By
Scott Wagland
Human cloning is already a divisive issue, and one that will only continue to generate controversy as various technologies develop. The majority of the community find either therapeutic cloning acceptable but reproductive cloning unacceptable, or find both forms unacceptable. Far less common are those who find both acceptable, or just reproductive cloning acceptable. The positions of those who find both to be acceptable or unacceptable are relatively easy to comprehend – what is less clear is why a sizeable portion of the population find the creation of cloned embryos to be harvested for treatments acceptable, while finding the creation of cloned embryos to be raised as children so repellent.
Opinions of therapeutic cloning fall into a few general categories. There are those who find nothing special or unique about an embryo, that it is just another organism. Others find it completely unacceptable, usually linked with a belief that a human embryo has a special, metaphysical status (it is a ‘life’, not to be destroyed) –this group can be further divided into those who oppose all intervention in the reproductive process, and those who just disagree with this specific process. They may find embryo manipulation acceptable in some cases, such as in vitro fertilization technology – there are also those who, while they might find IVF programs theoretically acceptable, the benefit is outweighed by the practical limitation that results in excess embryos being created that never get used. Lastly there are those who, while they do accord a human embryo special status, feel the medical benefits of research and the benefit to those treated or cured through therapeutic cloning outweigh other considerations.
Opinions of reproductive cloning however are overwhelmingly negative, and tend to be held by all of the above. It is interesting to note however that only one of the above groups opposes the artificial creation of embryos absolutely. Most opposition to therapeutic cloning centres around the destruction of the embryo, and their creation specifically to be destroyed. The goal of embryonic stem cell research is the creation of cloned embryos to produce compatible donor cells (and eventually tissues and organs) to treat disease. While some proponents of embryonic stem cell research may argue that research with excess IVF embryos should be allowed due to the fact that these will be destroyed anyway, any eventual therapies derived will require the creation of new embryos to ensure genetic compatibility. (As a side note experimentation on excess embryos is opposed in general by many as it is seen as a sort of desecration – while the decision to allow organ transplants or medical research on deceased children is a difficult yet commendable one, excess embryos are not deceased through illness or accident, but seen more as disposable by some. To opponents the “they’re going to be destroyed anyway so why not experiment” argument is seen to be as unacceptable in this case as it would have been coming from researchers like Shiro Ishii or Eduard Wirths).
Reproductive cloning, however, is about the creation of a new life. The technology is far from being ready for practical application in humans, and currently does require hundreds of embryos to be created for the few that succeed, not to mention the unanswered questions about possible health problems. But at its core it’s about creating a new human being (that is genetically identical to another), about procreation.
In some ways the two can be compared by their means and ends. The ‘ends’ of therapeutic cloning is the treatment of disease, laudable, but the ‘means’ is the creation and destruction of embryos, which many feel is not outweighed by the end. The ‘means’ of reproductive cloning is the creation of embryos for procreation, generally acceptable. It is the ‘end’ that is met with suspicion and even hatred. It is not just a child that is born, but one that is genetically identical to an existing person.
Why clone? Is it ever necessary, or just an indulgence? Motive is everything in reproductive cloning. Sometimes it could be an exercise in narcissism, hardly a compelling reason for its acceptance. Sometimes it could be a hopeless attempt to revive a loved one. It should be noted, however, that a clone is not an exact copy. A clone would be no more identical than an identical twin – though based on the same D.N.A, nurture and environment play a large part in shaping who we are. For every story of twins that grew up half a world apart and ended up with the same jobs and hobbies, there are those we don’t hear of that follow completely different paths. Some are best friends, dress the same, do everything together – and others can barely stand to be in the same room. Some can barely be told apart, others look surprisingly different. In many ways we are the sum of our experiences, and no two people can have exactly the same experiences. It’s hard enough for identical twins to share extremely similar lives – a clone and their template would have different ages and live through different times to start with. Also identical D.N.A does not mean that that the same genes are on or off, sometimes referred to as epigenetic modification - an increasing number of genes are differently turned on or off in identical twins as years go by, not to mention mutations. A clone is different to the person cloned, and while there may be some similarities beyond looks, there will also be many differences in behaviour – a clone is a separate, independent entity.
One of the few areas reproductive cloning might be seen as legitimate is in the treatment of infertility. Some forms of infertility have treatments available, but for others there is currently no possibility that an individual can ever have a child that is biologically theirs. Reproductive cloning is a possible solution. For instance, a couple could have a child that is genetically the fathers and given birth to by the mother, a more attractive proposition to many than resorting to the D.N.A contribution of a third party. An infertile woman could have her child carried by a surrogate (a woman being unable to carry her own clone, the genetically identical embryo being easily reabsorbed). Also couples that have become infertile after the birth of one child could raise a second that is a clone of their existing child.
