Cloning
Shortly after the announcement that British scientists had successfully
cloned a
sheep, Dolly, cloning humans has recently become a possibility that
seems much
more feasible in today's society. The word clone has been applied
to cells as
well as to organisms, so that a group of cells stemming from a
single cell is
also called a clone. Usually the members of a clone are
identical in their
inherited characteristics that is, in their genes except
for any differences
caused by mutation. Identical twins, for example, who
originate by the division
of a single fertilized egg, are members of a clone;
whereas nonidentical twins,
who derive from two separate fertilized eggs, are
not clones. (Microsoft®
Encarta® 97 Encyclopedia). There are two known
ways that we can clone humans.
The first way involves splitting an embryo
into several halves and creating many
new individuals from that embryo. The
second method of cloning a human involves
taking cells from an already
existing human being and cloning them, in turn
creating other individuals
that are identical to that particular person. With
these two methods at our
desposal, we must ask ourselves two very important
questions: Should we do
this, and Can we? There is no doubt that many problems
involving the
technological and ethical sides of this issue will arise and will
be
virtually impossible to avoid, but the overall idea of cloning humans is
one
that we should accept as a possible reality for the future. Cloning
humans is an
idea that has always been thought of as something that could be
found in science
fiction novels, but never as a concept that society could
actually experience.
Today's technological speed has brought us to the
piont to where almost anything
is possible. Sarah B. Tegen, '97 MIT Biology
Undergraduate President states,
"I think the cloning of an entire mammal has
shown me exactly how fast
biology is moving ahead, I had no idea we were so
close to this kind of
accomplishment." Based on the current science , though,
most of these
dreams and fears are premature, say some MIT biologists. Many
biologist claim
that true human cloning is something still far in the future.
This raises
ethical questions now as towhether or not human cloning should
even be
attempted. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/). There are many
problems with
cloning humans. One method of human cloning is splitting
embryos. The main issue
as to whether or not human cloning is possible
through the splitting of embryos
began in 1993 when experimentation was done
at George Washington University
Medical Center in Washington D.C. There
Dr. Jerry Hall experimented with the
possibility of human cloning and began
this moral and ethical debate. There it
was concluded that cloning is not
something that can be done as of now, but it
is quite a possibility for the
future. These scientists experimented eagerly in
aims of learning how to
clone humans. Ruth Macklin of U.S. News & World
Report writes, "Hall
and other scientists split single humans embryos into
identical copies, a
technology that opens a Pandora's box of ethical questions
and has sparked a
storm of controversy around the world"
(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/).
They attempted to create seventeen
human embryos in a laboratory dish and when
it had grown enough, separated
them into forty-eight individual cells. Two of
the separated cells survived
for a few days in the lab developed into new human
embryos smaller than the
head of a pin and consisting of thirty-two cells
each.
(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/) Although we cannot clone a human
yet, this
experiment occurred almost two years ago and triggered almost an
ethical
emergency. Evidence from these experiments received strange reactions
from the
public. Ruth Macklin states, "Cloning is a radical challenge to the
most
fundamental laws of biology, so it's not unreasonable to be concerned
that it
might threaten human society and dignity. Yet much of the ethical
opposition
seems also to grow out of an unthinking disgust--a sort of
"yuk
factor." And that makes it hard for even trained scientists and
ethicists
to see the matter clearly. While human cloning might not offer
great benefits to
humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it
would do any real harm,
either." (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/).
Theologians contend that to
clone a human would violate human dignity. That
would surely be true if a cloned
individual were treated as a lesser being,
with fewer rights or lower stature.
But why suppose that cloned persons
wouldn't share the same rights and dignity
as the rest of us? If and when
cloning comes about, will people be willing to
pay anything for a clone of
themselves? It is such a costly form of technology.
As we see with so
many other aspects of today's socity, people will do all kinds
of things for
money. (Will human cloning make a type of black market for embryos
could
easily someday develop?) Parents already spend a great deal of money on
in
vitro fertilization, and who knows how much they would be willing to pay
for
cloning their children? The question as to what cloning would do to
society from
both the moral and economic standpoints comes to the conclusion
that for the
most part cloning is too expensive and too dangerous. In the
religous circles
the question of human cloning has stirred debate. Rev.
Robert A. Martin states:
"It appears that from the beginning God reserved for
Himself the right to
create living souls. I understand that the philosophy of
modern psychiatry is to
teach that human beings are soulless, therefore we
are just flesh and blood
which can only respond to the environment with no
ability to make conscious
decisions for itself. In other words people are no
differnet than animals to be
used and manipulaated. Thus, there is, from the
beginnging, a fundamental
difference between what the Bible teaches and what
psychiatry teaches. This
being the case, it is little wonder then, that some
people assume the
prerogative of playing the role of god."
(http://www.user.shentel.net/ramartin/applied/cloning.htm)
Embryonic
cloning could be a valuable tool for the studying of human
development,
genetically modifying embryos, and investigating new transplant
technologies.
