The Ethics on Human Cloning

A sample of cloned babies.

INTRODUCTION:

Cloning has raised serious ethical issues in our society and it has become a norm in some nations –no doubt. People who indulge in such discussions find it difficult to conclude on the rightness and wrongness of cloning, as such there is a contradiction that raises seriously-provoking questions. These questions of course raise issues on their own. These issues are what we shall consider in this work; its causes, problems and suggested solutions that could perhaps help out.

DEFINITION

For the purposes of this work, the term “cloning” will refer to the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear transfer. “Somatic cell nuclear transfer” refers to the process in which the nucleus of a somatic cell of an existing (or previously existing) organism is transferred into an enucleated ovum from which the nucleus has been removed. “Human cloning” will be used to refer to the application of somatic nuclear transfer technology to the creation of a human being that shares all of its nuclear genes with the person donating the implanted nucleus.

Cloning is distinct from techniques such as embryo splitting and twinning. Human cloning, as defined in this report, does not include the use of somatic cells to create a pluripotent cell line that could, for instance, also be used for extra-uterine production of transplantable tissues without the creation of an entire being. Nor does it include the use of cloning technology for the production of human tissues or human proteins from transgenic mammals.

THE EMERGENCE OF HUMAN CLONING

The history of human cloning has not concluded on a quite acceptable year. Although the possibility of cloning humans had been the subject of speculation for much of the twentieth century, scientists and policy makers began to take the prospect seriously in the 1960s.

Nobel Prize winning geneticist Joshua Lederberg advocated cloning and genetic engineering in a seminal article in The American Naturalist in 1966 and again, the following year, in The Washington Post. He sparked a debate with conservative bioethicist Leon Kass, who wrote at the time that "the programmed reproduction of man will, in fact, dehumanize him." Another Nobel Laureate, James D. Watson, publicized the potential and the perils of cloning in his Atlantic Monthly essay, "Moving Toward the Clonal Man", in 1971.

The technology of cloning mammals, although far from reliable, has reached the point where many scientists are knowledgeable, the literature is readily available, and the implementation of the technology is not very expensive compared to many other scientific processes. For that reason Lewis D. Eigen has argued that human cloning attempts will be made in the next few years and may well have been already begun.

    "By waiting until the first clone is among us or about to be born, we complicate the problem immensely and guarantee that we will not be able to have the national and international conversation and debate to arrive at particularly good decisions like using protection.

Cloning of humans began from the cloning of animals. In early 1997, a research team in Scotland cloned a sheep; Dolly by modifying developed technology used previously with amphibians. The cloning of this sheep was not permanent because, the cloned sheep later died of cancer on February 14, 2003. Hence, the National Bioethics Advisory Council gave a 5 year moratorium for cloning humans and also recommended the president to advice other countries to put a moratorium. Following the implantation of the moratorium, a national law was established; “Prohibition of Cloning of Human Beings Act of 1997” because of the moratorium.

NOTABLE CLONING ATTEMPTS AND CLAIMS

·         Scientists have been cloning animals for many years. In 1952, the first animal, a tadpole, was cloned. Before the creation of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from the cell of an adult animal, clones were created from embryonic cells. Since Dolly, researchers have cloned a number of large and small animals including sheep, goats, cows, mice, pigs, cats, rabbits, and a gaur. All these clones were created using nuclear transfer technology. Hundreds of cloned animals exist today, but the number of different species is limited. Attempts at cloning certain species have been unsuccessful. Some species may be more resistant to somatic cell nuclear transfer than others. The process of stripping the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a donor cell is a traumatic one, and improvements in cloning technologies may be needed before many species can be cloned successfully.

·         Dr. Panayiotis Zavos, an American fertility doctor, revealed on 17 January 2004 at a London press conference that he had transferred a freshly cloned embryo into a 35-year-old woman. On 4 February 2004, it emerged that the attempt had not worked and the woman did not become pregnant.

CAUSES/REASONS FOR CLONING

Recently, the controversy around human cloning has received a lot of news coverage; yet unsurprisingly, a clear and thorough examination of both sides has been lacking from the news media.

Basically, human cloning is the artificial process of making a genetic twin of a person. This means a person could literally become the parent of their own twin sibling or the parent of anyone’s twin.

Scientists are either very close at being able to clone human beings, or scientists have already done so. Human cloning has already become illegal or restricted in a variety of degrees in several countries, thus scientific research has been greatly reduced throughout the world. Furthermore, there has been quite a bit of legislation proposing to completely ban human cloning, and a large amount of legislation proposing to allow human cloning.

