The announcement of the birth of the cloned ewe, Dolly, in 1997 by scientists at the Roslin Institute, was a shock for the entire world. Up until that point, the issue of the morality and ethics of cloning had been relegated to discussions of purely theoretical nature. Because of the conceptual simplicity of the process used, in which an enucleated egg is implanted with the genetic material from a somatic cell, many people immediately saw that the actual instantiation of cloning a human being was a distinct possibility and a potential moral and ethical danger zone. We had not, as a species, ever truly considered the likelihood that human reproduction would fall so fully under the hand of technology. Though there are many detractors to the application of cloning technology to humans, I believe that human cloning technology can be used with responsibility to achieve a number of improvements to human experience. Consequently, I oppose the proposal to ban research into the cloning of human beings because the arguments used to support such a ban do not bear the weight of critical inspection, though the arguments themselves are also important to human advancement.
Opposition
The arguments in support of a ban on human cloning are numerous
and varied; they are, in fact, too varied to cover them all in a single
paper. Nonetheless, there are a number of arguments that appear with relative
frequency and can be grouped under general headings that seem to express
natural fears and misgivings about human cloning and humanity’s relationship
to the process of cloning in a moral sense. [All these arguments are refuted
below.]
The general summation of these arguments seems to present itself in a single statement as presented below:
“Cloning should be banned because it fosters the treatment of people as means, not ends, provides no clear benefits in exchange for risks, fosters the further ambiguation of kinship structures, and compromises the dignity and uniqueness of individuals."
Utilitarian argument
In what I call the utilitarian argument, the assumption seems
to be that the entire process of cloning is, at its root, a process that
reduces human beings to the status of instruments, denying them their God
given state of dignity as ends in and of themselves. Even though
there may be many ethical applications of cloning, the very nature of the
act presents a slippery slope that leads to a reductionist view of people.
According to David M. Byers in his article, “An Absence of Love,” “At this
most fundamental level, clones would be human beings created, at least
in part, to fulfill the will of another human being.”(70). He goes on to
say, “Cloning, at base, is an assertion of power over another human being,
exercised without consent.”(76). In the utilitarian argument, there
is considerable concern that, especially for the gene donor and for the
clone, the act of cloning will compromise their dignity and their freedom
from instrumental treatment. With respect to the instrumental treatment
of the clone, it has been said, “Cloning tries to force an outcome on the
individual – to fulfill a predetermined destiny that the individual may
not be able to fulfill.’(Evans, 30).
Risk/Benefit argument
The risk/benefit argument suggests that there are insufficient
supporting arguments in favor of cloning to outweigh the risks associated
with the process, as it would be applied to humans. “When we consider the
suggested goals of human cloning (to create spare body parts, produce a
child, or advance science), in each case there are other techniques available
to achieve these goals.”(Evans, 27). It is undeniable that there are a
number of risks associated with the process of Roslin Nuclear Transfer
that, if applied to a human embryo, would constitute a significant moral
transgression. “Because we will likely never be able to protect the
human subject of cloning research from serious harm, the basic ethical
rules of human experimentation prohibit us from ever using it on humans,”(Annas,
60). There are even those that support that the benefits that are
touted as possible boons from cloning are unnecessary. In an article
in The National Review, E.V. Kontorovich asserts. “As for infertility,
it is not even a disabling sickness that, on humanitarian grounds, we should
feel obligated to alleviate.” He goes on to say, “There is nothing heartless
about saying that people should resort to alternatives besides cloning,
like adoption.” (2 of 5).
Kinship and the Family argument
A significant proportion of the detractors of human cloning touches
on an important point –that of kinship and the family. The topic
of familial definition has been undergoing considerable transformation
in the late twentieth century, and stands to be redefined even further.
Nonetheless, the kinship argument is at the heart of most people’s distrust
of the cloning process. Most people fear that the very definition
of a person’s place in the world, as defined by their place in a kinship
group, becomes threatened. “The relationship between the parties to asexual
reproduction would be inherently ambiguous.”(Kontorovich, 4 of 5).
Furthermore, that ambiguity is seen as threatening to the structure of
the family. “Cloning undermines the structure of the family…. Reproduction
and progeny are not connected. Furthermore, cloned individuals may have
difficulty determining who their parents are.”(Evans, 30-31).
Uniqueness argument
Finally, the opposition to cloning claims that cloning would
deprive people of their natural and God given state of uniqueness and that
compromising that uniqueness may lead to unfortunate results. One
of the more eloquently stated fears about loss of uniqueness was stated
as a concern for genetic diversity. “The production of human clones
goes against Nature in that the latter requires that the genetic structure
of all human offspring be a composite of genes from two donors. In
that way, Nature assures diversity and helps overcome some of the inherent
weaknesses in either donor. Thus it follows that widespread cloning
would lead to a gradual diminution of genetic quality.”(Paris, 47).
