Should human cloning be allowed?

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 1999 / 4: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`It (the embryo) is certainly a human life, but not a protectable human being. It was never intended to be turned into a baby'
Professor Helga Kuhse, the director of Monash University's Centre for Bioethics

`The whole prospect of Dr Strangeloves in laboratories creating embryos for the purposes of research is just horrifying'
Bioethicist, Nicholas Tonti-Filippini

A number of recent developments have encouraged the media to focus on the issue of human cloning.
In November, 1998, it was announced that it might be possible to produce a clone of a new-born human baby so that the resultant embryo could be frozen and kept as a source of genetically matched tissue for the treatment of diseases or impairments the baby might develop in later life.
In December, 1998, a Korean research team claimed to have successfully cloned a human embryo for the first time. (The technique the Korean team employed was DNA cloning, the same technique which had been used by a team in Edinburgh, in July, 1996, to clone a sheep, Dolly.)
Also in December, 1998, a report by the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended that while the cloning of full human beings should be banned, the cloning of human body parts should perhaps be allowed to proceed. In the same month two influential British committees made similar recommendations.
Finally, in January, 1999, Professor Ian Wilmut, the head of the Edinburgh team that developed Dolly, the world's first mammal cloned from adult DN, announced he might join a team being established in the United States to clone human embryos for medical purposes.

Background
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.

Embryo Cloning and adult DNA cloning
There are two forms of cloning which have been devised to produce artificially an organism or animal identical to its parent or sibling.
The first form of cloning is called embryo cloning.
This occurs spontaneously in nature when a fertilised egg splits at an early stage of its development. Each half then goes on to develop into a complete organism. The two organisms or animals produced in this manner are identical. It is this process that results in the birth of identical twins.
It is possible to artificially produce identical organisms by fertilising an egg with sperm outside an animal's body and then splitting the zygote or fertised egg in two and implanting each viable half into a host mother's womb.
This procedure is used in animal husbandry, however, it is generally regarded as unethical to attempt to produce human beings in this manner and experiments using these procedures with human zygotes have been heavily restricted.
A different form of cloning was used by the team of Edinburgh scientists which, in 1996, successfully cloned a sheep, Dolly.
The technique used to clone Dolly is referred to as adult DNA cloning. In this form of 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.
This caused enormous interest world-wide because it had generally been believed that it was not possible to artificially clone a mammal in this manner.
With the exception of the sperm and egg, every cell in an animal's body contains all of the genetic material in its DNA to theoretically create an exact clone of the original body. But these tissue cells are differentiated, that is, they are biochemically programmed to perform limited and specific functions, according to the type of tissue they compose.
Until Dolly, most scientists had believed that such differentiated cells could not be reprogrammed to be capable of behaving as a fertilized egg.
Currently, it has also been generally believed that some mammal cells, including those of humans and mice, might not be able to be cloned from adult DNA. Thus, there are, apparently, a number of scientists who remain sceptical about the results claimed by the Korean research team for its adult human cloning experiment.

Human adult DNA cloning
The technique used by the Korean team in December, 1998, is adult DNA cloning, the same as that used by the Edinburgh team that produced the cloned sheep, Dolly.
The research team claims to have fused the DNA from a human body tissue cell with an unfertilised egg from a woman's ovary that had had the nucleus removed. Both the DNA and the ovum came from the same woman.
After the unfertilised ovum (with its nucleus removed) and the body tissue cell had been fused, the new cell then began to divide. When it had grown into four cells the experiment was stopped and the embryo destroyed.