Unfortunately, I have not seen or heard a holistic explanation of both sides with all the reasons for and against human cloning because, for it have and effect; be it negative or positive, it must bear a cause. So I am going to list all the reasons that I’ve found so far. Precisely, I am going to address only the reasons/causes of cloning on their rational merit and later on the reasons to ban cloning.

    Infertility: In my opinion, if a couple is unable to conceive a child, then there are plenty of children in orphanages and foster care that could use a home and family. Adopting an orphan is much easier, cheaper, virtuous, and safer solution than trying to clone a human being, not including helping a child in need.

    Genetic Illness: If a person chooses not to have a child that is genetically their own because of a risk with passing on a genetic illness, then again adoption is a better solution for the reasons mentioned previously.

    Vanity: Bringing a child into the world should not about our narcissism, vanity, or an attempt at indirect immortality, because we are all unfairly biased for ourselves and our genes.

    Super Humans: Selecting the most perfect genetic donor in someone’s opinion, whether it is Albert Einstein, Michael Jordan, or some other above average person, changes the norms of society. Imagine a world with fewer variations of people who are either super-geniuses or super-athletes. On the other hand, advances in science and technology would grow at an even faster rate and more people would be healthier. I judge this purpose as a sufficiently good enough reason for allowing human cloning; however, I am very suspicious of intentionally making a better race of people. Maybe I’ve seen too many science fiction movies.

    Curing Diseases: The growing scientific field known as regenerative medicine or therapeutic cloning is allowing thousands of lives to be saved from cloning human cells, tissues, and even organs. Cloning human body parts guarantees a genetic match to prevent organ rejections and also does not require immunosuppressive drugs. However, this research is still in its infancy and requires a lot more time, effort, and money before it matures into saving a lot more people. If human cloning is completely banned, then this type of research would be stopped and a lot of lives would be lost. Therefore, this type of human cloning should also be allowed.

    Body Replacements: One of the stranger reasons for cloning humans is for a complete body replacement. This is only science fiction now, yet it may someday be a possibility in the distant future. While it will always unethical to kill another human being to save another person, what if the cloned human body replacement did not have a brain and was intentionally designed that way from the beginning? What about replacing an aged body with a new body by transplanting the human brain? I'll leave these ethical and fuzzy questions to be answered by the reader.

    Because We Can: Just because science gives humanity the ability to do something does not mean that humankind should. The reasons for doing any action must outweigh the reasons for not doing the action; therefore cloning a person should not be because of capability.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF CLONING?

Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long-term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death.

In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised. In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes.

Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents. A process called "imprinting" chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos.

ETHICAL CONCERNS REGARDING HUMAN CLONING

Physicians have an ethical obligation to consider the harms and benefits of new medical procedures and technologies. In weighing the harms and benefits, physicians should consider the possible implications of human cloning. Potential physical harms, psychosocial harms, adverse effects on familial relations, and changes to the gene pool are all legitimate issues. Compared to other technologies that might be used to address reproductive limitations and organ and tissue shortages, these potential harms of human cloning appear to outweigh the potential benefits at this time.

A. Physical harms introduced by cloning

While the Council will address the harms and benefits of embryo research in a future report, it is important to note that techniques used for cloning humans could potentially endanger the developing individuals. The Human Embryo Research Panel of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in its 1994 study, advised that embryos should be transferred to a woman’s uterus only when “there is reasonable confidence that any child born as a result” will not be harmed. At present, this cannot be assured with any degree of certainty with human cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer has not yet been refined and its long-term safety has not yet been proven. The possibility of genetic or cellular conditions, and perhaps an array of illnesses associated with cloning, is of great concern. While the demise of countless amphibian, lamb, and mouse fetuses may be disturbing, similar wastage and mortality among human fetuses is unacceptable. Moreover, we might have significant concerns about offering such technology to women as a mechanism to facilitate reproduction given the potential harms from the expected high miscarriage rate.

The risk of producing individuals with developmental anomalies is serious and precludes human cloning for the time being. Producing disabled human clones would give rise to an obligation to seek better understanding of— and potential medical therapies for— the unforeseen consequences that could arise from human cloning.

B. Psychosocial harms introduced by cloning

Human cloning has the potential to introduce psychosocial harms to individuals. If a person with known genetic predispositions and conditions is cloned, the cloned child’s genetic predispositions and conditions will, due to the very nature of cloning, also be known to a certain extent. For the most part, environment will also play a significant role. Presently, a child’s genetic predispositions can be predicted to varying degrees if the parent’s genetic predispositions have been determined. Knowledge of a child’s genetic predispositions raises concerns about the autonomy and best interests of the child. The Council has urged caution in this area in its ethical Opinion 2.138, “Genetic Testing of Children.” Knowledge of genetic information holds great significance to an individual. The harm of preempting the child’s future choice in knowing or forgoing knowledge of his genetic status and the danger of abrogating the child’s right to privacy with respect to this status must be weighed carefully.