Another argument that fits under the label of concern for uniqueness is
a consideration for the rights of the clone to a unique and untried genotype.
“Moreover, the cloned individual will be saddled with a genotype that has
already lived. He will not be fully a surprise to the world, and
people are likely always to compare his performances in life with that
of his alter-ego.”(Kass, 58).
Refutation
Though the arguments presented by the opposition seem sound at
first glance, there are a number of unconsidered issues that address those
arguments directly. Within this refutation, I plan to show that each
argument within the opposition section of this paper cannot bear the weight
of critical inspection. Each argument ( Utilitarian, Risk/Benefit,
Kinship and the Family, and Uniqueness) will be addressed in turn, followed
by a conclusion that will sum up my views on both the issue of human cloning,
and of the argument that surrounds it.
Utilitarian argument
In response to the utilitarian argument, there is much to be
said. First, to address the slippery slope, it needs to be realized
that process of human living is a slippery slope of choices, risks and
mistakes. We do the best we can to make the best choices, accurately
assess and minimize the risks, and avoid the mistakes. “…any slippery
slope argument depends on actual or highly probable empirical results that
may or may not be realized. Arguably, safeguards could be put in place
to protect clones from such outcomes, and such safeguards would address
the objection.”(Heller, 170). Throughout the entire objection sequence,
it has never once been questioned whether or not clones would be considered
fully human. Indeed, most of the objection arguments are founded on the
assumption that every clone is a fully dignified human being with rights
that can be violated. If this is the case, and I do believe that
it is, then that means that clones are also subject to the entire spectrum
of human experience, including being subjected to use by other humans.
If a particular act cannot be perpetrated upon someone with “natural” parentage,
why on Earth would we allow it to be perpetrated on a clone? We do
not freeze the second born twin to have spare parts for the first; the
thought of calibans brings to mind just this image. With respect
to the argument by Mr. Byers, that clones are created to fulfill the will
of another being, this argument could be expressed with no loss of parallel
to the discussion of planned children of any kind, including those conceived
in the natural way. As for the objection that cloning would perpetrate
a process of attempting to create specific personality traits or inclinations,
or the assertion of power, we cannot prevent that process, even in the
rearing of “natural” children. According to Michael Tooley of the
University of Colorado at Boulder, “The upshot is that, if cloning that
aimed at producing people who would be more likely to possess various personality
traits or traits of character, or who would be more likely to have certain
interests, was wrong because it was a case of interfering with personal
autonomy, then the childrearing practices of almost all parents would stand
condemned on precisely the same grounds.”(97).
Risk/Benefit argument
Although the opposition states that there is no benefit that outweighs
the risks associated with human cloning, I think that this is an extremely
subjective argument. There is no way that attendant risks to the
process of “natural” procreation can realistically be assessed except on
a case by case basis. For instance, if a couple both have the gene
for sickle cell anemia, though neither has expressed the disease, there
is a twenty-five percent chance for each child that they have that that
child will express the genetic disease of sickle cell anemia. Compared
to the risks currently estimated for cloning, the couple would be subjecting
their child to less potential for suffering if they underwent the RNT procedure
than if they conceived in the old fashioned way. Human cloning can
also be an answer for infertile couples. The process of IVF was really
only intended for treatment of blocked fallopian tubes, a fairly simple
mechanical defect. “Today, however, in the absence of effective treatments
for many other types of infertility, IVF is the only treatment available
for large numbers of patients for whom the chance of success is small.
The result is that according to the federal government’s annual report
of IVF clinic success rates, four out of every five attempts at IVF, GIFT,
and ZIFT end in failure.”(Human Cloning Foundation, 2 of 7) It is
possible, through cloning of embryos to provide for the possibility of
multiple attempts at pregnancy without the attendant risks associated with
IVF. According to the Human Embryo Research Panel, “[Embryo cloning]…has
the advantage of not inducing superovulation in women, with all its attendant
risks, in order to extract a sufficient number of eggs.”(p. 45)
Kinship and Families argument
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the principal definitions
of a parent is “a person who holds the position or functions of a parent.
A protector and guardian; sometimes applied to a father- or mother-in-law.”
This definition of familial bond is one of the most liberal, but also one,
with which I can find no one who will disagree. It is counterintuitive
to most people to think that the person who engaged in one’s childrearing
is not the parent, so why is the issue of cloning so different? In
a world of single parent families, the process of cloning is a natural
extension of the process already undertaken to a great degree. In
households of two parents, the genetic lineage of a beloved child is not
as important as whether or not the child is raised in a loving environment.
