Cloning And Ethics
Ever since the successful cloning of an adult sheep, world has been
buzzing
about the historical event. "Dolly" the sheep has redefined
the
meaning of the words "identical twin." Not only does she look like
her
mother, she has the same genetic makeup as her. This experiment was not
only was
thought of as impossible, but unthinkable. It was achieved in July
1996 by Dr.
Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Roslin, Scotland.
"Dolly" was
announced to the public when she was seven-months old, on
February 23, 1997.
Since the birth of "Dolly," the Wilmut’s Institute has
cloned seven
more sheep from three different breeds. This process that
successfully worked
with the sheep, is now being tested with humans. In
response to the global
research, President Bill Clinton immediately ordered a
ban on the federal
funding of human cloning in U.S. research. This issue is
not to be taken
lightly. On the surface, human cloning looks like the perfect
solution to end
many of society’s problems, but in actuality it has
tremendous side effects.
Human cloning is an unethical procedure that has
detrimental negative
psychological effects. Cloning is the process that ends
in one or more plants or
animals being genetically identical to another plant
or animal. There are two
procedures that can be called "cloning:" embryo
cloning and adult DNA
cloning. Embryo cloning is also known as "artificial
twinning." This
form of cloning has been used by animal breeders since the
late 1980s and in
mice experiments since the late 1970s ("Human Cloning" 1).
The
procedure consists of splitting a single fertilized ovum into two or more
clones
and then transplanting them into other females. This process has not
been used
to clone human embryos due to the Regan and Bush administrations
that banned the
public funding of human embryo and fetal research during most
of the 1980s and
early 1990s. The ban was finally lifted under Clinton’s
presidency. After this
ban was removed, the first known human embryo cloning
was done under the
supervision of Robert J. Stillman at the George Washington
Medical Center in
Washington DC. They used seventeen flawed human
embryos. They all had been
fertilized by two sperm and had an extra set of
chromosomes. The embryos would
never have developed into fetuses. In October
1994, the embryos were
successfully split ("Human Cloning" 1). This
experiment began the
public controversy over the ethics of cloning. The
government now had to set
guidelines. They included the use only of embryos
that had already been created
for the use of in vitro fertilization, because
many of these are either thrown
out or frozen. Other procedures were banned,
such as implanting the human
embryos in other species and cloned embryos into
humans, moving the nucleus from
one embryo to another, and the use of embryos
for sex selection. The first
documented case of successful adult DNA cloning
was the "Dolly" case.
Adult DNA cloning, in the case of "Dolly," started
when a cell was
taken from the mammary tissue of a adult sheep. It was then
fused with an ovum
after the nucleus had been removed. To start the
developing, the egg was shocked
with an electric pulse. 29 out of 277 of
these special eggs began to divide.
They were all implanted in sheep, but
only 13 became pregnant and only one lamb,
"Dolly," was born. Animals that
have been cloned run the risk of being
infertile and having a lower life
expectancy. Although "Dolly" has
been the most publicized animal that has
been successfully cloned. There have
been other attempts. A monkey has been
cloned and many embryos have been made of
a cow, but none have survived ("Can
we Clone" 1). The monkey has been
the closest animal to the human to be
cloned. This makes the issue of successful
human cloning more realistic. But
will it’s uses be ethical? Simply put, human
cloning is "playing God."
Manufacturing will replace procreating.
Instead of the parent and child
being on the same level, the parent would have
power over the child. The
child would be designed by the parent to serve some
purpose. According to the
"Human Cloning: Religious and Ethical
Aspects" article, there are
numerous uses that would have positive effects.
But in further reading
the article there are also some social concerns with
these new technological
advances. A recent poll conducted by CNN found that 6
percent of the United
States think that human cloning might be "a good
idea" (Dixon 2). There were
various ways that people wanted to use cloning.
"Recover someone who was
loved—a twin, a reminder" (Dixon 3). Now
how could this be a beneficial use?
Dying is a process of life. All living
things die. That’s the way things
happen. Everyone at some point in time has a
regret about not telling a loved
one something before it was too late and might
want to bring them back and
tell them. This is not the same thing. This cloned
person, will be a baby and
a different individual than the person who has died.
Even though their
outside appearance might be identical, they are two separate
people. The poor
child will have to live in comparison to their twin that came
before them.