Foregoing choice in learning one’s genetic predispositions may seem trivial compared to the concerns about identity raised with human cloning. If raised by the clone-parent, a clone-child could see what he or she has the potential to become. In this respect, human clones would differ dramatically from monozygotic twins who develop simultaneously. The timing of development is a key difference between monozygotic twins and human clones. Having insight into one’s potential may cause enormous pressures to live up to expectations (or inappropriately relieve pressure to do so), even more so than those generally experienced by children.

Presumably, a person would clone him or herself or another individual because that person has desirable characteristics that would be reflected in the clone. For example, the person who cloned a sports star presumably would hope that the clone-child develops into another sports star. A sports star’s clone-child unable to live up to these expectations could be dubbed a failure unable to capitalize on his or her genetic gift. Moreover, although the clone-child of a sports star might feel more confident of his or her abilities from the outset, other clone-children may feel limited by their genetic lot. If a clone-child saw that he or she was likely to develop certain diseases or had failed at certain tasks, his or her undertakings might be bounded by what the clone-parent had done. Therefore, cloning might limit the clone-child’s perception of self and increase external pressures. Human cloning may diminish, at least psychologically, the seemingly unlimited potential of new human beings and may exacerbate disturbing motivations for having children.

C. The impact of human cloning on family and society

In addition to concerns about individual privacy and identity, the implications of cloning for family and broader social relationships remain uncharted. What would be the consequence to, say, the father daughter relationship if the daughter and wife were genetically identical? Would a woman have a normal mother-daughter relationship with her clone? These examples illustrate that the family unit might be quite different with the introduction of cloning. As one philosopher wrote; “cloning shows itself to be a major violation of our given nature as embodied, gendered, and engendering beings— and of the social relations built on this natural ground.”

Additionally, some problems are technical and legal in nature. For instance, birth cousins could be genetic siblings, and this might result in a need to revisit laws governing marital eligibility. Also, the courts have had difficulty sorting out parental rights in cases of assisted reproduction. In one case, a court found a child conceived using assisted reproductive technologies to have no parents despite having eight individuals from which to choose. While discussion and resolution of these issues is not the province of physicians, the impact of human cloning on family and society is an important factor for physicians to consider when weighing the costs and benefits of cloning. Until more thought is given on a societal level regarding how to construct familial relations in this context, physicians should not participate in human cloning.

D. The effects of human cloning on the gene pool

Although not the most imminent threat, human cloning has the potential to alter the gene pool. In order for human cloning to have a significant effect on the gene pool, cloning would have to be widespread, and clones would have to reproduce. If cloning became widespread, human genetic diversity would decrease.

Over time, the benefits of genetic diversity, from having individuals with disease immunity to fostering populations with a wide variety of talents have helped human beings survive and succeed. Like other interventions that can change individuals’ reproductive patterns and the resulting genetic characteristics of a population, human cloning raises the specter of eugenics. The possibility that physicians might play a part in deciding which persons are or are not “worthy” of cloning is contrary to professional medical values by all respectable accounts. For the most part, those individuals thought to possess desirable characteristics or lack undesirable ones would be cloned. In addition, as is the worry with many assisted reproductive technologies, only those who have the ability to pay or are members of favored social groups will have access. This would have the potential to skew the gene pool in the direction of favored social groups and whatever characteristics are thought to be advantageous at the time, even though the long-term desirability of the characteristics is unknown. The possibility that physicians might be the agents of a social policy that make such judgments is contrary to professional medical values. The application of cloning for eugenic or discriminatory practices is incompatible with the ethical norms of medical practice.

In addition, since the somatic cell from which clones originate likely will have acquired mutations, serial cloning would compound the accumulation of mutations that occur in somatic cells. Although these mutations might not be apparent at the time of cloning, genetic problems could become exacerbated in future generations. These possibilities need to be investigated further before physicians participate in human cloning.

REASONS FOR BANNING HUMAN CLONING:

Here are my personally proffered reasons for banning human cloning which i think is very rationally balanced:

    Playing God: Whether playing God or playing the Devil I find this reason without any logic what so ever. Mankind is already "playing" God when we cure diseases, fly airplanes, create nuclear energy, or use any advanced technology.

    Religion: I believe it is impossible for anyone to know the true intentions of God if God exists. I don’t think God in any religion has directly banned human cloning. I know that the Catholic Pope is against cloning, but I find that at odds with being fruitful and multiplying.

