HUMAN CLONING: SHOULD IT BE DONE? WHAT WOULD IT MEAN?- FAQ's Until the birth of Dolly, it was believed that the ability to clone an adult human was either impossible or possible only in the distant future. (See for example "Moving Toward the Clonal Man" , by James D. Watson, in The Atlantic Monthly (May 1971). However, human embryos have been "twinned" in the past! These were not true clones (although they have been called clones) and they were not viable, however, for they did not survive. (See for example, "Human Cloning, Have Humans Been Cloned?" in our Odyssey web site, Embryo Cloning . ¥ What Does Human Cloning "Mean"? ¥ What is this new biotechnology? ¥ Can adult humans be cloned? ¥ Should humans be cloned? ¥ Is human cloning good or bad, moral or immoral, from a religious perspective? ¥Is human cloning legal? Is human cloning scientifically ethical? ¥ Who, if anyone, should own and control cloning technology? Who, if anyone, should own and control the products of cloning technology? ¥What does genetic engineering, and the cloning of human beings, mean for sociological and the legal definitions of, and concepts concerning, the notions of "individual", "human", and "citizenship"? ¥The"nature:nurture" debate. Will genetically identical people be physically and behaviorally identical, too? OT ¥ What about Eugenics? Discussion: ¥ What Does Human Cloning "Mean"? The emergence new technologies creates a new set of cultural events and their consequences with which human cultures must come to terms. Humans must define a status and role for any new technology. This is a process of adaptation and acculturation. In a sense, this is a process whereby humans try decide what a new technology "means" to them. Questions frequently asked during this process of acculturation and adaptation include ¥ What are the needs and goals this technology might serve? Is this technology the only means for addressing these goals and needs? ¥ What members of which communities have these goals and needs? ¥ Of these groups in need, who will have access to the technology and its products; for example, will it be only special individuals or classes of people? ¥ Who will be benefited, and who will be harmed, indirectly as well as directly, by implementation this new technology? ¥ How reliable, how safe, and how well can this new technology be controlled? ¥ What is the best case, and the worst case, scenario if this technology were encouraged, or if it were impeded, in its development and implementation? ¥ Is the new technology to be defined as "necessary" or "essential", or 'innocuous" or "superfluous", or "good" or "bad"? ¥ Is the technology, or are its consequences, to be deemed ethical, moral, immoral? ¥ Should the technology be considered a form of "property", to be held by individuals or publicly held and administered? And if so, by whom? ¥ What is this new biotechnology? We are in the process of deciding to define cloning as a kind of science rather than art or religion, specifically a kind of science we call biotechnology . More specifically, we will call this kind of biotechnology "cloning via nuclear transfer" . Furthermore, cloning can be made distinct from "twinning" ology . ¥ Can adult humans be cloned? Probably yes, and in the very near future. But a great deal more research and development of the nuclear transfer techniques used to clone Dolly is needed. And it must be improved and perfected for use on human embryos. Sheep embryos have some special characteristics that make cloning them much easier than cloning human embryos. Cloning an adult sheep was extremely difficult to do; over 270 attempts were needed before Dolly was born. Many fetal lambs did not survive the early stages of development. Those lambs that were carried to term were born with health problems, including malformed kidneys, and all but Dolly subsequently died. See for example the Washington Times, "Before there was Dolly, there were Disasters" al more (March 11, 1997). ¥ Should humans be cloned? A Time Magazine poll (March 10, 1997) reported that 74% of those asked believe it is against God's will to clone human beings. President Clinton has banned federal funds from being used for human cloning research, stating that, "Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry, it is a matter of morality and spirituality as well... Each human life is unique, born of a miracle that reaches beyond laboratory science..." But others argue in favor of continuing human cloning research, of continuing to clone human embryos and perhaps cloning adult humans in the future. Some arguments in favor of human cloning might include the fact that cloned human embryos would make research into genetics and genetically related diseases, and their treatments or preventions, much easier and cheaper. Cloning embryos could also facilitate the process of in-vitro fertilization, since the collection and replacement of ova is often painful and traumatic, and can be unsuccessful. Embryo cloning is also seen as a potential treatment for infertility when in-vitro fertilization is not available, such as when parents are infertile, or