When considering whether human cloning should be allowed, we must ask ourselves whether it is the natural progression of reproduction or the abolition of nature. In 2002, the organisation Clonaid announced the birth of their first human clone on 26th December. Eve was born by caesarean section having been created using similar technology to that used to clone Dolly the sheep. Clonaid claimed to have four other mothers imminently expecting to give birth to clones, one of which was to a Japanese couple who cloned their dead son after he had been killed in a motoring accident. “All five babies are fit and well” claimed Dr Bacakervic.¹ (2003, page 23). Although all five babies were claimed to be well no independent verification was forthcoming to substantiate Cloniad announcement. They later claimed that lawsuits in the US and Netherlands prevented further testing possible as they were concerned for the clones identity. Increased scepticism around the world concluded that it was either an elaborate fraud by Clonaid or that the babies had developed complications and died. However, one thing is certain, it will only be a matter of time before some team or other can prove that they have won the global human cloning race.
In the meantime, should the use of cloning be prohibited in the scientific use of creating donor organs, especially since now individual organs and tissues such as heart and nerve muscle can be grown without developing an entire person? This technology could be used to produce skin for burns victims; brain cells, spinal cords, liver, lungs and any other organ required and not simply save lives but reduce transplant waiting lists considerably.
Taking this a step further, germ-line engineering, could in theory eliminate defective genes from children and consequently their off spring, virtually eradicating many inherited diseases. Some scientists believe that this could one day result in the human race being completely resistant to other diseases such as AIDS or cancer and that it would produce a society that was healthier and happier. In an ideal world this would surely be desirable but with people already living longer and with an ever increasing population would prolonging life and curing illness to such an extent interfere with the law of nature?
Other examples of this technology such as Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) are surely scientific progression as it can be used for people who have a family history of genetic disabilities, including cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease and Tay-Sachs disease. Such people can opt to use IVF and PDG technology to ensure any embryo that is implanted does not have the condition in question. Would it be fair to stop this type of progress when you consider the suffering that victims of these diseases endure? Using this technology may not be a cure but it could eradicate further offspring from carrying the gene, which renders them victims of a cruel and debilitating illness.
However, it is considered by some that an embryo is a ‘life’ and not merely a cluster of cells, which could develop into a living being given the correct environment. If this is to be believed, we must also consider that the discarding of ‘wrong’ embryos could be classed as murder in the same way as pro-life supporters classify abortion.
After the embryo is created using IVF technology, the selection decision is based upon the results of a biopsy which is carried out to remove a cell from the developing embryo. The biopsy is usually performed a few days after fertilisation, at this point the embryo would normally consist of 6 to 10 cells. If a genetic disabling condition is detected, the embryo is simply thrown away. From this type of procedure it has been possible to match tissue types for that of a sick child and also in the use of ‘family balancing,’ i.e. where parents already have children of one sex and would like a baby of the opposite sex.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing suggested in 1999 that they believed it unacceptable to test human embryos for “social or psychological characteristics, normal physical variations, or any other condition, which are not associated with disability or a serious medical condition.”² (para.22 199)
The concept of the designer baby is one that evokes many fears within society and begs the question, are we heading towards the quest for the perfect race? When using this science to determine the gender of your unborn child, colour of the eyes and perhaps even his IQ, the morality of the circumstance is extremely dubious. Is it natural evolution gone mad?
Only this week, as reported in the Daily Telegraph, it has become apparent that these new controversial techniques that allow parents to create a designer baby to save the life of a seriously ill sibling, are being made available on the NHS. Funding has been approved to assist parents who wish to create a donor sibling so the blood taken from the umbilical cord can cure a sick brother or sister. The ethical dilemma debates whether it is morally right for parents to bring a baby into the world purely to save the life of another, most of whom say it is their last chance to save their sick child. Therefore, is it not justifiable that this leading edge science be allowed when it is clearly saving lives? Opposition groups strongly disagree stating that it is an inappropriate use of taxpayer’s money and it should not be available on the NHS under any circumstance.
The Whitakers from Sheffield’s case has been widely publicised recently throughout the media. Their son, Charlie, now 4 years old, was diagnosed with a rare blood disorder called Diamond Blackfan Anaemia. Sufferers of this condition produce few or no red blood cells, resulting in the deterioration of normal life sustaining functions. It is an extremely rare condition only affecting 600 or so children and adults throughout the world. The only cure is a transplant of perfectly matched stem cells to kick start blood cell reproduction, this can only be transplanted after chemotherapy has killed off all the bad cells.
They had already planned on having further children before the diagnosis and it appeared to be their only hope of saving Charlie’s life was to produce a baby with the perfect match stem cells. Sadly, the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryonic Authority refused them permission to find an embryonic match in 2002 because the HFEA said the procedure was ‘unlawful and unethical’.
In the meantime Michelle Whitaker fell pregnant naturally with their second child, but unfortunately her stem cells did not match. They refused to give up their fight and travelled to the US in 2002 for a tissue typing procedure that was illegal in the UK, which cost them in excess of £20,000. This procedure enabled them to produce a third child with a perfect stem cell match. Of the embryos that were screened, three matched, two were implanted in her womb, one was discarded naturally, one disposed of and the third was Jamie. “We were overwhelmed with love for Jamie,” said Michelle, “the fact that he could save Charlie just made us adore him even more.”³ (2004, page 28). Since Charlie’s transplant the HFEA has now stated it would not stand in the way of other couples having a ‘saviour sibling’ hence the treatment now being available on the NHS.
Whilst I feel an immense unease at the prospect of human cloning and asexual reproduction, a clone of oneself, I can fully appreciate there is a positive side to this scientific breakthrough if it can be strictly monitored and only used under the control of an overseeing body. If therapeutic cloning can prevent genetic disorders being passed down through the generations and assist in eradicating terrible diseases, or produce a sibling who can cure his sick brother or sister, it has to be taken seriously.
The discovery has been made and whether it is banned or not, the natural curiosity of the scientist will only make them continue to experiment further. It would be naive to think otherwise. Therefore our Government should accept this and regulate it so that it can be used for the greater good and not for unauthorised experimentation in the wrong hands.
(word count 1692)
Referencing
¹ Clonaid Press Release, January 2003, page 23, para 4.
² HFEA & ACGT Consultation Document on Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis para.22 1999
³ Closer, EMAP Group Plc, Page 29, Issue: November 2004, para.30.
Bibliography
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/25/yourviewbaby.x
;
;
Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority Eight Annual Report and Accounts 1999
Closer, EMAP Group Plc, Page 29, Issue: November 2004.
