In the July 21 issue of New Scientist, Hugh McLachlan thinks that we should legalize cloning of humans [Let's legalise cloning]. But why are we so against the idea of cloned human babies? As a bioethicist specialising in reproductive issues, I believe it has more to do with an irrational fear of cloning than any logical reason. All the arguments in favour of a ban describe risks that we accept quite easily and naturally in other areas of reproduction.I agree with McLachlan. Aside from the safety issue, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to forbid the cloning of humans.
One argument against human cloning is the idea that it is morally wrong or undesirable to create replicas of people. But although a clone has the same gene set as the adult from which it was cloned, environmental factors will ensure that the resulting individual is not an identical copy, either psychologically or physically. What's more, we accept genetically identical people in the form of twins. If anything, clones would be less alike than twins because they would be different ages and be brought up in different contexts. Objecting to cloning on these grounds makes no sense.
This is a topic that's frequently discussed in "ethics" classes. I've never really understood what "ethics" actually means—but I'm working on it. The cloning of humans isn't an ethical issue for me personally because there isn't a conflict between two versions of what I think I ought to do. However, maybe it's an ethical issue for society as a whole because there are some people who think that it is unethical to clone people. Is that right? What's unethical about it?
Do we define "ethical" issues in terms of conflict between different groups? If so, is there a way of distinguishing between issues where the two sides are almost equally represented and those where one side has an overwhelming majority? For example, is the cloning of humans still an ethical issue in a society where 99% of the population is opposed? Does it cease to be an ethical issue if 99% are persuaded to accept human cloning?
22 comments :
It's tinkering with evolution "unnaturally", but then so is just about everything else we do. I'm not up on this, but isn't there genetic degradation of some kind when clones are taken from clones, repeatedly?
In any case, I'm not sure I'd want to curse anyone else with my exact genetic makeup, although I suspect that others might find it reassuring to have multiple copies of themselves around for organ or tissue transplants.
And do we really need ten more copies of george bush or dick cheney, some of which may attempt to run for president again?
You say "aside from the safety issue" like it's a minor point, but I think it's the major point. If reproductive cloning will lead to many disabled people before we understand all the details enough to get it right (my understanding is that this seems likely given the experience with cloning sheep), I think that's sufficient objection to forbid it. I'm definitely not an expert and could be swayed on the both the risks and benefits, but right now I'm firmly on the side of banning it.
Perhaps if the issues could be worked out much more convincingly in other mammals first I could be convinced that it was ready for human trials, something like a new experimental drug, but we're not there yet.
I always find it strange that reproductive cloning is more controversial than therapeutic cloning - it's ok to take some skin and grow it, most people would probably accept growing cells into a new heart if it were possible, but using the cells to grow another individual is somehow terrible. But so long as the clone has full human rights, what's the big deal? Loss of genetic diversity? :)
Hmm. I must confess I don't get "ethics" fully either, since there is a huge disconnect with moral behavior and its background. But if morals is what a group does, ethics could be a way of studying what they can do (with the goal to propose alternatives without harm and undue conflict).
By that I would think, yes, when a group has established a moral for a new behavior, with or without ethical guidance, it ceases to be an ethical issue. On the other hand there could still remain ethical problems.
On cloning I don't see a problem as such, as long as clones are created as fully valued individuals, say to give a couple genetically related children that they can't have by other means.
But if they are directly or indirectly created as organ donors it would be a problem. Ideally we would create techniques to grow organs without clones. Another ethical problem would be that clones may have defects even after passing fetal selection, such as lowered life span. Both these problems may be more social than ethical though, since they would create groups with "second class people".
So yes, send in the ... Um, that joke has really been copied too much.
I think it's more a manifestation of concern over the current inefficiency of cloning. If only one in a thousand clones reaches to term, and even those successful clones have abnormalities (like rapid-aging Dolly), then people have a humanitarian reason to seek injunctions against human cloning. Furthermore, while fear of cloning justified by their "unnaturalness" or other socially constructed reasons is irrational, it is nonetheless very real. It doesn't make much sense to clone a human being who will probably face ubiquitous societal prejudice. There are already many ways of obtaining children (copulation, in vitro, adoption) and ways of forming families (nuclear, extended family, single mother, gay/lesbian, etc.) that cloning human beings would seem excessive, and thus its motives less than noble.
Some unknown person says,
You say "aside from the safety issue" like it's a minor point, but I think it's the major point.
Well I think it's the major point as well. In fact, I think it's the only point.
If the safety issue is solved would you allow human cloning?
Do you agree that questions about efficacy or safety are not ethical issues?
while fear of cloning justified by their "unnaturalness" or other socially constructed reasons is irrational
Depending on the extent of it's use, it could change the basic equation of evolution for our species: less variation, no sexual selection, etc. If done over a very long time period, one could even imagine cloning evolving into a pleasurable experience, like sex.
