The wonders of science and technology dazzle our minds each day. Truly, there seems to be no limit to what humanity can accomplish once we have set our minds to it. We have been to the moon, watched live broadcasts from the planet mars on our televisions and computers, harnessed the power of the atom itself, and now we have even found ways to manipulate the basic building blocks of life through molecular genetics. We are approaching the threshold of being able to create and alter life to our own designs and desires. Yes, there truly seems to be no limit to what we can do.
However, if there is no limit to what we can do, should there be limits imposed on what we may do? This question deserves particular consideration when viewed in the context of human cloning, for its answer will have far reaching implications that may shape the destiny of humanity itself. There might come a time when our very existence relies on how we have answered this question, for where you have the power to create you also have the potential to destroy. And yet, through creation you also hold in your hands the power to preserve. What, if anything, should be done in the way of regulating human cloning is a subject that is deserving of thoughtful conversation and debate, for the ramifications will have an impact on our lives for generations to come.
There are those who feel that science and industry should have a free reign in this area, while there are others who feel that sweeping legislation banning or severely limiting genetic research needs to be enacted by the government. While there is a danger that reckless handling of genetic projects could result in horrifying results, there is also a danger that if research and experimentation are banned altogether, we will miss out on a number of discoveries that could infinitely benefit the human race. It is concern for the latter that has shaped my opinion that the safest and most proper course of action lies in a combination of both positions.
Before making a judgement on what needs to be done in the way of regulating human cloning, one needs to understand what molecular genetics is and what it is not. Molecular genetics is a scientific field of study. It is the branch of genetics that pertains to hereditary transmission and variation on the molecular level. It is not magic, and it is not miraculous. It is a field of science---nothing more, nothing less. Yet, this particular field of science has the potential to raise fear in the hearts of people more than any other branch of study. This reaction is especially true with regard to the cloning aspects of molecular genetics.
When you speak of cloning, many people are filled with the images of Frankenstein, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Gattaca. They think of out of control monsters, zombies, and societies based on genetic perfection. Images of cloned Hitlers commanding armies of manufactured supermen are thought of as real possibilities. Surely these images alone should be enough to justify an outright ban on genetic engineering, shouldn’t they?
Were these images anything more than Hollywood productions and works of wonderfully imaginative minds, I would certainly agree that a ban would be justified. But they are not. These terrifying images, while providing a captivating source of entertainment, do a great disservice to the field of molecular genetics. They instill a preconceived notion of molecular genetics as being something evil and uncontrollable without a second’s thought about how genetic engineering may benefit humanity. This is sad, for the benefits of this field are many. We see them every day on our grocery store shelves, in our medicine cabinets, and on our farms. But, before we get into the benefits of genetic engineering, let’s dispel some of the myths, since they are the basis for many of the public’s objections.
First of all, many people want to see an outright ban on human cloning based on erroneous perceptions of what cloning is. They fear that tyrants will try to become immortal by cloning themselves or that some madman will clone Adolph Hitler or some other evil character. After all, isn’t that what happened in the movie The Boys from Brazil? To its credit, this movie at least recognized that there is more to an individual than just genetic makeup. To better understand what this means we need to be aware of what makes up a clone and what constitutes an individual.
In an article entitled Backward Compatible, Marie A. DI Berardino and Robert G. McKinnell collaborated in order to clarify some of these issues. They define cloning as a term used to describe any process that produces genetically identical organisms. A clone is an exact duplicate of the original, and the cloning process is found naturally in the world around us. Cells clone their nuclear material in a process known as mitosis, amoebas clone themselves when they divide, and plants clone themselves when they reproduce by budding. Cloning also occurs naturally in the animal kingdom and in human beings (32).
Cloning occurs naturally in human beings? How could this be? Identical twins are clones, more so than any clone that could be created in the laboratory, for identical twins share mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Gould 16). The process by which experimental cloning takes place utilizes a donor egg from which the nuclear material is removed and then replaced with a ruptured cell from the organism being cloned. The ruptured cell provides the nuclear DNA for the clone. However, the mitochondrial DNA comes from the cytoplasm in the donor egg. In the natural occurrence of identical twins, both embryos come from a single fertilized egg. As a result, they share both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Kitcher 366).
The resulting end product may be affected little, if at all, by the second party mitochondrial DNA. However, technically speaking, the very presence of this DNA dictates that a clone resulting from scientific methodology is not an exact duplicate of the original. On the other hand, technically speaking, identical twins are exact duplicates.
