Woojin Chung

Junior Seminar: Cyberspace

Dr. Gene Stewart

November/12^th/2001

Use of Biotechnology: Human Cloning

Since 1997, when Ian Wilmut and his fellow scientists succeeded in cloning a sheep named Dolly, ethical issues dealing with human cloning have grown controversial. While some believe that human cloning “would allow us to benefit from perpetrating superior genetic endowments,” others oppose this belief and state that cloning is “morally unacceptable”(Kass &Wilson, 6, 53). Throughout this paper, I will demonstrate some ethical issues dealing with human cloning and how what people are expecting out from human cloning may bring unexpected results from their actions.

First, before discussing the pros and cons of human cloning, it is important to realize Ian Wilmut’s true intention behind his success. Although one may think that Wilmut had cloned Dolly because he wanted to be the first person to “create a live-born mammal by somatic cell nuclear transfer from an adult, differentiated cell,” Wilmut did not (Pence, XI). Instead, with the somatic nuclear transfer, a process in which the nucleus of an adult cell is implanted in an egg cell where the nucleus has been removed, Wilmut aimed his research to create a “reliable method of inserting a gene into every cell of a mammal,” and hence bringing promising medical implications for humans and many lives (Pence, XI).

Although Wilmut’s cloning techniques did not directly offer insightful discoveries in the field of medicine, his techniques have certainly influenced scientists to expand the field of medical research. Wilmut’s success in “fusion,” a process in which donor cells are put next to an enucleated egg to be fused and triggered to start developing as a preimplantation embryo with a tiny electric current, led scientists to research on better understanding and “controlling cellular differentiation, deriving undifferentiated cells from differentiated cells, understanding how cells age, and treating diseases caused by mitochondrial DNA” (Pence, IX, XI). In addition to these newly synthesized medical researches, scientists have realized that Wilmut’s cloning techniques should also help create “genetically altered organs of pigs such that the new organs would have less chance of rejection in transplantation into dying humans” (Pence, XI).

Most of newly synthesized scientific research has been funded and studied despite some challenges being confronted. Among them, research on biotechnology of human cloning has being conducted recently. For example, a research team at the infertility clinic of Kyunghee University Hospital in Seoul, South Korea, claimed to have created the world’s first human clone (First, 81). Although the experiment has been halted at a point where the embryo reached the ‘four-cell stage,” this experiment created a tension among many scientists and people from all over the world and caused even more intense debate about the controversial issues dealing with human cloning (First, 81). Other known scientists who are involved in human cloning research are Italian gynaecologist Severino Antinori and US-based reproductive physiologist Panayiotis Zavos. They are “trying to create a human embryo within the next few months by somatic-cell nuclear transfer, and possibly production of world’s first cloned baby before the end of [2002]” (Biological, 358).

Thus, one can see that biotechnology of cloning successfully practiced by Ian Wilmut was mainly intended for the enhancement of bettering human lives first simply by creating a “method of inserting a gene into every cell of a mammal at first”(Pence, XI). However, as many scientists began to analyze the details of techniques involved in cloning, various new ideas of science were synthesized. Through analyzing numerous possible uses of this biotechnology, scientists also came to raise various moral issues with them. I will now discuss the newly synthesized ideas and how, both positively and negatively, they would theoretically influence our lives. Although ideas on the pros and cons of human cloning are presented here, since no actual human has been cloned in a complete form yet, these are only hypotheses on what people would face if and when human cloning is allowed.

First, people who support human cloning state the following:

- cloning can provide a child for an infertile couple

- cloning can create a child with a genotype of one’s own choosing

- cloning can secure a genetically identical source of organs or tissues perfectly suitable for transplantation (Kass, 16)

I will discuss how each idea would benefit us in detail.

I will begin by discussing the pros of human cloning with how it can benefit us through providing a child for infertile couples. There are women who have no ova or men who have no sperm to produce an offspring that is biologically related them. Oftentimes, as a result of their infertility, the ultimate decision these couples have to make is an adoption of a non-biologically related child. However, if human cloning is allowed, scientists could assist reproduction of offspring for these infertile couples and allow them to have a biologically related child. This could be achieved since no ova or sperm will be required in this type of reproduction process. Not only this, since the sex of a blastocyst, a preimplantation embryo, is easily determined by “chromosomal analysis, women would also have the possibility of deciding whether to give birth to a boy or girl” (Pence, 3).