The implications of cloning for human transplants and the treatment of diseases
There are two ways in which it is envisaged that cloning might assist with transplants or the treatment of specific diseases in human beings.
The first method involves the cloning of genetically engineered animals.
It is possible to genetically engineer animals with various human attributes. It has been envisaged, for example, that it might be possible to genetically engineer pigs with human hearts, or other animals that perhaps carried a particular human protein or hormone.
These human components within animals could then be used for transplants or to treat particular diseases. If the particular organ or other component were actually produced from a gene harvested from the human being who was to be the recipient, this would reduce problems of incompatibility or organ rejection.
Cloning could play a part in this process if it were necessary to produce the particular component in some quantity. The originally modified animal could be cloned in order to produce other animals with identical properties.
The second method that has been suggested involves adult DNA cloning.
A person suffering from leukemia, Parkinson's disease or AIDS, for example, could have the DNA from one of his or her body cells fused into a donated ovum that had had its nucleus removed. As the embryo thus produced develops, undifferentiated stems cells are produced that carry the DNA of the disease sufferer.
These undifferentiated cells could then be used to develop specific cells, for example, blood cells or nerve cells, which could be used in the treatment of particular diseases. Again, because the new cells contain the recipient's own DNA rejection problems would be reduced.
It has also been suggested that a similar procedure could be used to produce cloned embryos which could supply spare parts, at a later date, for naturally conceived babies. Under this procedure a cell would be taken from a newborn infant and fused with a donated ovum. The embryo thus produced would be allowed to develop for a week and would then be frozen.
The frozen embryo's undifferentiated cells could at a later date be used to provided replacement organs or other cells or tissues for the now mature person who donated the original DNA. Again there would be fewer rejection problems with such transplants or treatments.
This last procedure is very similar to adult DNA cloning, except that the DNA is taken from a baby.

There is a large number of Internet sites supplying information on 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 and includes a reference to the cloning of human embryos apparently achieved by Korean researchers in December, 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.
This site can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/cloning.htm

A New York based publisher of popular science books, Jupiter Publishing, has presented an overview of recent developments in human cloning. The piece was produced in 1998 and is titled, Jupiter Science Reports on Human Cloning.
The report outlines some of the important recent developments in genetics and cloning research. Without adopting a position on the question, it also suggests a number of the ethical considerations which it claims should be considered as the scientific community and society generally attempt to come to terms with the possibility of human cloning.
The report can be found at http://ajanta.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~jupiter/pub/sciinfo/cloning.html

A series of anti-human cloning arguments can be found on the LeadershipU site.
LeadershipU is part of a United States organisation titled Christian Leadership Ministries.
The site considers contemporary issues from a Christian perspective. Many of its contributors are Christian academics.
Its collection of arguments opposing different aspects of human cloning is titled Clone Encounters and can be found at http://www.leaderu.com/menus/cloning.html

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
This comment can be found at http://mercur.usao.edu/www/faculty/shaferi/shafer1.html

Also of interest are a number Yahoo News reports produced in conjunction with Reuters. These were all produced in 1996 and include a report on the then opposition to human cloning of the Scottish scientist, Ian Wilmut, who headed the team which cloned a sheep in July, 1996.
This is particularly interesting as Ian Wilmut is now apparently about to join a United States team working on human cloning.
These Yahoo/Reuters reports can be found at http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/special/clone/

