For many years the concept of cloning has been has been discussed, debated, and depicted in science fiction movies and novels. With modern technology, it is likely that human cloning is now possible. In 1997, a Scottish man, Ian Wilmut, announced that he had successfully cloned a sheep named Dolly. It became apparent that the ability to clone a human being was just a matter of time. The question arose whether or not human cloning and genetic engineering is ethical and if so, to what extent.
Leon R. Kass, in his article “Why we should Ban the Cloning of Human Beings” writes that the cloning of humans should be banned on the grounds that it is unethical. Kass offers four objections to human cloning. These objections are that cloning involves unethical experimentation, threatens identity and individuality, turns procreation into manufacturing, and means despotism over children and perversion of parenthood. However, Kass’s opinions about the ethical implications of human cloning and genetic engineering such as modifying stem cells are not universally shared among members of the scientific community. For example, author Patrick Tucker suggests the use of a form of cloning in order to replace damaged organs or tissue of a medical patient and the manipulating stem cells in order to create new cell tissue.
In order to properly understand the ethical issues of human cloning and genetic engineering, let us first define the two terms. Kass defines cloning as a form of asexual reproduction in which an individual or individuals are produced who are genetically identical to an already existing individual via somatic cell nuclear transfer. This involves taking a mature unfertilized egg, removing its nucleus (which carries nearly all of the genetic information), and replacing it with a nucleus obtained from a specialized cell of another organism. Genetic engineering is the modifying of egg cells or an unborn embryo in order to “create” organisms with specific traits or to manipulate cells such as in stem cell research.
As Kass mention in his article, there are several misconceptions about cloning which should be cleared up. The first and one of the most common of these misconceptions is that a clone is an exact copy of the original organism from which it was cloned. While it is true that the genetic makeup of the clone would be identical to that of the original, if one were to clone a 23 year old man for example, his clone would still enter the world as a baby as a natural born human would. This clone would still have to grow up 23 years before it became just like its original rather than simply being born looking and acting like the 23 year old man. Another misconception is that modern scientists have the ability to create a perfect human clone on the first attempt. While in theory modern science has the technology required in order to produce a human clone, the first time this is actually attempted it would surely be a process of trial and error. When Dolly the sheep was cloned, it took nearly 300 attempts before a successful “birth” occurred.
One of the reasons that scientists as well as common citizens are against cloning and are of the opinion that the practice is unethical is out of concern for the clone. One of the primary arguments against cloning is that the clones would face serious identity issues as a result of being an exact genetic copy of another human being. Kass points out that in the case of reproductive cloning, a clone would likely experience concerns about its distinctive identity not only for the reason that it is identical to another human being, but also due to the fact that this clone would also be a “twin” to one of its “parents. Kass list several examples of exactly how this would be a problem.
One such example is the following: in the case of a man and a woman who reproduce by creating a clone of the woman, Kass questions what would happen when the clone reaches adolescence and begins to look identical to the woman that the father of the clone fell in love with a long time ago. Obviously, this could lead to inappropriate behavior from the father as a result of seeing the face of his partner as she was when they met. This behavior would in turn make the clone feel uncomfortable and possibly damage her mental state. Another instance which Kass points out is in the case of a man and woman who reproduce by cloning the man. If a bitter divorce should occur, the mother may no longer be able to stand the sight of the father although she would have to deal with a son who looks identical to him.
In addition to this Arthur Zucker in his article “Law and Ethics” speculates that cloning would deprive the clone of a true “sense of self” in the sense that the clone would already have all of its dreams, expectations, failures, and disappointments pre-determined for it because, after all, they’d be, in a way, re-living the life of the older organism from which it was cloned.
While Kass and Zucker make some logical points, author Michael Shermer explores the issue of cloning identity from a different perspective. Shermer, in his article “Only God Can do That? Cloning and Genetic Engineering Test the Moral Limits of Science” argues that while a clone may look like its original organism, it will have very different behaviors and personality. Shermer points out that those who are against cloning on the grounds that it will result in masses of exact copies of people neglect to consider the role the environmental factor plays on a person’s personality and behavior.