In addition to allowing any couples, regardless of their infertility or fertility, to selectively produce biologically related sons or daughters, the use of cloning would also allow replication of genotype of one’s own choosing. This means that any great “genius, talent, beauty or other exemplary qualities” from any individual, not excluding oneself, could be replicated and this individual with “desirable properties” could ideally serve for either individual or social benefits. Individuals or the society can carefully control and limit the abilities of a clone and take advantage of its life (Brock, 112).

Last but not least, the availability of human cloning for transplantation would form an “insurance policy” to enable treatment of particular types of medical needs (Brock, 99). Because the organs and tissues obtained from a later twin of a human clone are genetically similar, difficulties involved in finding a transplant donor who has an acceptable organ or tissue that could replace the patient’s would be solved. The organs and tissues obtained from a human clone of a later twin would theoretically eliminate, if not drastically reduce, the risk of transplant rejection by the host.

So far, a few possible advantages of cloning have been discussed. I will now switch the topic and demonstrate the cons of human cloning. People who oppose human cloning state the following:

- cloning shows itself to be a major violation of our given nature as embodied, gendered, and engendering beings (Kass, 23)

- scenarios that involve the creation of “brain-dead” clones kept “in storage” for spare parts are not morally acceptable to most of us (Gilbert, 88)

- also, cloning is not such a good technique for giving couples a chance to have

children

First and most importantly, cloning shows itself to be a major violation of our given nature as embodied, gendered, and engendering beings (Kass, 23). In natural generation, the precise genetic constitution of the resulting offspring is determined by a combination of nature and chance, not by human design (Kass, 24). However, in cloning, genetic constitution could be preselected by parent(s) or scientists (Kass, 26). With this aspect of human cloning, one shall consider two important facets of morality and human rights: a right to have “a unique identity” and a right to ignorance about one’s future (Brock, 103).

As for the right to have a unique identity, human cloning would lessen the value of each individual and ultimately diminish respect for human life (Brock, 109). Human cloning would do so by gradually reinforcing a new concept of “replaceable life” into our consciousness (Brock, 103). Since “manufactured” life could be bought and sold at will, practice of this biotechnology would slowly reduce our “appreciation” for human life (Brock, 103).

In addition to losing unique individuality, imagine a scenario where people would actually clone themselves and the subject of the cloning would become the “gestational mother or father of someone whose genetic parents are her own” (Garcia, 12). If people clone themselves, not only would a community become confused by having numerous physically identical individuals existing at two different places at the same time, but also it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of to whom people had talked with from one day to the next. It would be like figuring out to which twins have I talked to yesterday?

Furthermore, one scientist thought that cloning oneself could “ruin the lives of both the clone and the subject of the cloning as they would be in some form of competition.” An example could be being attracted to the same women or man and trying to gain more attention than the other clones or the subject of the clone (Shicke, 162). Also, the idea of sending the cloned later twin to school/work and skipping school/work may become reality. Unless there are different physical marks on each clone, how could a person know that he/she is seeing the earlier or later twins of clones?

Also, what about using the cloning technology to bring back the dead “loved ones” to life? (Wilmut, 283) Whether the dead “loved ones” are dogs, cats, sons, daughters, mother, or father, no one should feel worried since “they” all could be brought back to life (Wilmut, 283). One should realize that keeping individuals’ natural uniqueness is important. The aspects illustrated above make people take the regulation of human cloning very carefully since legalizing it could drastically influence and change the lives of everyone.

Now, as for the right to ignorance about one’s future, even stronger demonstration of diminution of respect in human life could be observed. An attempt to create a child with a particular genome, either the genome of a “meaningful individual” to those doing the cloning or an individual with “exceptional talents, abilities, and accomplishments,” would cause scientists and parents to value the child only for his/her genome (Brock, 103). Also, since the selection in the creation of clones was exercised not in the interests of the clones created, but in the interests of individuals or the society creating the clones, the cloned individuals would have no “intrinsic equal moral value” that every human ought to hold. Most likely, cloned individuals would only be recognized as a replication of another being with a theoretically similar potentiality.

Furthermore, individuals cloned for an intention of its creator would be treated as an “object to be differentially valued, bought, and sold in the marketplace” (Brock, 112). Shicke, an author of Cloning, God, Hitler and Mad Scientists: Arguments Used by the Public in the Cloning Debate on the Internet, speculated that in the future, where human cloning is legalized, there would be advertisements such as “Brown Hair, Blue Eyes, only $599.00!” (Shicke, 163). This idea of genetically certified and guaranteed replication of clones with an offering of a “catalogue” from which a couple could deliberately select the child’s properties would indeed be a fundamental violation of the equal moral respect and dignity given to all persons (Brock, 111).