when one or both parents harbors a genome coding for certain undesirable traits or diseases, or if the parents are homosexual couples. Cloned embryonic tissues might be used for the replacement of lost or diseased tissues. Also see "Threatened Bans on Human Cloning Research Could Hamper Advances" in the Journal of the American Medical Association , April 2, 1997, vol.277:1023-1026, and "Reproduction Research Held Back by Diffuse Rules, Charged Politics" in The Scientist , March 17, 1997, vol.11, #6:p.1-6. Adult cloning might appeal to those who desire children/adults who are genetically identical to themselves, or genetically identical to someone who they love or admire. There may be many other, personal reasons why parents would want their children to be genetically identical to someone who is a non family member. Cloning could provide a genetically identical replacement for a lost loved one. The belief here is that cloning can be justified as an expression of reproductive freedom of choice, a choice that should not be limited by legislation. However, it is important to remember that a genetic clone, although sharing an identical genome with their donor, will not be physically and behaviorally identical to their donor ! The clone will only be genetically identical to the donor . Their physical and behavioral characteristics will differ in many important and significant ways ! For more information on this important point, please go to: "Nature vs Nurture" . ¥ Is human cloning good or bad, moral or immoral, from a religious perspective? The most commonly cited ethical and moral arguments against human cloning seem to originate from religious perspectives. These religious arguments can even be made by politicians and scientists with religious sympathies. Many religious philosophies teach, for example, that human life is unique and special and should be created, determined and controlled only by their deities. Many religions believe in the existence of, and in the individuality of, a human soul. Many Christians, for example, will be concerned about whether it will be possible to clone the human soul, along with the human. If it is possible to clone the soul, what will this "mean"? In contrast, if a person is cloned, but not their soul, what will this "mean"? Can a clone without a soul be destroyed and not offend moral or religious beliefs? Cloning will be divined by many as humans assuming the powers, the providence, and the jurisdiction their deities or other spiritual powers of their supernatural universe. Not all religious leaders feel the same. See for example Religious Positions on Cloning . In contrast to the opinions of their peers, some Jewish and Muslim religious leaders testified before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission that they feel that embryo and cloning research might provide discoveries that would lead to an appropriate way to counter infertility. ¥ Is human cloning legal? Is human cloning scientifically ethical? Currently, human cloning is illegal in England and Norway, for example, but not illegal in the US. However, in the US, federal, but not private, funds are prohibited from being used to create human embryos (1994) or do research on human embryos if they will be harmed or destroyed (1996-97). In addition, President Clinton has imposed a moratorium on human cloning research (March 4, 1997). Meanwhile, several states in the US have laws restricting embryo research. As decision makers in the US debate whether or not to support research on human embryos and human cloning many ethical and legal questions arise. For example, how will the federal ban on human cloning research and the ban on certain types of human embryo research effect other, related fields of research that are deemed important? Human embryo research and embryo cloning can be used to conduct research and development of contraceptives, studies aimed at understanding the causes of human infertility and its solutions, research involving genetic testing, genetic engineering, disease diagonsis, prevention and treatment, and in testing various medicines and medical procedures. In contrast, if the government funds this type of research, then it will have some important control over the nature of the research. But what kind of controls might these be? Will the government decide to have an interest in protecting embryos from certain kinds of research? Would unused embryos, left after in-vitro fertilization procedures, be treated as "spare" embryos and given a different status for research purposes? Will Democrates vote on this research the same way the Republicans would? If the federal government decides to continue to not fund human embryo and cloning research,then the government will not have one important avenue for controling, to some degree, the nature of the research. If the government refuses to support this research, would a funding vacuum be left that market forces will quickly fill? If the private sector is left to fund research and development, then will this research be driven by entrepreneurial profit motives? What effects will entrepreneurial