_Cloning _
By: anonymous
The news of the successful cloning of an adult sheep-in which the sheep's DNA
was inserted into an unfertilized sheep egg to produce a lamb with identical
DNA-has generated an outpouring of ethical concerns. These concerns are not
about Dolly, the now famous sheep, nor even about the considerable impact
cloning may have on the animal breeding industry, but rather about the
possibility of cloning humans. For the most part, however, the ethical
concerns being raised are exaggerated and misplaced, because they are based on
inaccurate views about what genes are and what they can do. The danger,
therefore, lies not in the power of the technology, but in the
misunderstanding of its significanceProducing a clone of a human being
would not amount to creating a "carbon copy"-an automaton of the sort familiar
from science fiction. It would be more like producing a delayed identical
twin. And just as identical twins are two separate people-biologically,
psychologically, morally and legally, though not genetically so a clone is a
separate person from his or her non-contemporaneous twin. To think otherwise
is to embrace a belief in genetic determinism-the view that genes determine
everything about us, and that environmental factors or the random events in
human development are utterly insignificant. The overwhelming consensus among
geneticists is that genetic determinism is false. As geneticists have come to
understand the ways in which genes operate, they have also become aware of the
myriad ways in which the environment affects their "expression." The genetic
contribution to the simplest physical traits, such as height and hair color,
is significantly mediated by environmental factors. And the genetic
contribution to the traits we value most deeply, from intelligence to
compassion, is conceded by even the most enthusiastic genetic researchers to
be limited and indirect. Indeed, we need only appeal to our ordinary
experience with identical twins-that they are different people despite their
similarities-to appreciate that genetic determinism is false Furthermore,
because of the extra steps involved, cloning will probably always be riskier
that is less likely to result in a live birth-than in vitro fertilization
(IVF) and embryo transfer. (It took more than 275 attempts before the
researchers were able to obtain a successful sheep clone. While cloning
methods may improve, we should note that even standard IVF techniques
typically have a success rate of less than 20 percent.) So why would anyone go
to the trouble of cloning? There are, of course, a few reasons people might go
to the trouble, and so it's worth pondering what they think they might
accomplish, and what sort of ethical quandaries they might engender. Consider
the hypothetical example of the couple who wants to replace a child who has
died. The couple doesn't seek to have another child the ordinary way because
they feel that cloning would enable them to reproduce, as it were, the lost
child. But the unavoidable truth is that they would be producing an entirely
different person, a delayed identical twin of that child. Once they understood
that, it is unlikely they would persist But suppose they were to persist?
Of course we can't deny that possibility. But a couple so persistent in
refusing to acknowledge the genetic facts is not likely to be daunted by
ethical considerations or legal restrictions either. If our fear is that there
could be many couples with that sort of psychology, then we have a great deal
more than cloning to worry about Another disturbing possibility is the
person who wants a clone in order to have acceptable "spare parts" in case he
or she needs an organ transplant later in life. But regardless of the reason
that someone has a clone produced, the result would nevertheless be a human
being with all the rights and protections that accompany that status. It truly
would be a disaster if the results of human cloning were seen as less than
fully human. But there is certainly no moral justification for and little
social danger of that happening; after all, we do not accord lesser status to
children who have been created through IVF or embryo transfer There are
other possibilities we could spin out. Suppose a couple wants a "designer
child"-a clone of Cindy Crawford or Elizabeth Taylor-because they want a
daughter who will grow up to be as attractive as those women. Indeed, suppose
someone wants a clone, never mind of whom, simply to enjoy the notoriety of
having one. We cannot rule out such cases as impossible. Some people produce
children for all sorts of frivolous or contemptible reasons. But we must
remember that cloning is not as easy as going to a video store or as engaging
as the traditional way of making babies. Given the physical and emotional
burdens that cloning would involve, it is likely that such cases would be
exceedingly rare But if that is so, why object to a ban on human cloning?
What is wrong with placing a legal barrier in the path of those with desires
perverse enough or delusions recalcitrant enough to seek cloning despite its
limited potential and formidable costs? For one thing, these are just the
people that a legal ban would be least likely to deter. But more important, a
legal barrier might well make cloning appear more promising than it is to a
much larger group of people If there were significant interest in applying
this technology to human beings, it would indicate a failure to educate people
that genetic determinism is profoundly mistaken. Under those circumstances as
well, however, a ban on human cloning would not only be ineffective but also
most likely counterproductive. Ineffective because, as others have pointed
out, the technology does not seem to require sophisticated and highly visible
laboratory facilities; cloning could easily go underground. Counterproductive
because a ban might encourage people to believe that there is a scientific
basis for some of the popular fears associated with human cloning-that there
is something to genetic determinism after all There is a consensus among
both geneticists and those writing on ethical, legal and social aspects of
genetic research, that genetic determinism is not only false, but deadly; it
invokes memories of pseudo-scientific racist and eugenic programs premised on
the belief that what we value in people is entirely dependent on their genetic
endowment or the color of their skin. Though most members of our society now
avoid racial determinism, our culture still assumes that genes contain a
person's destiny. It would be unfortunate if, by treating cloning as a
terribly dangerous technology, we encouraged this cultural myth, even as we
intrude on the broad freedom our society grants people regarding reproduction.
We should remember that most of us believe people should be allowed to decide
with whom to reproduce, when to reproduce and how many children they should
have. We do not criticize a woman who takes a fertility drug so that she can
influence when she has children-or even how many. Why, then, would we object
if a woman decides to give birth to a child who is, in effect, a
non-contemporary identical twin of someone else? By arguing against a ban, I
am not claiming that there are no serious ethical concerns to the manipulation
of human genes. Indeed there are. For example, if it turned out that certain
desirable traits regarding intellectual abilities or character could be
realized through the manipulation of human genes, which of these enhancements,
if any, should be available? But such questions are about genetic engineering,
which is a different issue than cloning. Cloning is a crude method of trait
selection: It simply takes a pre-existing, unengineered genetic combination of
traits and replicates it At present, there is no law in the United States
and Canada directly addressing attempts to create a child through somatic cell
nuclear transfer, cloning, although a variety of state and federal laws and
policies do have some application In America, federal law already requires
that clinics using assisted reproduction techniques, such as in vitro
fertillization, be monitored. The requirement would apply, as well, to efforts
to use somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning to create a child State laws
governing family relationships would also be stressed from dealing with
paternity acts, surrogacy statutes, and egg donation statutes are not
necessarily broad enough to address the kinship relationships involved in
cloning human beings. The use of this technique would result in a child having
as many as four individuals with claims to parental status based on some
aspect of genetic connection: the person from whom the cell nucleus was
derived, that individuals genetic parents, and the woman contributing the
enucleated egg cell which contains a small fraction of DNA in the cytoplasmic
mitochondria. In addition, if the egg with the transferred nucleic material is
implanted in a gestational mother, the child will have two other potential
parents: the gestational mother, and if she is married, her husband. Finally,
the intended rearing parents could be unrelated to the individuals whose egg
or nucleus was used, or to the gestational mother. The contributors to such
cloning arrangements will have various, as yet ill defined, legal rights and
responsibilities with respect to the resulting child Overall, existing law
would severely restrict public funding for efforts to clone human beings;
would monitor most efforts to clone human beings for safety and effectiveness;
and would discourage premature experimentation. It would not, however,
prohibit all such efforts. Further, characterize the family relationships that
will spring up I do not wish to dismiss the ethical concerns people have
raised regarding the broad range of assisted reproductive technologies. But we
should acknowledge that those concerns will not be resolved by any
determination we make regarding the specific acceptability of cloning.
Word Count: 1618
| 