Selecting the genome of individuals could not only constrain the choices of clones’ future by inputting specific genotypic characteristics and further controlling and limiting the abilities of clones, but it could also reduce the “natural variation decided at birth” (Shicke, 162). It was suggested that genetic differences would allow us to “exploit alternate behaviors and expand into various environmental niches in order to survive” (Shicke, 162). However, selection of the genome of individuals would interfere or prevent the “nature” to “fight back” in the process of our reproduction and evolution. Another concern some scientists have is that “monoclonal population would be far too susceptible to disease and other biological chaos. Plague and cancer have only killed a fraction of the world’s exposed or triggered population for this reason” (Shicke, 162). Therefore, one should see that use of biotechnology in replication of a clone would not benefit us since producing offspring by selective genotype would not only interfere with its future but also with existence of human race in a long term.

Now, as for the transplantation, some people propose that since using the organs and tissues of clones for transplantation would prolong the life of the host while taking the lives of clones, the use of cloning technology for transplantation is unethical. To this issue, some people suggest that removing the brain cells from early stage of a cloned embryo would allow it to grow as a “brain-dead” body for spare parts that its earlier twin might need in the future (Gilbert, 88). This body clone would obviously feel no harm because of its lack of capacity for consciousness. However, this is immoral in part because the cloned later twin’s capacity for conscious life is destroyed solely as a means for the benefit of another. Also, keeping a clone like some sort of “stock” for transplantation would reduce our appreciation for life because knowing that we can replace our organs at any time would make us live ignorantly (Skickle, 163). Quitting smoking will no longer be a problem since lungs could be replaced. People can drink alcohol without worries since their liver could be replaced.

I have mentioned once before that duplication of individuals of great talent, genius, beauty or other exemplary qualities is possible through the use of cloning technique. However, clones of extraordinary individuals, such as Mozart, Einstein, or Gandhi would not be replicated as the same individuals we recognize them as because what determines a person to become that particular individual is more than his/her “genetic” composition (Brock, 101). What made Mozart, Einstein, and Gandhi the extraordinary individuals as we recognize them today is the “confluence of their particular genetic endowments with the environments in which they were raised and lived and the particular historical moments they in different ways seized” (Brock, 101). This is why “even identical twins aren’t totally identical. They are individuals” (Shicke, 162).

Last but not least, cloning is not such a good technique for giving infertile couples a chance to have genetically related children due to three reasons: the resulting child would be genetically related to only one member of the couple, and also with a success rate so far from 100%, many cloned fetuses would be aborted or born malformed (Gilbert, 88). The resulting child would be genetically related to only one member of the couple because a nucleus of an adult cell is obtained from only one party of a couple and implanted in a fertile egg cell obtained from a third party. Furthermore, with a success rate being so low, a woman may not produce enough numbers of oocytes to try and successfully have the ideal clone she wants (Gilbert, 88). The low success rate of cloning is clearly demonstrated through 276 failures by Wilmut and his colleagues in their attempt to produce Dolly. This high failure rate predicts that many cloned fetuses would sometimes have to be aborted or even be born malformed (Gilbert, 88). If cloned fetuses were born malformed, a scenario of “laboratory mistakes resulting in monsters,” such as Frankenstein would also have to be considered. (Brock, 94)

In addition to the two reasons demonstrated above, the following scenario should be considered also for giving an infertile couple a chance to have their own offspring: if the “progenitor of the clone is itself an embryo or aborted fetus, the parent would not only be a virgin, but also a non-consenting non-person that itself has no legally established standing apart from the wishes of its own progenitor” (McGee, 266). This clone would experience physiological problems since it would not understand the origin of its birth or to whom it could depend on.

Therefore, I have explained the pros and cons of human cloning. People who support human cloning stated that we could benefit from cloning humans by transplanting new organs and hence prolong the life of individuals and also by producing an ideal child a person wants to have. People who oppose human cloning stated that it is morally unacceptable to clone humans because if we clone humans, we would be playing with nature. Human cloning and research on human cloning may bring possibly important advances in scientific knowledge in the future. However, I believe that it is reasonable to state that use of this biotechnology to clone humans at this time does not appear to promise great benefits to meet human needs. Allowing the use of this biotechnology partially means allowing technology to take away the privilege of our given nature by treating human life as something for us to manufacture rather than reproduce.