forces have on the nature of human embryo and cloning research and development? Is there Constitutional protection for research on human embryos and human cloning? Does the First Amendment guarantee academic freedom, and the right to think, inquire, and do research? When or should the research involving human embryos and cloning be defined as "academic research and inquiry"? If this research is defined as academic, should the scientific research on human embryos and cloning be protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees the "freedom of speech"? be There are limits to the kinds of speech that the First Amendment protects. For example, it does not protect speech that is deemed to be obscene, or speech deemed threatening to national security. Some citizens believe that research into and/or trying to clone humans is wrong, while others disagree. When considering whether or not cloning research, or other kinds of academic research, inquiry, and scientific communication are to be protected, and to what degree, by the First Amendment, the government decision makers have to decide how best to balance protecting the freedoms of speech and inquiry of the scientific community- and the benefits their research might produce- against the need to protect other citizens from any dangers this kind of freedom of speech, and its products, might also produce. For a discussion of First Amendment rights and academic freedoms, see the "Symposium on Academic Freedom" in Texas Law Review , vol.66, 1988. In the absence of governmental controls, can/or should the scientific community regulate itself, through peer review, when it comes to human embryo and cloning research? Should society entrust the scientific community to regulate themselves? Would this allow and encourage practices leading to conflicts of interest? Should some other private organization, independent of the scientific community or the federal government, have this responsibility? Should human embryo and cloning research be restricted by the state or local governments, or some combination of these? Finally, and perhaps more importantly, if there is a market for human embryo and cloning research, and the products of their research, can any type of legislation, at any level, aimed at restricting them be effectively enforced? A democracy is designed to facilitate a balance between competing interests, to achieve the maximum benefit for the maximum number of its citizens. The introduction of new technology challenges a democratic society to decide who gets what, when, where, and how much. The advent of cloning via nuclear transfer technology presents the inevitability of new and important social changes, and new issues concerning this power, and who controls it, are at hand. ¥ Who, if anyone, should own and control cloning technology? Who, if anyone, should own and control the products of cloning technology? In the US it is possible to patent both cloning processes and genetically altered, living creatures. In contrast the European Community prohibits the patenting of genetically altered animals, but patenting the process of cloning is possible. Questions concerning the ownership and control of cloned plants and animals, who may not have been genetically altered, have not been answered. ¥ What does genetic engineering, and the cloning of human beings, mean for sociological and the legal definitions of, and concepts concerning, the notions of "individual", "human", and "citizenship"? These will be some of the most difficult and interesting questions that need to be decided. Would a cloned human be an individual? Would it really be a human, with a soul? And what if this clone were then cloned again, and again? What would their status and roles be? Would a non-human primate, such as a chimpanzee, who carried one or more human genes via transgenic technology, be defined as still a chimp, a human, a sub-human, or something else? If we chose to define it as a human, would we then have to give it rights of citizenship? And if humans were to carry non-human, transgenic genes, would that alter our definitions and treatments of them? ¥ Other questions and issues include a revitalization of the "nature:nurture" debate. Will genetically identical people be physically and behaviorally identical, too? Will cloned humans really look exactly alike? Will they have identical personalities? How will clones impact the future of twin studies meant to ferret out the different impacts of genes vs the environment? What will human clones be able to contribute to the perspectives of sociobiology? ¥ What about Eugenics? Can we, and should we, use the biotechnologies of genetic manipulation and cloning to improve the human condition? What are some of the perceived risks and benefits of eugenics? For additional information and resources on these and other questions concerning human cloning, please visit the following Web sites: National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature "Duplicity About Duplication: Cloning as a Lens For Millenial Angst" , by J. Huges, in Telepolis , March 1997 Last updated: Aug 7, 1997