The Ethics of Human Cloning.

The Ethics of Human Cloning

For the purposes of this essay, “human cloning” will refer to human reproductive cloning involving somatic cell nuclear transfer (explained later), rather than therapeutic human cloning, which involves the use of pluripotent stem cells.

Advances in cloning research have used (differentiated) somatic cells. Essentially any cell within body could be used to make a clone, be it a neuron or a hepatocyte or myocyte, it still contains all the genetic material and instruction to create a new identical organism.

It was the birth of “Dolly” the sheep in 1997 that highlighted the possibility that the cloning of human beings is possible. The process of somatic cell nuclear transfer involves obtaining a donor oocyte and removing its genetic contents, to produce an “enucleated” cell. Cloning techniques involve obtaining a somatic cell from the person to be cloned and fusing it with the enucleated cell via electrofusion, which both fuses and activates the new cell. The somatic cell sample is primarily “starved” to prevent it copying any more of its DNA.

Fusion of two cells in such a technique results in the mixing of the mitochondrial contents of both cells. Mitochondrial DNA is thought to have little effect on the cell and organism (providing there is no mitochondrial disease).The resulting embryo is then implanted in to the host female or surrogate mother.

In discussing the ethics of the use of cloning technology to produce another human we must first and foremost look at whether it would be ethical to even use such a procedure. It took 277 endonucleated ova, to produce 29 blastocysts. Of these, 1 developed in to a live lamb. The whole process therefore was found to be only 3% efficient. It could be argued that this would be ethically wrong right from the start with the use of such large numbers of human eggs required to produce one single child. IVF treatment however, can also require large numbers of human eggs, with as many as 10-15 being harvested at each attempt, given that it may take several procedures to result in a successful pregnancy. Following on from that is the increased incidence of developmental abnormalities noted in cloned mammals, found in approximately one third of procedures. It has been found however that cloning rhesus monkeys produces no developmental or physiological abnormalities. Developmental abnormality however, occurs in 3% of natural pregnancies (and even more when maternal age is over 40 years). Should it be proven that the same risk can be attributed to cloning techniques, this may mean a leniency on attitudes towards such technology being used. For this technique to become available human testing would be essential, which is unethical to begin with? The paradox is that it would be completely unethical to test such a risky technique on humans, since nobody can predict the longer term outcomes on a new species, but in order for techniques to be available, testing has to take place. It could be argued that IVF also required controversial testing in the early stages which have proven to be a success. Were these tests also ethical to begin with?

Should we clone?

Leon Kass states the mere fact that human cloning is repugnant to people needs no further explanation of why it should be banned, in the same idea father daughter incest is morally wrong to us springing from most major religions of the world. Asexual human reproduction could fall in the same category as simply being wrong, or being unacceptable to most world religions. This could however be just another reaction in society to a new treatment, which was seen in the early stages of organ transplantation and IVF use, both now widely accepted.

Ron James, the Scottish millionaire who funded much of Ian Wimut’s research of Dolly, points out that social attitudes change fast. Before the announcement of Dolly, polls showed that people thought that cloning animals and gene transfer in to animals were “morally problematic”, where as germ-line therapy fell into the category of being “just wrong”. Two months after the announcement of Dolly, and after much discussion on human cloning, peoples attitudes had shifted to accepting animal cloning and gene transfer to humans as “morally permissible,” whereas germ-line gene therapy had shifted to being “merely problematic.”

Assuming the public polls were a true representation of society’s views, and with the supposed birth of the first human clone in January 2003, what will society think in 5-10 years time? Public opinion on these matters dictates the law. No government would risk the backlash of allowing this procedure to occur in light of such strong views from their voters (for the time being).

Reasons to clone

British law regarding cloning is now clear when the human reproductive cloning act was set up in 2001 to amend loop holes in the human fertilisation and embryology act of 1990. Subsection 1 forbids “implanting a human embryo in to a woman which has been created by any method other than fertilization”.