    Determining Gender: In some societies being able to determine the sex; whether it is a boy or girl, is very important. While I believe that pre-determining the sex of a child is not applicable in modern society, I find no logically moral reasons why this should be banned.

    Sexual Orientation: Some people want to ban human cloning because they believe this is the only method that homosexuals can have children that will most likely be homosexual too. I believe that this reason is caused by fear from ignorance and religion and therefore logically baseless. On the other hand, I believe that if same sex couples want a child, then adoption should be a better option as mentioned above.

    Sub-Human: Imagine a new race of people that are docile with super strength yet low intelligence. Next, imagine how easily for this race to fall into slavery. Cloning humans should be for the advancement of mankind and not the lessening of individuals.

    Embryos at Risk: The process of human cloning increases the risk of harm to embryos and thus to the cloned person throughout their life. This reason is self defeating; because as scientists learn more, cloning humans has the possibility of becoming safer than naturally developing embryos by replacing randomized risks and genetic defects.

    Embryos Killed: During the human cloning process, a lot of human embryos are created and tested for viability. Some are either discarded or frozen for future use. First, it is heavily debated if killing a human embryo that is only a few living cells is murdering a person. I don’t think this argument will ever be decided upon. Second, extra embryos can be frozen, so they can avoid being killed too. Third, embryos can also be used in stem cell research, and thus possibly save human lives. And finally with further research, it could be possible to decrease the number of embryos created to only a single embryo.

    Expectations: Expectations of cloned humans to be identical to the genetic original person would undoubtedly cause a lot of psychological pressure, especially while growing up. Since identical twins are genetically the same yet very different people, it is unwise to expect cloned people to behave or have the same intelligence as the original genetic person. Therefore, no one should have any expectations from cloned people.

    Human Rights: A lot of people worry that cloned people would not have full rights, since they are just copies. I find this reasoning absolutely ridiculous, since a person is a person despite their genetic source or if artificial created.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1) In order to clarify the many existing misconceptions about human cloning, physicians should help educate the public about the intrinsic limits of human cloning as well as the current ethical and legal protections that would prevent abuses of human cloning. These include the following:

a) Using human cloning as an approach to terminal illness or mortality is a concept based on the mistaken notion that one’s genotype largely determines one’s individuality. A clone-child created via human cloning would not be identical to his or her clone-parent.

b) Current ethical and legal standards hold that under no circumstances should human cloning occur without an individual's permission.

c) Current ethical and legal standards hold that a human clone would be entitled to the same rights, freedoms, and protections as every other individual in society. The fact that a human clone’s nuclear genes would derive from a single individual rather than two parents would not change his or her moral standing.

2) Physicians have an ethical obligation to consider the harms and benefits of new medical procedures and technologies. Physicians should not participate in human cloning at this time because further investigation and discussion regarding the harms and benefits of human cloning is required.

Concerns include:

a) Unknown physical harms introduced by cloning. Somatic cell nuclear transfer has not yet been refined and its long-term safety has not yet been proven. The risk of producing individuals with genetic anomalies gives rise to an obligation to seek better understanding of— and potential medical therapies for— the unforeseen genetic consequences that could stem from human cloning.

b) Psychosocial harms introduced by cloning, including violations of privacy and autonomy. Human cloning promises to limit, at least psychologically, the seemingly unlimited potential of new human beings and to create enormous pressures on the clone-child to live up to expectations based on the life of the clone-parent.

c) The impact of human cloning on familial and societal relations. The family unit would be different with the introduction of cloning, and more thought is required on a societal level regarding how to construct familial relations.

d) Potential effects on the gene pool. Like other interventions that can change individuals’ reproductive patterns and the resulting genetic characteristics of a population, human cloning has the potential to be used in a eugenic or discriminatory fashion— practices that are incompatible with the ethical norms of medical practice. Moreover, human cloning could alter irreversibly the gene pool and exacerbate genetic problems that arise from deleterious genetic mutations, resulting in harms to future generations.

3) Two potentially realistic and possibly appropriate medical uses of human cloning are for assisting individuals or couples to reproduce and for the generation of tissues when the donor is not harmed or sacrificed. Given the unresolved issues regarding cloning identified above, the medical profession should forsake human cloning at this time and pursue alternative approaches that raise fewer ethical concerns.

4) Because cloning technology is not limited to the United States, physicians should help establish international guidelines governing human cloning.

CONCLUSION

Human cloning raises a variety of concerns, some realistic and others less so. It would be irresponsible to forge ahead with this new technology in the absence of serious discussion regarding the possible harms and benefits of cloning human beings. Until the benefits of human cloning are thought by society to outweigh the harms, it would be inappropriate for physicians to participate in human cloning.