Human Cloning Dilemma
Upon completion of the Required Readings, write a thorough, well-planned narrative answer to the following discussion question. Rely on your Required Readings and the Lecture and Research Update for specific information to answer the discussion question, but turn to your original thoughts when asked to apply, evaluate, analyze, or synthesize the information. Your Discussion Question response should be both grammatically and mechanically correct, and formatted in the same fashion as the question itself. If there is a Part A, your response should identify a Part A, etc. In addition, you must appropriately cite all resources used in your responses and document in a bibliography using APA style.
Discussion Question 1 (30 points)
On pages 202-205 of your text, Cockerham discusses the “New Genetics.” He points out the distinction between “therapeutic” and “reproductive” cloning. Therapeutic cloning is the cloning of human organs for the purpose of replacing the diseased organs of sick people. Reproductive cloning is the asexual reproduction of a person.
You are asked to address a group of high school seniors on the potential benefits and dangers of cloning. Remember that you are talking to high school students. Your presentation should be as clear, simple, and direct as possible. Prepare a narrative outline of your speech to include the following. (30 points) (A 2-page response is required.)
- Three (3) conditions in which therapeutic cloning would be useful
- Three (3) conditions in which reproductive cloning would be useful
- At least four (4) cautions or objections that have been raised concerning cloning
ADDITIONAL READING RESOUCE ARTICLE BELOW
In 1996, an obscure veterinarian, Ian Wilmut, working in the hills of Scotland took human cloning from the realm of science fiction to the field of medical science. The birth of “Dolly,” a sheep possessing the genetic material of only one parent, set off a firestorm of scientific inquiry, controversy, and debate. The reality that some day soon the cloning of a human being would be scientifically possible opened a flood gate of response and discourse around the world that will continue for some time to come. Clearly, the physical science, as usually happens, is ahead of the sociology, theology, ethics and public policy. When several scientists announced their intention of producing a human clone, our government, along with many governments around the world, took action to ban or delay cloning indefinitely. Many scientists and medical researchers opposed the ban, claiming that it would inhibit much needed biomedical research into major diseases plaguing humankind around the globe. The genie is out of the bottle and society will have to determine how to engage it to satisfy and safeguard the needs of its citizens in this increasingly complex world. In this highly charged emotional atmosphere, it is critical that we understand the basic facts and issues underscoring the debate.
We begin with a brief review of the biology of cloning. Cloning involves the technical procedure known as somatic-cell nuclear-transfer. In the cloning of a human being, a human nucleus is transferred into a human egg whose nucleus has been removed. The human egg with its transferred nucleus is implanted in the uterus, and the resulting embryo develops to term. When the child is born it has the exact genetic characteristics of the transferred nucleus and is the exact replica of the individual donor of the transferred nucleus. And a clone of the donor. A few scientists doubt that this technology can be applied to the cloning of a human being but the majority of the scientific community believe it is a matter of when, not if, it can be done. As the matter stands right now, it is illegal to attempt to clone a human being in this country and 21 others around the world. This action was taken to give society time to examine and debate the significant social, ethical, moral, religious and political implications of this new science. There is, however, a growing movement to allow research to continue on the cloning of molecules, cells, and tissues because of the promise this research holds for the treatment and cure of diseases such as diabetes, leukemia, and genetic disorders. We can now turn our attention to the issues raised by the cloning technology and its associated debate.
When most people think of cloning, they recall the Alpha to Epsilon Society sketched by Aldus Huxley in his novel Brave New World or the nefarious plot to create a “master race” and fulfill the destiny of Adolph Hitler conjured up in the book and movie The Boys From Brazil. The literary treatment of cloning in these horrific contexts forces one to the conclusion that cloning leads to an evolutionary dead end. That is, it can only replicate the species – it cannot advance it. Interestingly, this conclusion frames one of the arguments made by those who support the permanent banning of cloning. We will return to this argument later. For now, we turn our attention to a less familiar argument posed by those who support the continued research into the cloning of a human being.
Attorney John Robertson (1998) takes the government to task for banning cloning. He maintains that there are responsible couples who would achieve significant benefit from cloning and have a right to pursue this option. He cites three scenarios. First, couples who are infertile may want to have a child cloned from one of the partners rather than adopt or rely on an anonymous embryo donor. In the second scenario, a couple at high risk of having a child with a genetic disease currently has the option of undergoing pre-natal implantation of an anonymous donor, adoption, or going childless. The couple would prefer to have a child cloned from one of the parents or from another family member to preserve the bonds of kinship. The final scenario he cites involves the cloning of a child to obtain tissues or organs for a sibling suffering from a non-genetic disease. The cloned child’s DNA would be the same as the child with the disease and therefore would pose no risk of tissue or organ rejection. It is also possible, as an extension of the scenario, that a dying or dead child can be cloned to allow the child to live on in a closely related form. Essentially, the argument rests on the proposition that the state should not infringe on the right of individuals to medical options that can remedy current or future problems in pursuit of people’s own happiness and well-being. The proponents of this argument maintain that those who would use cloning to form families should be afforded the same rights as those who choose other assisted reproduction and genetic-selection procedures. They maintain that properly regulated, the potential abuses of cloning can be adequately controlled to allow its benefit to be made available to those who seek it.