This, however, opens the door to those not infertile as such, but seeking to control the genes of their offspring – infertile by lifestyle as it were. A single mother or father, for instance, who wants a child but not a partner, and using a surrogate to bear their clone; homosexual couples, two men having one each by a surrogate, or two women, one being the biological mother, the other the birth mother. These examples would no doubt face more opposition. Cloning as a way of dealing with fertility issues, however, remains one of the most legitimate uses for the technology. Developing a method to induce meiosis in any cell to provide haploid cells would be a preferable treatment (that is, combining DNA from two donors), but cloning is currently the more developed technology.
So what else is there that repulses people when it comes to reproductive cloning? There are a variety of issues, some quite legitimate, some straight out of science fiction. For instance, the idea of transplanting the ‘mind’ of a person, either ill, injured, or old, into the new cloned body – immortality through cloning. Whether the clone is grown to full size in a tank or raised conventionally, it should be noted that this is not reproductive cloning – this is therapeutic. The same distinction should also be made for any transplants, whether organs, tissues or fluids. Raising a cloned child to be used as a walking transplant bank should be found repugnant by all, and it should be reiterated that this is therapeutic. For most opponents of therapeutic cloning it does not matter whether the transplants take place at age 20, age 10, 6 months, or during the first few cell divisions from zygote to embryo, the reduction of a human being to spare parts is seen as grossly immoral and unethical.
Also disturbing to many is the “Boys from Brazil” type scenario, repeated cloning of an individual or select few by a group or cult. A cloned private army, the resurrection of a demagogue, a self proclaimed messiah insisting his (or her) followers bear copies of him, all these no doubt should be prevented. But is it specifically a cloning issue? The child private army, the cult leader with a dozen children by a dozen followers, cloning or not they are essentially abusive environments for children to grow up, and these situations should be prevented regardless of the circumstances of the birth. The high status of sports nowadays also leads to the prospect of some unscrupulous nations or professional teams cloning great athletes. It should be remembered though that a clone is not identical, and training plays a large part in sporting prowess. More worrying in this field however is the prospect of genetic engineering, which has the potential to produce better results, and less tell tale signs such as suspiciously similar looking athletes.
Should cloning be allowed the most pressing problem for the families is the huge potential for psychological abuse relating to the pressure, conscious or not, for the clone to behave like the cloned person - to share the same interests, to have the same skills, the same talents. This, of course, is not a problem unique to reproductive cloning – there is no shortage of parents with unrealistic expectations of their children, who try to guide or force them down their path or the path of an older sibling – but the pressures on a clone would undoubtedly be higher. The pressure on a clone to become a donor for the cloned person would be so great as to completely overwhelm the notion of consent. A total ban on any transplant, whether organ, tissue, or fluid from the clone to the cloned, at least until the age of eighteen, should be considered. Transplants from the cloned to the clone, however, can probably still be dealt with by existing transplant laws.
Should reproductive cloning ever be allowed the following laws should be considered. Firstly a blanket ban on the cloning of the deceased – cloning cannot bring back a loved one, and the pressure on the clone to replace the deceased would be overwhelming, so much so they could not hope to live a normal life. Secondly, compulsory counselling – starting before the process even begins, to make sure those wanting to use cloning procedures understand that a clone is not an exact copy, and continuing along with evaluations of both the parents and the clone, at regular intervals, possibly yearly or at six month intervals until at least the teen years, and even up to eighteen, with the child being removed if the situation is deemed untenable. The sale of D.N.A for cloning should probably also be prohibited (imagine, for a moment, those wanting to have their own little copy of their favourite celebrity or athlete).
Should reproductive cloning remain illegal, there still remains the case that it may still take place, either in other jurisdictions or via the black market. Issues relating to reproductive cloning will still have to be dealt with, whether it involves citizens travelling overseas for the procedure, immigrants, or travellers. It would no doubt be better to draft laws now while this is a hypothetical than waiting for it to happen and treating the issue with a knee-jerk response.
Firstly it is vital that clones be given full status as a separate legal entity. Whether they should be treated as a child or sibling of the cloned person is probably best dealt with on a case by case basis.
Most important perhaps is the ban on transplants from clones to the cloned. This would deal with both the unfair pressure to be a donor when the child is originally the product of purely reproductive cloning, and for those cases where the clone is created essentially as insurance against illness, to be used for therapeutic purposes by the unscrupulous. Should this ban be violated at the very least the child should be removed from that environment; criminal sanctions against the parents/guardians should also be considered, as well as any medical practitioners who knowingly carry out such procedures. Court ordered return of any organs to their original location might also be considered. Physical checkups upon leaving and re-entering the country should also be in place to make sure any surgery is not carried out off shore. Lastly, for immigrant families and in cases where the procedure has taken place overseas periodic assessment and psychological evaluation of the clone and their parents/guardians should be mandated to ensure a safe and nurturing environment.
Some form of meiosis on any cell or other means of combining DNA from donors would be preferable as an infertility treatment, rather than cloning. But the urge and instinct to reproduce is a powerful one, and all options should be seriously considered before being dismissed. However, it would be a good idea to provide laws for the safety of clones even if the cloning process remains illegal, since desperate people could resort to desperate measures.
Copyright © Scott Wagland 2007. Do not reproduce without permission. All rights reserved.