The Ethical "Neutrality" of Cloning

The Ethical "Neutrality" of Cloning.
by Dr. Maurizio Salvi,
Maastricht University, WTMC Institute, Dep. of Philosophy,
P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, Netherlands,
Tel. +31.43.3883319, Fax: +31-43-3259311,
E-Mail: M.Salvi@Philosophy.unimaas.nl

What is the Problem?

When we consider the reaction of media and society on Cloning (CL), the first impression bearing is that this technique evidences the incompletely of a moral analysis on the responsibility of Science in Biotechnology. I shall approach this topic in a really schematic way. The purpose of this analysis is to evidence that cloning in itself does not constitute a moral problem because the real moral problem is the ethical "right" of human beings to create new living beings (transgenic animals, clones, chimeras etc.). I shall evidence that cloning is only a technique, thus its moral meaning is exhausted in the purposes of its applications, and in the moral meaning of the responsibility of science in Biotech.

The Social Political Reaction on Cloning.

The Cloning caused a really strange phenomenon, the political, social, scientific community interrogate themselves on the moral meaning of this technique. The European Parliament, the same White House have considered the cloning as an example of the unjustified presence of human science in the natural world. I has been really surprised on this reaction, because I believe that this alarmist emphasis was really unjustified since we continuously interact with the biosphere equilibria. The first bio-engineered animal has been produced in 1986 ("the oncomouse"). It is a fact that every day biotech. farms produce plants and animals having a transformed genome. In 1976 (Conference of Asilomar, Berg's Moratoria) the biological community reacted to this uncontrolled freedom of Genetics, because it was afraid about its possible human applications. Now -after 10 years of biotech. applications- the cloning shows the same problem: If the human being will be cloned which consequence we will cause toward the human race and its continuity? At the same time, since to transform the living forms in their germline cells (also if we can't predict the consequence of these acts toward natural evolutionary dynamics, or biosphere's equilibria), does not constitute a moral problem (it is a god business, and we like to have in our refrigerator a tomato which can remain 2 months before to start its decomposition) why we have to be shocked by cloning, if we are not afraid on the human possibility to create "bio-engineered organisms"? If we realise that the real moral problem of the biotechnology is linked to the definition the ethical implication of the bio-engineered life forms production, we can see that the ethical implication of cloning become really weaken. The cloning is another example of the potentiality of science to produce living beings which respond to the exigencies of human beings. It constitutes a faster tools for producing animals. We don't need the mendelian laws, or the sexual reproduction, we can "build" organisms in large scale. Cloning is an extension of the biological determinism which produced the metaphor of organisms as farm of genes. Anyway is really unjustified this horrific reaction on cloning, because of the cloning is only a technique. It is useful for the biotech. applications. In any case the problem is the moral right to modify the life in its present and future constitution. If we don't clarify this "bioethic problem", why we should have to condemn the cloning? And why we have to be so afraid about the human applications if we have not yet clarify the moral difference between the human and animal applications of genetics? In this "philosophical area" the international committees have to work.

Human Cloning.

The fundamental problem is that the reaction on cloning was not linked to the technique in itself, it was focused on its possible extension on human beings. The phantoms of eugenics become reality. By cloning the human beings we can interact with the natural laws either in micro-level (producing individuals) or in macro-level (interacting with population dynamics to create or improve some "particular" human beings). This approach on this topic is influenced to an initial ambiguity. We attribute to human being a particular moral status which defines an ethical difference between the human cloning and the animal (or vegetable) cloning. Have we critic reason to accept this distinction? The community of biologists makes a moral distinction with an anthropocentric tendency. This means that it considers human genome as a dimension of ethical value which must be safeguarded. But if DNA is a dimension of ethical value, which value have we to attribute to genome (constitutive, reflex, intrinsic, ontological value)? The absence of this moral clarification obstructs a critic analysis on moral implication of cloning. First, because we can't justify the refuse of human cloning and the acceptance of vegetal one (for example). Second, because human clones will be moral subjects. They posses a corporal identity (they have their fits, eyes ...), and a psychological one (and a relational identity with the persons or circumstances of their lives). At the same time they are unnatural subjects. Biologic laws do not contemplate the possibility of existence of organisms that have the same genotype. Sexual reproduction (and the crossing over phenomena) and structural complexity of the genome, they safeguards the living uniqueness. Uniqueness that cloning would destroy. If clones are moral subjects why cloning should have to be forbidden? How can we evaluate this "technique" if we don't clarify if we can artificially produce living beings?

The Cloning in Itself.

I believe that if we agree that the initial moral clarification to do is linked to the production of bio- engineered animal forms (germline gene transformations), we can define the moral status of cloning as regard this initial ethical parameter. The second element to evaluate in clones production is the finality of this act. This bipolar approach can clarify the bioethic implication of cloning as a "biotechnological application". We have to define in ethic terms the act of CL. Why have we to clone? Which utility could derive from human cloning (we are so numerous in this little world!)? Until these motivations will not be cleared, I do not think we have instruments to found an ethic judgement. This conclusion however could be changed if we tribute to biologic uniqueness a fundamental value. But when we apply CL on bacteria cultures, no critic is made. In these cases we consider the utility of such biotechnological applications. Why are we afraid of the human applications of CL? Maybe because they bring to mind positive eugenic, or because CL interests a class of humans elements who have a primal position in a hierarchy of values concerning the natural world? Cloning is a technique, an instrument. Its applications and the moral value of the cloned life-form will determine its moral value.