"Guidelines for Ethical Cloning"
In 1996, a sheep named Dolly was born. Although the nature of her birth was unremarkable, she gained international fame on account of the details of her conception. Dolly was a clone, a somatic nuclear transfer clone to be exact. Since then, the idea of cloning has danced around the square of public consciousness … and conscience, provoking many condemnations an unethical procedure. It is my intention in this paper to argue that reproductive cloning, specifically somatic nuclear transfer cloning, is an ethical activity, provided it recognizes personhood, supports human life, and adheres to the principles of the traditional family unit. For the purposes of this paper, I will assume that audiences agree with me that respecting personhood, human life, and the traditional family is ethical.
Before addressing how cloning should recognize personhood, life, and family, allow me to engage one of the most pressing objections to the ethicality of cloning, namely that cloning is “playing God.” In other words, it is unethical to alter the natural processes of human reproduction. However, altering the natural processes of human birth, life, and death through cesarean birthing, medicine, and AED’s has long been accepted as ethical, so long as they respect life. I see no reason why human reproduction should not be afforded the same status. Oftentimes this objection comes from people who believe that messing with the natural reproduction process dishonors God. However, it could be argued that manipulating natural processes is part of God’s call for man to subdue and rule the earth. Thus, cloning is not so much “playing God” as it is “playing man.”
Also, please note that this paper simply addresses the ethics of cloning; it does not address the legislation of or uses for cloning. There is a fine line between ethics and legislature. Some of my arguments may be impossible or unfair to legislate, but that is beside the point of this paper. In addition, many of my arguments may restrict cloning to situations in which it has little appeal. For example, one of the primary attractions of cloning is that it could provide children for couples unable to naturally reproduce children. My argument would not allow that, which may indeed render cloning a useless technology. That too is beside the point of my paper. I wish to simply outline a manner in which somatic nuclear transfer cloning could be an ethical procedure. Legislature and functionality can come later.
Simply put, the natural reproduction process consists of fertilization, pregnancy, and birth. It begins when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell. Unlike most cells, the sperm and egg cells, also known as germ cells, contain only one set of chromosomes a piece. All other cells, called somatic cells, contain two sets of chromosomes, the amount necessary to form DNA. When the sperm and egg fuse together, the two sets of chromosomes combine to form brand new DNA; a new organism has been produced. Almost immediately, the fertilized egg starts dividing into multiple cells. Soon, the mass of cells, also called an embryo, attaches itself to its mother’s uterus, where it develops until birth.
In somatic nuclear transfer cloning, the fertilization process looks very different, although the pregnancy and birth processes are virtually indistinguishable. A nucleus is taken from a somatic cell donation; thus it contains two sets of chromosomes and fully-developed DNA. Then, a donated egg is enucleated, which is to say, its nucleus is removed. It is critical to note here that, because eggs are germ cells, their nuclei do not contain full sets of chromosomes. Thus, the removal of an egg’s nucleus does not amount to the destruction of a new organism. Then, the somatic nucleus and the enucleated egg are fused together. In order to replicate the cell division which occurs after fertilization and allows the organism to grow, the fused nucleus and egg are treated with either electrical pulses or chemicals. Once the organism is large enough, it is transferred back into a uterus, where it will develop until birth.
For somatic nuclear transfer cloning to be ethical, it must recognize the personhood of the clone. Essentially, a clone is just the delayed twin of its DNA donor. Thus, it should be considered as much of a person as a natural identical twin. To recognize the clone’s personhood means that one must assume that a clone is capable of the all physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual abilities of a naturally produced person. In addition, they should receive the same moral, legal, personal, and social rights and responsibilities. Of course, clones must also receive the same grace for deficiencies as naturally produced handicapped people receive.
Along the same lines, a clone must not be expected to match their DNA donor’s abilities exactly; genes do influence abilities, but so do life experiences and temperament. In fact, personality is often the distinguishing factor between as natural identical twins, impacting their abilities and achievements far more than genetics. This is another critical element of recognizing the clone’s personhood: expecting the development of a unique individual. Each clone will have their own personality, values, and goals, and they must be allowed to pursue those goals as much as anyone else.
Furthermore, if somatic nuclear transfer cloning is to be ethical, clones must have a right to life. This means that during the cloning process, no life should be destroyed or damaged. Of course, this calls into question the definition of life and its beginnings. When discussing natural reproduction, the most ethical answer seems to be that life begins from conception. For many people, the idea that human life begets nothing other than human life is enough to convince them that personhood begins at conception. Others are not so sure, and they have the difficult task of deciding when an organism becomes a person. The safest answer, of course, is from conception. Thus, conception seems to be the most ethical definition of life in the reproduction process.
However, when dealing with somatic nuclear transfer cloning, the question is a bit murkier, because conception is the very process being tampered with. No new DNA is formed to help distinguish the creation of a distinct organism. However, seeing as natural conception consists of an egg acquiring a full set of chromosomes, the closest parallel in the cloning process would be when the enucleated egg fuses with the somatic nucleus, thereby acquiring a full set of chromosomes. Some may object that fused egg and nucleus shouldn’t be considered a live organism because without chemical or electric treatment, the cells won’t begin to divide like a normal zygote. While this is true, it does not alter the fact that an egg has received a full set of chromosomes, which in the natural process would be considered conception – the beginning of life.