Using cloning to produce offspring for the sake of their organs is
an issue
that we must also face and question whether or not it is morally
right.
No one will say that it is okay to kill a human being for the sake
of their
organs. But will many have no objection to cloning thousands of
individuals for
the sake of organ transplants? Technology seems to take away
many of the morals
that we have worked so hard to install in society. Most
people only seem to want
to cater to their own needs and do not bother to
consider the consequences that
society and the clone may have to face. With
the issue of parents' involvement
in cloning, Ruth Macklin, writes, " Perhaps
a grieving couple whose child
is dying. This might seem psychologically
twisted. But a cloned child born to
such dubious parents stands no greater or
lesser chance of being loved, or
rejected, or warped than a child normally
conceived. Infertile couples are also
likely to seek out cloning. That such
couples have other options (in vitro
fertilization or adoption) is not an
argument for denying them the right to
clone. Or consider an example raised
by Judge Richard Posner: a couple in which
the husband has some tragic
genetic defect. Currently, if this couple wants a
genetically related child,
they have four not altogether pleasant options. They
can reproduce naturally
and risk passing on the disease to the child. They can
go to a sperm bank and
take a chance on unknown genes. They can try in vitro
fertilization and
dispose of any afflicted embryo--though that might be
objectionable, too. Or
they can get a male relative of the father to donate
sperm, if such a
relative exists. This is one case where even people unnerved by
cloning might
see it as not the worst option."
(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/).
Should we be excited at the
prospect of cloning? No more nasty surprises like
sickle cell or Down
syndrome-just batch after batch of high-grade and,
genetically speaking,
immortal offspring! Cloning from an already existing adult
is a second method
that we must consider when discussing the cloning of humans.
This type of
cloning would no doubt be a very controversial issue any way that
it is
looked at, but it is necessary to understand the two ways that it could
be
done if we were to clone humans. Unlike the process of cloning embryos,
cloning
from already existing humans allows one to know exactly what their
clone will
look like ahead of time. Before the clone is actually produced,
the parents or
the individual's clone will know exactly what to expect in
their offspring as
far as looks go. Personality and other factors cannot be
certain, but it is
stated that if the clone is observed carefully and
compared with its other
clones, many similarities will automatically arise.
Cloning among adults is less
obtainable than embryonic cloning, but it seems
to cause just as much
controversy. Embryonic cloning has not been successful
yet, as far as we know.
We do know, however, that cloning from an already
existing human may effectively
work in the near future. In a movie called,
The Boys from Brazil, two clones of
Hitler are supposedly produced from a
cell obtained containing Hitler's genes.
This cell was in turn joined
with an egg, and an embryo was formed containing
solely the genes of Hitler
with only the necessary ones from the woman. This
science fiction-like
experiment was done for many reasons, but it was mostly
intended to test the
clones' behavior away from one another and to see if any
certain kind of
attitude can be passed on from one clone to another. The boys in
this movie
seem to demonstrate this concept through their slight displays of
Hitlers
personality traits even after being raised apart with totally
different
lifestyles. Although, this idea of cloning seems feasible, it is
not very
logical with today's level of technology. A cell from a
nonreproductive part of
one's body cannot be taken and used in place of a
reproductive cell like sperm.
This movie is not very accurate in its
portrayal of the cloning process, but it
does however, fully express the
emotions felt by the clones and the others
around them. The horizon for
making a clone in the embryonic form is a very
relative possibility within
the next five to ten years. Who knows though, pretty
soon we may be able to
go out a choose the person that we want our child to look
identical to and
create a clone for them. Although in this movie there were only
two clones
created, the boys were supposed to have Hitlers genes and seemed to
carry his
violent instincts. This statement proves to be true in the movie but
also
lacks reality of everyday society in the way that not even a clone can
be
identical to its other clones because environment plays a very large
role.
Studies of how the cloned individuals would relate to one another
are found with
the experiment of twins separated at birth and raised in two
very different
environments. Because nature makes its own clones through the
process of twins,
it is easy to research about how a clone might feel and how
they would react to
having another clone around them. Environment plays a big
part in determining
how a clone may turn out. Traci Watson writes, "Identical
genes don't
produce identical people, as anyone acquainted with identical
twins can tell
you. In fact, twins are more alike than clones would be, since
they have at
least shared the uterine environment, are usually raised in the
same family, and
so forth. Parents could clone a second child who eerily
resembled their first in
appearance, but all the evidence suggests the two
would have very different
personalities. Twins separated at birth do
sometimes share quirks of
personality, but such quirks in a cloned son or
daughter would be haunting
reminders of the child who was lost--and the
failure to re-create that child.
Even biologically, a clone would not be
identical to the "master
copy." The clone's cells, for example, would have
energy-processing
machinery that came from the egg donor, not from the
nucleus donor. But most of
the physical differences between originals and
copies wouldn't be detectable
without a molecular-biology lab. The one
possible exception is fertility. Wilmut
and his coworkers are not sure that
Dolly will be able to have lambs. They will
try to find out once she's old
enough to breed."