Should cloning ever become legal, realistic uses for its technology would be likely to include assisted reproduction, allowing couples unable to conceive by natural methods to have a child whilst maintaining a genetic link to their offspring, with minimal genetic input from ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Reasons to clone

A person living in Britain has the right not to reproduce by contraception and abortion (under strict conditions set by the law) so it could be argued that the opposite is true, having the same right to reproduce. It could be argued that they do not have this right, i.e Catholicism’s views on abortion (killing a child), but this is only an opinion and not the present situation. People cannot reproduce on their own however so the absolute right to reproduce needs to be combined with another person’s, which in this case may be surrogacy, egg donation or DNA donation. No one can be said to have the right to reproduce by any means, for example a ban on incest protects the child resulting, i.e the clone, or an underage girl raped by a near relative, in terms of protection from physical ailments and psycho-social ones later in life.6

Could cloning for childless couples ever be justified? For some couples, this would be the only option to have a child exclusive to their relationship (with very little outside genetic input), especially in the case of gay couples (the option of surrogacy and egg donation however, is still present). At the same time however, not only is there genetic exclusivity in the coupled relationship, but also exclusively between the clone and the original, bypassing one of its parents, which would be important in the case of a break up or divorce..

To clone ones self is not simply the same as having a child by conventional means. Sexual reproduction involves bringing together 2 separate mixtures of DNA to produce a new being, which occupies a niche never before taken in the world. Nobody knows what traits the new being will carry; it has its own unique identity, just as its parents did before it, being of equal standing in society. One argument relevant to this discussion is the presence of natural monozygotic (identical) twins, themselves being exact copies or clones of each other. Identical twins however are born together from two natural parents where their genotype still holds a sense of mystery about what they will become, what their height will be, balding patterns, or even likely cause of death; this would not necessarily be that case of a cloned child. Would the “original” be able to accept his child as a new individual and resist placing constraints upon them, rather than attempting to mould the child into the person he is or would like to have become? Are the parents acquiring the power to decide what kind of child to have? No parent could be entirely innocent of this, by attempting to school their child in the best way, restricting who they can and can’t see and encouraging them to be independent and able to succeed in life. This may be taken to the extreme however in a cloned child, where their appearance, manner and intelligence can to some extent be predicted and consciously or unconsciously compared to that of the original, which may constantly overshadow it. This scenario could be compared to somebody buying a new car, they have read the review and had a test drive and found it to be everything they want. They buy the car and find it handles a different way than they expected. In the case of cloning however, another being is affected.6

Is this a too simplistic view of human behaviour? Given the right information and counselling, is it too much to expect someone to view a clone of themselves the same as they would one of their normal children, and why should we assume the worst motives of the parents? It is clear that a clone can never be identical to their twin due to slight DNA differences, different gestational times, and different parents with an altogether different history, upbringing and experience of life. Even identical (Siamese) twins have a different personality when sharing exactly the same genotype and childhood environment9. The idea that parents will cause psychological harm by overshadowing their cloned children revolves around the lay idea of genetics being responsible for personality (8. p250), if society’s issues with genetics and personality changed however, this argument would fall flat (8 p244). The idea that parents may cause harm to their children due to inadequate factual information (in this case the idea that genotype=personality) could be applied to any parent for any reason, for example a parent refusing to vaccinate its child believing it would be better off to obtain natural immunity. If this is the case who is qualified to sit in judgement over who is allowed to reproduce by cloning?

Cloning is also an option available to prevent the passage of genetic disease where both parents may carry a recessive defective gene. One of the couple can then “opt out” of passing on their DNA to their child. This would allow the couple not to participate in prenatal diagnosis which may result in termination of the afflicted embryo. Should such a morally justifiable reason in a small percentage of people open up the opportunity to those with misguided or less than adequate reasons for cloning? That is, should a small number of people suffering “open the floodgates” to the masses, potentially damaging society permanently? Prevention of disease may also be an increasingly hollow argument with new and improved fertilisation techniques available (such as removing DNA from an infertile woman’s oocyte and transferring to a viable oocyte). Advances in somatic gene therapy may also soon allow the treatment and management of these genetic diseases3.

If the potential parent clone has demonstrated health and intelligence or other desirable characteristics, is it not their duty to pass on the best genetic package they can offer without the gamble of sexual reproduction? One generation has the responsibility of passing a healthy quality of life towards the next. Human cloning research is illegal in Britain. If another country proved it to be safe and it still remained illegal here, rather than actively harming future generations, would we be omitting to benefit them? Unfortunately, the physical and social effect on future generations could never be predicted. (7 p102).

