|
|
     |
|
|
|
The Raelians’ announcement of the birth of the first human clone last December proved to be a publicity stunt, but the bizarre cult’s claim underscored the urgency of formulating a response to cloning. The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a ban on all human cloning, but the bill faces a tougher challenge in Senate. The Raelians may not have deserved the attention their claim drew, but the issue of cloning warrants a great deal more--especially as the initial laws on it are drawn.
All technologies have the potential to change our lives, but few have as great potential --for good or bad-- as cloning. Cloning advocates promise it will help cure diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s; critics remind us that it would for the first time make human reproduction asexual -- challenging our understanding and experience of society, family and humanity. The urgency of this issue is heightened by the fact that cloning has already begun: several labs have announced their creation of a human embryo since 2001. All of these clones died or were destroyed in the lab; the race among Clonaid and other maverick scientists is to implant the clone in a surrogate mother and keep the embryo alive until birth.
This new technology must be brought to public debate, not left to the judgment of scientists or legislators. Many citizens are not aware of the larger implications of cloning, and recent media attention missed the opportunity to highlight these ethical issues. The news has focused predominantly on the safety hazards of cloning, stressing for example that perhaps hundreds of embryos would need to be cloned to produce a single survivor and that most of these survivors would have genetic defects.
These are compelling arguments against cloning, but this pragmatism ignores the deeper ethical objections. For instance, cloning will allow individuals or infertile couples to have biologically-related children, or provide a perfect organ donor. But when it’s moved from sexual intercourse to the laboratory, reproduction becomes a form of manufacturing. By transforming our perspective on childbearing and offering an opportunity to improve the product, it becomes a new form of eugenics.
Not surprisingly, few support cloning babies. Apart from a cult’s promise of eternal life or the challenge of being the first to succeed, it has little appeal for scientists. However, cloning embryos for stem cell research is a much more interesting and appealing prospect for many researchers. While embryonic stem cell research avoids the pragmatic questions about safety after birth, most of the deeper ethical questions remain. Allowing such research to proceed would also result in the manufacture of thousands of embryonic human lives. This prompts us to question our attitude towards this emerging human life and the nature of the embryo. When does life begin? Is there enough change in the embryo after two weeks to justify this common suggestion for a research age limit? What will come next? What if scientists suggest there is vital knowledge to be gained from research on older embryos? Or research on animal-human hybrids? (Inserting human DNA into an animal egg has already been tried in China.)
One argument against cloning for research is that there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells and tissue: much work remains to be done on adult stem cells and animal embryos. This can deflate some arguments for research cloning, but it is only a temporary objection. Getting beyond the risks and alternatives to discuss the foundational ethical issues in cloning is crucial--and perhaps even more fascinating than UFO cult news.
--Daniel Thomas, editor
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
www.bioethics.gov
www.bioethics.umn.edu
www.cbhd.org