The importance of the fact that identical twins are exact duplicates becomes quite evident when looking at the issues of immortality or a cloned Hitler. Even if someone had the ability to create a clone of Hitler or of themselves, the clone would be little more than a far removed twin. It is far less likely that this clone would result in another original than it would be for identical twins to become the same in every way. Identical twins not only share in DNA, but they also share the same womb and often the same environment throughout rearing. Yet, it is common knowledge that despite their physical similarities, identical twins are still individuals with separate tastes and personalities. It is the subtle differences in how they experience life and interpret those experiences that make up their own individuality. What we are is more than just what we are made of.
According to science, all of the atoms that make up our bodies get replaced over a seven-year period (Cole). If what we are were to be based solely on our chemical makeup, then every seven years we would need to be regarded as someone else.
Perhaps the best way of understanding what a clone is would be through the analogy of counterfeit money that Los Angeles Times’ science writer K.C. Cole used in his article Upsetting Our Sense of Self. In this analogy, one is asked to imagine that someone has found a way to make counterfeit money that is perfect in every way. Is it the same as real money? When Cole posed this question to logician Keith Devlin of St. Mary’s College of California in Moraga, Devlin replied that it was not the same, explaining that history and context must be taken into account. "Even if there were no property that allowed you to distinguish the [fake] money [from the real money], it would still be counterfeit because it wasn’t produced in the right social environment. It wasn’t produced by the government. Identity is not in its intrinsic properties. It’s in context" (Cole).
There should, therefore, be no fear of a resurrected Hitler or an everlasting Hussein anytime soon. Or, to quote noted author Philip Kitcher, Presidential Professor of Philosophy at the University of California at San Diego from his book The Lives to Come, "There is no hope of ensuring personal survival by arranging for cloning through supplying a cell nucleus. Megalomaniacs with intimations of immortality need not apply" (331).
On the other side of the fence there are people like Dr. Richard Seed. Dr. Seed not only supports human cloning; he is determined to be the first to accomplish it. When interviewed by CNN, Dr. Seed revealed that if he were barred from his pursuit in the United States, he would simply go elsewhere. He also said that his objective is to create profitable human cloning clinics throughout the United States and in "[F]ive or six" international locations. Seed has said that he plans to use the same process that Scottish scientists used to create the cloned sheep known as Dolly. Harold Shapiro, head of the National Bioethics Committee has stated that he finds Seed’s proposal "scientifically and clinically premature" (CNN). And given the many unresolved ethical and procedural issues, I am inclined to agree with Shapiro.
The method that Dr. Seed proposes to use is far from perfected. Without getting into too much technical detail, let it suffice to say that in the Dolly experiment the failure rate was remarkable. According to DI Berardino and McKinnell, of the 434 sheep oocytes (immature egg cells) that scientists began their study with, 157 failed to fuse with the donor cells. Of the remaining 277 successfully fused cells, only 29 embryos lived long enough to be transplanted to their surrogate mothers. Of these 29, only one came to term; that being Dolly (37). These statistics are certainly not at a level that any responsible scientist would consider acceptable if the subjects of the experimentation were human instead of animal. There would have been 28 failed pregnancies for the one success. The moral implications of such a loss of life as a result of an unproven procedure should be self-evident.
DI Berardino and McKinnell are quick to point out that "[A]ny attempt to clone an adult human organism would be a dangerous game of genetic roulette" and would take hundreds of egg cells---far more than a woman could donate. They go on to say "[I]n nearly 100 percent of the cases it would give rise to abnormal embryos and fetuses" (37).
Given the high failure rate and the potential for an abnormal child being born, I believe that enlightened legislation should be enacted to stop or at least slow the "Dr. Seeds" in the world. However, I believe that as the techniques are improved upon, there will come a time when the benefits far outweigh the risks. Therefore, I cannot support an outright ban on human cloning and human cloning research.
And what might these benefits be? When would there be a case where human cloning would be morally permissible? To answer these questions, I will turn again to Philip Kitcher’s book The Lives to Come.
Kitcher presents three cases where human cloning might be justified. These situations are: the case of the dying child, the case of the grieving widow, and the case of the loving lesbians (336).
In the case of the dying child, Kitcher creates a scenario wherein a child is slowly dying because of defective kidneys. The parents cannot donate a kidney, and an acceptable donor cannot be found. If the child receives a new kidney within ten years, he will fully recover and be able to have a normal life. If the parents were to clone the child and raise the clone to an age where the operation could be performed, then both children would be able to continue on, leading normal lives. Should this be allowed?
In the second case, a woman’s beloved husband has been killed in a car crash that has also left their only daughter with severe brain damage and only a short time to live. The widow can no longer have children. Should she be allowed to have her daughter’s DNA implanted into a donor egg and a clone brought into being with the aid of a surrogate mother?
In both of these cases, Kitcher notes that the moral acceptability has a lot to do with the parents’ attitudes about the new children. If the parents truly desire another child to love and care for, and they are not just trying to create a child as a means to an end, then these may be morally permissible circumstances. However, the moral implications of creating children only to provide a chance at life or to replace someone else raise a dark shadow over the purity of the use of cloning in these situations (337-338).