Any kind of genetic engineering would also be "unnatural" tinkering. It would add a kind of "heuristic' to the mutation component of the evolutionary mechanism. From a GA/GP perspective, one could view it as increasing the immediate search depth in the fitness landscape.
Assume that the safety issue has been solved.
I think that the more interesting and more difficult question then is whether there should be any restrictions on cloning. To take just a couple of examples:
* Say I'm not married, but always wanted a son "just like me."
* Advertisement - "Why adopt someone about whose background you know little? Clone yourself!"
* The dictator of X wants to establish his succession and clones himself 3 times ... assassination can be a problem, after all.
* Another advertisement - "Having children is a time-consuming and messy process. Want 1 boy/1 girl? Clone yourself and your husband!"
Any concerns with any of these? And if so, why?
Just about everything humans have done since the beginning of agriculture is "unnatural" and has had the potential to "change the basic equation of evolution of our species". Cloning? Yawn. It would be a non-issue if people thought about it rationally. (And I'll bet the actual demand for it would be a lot lower than the alarmists imagine.)
@ Scott
Issue 1, 2, and 4 would not benefit from cloning. A mother, surrogate or otherwise, would still be needed to bring the baby or babies to term. Cloning would not be similar to adoption, it would be similar to having a surrogate mother. If there was technology that avoided the need for a surrogate mother, an "artificial womb", then neither 2 nor 4 would benefit. 1 would require an idiot who doesn't understand that the clone would be nothing like him. In 3 the dictator would also have to be an idiot, the clone or clones would once again be nothing like him or her and further there would be a potentially disastrous power struggle when he or she dies since there would be no clear criteria for succession.
And the only one I have a problem with (besides the ads being targeted at idiots) is 3, and that is merely because it is a dictator setting up a new dictator and not anything particular about cloning. I don't really see how cloning is that bad in any of the cases. A waste of money and effort, yes, but nothing inherently unethical.
Scott asks,
Any concerns with any of these?
Nope, not really. None of those examples causes me to re-evaluate my position on cloning humans.
What's the point? It seems like it's more trouble than it's worth, and I suspect it would raise many unmeetable expectations.
Ah... but will any of these clones have a soul?
Imagine a whole generation of these outcast and forsaken abominations,souless reprobates wandering the world with no hope for salvation. Scary stuff!
I like the idea of ethics being some set of rules that determine whether people should do something or not.
An ethical question would be something that exposes deficiencies or contradictions in the rules.
For people unsure about whether cloning humans is inherently wrong, it is certainly an ethical question.
Cloning humans is not an ethical question for me. However, I agree with Weissman, a dude who headed a panel on cloning, that the high mother mortality requires a current ban on reproductive cloning.
(see the medcast @ http://med.stanford.edu/)
I think the main problem is a purely practical one. It takes a long time for a human to grow. we only know that we have sucessfully cloned him if he lives to be 80 years old or so.
How would fund such research? who would actually want to do it?
wicker
To assert that cloning is just another reproductive technology is only possible if you have not followed the animal cloning experiments. No other method of reproduction has the large number of problems as does cloning. In the animal studies, hundreds of surrogate 'mothers' are needed to end up with only one "good" clone. Even with the good clones, half die unexpectedly or have to be "put down". This is not a technology that will likely be employed by any responsible IVF laboratory. I worked with the Center for Food Safety to review the US FDA report on animal cloning. The report covers many of these issues. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/
pubs/NotReadyForPrimeTime_ExecSummary.pdf.
jaydee, have you actually read all the comments? Quite a while ago Larry wrote the following, with which I agree.
"Well I think [safety is] the major point as well. In fact, I think it's the only point.
If the safety issue is solved would you allow human cloning?
Do you agree that questions about efficacy or safety are not ethical issues?"
Wait, questions of efficacy and safety ARE ethical issues because it pertains directly to the quality of human life.
No, those are questions of FACT. Whether to proceed given information on how safe or unsafe a procedure is can be an ethical question. But even then, it's NOT a question of basic principle about the ethics of the procedure in itself, but rather about the ethical considerations involved in balancing risks with benefits- i.e. the kind of thing that must be considered for any medical procedure.
My inlaw nephews are clones. I certainly hope their mom is not in trouble for having cloned children.
I don't think it's a problem if the people who do the cloning need friends. I mean, how would you feel if you didn't have friends? This is the easiest solution to the problem of loneliness. That way you can have an instant circle of friends/ new family. These are issues that need to be raised. I say drop the conservative attitudes and start cloning. Legalise it now.
Yes, it is tinkering with "evolution" for some out there. However, wouldn't this only bring up more controversy throughout different religions. I do know that christianity does not accept the idea of cloning. Do we really have a right to "play God" and choose to create, or for that matter, manupilate it? I do not deny that fact that it will lead to many groundbreaking discovries, however, we must keep in mind what discoveries have led to throughout the past. History has shown us time and time again that with every new discovery, there has been a negative impact on the world. Take automobiles for example, they revolutionized tranportation but what was the outcome of that?
Post a Comment