The argument for passing on sound genetic material to the next generation usually brings up the subject of eugenics and Huxley’s Brave New World. Reasons against human cloning state that once a line is crossed (referring to asexual reproduction), it will be difficult to stop crossing more and more lines. (7 p144). For example we could give a child a better chance by removing certain undesirable genes such as breast cancer genes or ones increasing the chances of heart disease. After that it might be better to give it an even better chance by perhaps adding a gene that might enhance its immune system or correct sight problems. This could eventually via small steps lead to segregation of the entire species in to those more genetically superior and those thought to be inferior. Restrictions on reproduction already exist in China; it might be that such a regime demands their citizens to participate in eugenics. If that was the case, it would be hard to think that the rest of the world would merely stand and watch but attempt to better them selves as well.

In answer to this we must consider that this technology doesn’t actually exist and is probably a while away yet, if it did those living in free nations would not allow a government to coerce them in to this. Should the technology be available there would be very strict criteria for its use if it was ever used at all. The fact is that it still requires large numbers of donor eggs to clone somebody; these eggs would have to be obtained from consenting women and gestated inside a consenting surrogate mother. It is possible that some women may be exploited (as is already occurring when surrogate mothers are paid for the use of their wombs, and eggs are sold on the internet), but mass production of genetically superior individuals would involve some sort of rounding up of women and using them as baby factories.

And what if private eugenics took place? No state control and lack of definition of “improvement” would be in place.(7 p146). To this I would argue that it is highly unlikely (especially in the UK under governance of HFEA) to begin with but if it is to happen, it will occur whether cloning is made legal or not, this would exist outside the law and would be out of its control. Should it ever occur however, the very few that are produced would do well in life while the rest of us live on. I don’t think the world would come to an end. It may happen that a millionaire marries a naïve woman and persuades her to have four of his cloned children. (Pence, Gregory E. (et al.) page 146. Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning? 1998)

“At worst they will be curiosities, at best novelties. They will grow in to adults and separate and the world would keep turning.”

Psycho-social issues

Effects on psychology of the cloned individual have already been discussed with regard to parental attitude and control, but even if these arguments were unfounded it mat be the case that a clone couldn’t fit in to a normal family role or place in society. Others may look at the cloned child as different and as a consequence treat them differently. Should the identity of one of the first cloned children ever be found out, interest in it by the media and others in society would probably promote it to celebrity status. The fact remains however, that this child would be equal to every other and could demand the same rights as anyone else. The cloned child as any other would have no control over its origins and the fact that it was created differently to most children; any prejudicial treatment warrants discrimination (7 p243). Safe cloning techniques used in reproduction would not make a genetically superior or inferior person which for example could be used to harvest human organs, which is another fear placed by sceptics. It would be suggesting that someone might have a child of the same tissue type and remove its brain at birth allowing it to grow as an organ factory, it could also be suggested that somebody with an organ failure might take their identical twin to a hospital and have them killed for the use of their organs. This couldn’t happen as it is called murder. There is even less chance of this in the UK as stem cell cloning for research is only allowed up to 14 days of embryonic life.

Should a person have a cloned child legally in society, it is likely that it would be near impossible for others to tell the exact process leading to their creation. The parent would be many years older and look very different. Leon Kass has argued that once a cloned female reached adolescence, she may resemble the same woman her father had fallen in love with, possibly causing feelings of competition, rivalry and jealousy within the family (at best)4 . On the other hand there is the example that a man may fall in love with one identical twin and not the other, though sharing the same DNA, they are not the same person (9 p125).

The idea has also been put forward that should a cloned individual discover their genetic ancestry, whether it be from a stranger “DNA donor”, a parent, or even another deceased relative, the psychological impact caused would render the whole process completely unethical. On the other hand, awareness of genetic origin could bring upset for those naturally conceived, for example if they were to discover their mother was a prostitute, or father a Nazi in the war. If cloning is banned as a result of potential psychological harm, it could be argued that others capable of inflicting such potential harm on their children should also be banned from reproducing. At what point does this harm become too great to warrant non-existence.