The case of the loving lesbians provides what Kitcher feels to be the purest motive for human cloning. In this case, two lesbians who have been devoted to each other for years wish to have a child that is a part of both of them. Should they be allowed to insert the nuclear DNA of one into the egg of the other, who will then carry the child to term? Since there is no question of whether there is a preconceived plan that will be enforced on the child, Kitcher sees no negative moral implications with regard to intent. These women wish only to have a child as an expression of their mutual love for each other, and Kitcher feels that if cloning is ever defendable it will be in contexts like this.
The first two of Kitcher’s cases bring to bear another argument that is often presented in opposition to molecular genetics and cloning, the argument that "we are trying to play God." Religious sentiment such as this is rooted in the personal faiths of each individual and there is, therefore, no good scientific basis upon which to refute it. There is, however, an intuitive basis from which one could question the forbidden context in which this argument casts these procedures. If God were to be offended at our scientific prying, would it not be easily within his power to prevent us from doing so? Could he not stifle even the most moderate of successes, until the scientists become frustrated and turn their endeavors elsewhere? For that matter, couldn’t he have chosen not to give us scientific abilities in the first place?
Perhaps there is another way of looking at this from a religious perspective. Perhaps God allows us to make these discoveries only when we are ready for them. Perhaps he provides our new findings in order to allow us to better care for one another and ease our daily sufferings. Maybe he reveals himself to us through the amazingly complex, yet functionally simple, methods by which he put things together.
Then again, maybe we are playing God. Maybe the critics are right when they say we are playing God. But then, isn’t it natural for a child to try and emulate its parent? If we are created in God's image, isn’t it only natural that we would try and become more like him? And like any father, wouldn’t it just be natural for him to allow his children to venture only into areas where they are capable of handling themselves properly? A father doesn’t prevent his children from growing up, just from growing up too fast.
As a last point on the religious perspective, I would ask that everyone bear in mind that it wasn’t that long ago that the same allegations of "playing God" were applied to organ transplantation and in vitro fertilization. Both of these practices have become common parts of our everyday lives, accepted because of their healing attributes. It is the many potential healing attributes of molecular genetics that lead me to believe that genetic engineering and human cloning will also one day become an accepted part of our daily lives.
Perhaps it will be through genetic engineering that we will at last be able to defeat cancer, repair failing organs, eradicate disease and congenital birth defects. And maybe cloning will provide opportunities for us to ensure that no parents are deprived of the child that they so desperately want but cannot have. Perhaps the marriage of genetic engineering and cloning will be the key that unlocks the door to our next step in evolution, a step that I believe will be a conscious decision. And perhaps as when a child graduates from baby talk to conversation, this will be the step where we begin to learn the most about our father and ourselves.
Yet, until we fully understand the power, potential, and risks involved with molecular genetics and human cloning, we must not allow the potentials of success to blind us from the dark possibilities of failure. It is essential that we proceed, but proceed with caution, reservation, and wisdom. We cannot afford to abandon the benefits of wise policy in the pursuits of quick profits. Nor can we afford to set back the hands of time by attempting to legislate all forms of research and experimentation into the grave. It is for these reasons that I am actively promoting a course of enlightened legislation limiting certain types of research, yet not banning or stopping anything for a period of more than five years at a time. This proposal is in line with the findings of the National Bioethics Committee, and is a reasonable course of action.
When it comes to human genetic engineering, we must choose our paths wisely, for in the words of Professor Stephen Hawking, "[I]t is likely to happen in the next millenium, whether we want it or not."
Works Cited
"CNN-Opposition to human cloning will ‘blow over,’ scientist says." CNN SCI-TECH.
7 January 1998. <http://cnn.com/TECH/9801/07/cloning.folo/ > (29 March 1998).
Cole, K.C. "Upsetting Our Sense of Self." Los Angeles Times. 28 April 1997.
1.htm> (7 March 1998). DI Berardino, Marie A. and Robert G. McKinnell. "Backward Compatible." The Sciences September/October 1997: 32-37. Gould, Stephen J. "Individuality." The Sciences September/October 1997: 14-16. Hawking, Stephen. "Science in the Next Millenium." Millenium evenings. Washington, 3 March, 1998. Kitcher, Phillip. The Lives To Come: The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. As a brief side-note, Professor Kitcher’s book The Lives to Come is an in-depth look at the field of molecular genetics through the eyes of moral and ethical responsibilities. There was no way that I could do his wonderfully complete work justice within the constraints of this essay, other than to give it my highest recommendations. If the subject of cloning or molecular genetics interests you at all, you will want to read this book.
