertilization. When the idea of taking a woman’s egg out of the body, fertilizing it in the laboratory, and implanting it back in the womb was first attempted in the 1970s, many people found the procedure disturbing and unnatural, and wondered how “test-tube” babies would fare socially and psychologically. But today in vitro fertilization is accepted by most people as an acceptable way for infertile couples to have their own children. Cloning advocates argue that attitudes toward cloning will undergo a similar evolution and the procedure will come to be seen as an acceptable alternative for infertile people who want to have children.
Whether or not human cloning will eventually be as common—and accepted—as in vitro fertilization remains to be seen, but it is clear that the ethical debate over human cloning will not soon die down. The authors of At Issue: The Ethics of Human Cloning present a variety of perspectives on the issues raised by the as yet unrealized prospect of human cloning.