If you disagree, perhaps you should ask an adopted child whom he or she
considers his or her parents. Rarely will it be anyone but the parents
of rearing. Addressing the issue that cloned children are made, not
begot, “… the distinction between making and begetting may not bear moral
weight because it would rule out other reproductive techniques that are
commonly viewed as morally permissible.”(Heller, 171).
Uniqueness argument
“Human clones have always existed, however, brought about by the natural
process of the birth of identical twins…. However similar such twins may
be in appearance and some other traits, there is absolutely no doubt that
they are two separate individuals whose lives and personalities may develop
in markedly different ways.”(Polkinghorne, 37). There is nothing
that we can do at this time to compromise the uniqueness of any individual,
and that includes clones. In fact, due to the mitochondrial distinction
issue, clones actually have less in common with their donors, if conceived
with the RNT technique, than identical twins do with each other.
With respect to the fear that clones will be treated as just a batch of
genetic code, with no uniqueness and dignity of their own, “Kids are not
commercial property – slavery was abolished some time ago.”(Bailey, 75).
Though there may be a number of people who may try to replicate an inspired
genius or a successful sports star, they are likely to be unsuccessful.
Human individuation has survived for thousands of years in the face of
Little League Dads and Stage Mothers. “…a ban on cloning would not
abolish pushy parents.”(Bailey, 76). In the meantime, it is important to
remember that, regardless of whether or not cloning humans gets a green
light, we need to seriously look at the way we already treat our children.
“We need to construct visions of just what it means to treat children with
dignity when they are the product –that is, when they are the gift –of
advanced reproductive technology.”(Peters, 24).
Conclusion
The processes of human ambition may try to erase the individual
from humanity’s ranks, but this is not a problem inherent in cloning; it
is a problem inherent in humans. The issue of cloning simply throws
the entire mess into stark relief. If we enact a ban on cloning now,
we will be doing ourselves a disservice for a number of reasons.
We will lose the benefits that can be garnered from the technology to alleviate
a number of kinds of suffering, but we will also lose the benefits of the
moral discussions about the value of human dignity and what it means to
be unique (or not). Lost, too would be the opportunity to see ourselves
as already perpetrating upon our fellow man exactly the things that we
fear will be brought on by a new technology. We didn’t need the new
technology to create the horrors we fear; they are already here.
Only through this open and heated discussion can we look past the symptoms
of our fear to the underlying corruption in our attitudes toward our fellow
man. As put by Peter Harris, “I oppose the ban because of my deep
interest in fostering such a public discussion. A legal ban brings
closure to a public debate rather than stimulating it.”(Harris, 47).
As for whether or not we should engage in genetic research and human
cloning, I leave you with a brief quote from Harris:
“Unlike Prometheus,
no modern scientist has stolen anything out of heaven.
Rather, the capacity for knowledge has been given to humanity
by the omniscient and omnipotent creator of us all,
the one whose authority and being are not usurped
even by the capacity of the creature to clone itself.”
(Harris, 48)
Works Cited
Annas, George. “The Prospect of Human Cloning.” Humber
and Almeder. 53-63.
Bailey, Ronald. “Human Cloning Experiments Should Be Allowed.”
Cloning. Ed.
David Bender et al.San Diego: Greenhaven Press, inc., 1998. 73-77.
Byers, David M. “An Absence of Love.” Cole-Turner. 66-77.
Cole-Turner, Ronald. Human Cloning: Religious Responses.
Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.
Evans, Abigail Rian. “Saying No to Human Cloning.” Cole-Turner. 25-34.
Harris, Peter J. “A View from the Underside.” Cole-Turner. 43-48.
Heller, Jan C. “Religiously Based Objections to Cloning.”
Humber and Almeder.
155-176.
Human Cloning Foundation. “Cloning as a Treatment for Infertility.”
Internet World
Wide Web 1998
Available at http://www.humancloning.org/users/infertil/index.html
Human Embryo Research Panel. “Embryo Cloning: the Counterpoint.”
McCuen.
43 - 45.
Humber, James M and Robert F. Almeder. Biomedical Ethics Reviews:
Human
Cloning. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 1998.
Kass, Leon. “The Necessity of a Permanent Ban.” McCuen. 55-61.
Kontorovich, E.V. “Asexual Revolution.” Internet World Wide
Web. The National
Review Online Archives 1998. Available at http://www.nationalreview.com/09mar98/kontorovich030998.html
McCuen, Gary E. Cloning: Science and Society. Hudson, WI:
Gary E. McCuen
Publications, inc., 1998.
Peters, Ted. “Cloning Shock: Atheological Reaction.” Cole-Turner. 12-24.
Polkinghorne, John, Sir. “Cloning and the Moral Imperative.” Cole-Turner. 35-42.
Tooley, Michael. “The Moral Status of Cloning Humans.” Humber and Almeder. 67-101.