The position of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on cloning maintains that this technology poses significant dilemmas concerning the welfare of the cloned individual. The Advisory Commission is the body that provides guidance to the government on the formulation of public policy on this matter. The Commission highlights two major concerns. The first is that a child with the same nuclear DNA and by definition a replica of an earlier-born twin will lack individuality and a unique identity. Our social definition of a person, a being who possesses a unique set of human qualities and characteristics, will be fundamentally altered. The second concern centers on the parents’ motives in cloning a child. The potential that a parent, faced with infertility, genetic predisposition to producing a child with a serious disease, or having a sick or dying child that can be helped by a donor clone, would view the cloned child as a commodity and a means to serve their own ends. The more unscrupulous among us would produce children for sale to desperate couples that cannot have children through conventional reproduction methods. These concerns have prompted the Commission to counsel caution in pursuing the research efforts on cloning a human being. Our society must take the time to study the impact and the benefits this new technology presents to the individual and society. The unique aspect of this issue is that society will engage the subject of addressing the needs and rights of intergenerational twins that are related biologically (twins cloned from a parent or another adult from an older generation) in ways civilization has not encountered before. The ethical and social implications are enormous.
Most ethicists who have studied this subject agree that cloning will radically alter our notion of life and death. If we can clone a living person from a dead body asexually and thereby reproduce a duplicate of the person who died, what happens to our sense of identity – the uniqueness of a single individual, the product of a biological diversity that has evolved over millions of years? Would the cloned child develop in the same manner as the donor twin, or will social and familial influences shape the uniqueness of the cloned individual? These are some of the questions yet to be answered.
George Annas (as cited in Robertson, 1998), a prominent medical ethicist, counters Robertson’s argument that individuals have a right to procreate in any manner they choose. He maintains that those who insist on this right do so without regard to the interests or rights of the child since a child cloned from a parent “cannot be harmed since without cloning the children will not exist at all” (p. 122 ). Annas directs us to the philosopher Hans Jonas (1974), who takes the position that cloning is by definition a violation of the human right of the clone. He reasons that cloning deprives the clone of the “existential right to certain subjective terms of being,” which he refers to as the “right to ignorance” of one’s origin. To have such knowledge will inhibit the clone’s potential for “authentic growth” (pp. 162-163). Jonas points out that “‘authentic growth’” allows all human beings to pursue the answer to the question, Who am I? The ethical imperative here is “never to violate the right to ignorance which is a condition of authentic action, or to respect the right of each human life to find its own way and be a surprise to itself” (p. 163). Annas argues that creating a “delayed genetic twin” or “serial twin” has significant social, psychological, and developmental implications for the cloned child that we cannot comprehend or anticipate with any degree of certainty (p. 15). To cite the experience of identical twins – that is, twins born from the union of one sperm and one egg – and using this experience to predict the developmental course of a cloned twin is naive and ill conceived.
On the one hand, the science exists to clone a human being probably within the next decade. The critical question is, How does society exercise responsible social controls over science to ensure the safety and well being of its members? Strong cultural values in our society support the notion that anything technologically possible that has the potential to be useful should not be restricted. By allowing science unencumbered inquiry, it will correct itself and knowledge will prevail. On the other hand, many scientists and ethicists are cautioning against unrestricted inquiry because of the potential dangers for the individual and society as a whole. The National Bioethics Advisory Board, in a rare show of unanimity, concluded that cloning of a human being at this time should be prohibited on the grounds that it would put the subject at substantial risk without their informed consent. Others have suggested that the government establish a regulatory body to oversee all forms of human experimental research. It is unlikely that we will see the formation of a regulatory federal agency any time soon. But the burden of proof is on the shoulders of science to demonstrate that the value of a boundary-crossing medical procedure ensures the social and developmental health of all who are touched by the procedure. Above all, the line of medical inquiry that has such great potential ability to alter our very notion of SELF must be held to a higher standard than inquiries with more controllable resutls. It must clearly prove that the results will substantially exceed the risks needed to achieve the desired goals. In this matter, science for science’s sake does not meet the standard.
Lecture and Research Update Bibliography
Annas, G. J. (1998). Some Choice: Law, Medicine and the Market. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1997, June). Rockville, MD.US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration. Vol. 1.
Jonas, H. (1974). Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Naik, G. (2001, July 13). Experiments in Controversy – Stem-Cell Research is Forging Ahead in Europe. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Regalado, A. (2001, June 21). Bush Administration Says it Opposes Cloning of Human Embryos for Research. Wall Street Journal, p. A4.
Robertson, J. A. (1998, July). Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 339(2), 119-122.
Trounson, A. (2003, November). A Crime Against Humanity. New Scientist, London, 180(2422), 23.