Arguments in favour of the cloning of human beings
The first set of arguments offered in favour of the cloning of human beings refer to cloning intended to produce a human being who would be at least genetically identical to the person who donated the DNA used to produce the cloned human.
One of the main arguments offered in favour of such a procedure is that there is nothing necessarily undesirable about one person having exactly the same genetic coding or DNA as another.
According to this line of argument, twins, triplets, etcetera, occur spontaneously in nature and people do not regard them as abhorrent.
It is also argued that the degree of similarity between the cloned person and the person who donated the DNA would be less than is sometimes claimed.
According to this line of argument, environmental influences and differing life experiences would insure that the two people, though very similar in many regards, were not identical.
Sir John Maddox, an eminent British scientist and former editor of the scientific journal Nature has claimed that the mother's influence, brain development and other random events such as early sensory experience would have a major impact on personal development.
It has further been claimed that cloning may well be the only way that some people can have children who share their genetic inheritance.
According to this line of argument, some infertile men may only be able to have a child who shares their genetic make-up by having their DNA fused with an ovum donated by their partners or some other person.
Severino Antinori, an Italian embryologist, has argued, `What about the man who does not produce any sperm at all? What should he do? If he cannot reproduce himself, why should he not reproduce his genes in this way - this is one of the few cases where it is acceptable to clone.'
Those who believe that infertility may be a justification for cloning tend to argue that the desire to reproduce in order to project one's genetic self into the future is natural and acceptable.
According to this line or argument, individual members of all species seek to reproduce themselves and behave in a way intended to maximise the future survival of their genes. It is argued that it is not inappropriate for human beings to feel the same urge.
Sir John Maddox has been reported to have claimed that infertile couples were obviously going to prefer children who shared their genetic components over adopting or using a donor.
The second set of arguments in favour of human cloning relates to procedures used to produce transplants, tissue or other components to assist those with an impairment or disease.
Those who favour this form of cloning generally stress the enormous advantages it could offer to people.
One is the possibility to cure currently untreatable diseases.
For example, it has been claimed that DNA cloning could be used to generate human blood cells or nerve cells and create a cure for Parkinson's disease, leukemia and AIDS by transplanting the cells harvested from a cloned embryo.
Such cells would have the same DNA as the recipient and so there would be far fewer rejection problems.
It has also been noted that cloned nerve cells or other components of the human spinal column could be used to help treat quadriplegics and paraplegics, suffering otherwise incurable paralysis.
Professor Alan Trounson, the deputy director of the Institute of Reproduction and Development at Monash University, has claimed, `Quadriplegia and paraplegia may become things of the past as we will be able to repair broken spinal columns.'
In the same manner it has been suggested that whole organs could be grown from the previously undifferentiated stem cells of cloned embryos.
Again because these organs would have the same DNA as the recipient the major problem of rejection, usually encountered in transplants, would be largely overcome.
Professor Roger Short, a reproductive biologist at the Royal Women's Hospital, has stated, `It's an enormously exciting development because we are going to be able to generate spare parts for people.'
It has also been suggested that such cures and transplants would have major economic advantages over conventional treatments and management programs.
Associate Professor, Helga Kuhse, the director of Monash University's Centre for Bioethics, has argued, `If it works it's probably going to save money as well as lives.'
In addition to the advantages of replacement organs and possible cures for currently untreatable diseases, it has been claimed that the ethical considerations that have limited human cloning, where the intention is to produce a full human being, do not apply here.
According to this line of argument, because the DNA cloned embryo would be produced only in order to supply stem cells which could then be cultured to supply particular tissues there would not be the same ethical concerns.
The cloned embryo would only be allowed to develop for a very brief period, usually a week. It is argued that its development would be halted at such an early stage that it would not have began to form any of the major organ systems, even in the most rudimentary of forms.
It has also been claimed that intention is significant.
According to this line of argument, because the intention was only ever to create a clone in order to harvest tissue, it should not be regarded as a form of human life with an independent existence that warrants legal protection.
This point has been made by Professor Kuhse, who has argued, `It (the embryo) is certainly a human life, but not a protectable human being. It was never intended to be turned into a baby.'

