Human Cloning

Ethical Implications of Human Cloning

A Christian Perspective

The purpose of this position paper is to give an integration of faith and values in addressing a contemporary moral problem. I chose the topic of human cloning because it presented a challenge for me, as a scientist and as a Christian, to approach the issue from both sides, trying to be as fair as possible to both arguments at the same time.

Levin and Strauss stated that advances in recombinant DNA techinques, have greatly amplified the possibilities of distribution of biotechnology products to fields like pharmacology, medicine, industry and the environment, and have contributed to the advancement on the research of diseases such as AIDS and cancer (1). However, “the prospect of extensive field tests of genetically engineered organisms has given rise to concern about risks, these activities may pose to humans and the environment” (Levin and Strauss (1).

The president of Princeton University, Harold T. Shapiro, wrote that on july 5th 1996, a group of scientists from the Roslin Institute in Scotland, gave rise to the first adult mammal cloned from a single adult cell (2), which means that artificially, man had created a new organism genetically identical to another challenging the natural process of life and creation.

Leaving aside the science fiction scenarios, the sheep named Dolly, became the most famous ovine in history, because “she brought closer the time when it will be possible to clone a human at a speed that a few, if any, scientists anticipated” (Kolata, 3).

This issue brings up all kinds of political speculations and ethical dilemmas, all of which will be discussed on the following pages. One side defends cloning as a scientific advance that will help the human race, as it will reduce the number of

acquired diseases and improve reproductive techniques that will result in better individuals. The other side questions the morality of these techniques, because they damage the integrity of the individuals, and prevents them form living a normal life, as clones become objects or products of others decisions instead of God´s creation. In either case, most of the legal and moral issues raised can only be solved, in my opinion, by a great deal more widespread deliberations and education.

Cloning techniques have been around for over four decades, but it seemed that the idea of producing humans artificially, was more a part of a science fiction movie than of reality, but five years ago scientists opened up new doors not only to the field of medicine but also to controversy leaving many questions unanswered.

The scientific journal The Economist mentions in its march 97 issue that “scientists will be able to model human diseases to study more efficiently genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis, allow the research of better treatments, the ability to produce useful proteins such as the blood clotting factor for hemophiliacs, and end the chronic shortage of organs for transplantation improving the health of us all, cheaper than ever before” (The Economist 4). However, the issue is not as easy as it seems, specially when dealing with humans, because questions on personhood are raised.

This brings me to discuss the strongest argument pro human cloning today, which goes in depth into the human psychology and personality theories. Like Stanton Peele (5) points out “varying environmental influences on each individual, continue after birth” meaning that personality and consciousness, are not direct products of DNA. Therefore, society should not worry about clones acting or thinking the same way as the parents, because “a clone of a human being would have a different environment, and be a different person with a different soul” (Kolata 3).

Another ethical issue on human cloning is the fact that, in case this techique advances, “the species will end up giving up sexual reproduction in favor of the cloning” (4) because people would prefer to have a test tube child with no risk of deficiencies, or even the inserted genes of a money making dead superstar. In my opinion, it is understandable that people suffer from having kids dieing from uncurable diseases, but that does not have to make okay, the fact of turning other human beings into living factories, or replacing a lost child with the face of another, at least not yet when the human race is not becoming extinct. If this was to happen, the maybe cloning would be imperative for species survival. I applaud cloning efforts as a good scientific work, but like Donald Bruce, director of the Church of Scotland´s Society, “I do have concerns as a Christian. God creates diversity, and replicating goes against the general principle by which creation has been established” (qtd in Langreth 6).

On the other hand, it would be unfair to ignore the advances that science and technology have presented through history. All the way from the discovery of Penicillin to sevral drugs that seem to be reducing the mortality on AIDS, science has always been controversial due to its high potential on moral issues. Abortion, blood transfusions, heart transplants and in-vitro fertilization to name a few, still occupy the front pages of magazines. “When the first heart transplant was performed in 1965, many considered it unethical, inmoral and even playing God. But as our understanding advanced, and as bioethical and public discussions proceeded, heart transplantation became a miracle of modern medicine” (Baltimore et al. 7). Even transplants from animals to humans brought the moral issue up, but pigs and sharks have already contributed to the happiness of many families. In the case of in-vitro fertilization, it solved many problems of unproductive couples whose only wish was to raise a child even if they needed the help of technology. This obviously does not make them bad parents. However, I wonder how a kid would feel if he was told that he came form a test tube and that he has a different dad than he thought. I also wonder if someday we would have to cahnge the education in schools to teach children about these procedures, instead of focusing their attention on the most fundamental and traditionalistic law of complete parenthood. It would be like changing the whole tradition of procreation, marriage, love, “the two became one flesh” theory and the family values. “For millenia mothers and fathers have marvelled at the newness of form in their newborns” (Post, 8) and cloning, in the words of Richard McCormick, S.J “would remove insemination and fertilization from the marriage relationship, and would also remove the partners from the entire process” (qtd in post 8) bringing up other controversies like single mothers or gay couples raising kids.

People always seem to try to find controversy because there is always more than one way of looking at things, and in the case of human cloning, loke Professor Capron said, “it has divided population in two extremes: scientific and reproductive freedom, and the sanctity of life traditional family values” (qtd in Kolata 3)

As I have previously mentioned, cloning could represent a revolution on the medical field, as the human clones “would make good organ donors, but we can not pressume that anyone wishes to give away any body parts” (Post, 8). The assumption that the clone would choose to do that, is completely unfounded and we can not turn clones into a mere object for the use of others.