This could harbor feelings of resentment, towards the dead twin and
the
parents. There are some people who would use cloning to end
infertility.
Rather than using donated sperm and eggs, a cell of the
parent is used. Not only
would the parent give birth to a child that was
his/hers, but it would be
his/her twin. This will eliminate procreating all
together. But that could also
lead to problems. Sex "creates new gene
combinations that confer new
strengths, especially to disease" (Economist
20). Using one parent’s
cells to create a child could also lead to
megalomania, which is the
"desire to reproduce one’s own qualities" (Dixon
3). Cloning could
allow a parent to pass on certain qualities that they want
to make sure that
their children have. Instead of letting a child be who
he/she wants to be the
parent is in a way trying to control his/her child.
This is one step away from
eugenics. This is a way to "improve the human
race" (Dixon 3), by
giving each child conceived a certain characteristic.
This concept is rooted in
Nazi belief in the Aryan race. Humans will be
bred to produce certain traits.
Once the "perfect human" was developed,
"embryo cloning could be
used to replicate that individual and conceivably
produce unlimited numbers of
clones. The same approach could be used to
create a genetic underclass for
exploitation: such as individuals with
sub-normal intelligence and above normal
strength" ("Human Cloning" 4). The
population should pride itself
in the differences in everyone. This concept
of an "ideal" person is
the reason that there are people with depression,
causing low self esteem,
eating disorders and ultimately suicide. One of the
worst things that cloning
could be used for is "spare parts." Using a cell
from a person’s own
body to duplicate yourself would make your twin a
specimen more than a person.
One suggestion from Dixon’s article was to
"take tissue like bone marrow,
then offer the baby for adoption" (3). It is a
dehumanizing act that makes
the child an object not a person who needs love
just like everyone else. The
purpose of human cloning is "to create someone
exactly like the original.
But everyone’s idea about this clone, this
copy, seems to be that he or she
would be available for experimentation, used
as a repository of spare parts, or
as some sort of pliable toy one could mold
in one’s own image" (Shoun 1).
The clone itself is seen as inhuman, an
"it," not a "he" or
"she." When, in actuality, the clone is just as much as a
person as
the person who he/she was cloned from. The clone and the donor are
twins
separated by time. This leads to the point that the clone will have
serious
psychological problems as he/she grows up and throughout his/her
life. Cloning
causes problems with identity and individuality. If the cloned
child is the
identical twin of the mother or father, he/she is already born
into a world of
constant comparison. Being expected to be like the person
that he or she is
modeled after, could burden down the cloned child. This
ultimately gives the
"parents" more control over their children. They can
vicariously live
through their children and live on as their children.
These
"recreations" of themselves can now become just like them and
even
fulfill their hopeless dreams. Not only will they not have an
opportunity to be
themselves, but these children will have to constantly try
to live up to the
hopes of their parents (Kass 6). Technically, one parent
would actually be the
biological twin of the child. Through human cloning,
parent-child relationships
would lose all meaning. As bioethicist James
Nelson has pointed out, a female
child cloned from her "mother" might develop
a desire for a
relationship to her "father," and might seek out the father of
her
"mother" (who is her biological twin sister) for paternal
attention
and support. In the case of "self-cloning" the child is also
the
donor’s twin, which is the equivalent to the result of incest—to be
parent
to one’s sibling (Kass 7). The meaning of father, grandfather, aunt,
and
cousin will drastically change. Family values are trying to be restored
in this
country, but how can they be restored if this country doesn’t even
know what a
family is. Dr. Wilmut has been noted as saying, "People are not
thinking
this thing carefully. I have not heard of an application of this to
copy a
person with which I would be comfortable. That is not appropriate."
He
continued that using this technique on humans would be "quite
inhumane"
and that he was glad that he lives in a country where embryo
experimentation
is illegal ("Scientist" 1). "Would cloning be
wrong because it is ‘playing
God,’ or because, when we want to play God, too
often we’re looking for an
excuse to demean or mistreat someone? Is cloning
wrong because it has the
potential to create a subspecies for which we presently
have no category, or
because our sinful nature likes to relegate one group or
another to a class
beneath ourselves?" (Shoun 2). No matter how one looks
at this issue, cloning
humans will do more harm than good. It is just one more
example of technology
getting out of hand before we can control it. This
inhumane act must be
stopped before we will not be able to stop it.