Back to previous page
When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.

Should human cloning be allowed?


Echo Issue Outline 1998 / 03: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
This is a horror story ... we will use every effort to prevent
Mr Jean Boucauris, Greece's director for European affairs

Identical twins are much more alike than clone and cloned ... Yet no one would claim that identical twins are unethical or morally repugnant
Alasdair Palmer, commenting in The Telegraph

In the first week of January, 1998, a Chicago physicist, Dr Richard Seed, announced that he had assembled a team of doctors prepared to clone a human being before the United States Congress has a chance to ban the procedure.
The announcement met with a strong world-wide reaction. It now appears that Dr Seed's statement may prompt the United States Congress to ban work on human cloning more rapidly than would have otherwise been the case. The American development also appears to have encouraged the European Council to ban the procedure.
However, despite fairly widespread political and popular opposition to the proposal, human cloning is likely to remain a live issue within sections of the scientific community.

Background
Cloning began to become a particularly controversial issue in February, 1997, when a team of Scottish scientists, working for the Roslin Institute, announced that in July, 1996, they had successfully cloned a sheep, Dolly, from an udder cell of another sheep.
The announcement immediately generated heated debate. Some groups hailed the development as a revolutionary breakthrough which would transform animal husbandry. There was also enthusiasm about pharmaceutical benefits and readily available transplant organs.
Others were concerned at the dangers the development might pose both to other species and to human beings. There was anxiety expressed by some groups at the possibility of human cloning.
Bill Clinton, the president of the United States, announced that no funding would be given any research group involved in human cloning. He also urged Congress to outlaw human cloning. Since Dr Seed's announcement it now appears likely that the United States Congress will soon make human cloning illegal in that country.
Human cloning in already illegal in England and in a number of Australian states, including Victoria. It has also very recently been banned by 19 of the member nations of the European Council.

A brief note on cloning
As it occurs in nature, cloning is reproduction involving only one parent. It is also referred to as asexual reproduction.
Cloning occurs when a single cell from the parent organism begins to divide and develop in such a way that a new organism is produced. This new organism has exactly the same genetic make-up as its parent and is usually physically identical to its parent.
In sexual reproduction, two parents are involved. Each contributes a sex cell or gamete. When these gametes join or fuse a new organism begins to develop.
A sexually produced organism will have a genetic make-up which is a combination of that of both of its parents. Physically it will usually display a variety of features, some inherited from each parent.
A different form of cloning was used by the team of Edinburgh scientists which, in 1996, successfully cloned a sheep, Dolly. This caused enormous interest world-wide because it had previously been generally believed that it was not possible to artificially clone a mammal.
The technique used to clone Dolly is referred to as adult DNA cloning. A cell was taken from an adult sheep and the nucleus was removed and inserted into the ovum or egg cell of another sheep which had previously had its nucleus removed.
An electric impulse was then passed through this new composite cell which appeared to prompt the process of cell division. The dividing ovum was then transplanted into the womb of another sheep where it developed to term.
Researchers such as Dr Seed envisage a similar process being used to clone human beings from adult DNA, with the embryo either being implanted into the womb of the woman who had donated the ovum or into the womb of another, surrogate, mother.


There are many Internet sites dealing with aspects of human cloning.
One very useful site at which to begin has been prepared by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. This site examines a wide range of controversial, ethical topics, including human cloning. The relevant section is titled, Human cloning: religious and ethical aspects. It gives a careful definition of cloning, explaining the difference between embryo cloning and adult DNA cloning. It reviews the history of both forms of cloning, including a reference to the `human cloning clinic' proposed by Richard Steed in January, 1998. This treatment also outlines in point form a range of arguments for and against human cloning. Finally it has a detailed list of references on cloning all of which have Internet addresses supplied and can be clicked through to from this site.

The well regarded science magazine, New Scientist, also has a lengthy list of links to sites relevant to cloning. These can be found on the Web sightings page of its Cloning Special Report. The full New Scientist special report can be clicked through to from the Web sightings page.

Also of interest are a number Yahoo News reports produced in conjunction with Reuters. These include: WHO [World Health Organisation] Says Human Cloning Would Be Unethical, Clinton Bans Federal Funding for Human Cloning and Researcher Stands Firm Against Human Cloning.
This last report refers to the opposition to human cloning of the Scottish scientist, Ian Wilmut, who headed the team which cloned a sheep in July, 1996.

Another useful Internet source is a pro-human cloning argument presented by Ingrid Shafer, of the University of Science and Arts, Oklahoma. The piece is titled Biotechnology: The Moral Challenge of Human Cloning.

Arguments against human cloning
One of the major arguments offered against human cloning is that it will undermine human individuality. According to this line of argument, one of the key features of each human being is that he or she represents a combination of genotype and interaction with the environment which is unique.
Opponents of cloning argue that this uniqueness is a major element of our humanity. It is claimed that even so called `identical twins', though genetically very similar, are not completely so.
Professor Bob Williamson, the director of the Murdoch Institute for Research into Birth Defects, has claimed that identical twins are not exact genetic replicas of each other as they `differ in the extent to which some important gene sequences are repeated, which is why one twin can be badly affected by conditions such as ataxia or mental retardation, and the other hardly at all.'
It has been suggested that undermining the individuality or uniqueness of each human being may help to break down our respect for human life, as widespread acceptance of human cloning could lead society to regard all people as being virtually replaceable or interchangeable.
The Age editorial of January 9, 1998, argued, `If it becomes possible to make copies ... of individuals, we might come to see individuals as disposable. We could eventually lose that which holds human societies together: the notion that all human beings are owed unconditional respect.'
Similarly, it has been argued that cloning human beings for the purpose of creating appropriate transplant tissue such as bone marrow or a kidney also demeans the person cloned for this purpose.
According to this line of argument, a person, in this case their very existence, should not be used as a means to an end. To do so, it is claimed, is to deprive the life created of any intrinsic worth and to pave the way for other uses of the cloned person which might violate their rights further.
Charles Krauthammer, in an essay published in Time, on January 19, 1998, noted that already scientists had created headless mice and frogs and that Professor Lee Silver had speculated about the possibility of creating human bodies without a forebrain. Professor Silver was then quoted as having suggested, `These human bodies without any semblance of consciousness would not be considered persons, and thus it would be perfectly legal to keep them `alive' as a source of organs.'
Charles Krauthammer goes on to claim that Professor Silver has also suggested that individuals may ultimately seek to have headless replicas of themselves cloned to supply them with transplant organs to overcome the problems created by age and disease.
Mr Krauthammer argues, `When prominent scientists are prepared to acquiesce in ... the deliberate creation of deformed and dying quasi-human life, you know we are facing a bioethical abyss. Human beings are ends, not means. There is no grosser corruption of biotechnology than creating a human mutant and disemboweling it at our pleasure for spare parts.'
Behind concerns such as Charles Krauthammer's appears to be the belief that there are some biotechnologies which are so powerful in their potential for harm that they should not be developed. According to this line of argument, though the technology may initially be used for ethical purposes, if the potential exists to use it for highly improper purposes then ultimately this is likely to occur.
On the question of whether human cloning should be denied to couples who have no other way of passing on their genetic material, it has been argued that while couples may have a very strong desire to have children they have no necessary right to do so.
It has also been argued that the technology needed to successfully produce clones of mammals is currently highly problematic.
Thus, it has been claimed, there would be an unacceptably high risk of death or gross defect in human infants created via cloning.
Mr Harry Griffin, assistant director of the Roslin Institute, in Edinburgh, where the first mammal, a sheep, was cloned last year, has warned of the dangers associated with applying such technology to humans.
Mr Griffin has suggested that far from being a master race, human clones would suffer unacceptable levels of stillbirths, infant mortality, cancer and possibly premature ageing.
Further, it has been suggested, cloning poses a risk to the quality of the human gene pool.
It has been suggested that some of those who might seek to have themselves cloned might do so through vanity, not because they necessarily had characteristics that it was desirable to pass on.
It has also been noted that sexual reproduction generally acts as a check against defects being passed on to offspring. This check occurs because genes for most defects are recessive and thus are overridden by the corresponding non-defect-bearing gene of the sexual partner. Normally a defect is only passed on when it is carried in the genes of both parents. This safeguard does not occurring in cloning, where any defect possessed by the sole genetic parent would be transferred, unmitigated, to the offspring.
It is also argued that sexual reproduction, because it produces offspring who carry a mixture of the genetic coding of each parent, produces far greater variety or diversity than cloning does.
Diversity is often seen as a good thing because having a variety of characteristics in a particular group can protect it against diseases and other environmental threats.
It is claimed that variety among offspring tends to mean that at least some will be immune to a particular disease and thus the species will survive. It is further claimed that if all offspring are identical and none is immune to a particular disease all will die.

Arguments in favour of human cloning
Supporters of human cloning claim that the fact that a cloned human being would be genetically identical to the person from whom he or she was cloned is not a cause for concern.
Those who maintain this argument note that identical twins are a natural occurrence of cloning, with one of the twins having been cloned spontaneously from the other. As Alasdair Palmer, commenting in The Telegraph, observes, `... identical twins are much more alike than clone and cloned. Identical twins share the same womb at the same time, developing together, being born together and frequently sharing the same upbringing. That cannot happen when a new embryo is produced by cloning a cell from an adult. Yet no one would claim that identical twins are unethical or morally repugnant.'
This same comparison has been used to argue against that claims that cloning in some way undermines a core human identity or soul.
Supporters of cloning note that core identity or the soul is likely to come about as a combination of genetic coding and life experience. If an individual has the same genetic make-up as another person, this, it is argued, does not dilute or deny them their identity.
According to this line of argument, if having the same genetic coding as another person impaired an individual's identity then that would also be the case for identical twins.
It has further been claimed that human cloning cannot be rejected on the basis that it is `unnatural', that is, only occurs because people have deliberately and artificially manipulated genetic material.
Supporters of human cloning note that many procedures which we value and have come to rely upon are `unnatural' in the sense that they are man-made. These include most medical advances, such as surgical procedures and vaccines against life-threatening diseases.
It has also been argued that human cloning is not objectionable merely because it involves human beings manipulating the processes by which life is created. Comparisons have been made with IVF techniques which also involve the manipulation of the process of conception and yet have a very high level of popular acceptance.
Alasadair Palmer notes, `Twenty years ago, IVF was enormously controversial. A substantial majority thought it was wrong. Today that majority has diminished to a small minority. The benefits IVF has brought can be measured only by the lives it has made possible: several hundred thousand world-wide, according to a recent estimate.' Supporters of human cloning suggest that over time it will bring similar benefits and enjoy a similar level of acceptance.
Among the benefits claimed for human cloning are that it will allow otherwise infertile people to have children and that it will offer significant medical advantages.
Dr Seed has stressed the boon which cloning could be for otherwise infertile couples. Dr Seed claims to have four couples prepared to use cloning so that they may have children. Dr Seed has said that three of the couples each have one infertile partner, while the couple which would be his `first choice' is made up of two infertile partners.
`The only way they can transmit any of their genes is by cloning,' Dr Seed has said.
It has also been argued that cloning would offer medical advantages, especially in situations where transplants are required.
Alasdair Palmer has referred to a book produced by Professor Lee Silver, titled, Remaking Eden. Professor Silver apparently cites the case of a couple whose daughter had myelogenous leukaemia and required a bone marrow transplant. Unable to find a suitable donor, the couple had a second child, with the result that the older girl was saved by a bone marrow transplant from her younger sister.
Supporters of human cloning note that cloning would allow for an even closer match were such a transplant required.
Alasdair argues that so long as the cloned transplant donor is not harmed, then the result is a new life and the saving of an established one. He claims, `Two healthy children are better than one dead one. When cloning becomes an effective, safe and reliable method of reproduction, by what right will a government prevent people from taking advantage of it to save life?'
Further, it has been claimed, prohibiting any scientific procedure tends to force it underground where its development ceases to be open to public scrutiny.
According to this line of argument, if human cloning is prohibited in all or most nations of the world, that is unlikely to stop work on it continuing. Instead, such work will be entirely privately funded and conducted secretly, without the benefit of guidelines established by bioethics committees or the accountability that comes from having to publish results and have procedures vetted by peers in the same field and by the public at large.

Further implications
One of the concerns raised during the current debate is that apprehensions about human cloning may impede research into cloning generally and so delay or deny us the benefits this technology can offer.
Though this may be so, it appears unlikely that work on cloning will halt. It even appears improbable that work on human cloning will cease.
Dr Seed's plan to have a human clone in utero by 1999 will almost certainly not be put into effect in the United States. ( Congress has indicated its readiness to support a Bill introduced by President Clinton last June, that would place a five-year ban on human cloning. )
Similarly, 19 members of the Council of Europe voted in favour of an amendment to the 1996 Convention on Human Rights and Bio-Medicine prohibiting 'any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to any other human being, whether living or dead, by whatever means'.
However, there are other nations where work on human cloning will be able to proceed.
Dr Seed has suggested that were the United States to ban his work he would establish a laboratory in Mexico, where currently research into human cloning is not prohibited.
It also appears there would be no shortage of funds to support research into human cloning. Though most governments will probably withhold funding from such research, some private investors are likely to give it their support for commercial and other reasons.
Already a Swiss-based religious cult, the Raelian Movement, has offered Dr Seed money and support for his plans to clone children for infertile couples.
The Raelian Movement has established a company called Valiant Venture to provide a `Clonaid' service.
The cult believes that life was created scientifically in laboratories by extra-terrestrials and that there is, therefore, no moral or ethical reason why humans should not be cloned.

Sources
The Age
8/1/98 page 7 news item by Rick Weiss, `Team of doctors ready to clone human'
9/1/98 page 9 news item, `Scientists outraged by human clone plan'
9/1/98 page 10 editorial, `Humans are individuals'
12/1/98 page 12 news item, `Money from cult for cloning plan'
15/1/98 comment by Alasdair Palmer, `Cloning a body, losing the soul'
15/1/97 page 13 comment by Bob Williamson, `There's no humanity in making replicas for spare parts'

The Australian
3/1/98 page 14 analysis by Gina Kolata, `Gene Genie'
9/1/98 page 5 news item by Belinda Hickman, `Clone plan threatens to create human monsters: scientists'
9/1/98 page 5 news item by Justine Ferrari, `Softly, softly in footsteps of Dolly'
14/1/98 page 8 news item, `Congress backs Clinton on cloning bur Seed threatens to sidestep ban'

The Herald Sun
9/1/98 page 25 news item by Tom Skotnicki, `US to stop human clones'
12/1/98 page 18 editorial, `A question of ethics'
14/1/98 page 26 news item by Joseph Schuman, `Treaty bans cloning'

Time
19/1/98 page 47 analysis by J. Madeleine Nash, `Cloning's Kevorkian'
19/1/98 page 68 comment by Charles Krauthammer, `Of Headless Mice ... and Men'

Internet
NOTE: It appears that the English Board of Studies may be refining its guidelines on the use of Internet sources for CAT I.
Currently it is probably preferable for students to restrict their use of Internet sources to Part 2 of CAT I.
Please consult your teacher for direction on this matter.

There are many Internet sites dealing with aspects of human cloning.
One very useful site at which to begin has been prepared by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. This site examines a wide range of controversial, ethical topics, including human cloning. The relevant section is titled, Human cloning: religious and ethical aspects. It can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/cloning.htm
It gives a careful definition of cloning, explaining the difference between embryo cloning and adult DNA cloning. It reviews the history of both forms of cloning, including a reference to the `human cloning clinic' proposed by Richard Steed in January, 1998. This treatment also outlines in point form a range of arguments for and against human cloning. Finally it has a detailed list of references on cloning all of which have Internet addresses supplied and can be clicked through to from this site.

The well regarded science magazine, New Scientist, also has a lengthy list of links to sites relevant to cloning. These can be found on the Web sightings page of its Cloning Special Report. The full New Scientist special report can be clicked through to from the Web sightings page. The Web sightings page can be found at http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/clone/clonelinks.html

Also of interest are a number Yahoo News reports produced in conjunction with Reuters. These include
WHO [World Health Organisation] Says Human Cloning Would Be Unethical, found at http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/special/clone/clone.17.html
Clinton Bans Federal Funding for Human Cloning found at http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/special/clone/clone.11.html and
Researcher Stands Firm Against Human Cloning found at http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/special/clone/clone.18.html
This last report refers to the opposition to human cloning of the Scottish scientist, Ian Wilmut, who headed the team which cloned a sheep in July, 1996.

Another useful Internet source is a pro-human cloning argument presented by Ingrid Shafer, of the University of Science and Arts, Oklahoma. The piece is titled Biotechnology: The Moral Challenge of Human Cloning and can be found at http://mercur.usao.edu/www/faculty/shaferi/shafer1.html