Arguments against the cloning of human beings
There are two sets of arguments in opposition to human cloning.
The first set relates to cloning intended to produce a full human being and the second set to cloning intended to supply spare organs or tissue for the treatment of disease or disabilities.
Those who object to cloning in order to produce a full human being tend to stress the importance of individual human uniqueness. According to this line of argument, it is ethically important that each human being be valued for who he or she is, and not simply because he or she is, to whatever extent a replica of another human being.
There is also the suggestion that cloning in order to reproduce a replica of another human being is open to abuse as the person conducting the cloning might deliberately attempt to recreate someone whose original existence was generally judged as harmful.
An extreme scenario sometimes discussed is that political extremists might attempt to recreate a leader such as Hitler through cloning techniques.
Such criticisms of this form of human cloning have been put in an editorial published in the Age on December 28, 1998. Within this editorial it was claimed, `The belief that each of us is in some sense unique, and that even an Einstein or a Mozart, let alone a Hitler, should not be expected to walk the earth more than once, runs deep in almost every culture's understanding of what it is to be human.'
It has further been claimed that attempts to clone full human beings might also be undertaken in a manner which reflected simply the vanity of the person donating the genetic material. It has been suggested, for example, that at least one of those who has publicly espoused cloning himself may be partly motivated by such vanity.
It has also been argued that on a psychological level it could be damaging for a child to become aware that he or she had been artificially conceived with a view to reproducing, at least in part, someone else. It has been claimed that this could place unreasonable expectations on such children and could also lead them to believe that they were not wanted in their own right.
The second set of arguments is put in opposition to the claim that it is acceptable to clone human embryos in order to use them to supply organs or other tissue for the human being who donated the DNA which produced the clone.
Those who oppose this procedure seem to suggest that it is a form of exploitation in which a human life is created only so that it may be used either for research or to treat a medical condition in someone else.
This position has been paraphrased by The Age in its editorial published on December 28, 1998. This editorial stated that `to some members of the community [cloning for research, transplant or disease treatment] is abhorrent, for to them it amounts to bringing something that is human, even though it is obviously not a whole person, into existence to be used as a quarry for spare parts.'
This objection has been put by Right to Life campaigner, Margaret Tighe, who has claimed that such procedures debase human life. Margaret Tighe has stated, `It's really all about cannibalising small human beings ... This is a gross abuse of human life.'
A similar objection has been put by bioethicist, Nicholas Tonti-Filippini. Mr Tonti-Filippini has claimed, `The whole prospect of Dr Strangeloves in laboratories creating embryos for the purposes of research is just horrifying.'
According to this line of argument, it is not legitimate to claim that because the cloned embryo was never intended to develop into a full human life then it is acceptable to experiment upon it or use it in medical procedures.
The argument put by Mr Tonti-Filippini appears to be that it is unethical to create a human life and then deny it the opportunity to have full independent existence. Those who hold this point of view generally argue that human life is a supremely valuable end it itself and should not be used as means of achieving something else, such as a medical treatment.
It has further been suggested that many potential recipients of transplants or other treatments derived from the tissue of cloned human embryos might have ethical objections to such procedures.
Mr Richard Snow, a writer with an interest in health issues, has discussed this aspect of the human cloning issue in relation to his wife who is an amputee without her lower legs, her left forearm and part of her right arm.
Mr Snow considers the possibility that cloned human tissue could be grown into replacement limbs for his wife and then indicates that they would both have ethical reservations about such a procedure.
Mr Snow states, `The issue most people will feel uneasy about is destroying the cloned foetus or embryo once the cells have been harvested.'
Mr Snow suggests that other methods of culturing tissue or developing replacement organs should be investigated which do not involve the cloning of a human life which is then destroyed.
Mr Snow states, `We would both prefer that someone developed a technique for growing limbs or organs from existing cells. Why not have a new left arm cultured from the cells of her right forearm, palm and thumb? Yet we don't even see this being discussed.'

Further implications
There appears to be general consensus that developments in human genetics and cloning are moving faster than the scientific community and society generally are able to accommodate and form considered responses to.
There appears to be a general fear that the ethical and social implications of recent developments in cloning and genetics are so great that we have not yet properly appreciated them. Those who hold this view tend to promote caution and favour a moratorium on all human cloning for whatever purpose.
This is currently the position adopted by the United Nations and individual countries such as the United States. It also appears to be the position of the Australian Medical Association (AMA).
In Victoria the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 prohibits the deliberate creation, `outside the human body' of an embryo that is `genetically identical to another human embryo or person'. This is generally seen as a specific prohibition on human cloning and carries a penalty of a $4800 fine and up to four year's imprisonment.
However, ethics committees in both Australia and Britain have recently recommended that human cloning not intended to produce a viable human being, but instead undertaken for medical and research purposes should be acceptable. It will be interesting to see whether this position is accepted by legislatures in Australia and overseas.

Sources
The Age
12/9/98 page 5 (Saturday Extra) analysis by James Langton, `Gene genies'
5/10/98 page 11 news item, `Warning over scientist's plan for 500 clones a year'
1/12/98 page 5 news item by Penelope Debelle, `Baby clone prediction'
10/12/98 page 5 news item by Darren Gray, `Legalise cloning: scientists'
17/12/98 page 14 letter from Professor Loane Skene, `Clarifying the cloning controversy'
18/12/98 page 15 news item by Darren Gray, `Moves toward human cloning'
28/12/98 page 12 editorial, `Making rules about making people'
6/1/99 page 11 comment by Richard Snow, `My wife, and the ethics of cloning"
21/1/99 page 8 news item, `Dolly scientist ready to begin human cloning project'
The Australian
30/10/98 page 13 analysis by Steve Farrar, `Doctor expects to deliver duplicates in due course'
The Herald Sun
10/11/98 page 1 news item by Greg Thom, `Baby body bank'
11/11/98 page 11 news item by Greg Thom, `AMA opposed to bank of cloned baby parts'
19/12/98 page 16 news item by Greg Thom, `It's life, but not as we know it, Dolly'
11/1/99 page 22 analysis by Greg Thom, `no scientific stone left unturned'