It has also been found that children born of IVF (who may also not receive genetic input from both parents), are reported to feel “special” opposed to unvalued (8 p245). This is likely to be due to the extent of the love of the parents for that child, and the efforts they went to just to bring it in to the world.

The advantages of genetic variability put a strong case against cloning. It is our variability that enables us to survive and adapt to changing conditions, such as new strains of pathogens. Should cloning be used on a large scale, our ability to fight off new infections may be compromised6.

The future

There is no doubt that biotechnology is advancing at an astounding rate. At present technology allows human cloning as a possibility. It does not allow the practice of eugenics and mass creation of a genetically superior race. Developments are occurring however, such as the production of a “false womb” which is approximately “10 years from being fully functional” 5. This is designed to assist infertility from a different angle and save foetuses from miscarriage. Could it also mark the beginning of mass production? Other technological advances may one day allow same sex couples to have child by gamete fusion. In the case of two gay men, they may be able to implant their child in to the false womb.

There is no doubt the technology is coming, but it is how we use it that will determine man’s future.

Conclusion: once human cloning is proven to be safe, would it be ethical?

The controversy is dependant on how the technology is going to be used. Mass production of genetically enhanced people should never occur. But why would anyone want to do this anyway except to build a superior society with an advantage over the rest of the world – most likely as an advantage in war – which is already unethical. It would also require mass use of (consenting) surrogate mothers, and take many years for the clones to reach adulthood.

The most likely use in the near future for cloning would be to reproduce. Arguments against have been the psychological effects on the clone due to the motives of the parent(s) as well as the issues involved with the structure of the family. Fears of crossing a boundary, desensitising society bit by bit have also been put forward, eventually leading to some snowballing effect of limitless proportions i.e. the “slippery slope” argument. 7p66

Arguments for cloning have consisted of those allowing infertile couples to reproduce whilst maintaining a genetic link to their child, as well as enabling human choice to be sustained.

I personally feel that human reproductive cloning would be ethical. Yes, it may create certain family problems but I would argue that every family has its own set of problems and yet we all usually still manage to cope. The different childhood conditions, age gap between the parent and the ability of humans to deal with whatever the world throws at them make me think it would not be as much of a problem as the critics make out. Obviously, water tight restrictions and regulations to govern such a technology’s use need to be drawn up to prevent its abuse. Due to the small scale of reproductive cloning therefore, I think the world has nothing to fear and will not be significantly altered beyond recognition.

(Glenn McGee. The human cloning debate page 286;2000)

“In a certain way, psychologically and socially, we humans clone ourselves. Look at teenagers, they all wish to be the same way, to imitate each other. That to me is a more serious issue – how our propaganda, our social-psychological manipulation through the media, actually makes people behave as if they were clones”.

(Word count 3600 excl. references)

Bibliograpgy

1.Bryne J.A., Gurdon J.B. (2002). Commentary on Human Cloning. Differentiation (2002) 69:154-157. http://www.reproductivecloning.net/cloning.pdf

2. National Bioethics Advisory commission. (1997). Cloning Human Beings; The science and application of cloning. http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/pubs/cloning1/chapter2.pdf

3. Brook Dan.W. PhD. (1997) Cloning human beings; an assessment of ethical issues pro’s and con’s.

4. Kass, Leon.R. (1997). Cloning of Human Beings. http://www.aei.org/bs/bs9255.htm

5. Kirstey Horsey. (Feb 11 2002) Artificial wombs created? Bionews. http://www.ivf.net/artman/publish/printer_43.shtml

6. Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry, The President's Council on Bioethics, Washington, D.C.
July 2002.

7. Pence, Gregory E. (et al.). Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning? (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998)

8.. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Hills London Hi Marketing, c2000

9. Gregory E. Pence (et al.). Flesh of my flesh : the ethics of cloning humans : a reader. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, c1998

Bryne J A., Gurdon J B., ‘Commentary on Human Cloning’, Differentiation (2002). 69:154-157. http://www.reproductivecloning.net/cloning.pdf . Site last visited, 12/12/03.

Ibid.

Kass, Leon.R. (1997). Cloning of Human Beings. http://www.aei.org/bs/bs9255.htm

Pence, Gregory E. (Ed.), Flesh of My Flesh: The Ethics of Cloning Humans. Rowman & Littlefield, (1998). P. 125