(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970310/10clon.htm)
Many parents have
great concern in regards to having a child that has been
cloned. However,
there are many excited parents looking forward to this
breakthrough in
technology. By looking at the many different reasons for cloning
a child, one
can better understand why it may seem appealing to parents. Cloning
from an
already existing human will provide the opportunity for parents to pick
their
"ideal" child. They will be able to pick out every aspect of
their child and
make sure that it is perfect before they decide to have it. As
Traci
Watson writes; "Sure, and there are other situations where adults
might be
tempted to clone themselves. For example, a couple in which the man
is
infertile might opt to clone one of them rather than introduce an
outsider's
sperm. Or a single woman might choose to clone herself rather than
involve a man
in any way. In both cases, however, you would have adults
raising children who
are also their twins--a situation ethically
indistinguishable from the
megalomaniac cloning himself. On adult cloning,
ethicists are more united in
their discomfort. In fact, the same commission
that was divided on the issue of
twins was unanimous in its conclusion that
cloning an adult's twin is
"bizarre ... narcissistic and ethically
impoverished." What's more,
the commission argued that the phenomenon would
jeopardize our very sense of
who's who in the world, especially in the
family." (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970310/10clon.htm)
Whether
or not cloning happens with embryos or adults, various groups in society
may
react very differently to it. For example, there are many religious
groups
that feel cloning should not be considered for any reasons whatsoever.
JefferY
L. Sheler states: "Many of the ethical issues being raised about
cloning
are based in theology. Concern for preserving human dignity and
individual
freedom, for example, is deeply rooted in religious and biblical
principles. But
until last week there had been surprisingly little
theological discourse on the
implications of cloning per se. The response so
far from the religious
community, while overwhelmingly negative, has been far
from monolithic."
(http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/970310/10clon.htm).
This somehow parallels
to the issue of abortion and whether or not it is
morally right. Religion is the
root of many peoples' values and their beliefs
about things like cloning and
abortion lie behind these. Richard McCormick
basically summarizes the statement
that society is already pretty messed up
and with the idea of cloning in
perspective, we need to beware as the future
approaches. No matter what we say
or do, research for cloning will steadily
continue and even more moral and
ethical issues will arise. Who knows which
of the two kinds of cloning will
become the most popular in the future, but
right now the main decision we need
to make is whether or not it can be done
and should be done. Who knows if human
cloning done in research labs
presently will go beyond the laboratory and affect
individuals lives. What we
do know however, is that cloning seems to be very
appealing in some aspects
and very frightening in others. Cloned or not, we all
die. The clone that
outlives its "parent" or that is generated from
the DNA of a dead person, if
that were possible--would be a different person. It
would not be a
reincarnation or a resurrected version of the deceased. Cloning
could be said
to provide immortality, theologians say, only in the sense that,
as in normal
reproduction, one might be said to "live on" in the
genetic traits passed to
one's progeny. (JefferY L. Sheler). Since the science
of cloning research is
just in its infancy, there has been a rush to decide what
guidelines are
going to be instituted for governing cloning experiments.
President
Clinton said in a written statement that "federal funds should
not be used
for human cloning and current restrictions do not fully assure that
result.
Also, Clinton asked for a voluntary moratorium on human cloning
experiments
anywhere in the United States - at least until the legal and ethical
issues
can be sorted out. Since privately funded scientists are not covered
by
Clinton's directive, only a voluntary moratorium would ensure that
ethical
issues are fully debated before there are any efforts to clone
humans. Citing
the cloning of an adult sheep in Scotland, Clinton asked the
National Bioethics
Advisory Commission last week to review the
ramifications that cloning would
have on humans and report back to him in 90
days." (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ap0304a.htm).
Now that man has
created Dolly this has certainly caused a lot of ethical
problems that are
hard to answer. Will this experiment be used to create a new
race of human
clones? I personally think that human cloning to any extent will
be at least
problematic. I think nature will put up a good fight against mans
feable
intrusion into the creation business. As I have mentioned before in the
movie
The Boys from Brazil, man can only screw-up any attempt at creation. Just
ask
Dr. Frankenstein. Who knows what kind of mutations cloning would
breed.
Biologically would a clone evolve faster, slower? Would it
affectively wipe out
gene diversity making humans susectable to disease?
Could a common cold be the
new plauge? These are questions I hope we will
never have to answer.
Bibliography
"Clone," Microsoft® Encarta® 97
Encyclopedia. © 1993-1996
Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Macklin, Ruth. "Human cloning?
Don't just say no" U.S. News and World
Report. 3 March 1997
(4-26-98) Martin, Robert. "Creating a Soul by Cloning?"
Applied
Christianity. 1998
(http://www.user.shentel.net/ramartin/applied/cloning.htm)
(4-26-98) ROSS,
SONYA "President ruling out federal research on human
cloning" U.S. News and
World Report. 3 March
1997
(4-27-98)