As of today, despite all the technological advances we have had, human cloning is far from being perfect and applicable, which brings me to my next subject of discussion. “Dolly came on the 300th attempt. The first 299 essentially fell apart resulting on the death of embryos or in the first month of being born” (Baltimore et al. 7) Professor Schecter talking about Dolly said that “It is important to understand that what you are cloning is not a new creature, the whole purpose is to create the old one” he says, “it is just a medical technique” (qtd in Jacobs, 9). This applied to humans is a terrible thing to deal with, because unscrupulous people like Schecter would not mind destroying hundreds of embryos until their ideal child is achieved.

John Cardinal O´Connor, archibishop of New York, gives a sarcastic but pathetically illustrative example, “the first try is blue-eyed. Only brown is acceptable. Boy wanted. Get rid of the girl” (qtd in Baltimore 7). Some people amazingly think that this is okay to do, to somehow imrove the race. It seems to me that much criticism was given to Hitler but we are managing to do the same on a different manner, and expect it to be okay. Does it mean that experimenting shoud be banned completely and that the government should not finance experiments with humans? I think that it would be erroneous to ban such practices, as long as it is to find out cures for diseases and to improve a human quality of life, very different from creating an individual with desired characteristics.

Like an article in The Economist points out, “53% of Americans opposed cloning of animals for research, but 71% were prepared to abandon their principle if it meant life-saving breakthroughs” (4). A law professor at the University of Southern California, Alexander Capron said that “ if a legislative ban on cloning humans was passed, it would be the first time that a field of medical research would be prohibited” (qtd in Kolata 3) and I believe it is difficult to decide if and when, our liberties including the freedom of scientific enquiry, should be restricted. However, Dr Ronald Munson, an ethicist at the University of Missouri said that “cloning itself is relatively simple and can be reproduced in standard laboratories, because it does not require vast machines”. This in my opinion, presents a problem because we put science in everybody´s hands and that such practices should be strictly regulated to prevent abuses. As a science graduate, I consider of great importance to provide information and education to the public in the area of genetics and other developments in the biomedical sciences, specially where they affect important cultural practices, values and beliefs. Senator John Marchi proposed legislation in the New York senate that prohibited deliberate attempts at human cloning, while authorizing legitimate research because realistically, either here or abroad, cloning research will continue (Baltimore,7)

“Long before researchers at the Roslin Institute of Scotland created and ewe named Dolly, movies and Television series had exploited bothe the scary and the funny side of duplicating nature”( Bannon and Rose, 10). Richard Jeni, who has incorporated the cloning news into his routine at the Laugh Factory Comedy Club in Hollywood, claims that “anybody who thinks Hollywood does not have tremendous cloning techniques, has not seen Die hard and Alien movies” (qtd in Bannon, 10) but I believe that movies with a scientific base, make them very educative for the general public, and a re capable of making a difference on the way we look at science. I consider movies like “The island of Dr Moureau” and “Jurassic Park”, extraordinary pieces of art, which going beyond the special effects, keep us aware of scientific experiments that already exist, and that not only they would not produce popular outcomes, but it could threaten humanity. They should give us a red flag, a warning sign on the experiments with genetic engineering. I believe that messing withhh nature can bring us tragic consequences, and that experiments like human cloning should have some kind of ban until further discoveries are made or risks are more properly handled.

From a scientific evolution perspective, those with the best charcteristics tend to live long enough to reproduce themselves, gradually reducing the number of bad characteristics in the population, therefore if we try to do this our own way by uncontrolled mechanisms, we will probably produce uncontrolled results. I am a supporter of the Chaos theory that states “fleeting events can have unexpected repercussions in seemingly unrelated events” (Kristol, 11). Just like we can not predict the weather with a 100% accuracy, from one day to the next, we can not predict what kind of consequences, manipulation of genetics might bring us.

Unlike the first half of the century, any news on science is welcome and we are confident that we can deal with any negative consequences. Today, any surprising news brings questions about possible harmful consequences, arresting progress and giving science a bad name.

No matter how much we try to play God, there will only be one Creator and “a Christian´s side with the deep wisdom of the teachings of Jesus, manifest in a thoughtful respect for the laws of Nature that reflect the word of God” (Post, 8).

Trough this paper, I have tried to explore the different moral and ethical issues, that a controversial subject such as Human Cloning has had in society. I tried to collect as much information on the subject as I could, so that I would have the necessary background information to help me support my thesis, and be fair while defending the other side of the conflict at the same time.

WORKS CITED

(7) Baltimore, David et al. “Will cloning beget disaster” The Wall street Journal

2 may. 1997.

(10) Bannon, Lisa and Frederick Rose. “Miracle of cloning: dead movie scripts spring back to life” The Wall Street Journal 26 Feb, 1997

(4) “Hello Dolly” The Economist 1 mar 1997: 17-18, 80-81

(3) Kolata, Gina. “Ethics Panel Recommends a Ban on Human Cloning”. The New York Times 8 Jun, 1997, late ed.

(11) Kristol, Irving. “Chaos Theory” The Wall Street Journal Aug 1, 1994: 15

(6) Langreth, Robert. “ In the Lab: Cloning has fascinating, disturbing potential” The Wall Street Journal Feb 24, 1997.

(9) “Scientists or demons” New York Times 24 Feb, 1997

(5) Peele, Stanton. “Send in the clones” The Wall Street Journal 3 mar, 1997

(8) Post, Stephen G “The Judeo-Christian Case Against Human Cloning” America 21 Jun 1997: 19-22

(2) Shapiro, Harold T. “ Ethical and Policy Issues of Human Cloning” Science 11 jul. 1997: 195-196.

1