According to Shermer, behavior begins when genes code for biochemical reactions, which regulate physiological changes, which govern biological systems, which impact neurological actions, which induce psychological states, which cause behaviors; these behaviors, in turn, interact with the environment, which change the behaviors. So, based on Shermer’s research, genetics do not solely determine personality therefore, clones would not necessarily be simply copies of their original organisms.
One of the most common defenses used by those in favor of cloning is that clones already exist. These “clones” they refer to are not being manufactured by scientists. In fact, they occur naturally. Sometimes a human embryo will inexplicably split, thus creating two separate embryos with identical genetic makeup. This phenomenon results in identical twins. According to the article “Two of a Kind,” identical twins are “natural clones” and share 100% of their genes.
Identical twins are born naturally just as any other human. They are not anymore likely to have physical problems or diseases than anyone else. Also, most identical twins do not have issues with their identities despite the fact there exists another human being who at least appears to be just like them. These facts are used by those who believe that cloning (to a point) is ethical to discredit the views of those who are of the opinion that cloning is some sort of “abomination” which should be banned. The existence of twin also strengthens Shermer’s argument that environment an important factor in a person’s development as well as genetics. Twins, while they often grow up to have similar personalities, are not exact copies of each other. They often have different tastes in clothing, end up living in different location, have different jobs, and also speak differently. In short, they have their own separate personalities and behaviors despite sharing the same genetic material.
Interestingly enough, Kass makes no mention of twins in his article nor does he mention the possibility of a cloned human and the original human from which it was cloned having significantly different personalities or behaviors. Throughout his article, Kass consistently refers to clones as if they are carbon copies of the original. He likely does so in order to better defend his position that cloning of humans is unethical and should be banned.
Another reason, many scientists are against the cloning of human beings is that the experimental phase would likely lead to the deaths of many failed clones. As mentioned before, it took nearly 300 tries to successfully clone Dolly, the first sheep to be cloned. Cloning skeptics fear similar results when attempting to clone human beings. Shermer, Kass, and Zucker all agree in the aspect that if human cloning is ever to be attempted at all, significantly more research must be conducted first to ensure the physical and mental safety of both the clone and person being cloned.
Listing the practical uses of cloning is a common defense used to support human cloning. Author Louise R. Sanchez-Sweatman in his article “Reproductive cloning and human health: an ethical, international, and nursing perspective” lists many benefits of both human cloning and the genetic engineering of human embryos. Some of these benefits include: generation of optimal forms of plants and animal for food, the production of medical products and organs, research of human diseases, the reparation and regeneration of human tissue and organs, and also to screen genetic and hereditary disorders. Most of these benefits listed by Sanchez-Sweatman involve some form of embryo stem cell manipulation. Patrick also believes that stem cells obtained from human embryos have great medical potential. Kass, however, is against what he refers to the “harvesting” of human embryos in order to use it cells for reproduction of organs and medicine.
Religion, even among men and women of science, also plays an important role in deciding whether or not it is ethical to clone and human being. Though Kass makes no mention of God in his article, he refers to the act of cloning as a “perversion of nature” as well as an abomination. One might easily suspect that Kass has religious reasons for his strict morals when it comes to the issue of cloning. Kass appears to believe that cloning a human being is violating a divine natural birth method. Shermer is clearly of a different opinion. According to him religion and spirituality have nothing to do with the issue of human cloning. Though many people surveyed claim that making a clone of themselves would be going against God’s will, Sherman argues that no one truly knows God’s will. Shermer does acknowledge the Bible as a means of determining God’s will but defends his position by making a point that the Bible is not clear and even religious leaders argue over the meanings of its passages. Overall, most scientists who believe in a higher power are of the opinion that human cloning may be going against God’s will.
Human cloning may very well occur within the next decade or so. Though it seems that the majority of scientists, as well as common people, agree with authors such as Kass and Zucker that cloning of humans is unethical there are still several members of the scientific community who disagree. There are, in fact many benefits which could come from cloning and genetic engineering. There’s still a lot of research to be done on how cloning would effect the clone physiologically. Perhaps once there is a consensus on this there can be somewhat of a consensus on whether or not cloning and other forms of genetic engineering are ethical.
Sources
Kass, Leon R. Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Human Beings.
Shermer, Michael. Only God Can Do That? Cloning and Genetic Engineering Test the Moral Limits of Science
Zucker, Arthur. Law and Ethics.