This counter-argument highlights the fact that the cloning process is extremely delicate and requires much assistance from the outside world. Great care must be taken if cloning is to be an ethical process in which no life, as previously defined, is destroyed or damaged. Currently, somatic nuclear transfer cloning is not a very successful practice. In the case of Dolly, over 270 enucleated eggs and somatic nuclei were fused and treated, but less than thirty embryos resulted. Of the embryos implanted in the uteruses of surrogate mothers, only thirteen lambs survived. And of the thirteen lambs who developed, only one survived the birthing process: Dolly. In addition, scientists have noted that cloned animals of other experiments often have genetic disorders, dying young or being abnormally sized. Clearly, if cloning is to be an ethical process, it should not be utilized on human reproduction until the success rates have improved in animal cloning. Not that cloning must have a one-hundred percent success rate before it becomes ethical to engage in. However, the success rates of cloning “conception,” embryonic growth, uterus implantation, and birth ought to match natural success rates. Furthermore, it would be unethical to engage in human cloning when the ratio of healthy to unhealthy off-spring is significantly less than natural ratios.
Finally, as part and parcel of a clone’s right to life, all clones have a right to be birthed. That is to say, no fused enucleated egg and somatic nucleus should be frozen and stored in a warehouse indefinitely. Unfortunately, that has been the fate of many embryos formed as a result of genetic and reproductive research. Instead, the clones must be respected as human beings with a right to life.
Additionally, for Somatic Nuclear Transfer Cloning to be an ethical means of reproduction, it must adhere to the principles of the traditional family unit. This has major ramifications for who should be in the business of cloning, the cloning process itself, as well as what life will look like post-birth for the clones. Just as natural procreation occurs as a result of the relationship between a married heterosexual couple, so artificial procreation should occur out of the relationship between a married heterosexual couple. Therefore, only married, heterosexual couples should engage in the production of clones. Conversely, unmarried singles or couples, along with homosexual couples, should not engage in cloning.
In addition, the traditional family unit defines children as the genetic offspring of the parents’ union. In other words, clones must be the biological children of the parents who will raise them. This has a number of specific implications for the cloning process, for both the somatic nucleus, or DNA, donation and the egg donation. If the clone must be the parents’ biological off-spring, then cloning someone outside of the family – for example, a famous person, an old deceased friend, or even a historical person – is out of the question. Additionally, neither of the parents can clone themselves. For one thing, the clone’s DNA would not be the genetic union of both parents’ DNA. In fact, it would actually be the genetic offspring of the donor’s parents; in effect, the resulting clone would be the parent’s sibling. It would not be in keeping with the traditional family unit for a person to raise their sibling as their child.
Thus far I’ve only discussed the ethics of the DNA donation; now I shall discuss the ethics of the egg donation. It is critical to note here that while the majority of a clone’s DNA comes from the nucleus of the somatic cell, the clone will pick up some DNA contained in the mitochondria of the egg. Therefore, it is critical that animal eggs never be used. In one experiment, researchers fused a human somatic nucleus with the egg of cow. Although people may debate the ethical nature of fusing human DNA and animal DNA, it seems clear that doing so is at least a violation of the traditional family unit.
If cloning is to be ethical and respect the traditional family unit, the egg donation must not only be human, but it must come from within the family. More specifically, the egg donation ought to come from the mother of the DNA donor. Since the clone will be the sibling of the DNA donor, it ought to be “carried” by an egg of the mother of the DNA donor. To do so otherwise would be to introduce a third party, giving the clone would have two genetic mothers. Such a situation would certainly be a violation of the traditional family unit.
However, the concept of the traditional family unit extends far beyond simple procreation; it also includes child-rearing. If cloning is to be ethical, then all clones must be viewed as children, children who have families. In fact, it might be fair to say that clones have a right to be raised by their biological parents. As previously discussed, all “frozen” nucleated eggs ought to be unfrozen and birthed, but furthermore they must be unfrozen and birthed by their parents. This principle too should prevent the widespread cloning of historical figures, people whose families are long since gone. As tempting as that idea is, it would be a violation of the traditional family unit and thus an unethical use of cloning.
Additionally, the clone must grow up as an equal member of the family. That is, the clone must be respected as an individual, a unique and precious child. They must not be treated as anything less than their naturally-produced sibling. This not only also shows respect for the clone’s personhood, but it’s also in keeping with the traditional family unit in which all the children are equally loved and valued.
Clearly, reproductive cloning could be used in unethical ways, ways which do not respect personhood, human life, or the traditional family unit. But that does not mean that somatic nuclear transfer cloning itself is an unethical practice. After all, there are many ways to render natural reproduction unethical too, as in the case of rape, abortion, or out-of-wedlock births. Regardless of whether it’s natural or artificial, reproduction’s ethicality depends on whether or not it respects personhood, human life, and the traditional family unit. Therefore, even somatic nuclear transfer cloning has the potential to be an ethical practice.
Bibliography
- Animal Research.info. "Cloning Dolly the Sheep." Available from http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical/timeline/Dolly. Internet; accessed 31 July 2010.
- "Details of hybrid clone revealed." BBC News (1999): BBC. [online.] June 18, 1999.
- Harris, John and Simona Giordano (2003). Cloning. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from http://0-www.rep.routledge.com.clicnet4.clic.edu/article/L142SECT4.
- Hoffman DI, Zellman GL, Fair CC, Mayer JF, Zeitz, JG, Gibbons WE, and Turner, TG. "How Many Frozen Human Embryos Are Available for Research?" RAND Law and Health. Available from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9038/index1.html. Internet; accessed 3 August 2010.
- The University of Utah. "What is Cloning?." Genetic Science Learning Center. Available from http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloning/whatiscloning/. Internet; accessed 31 July 2010.
- U.S. Department of Energy Genome Programs, "Cloning Fact Sheet." Human Genome Project Information. Available from http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml#whatis. Internet; accessed 31 July 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment