While the idea of human cloning has been around for a while, until recently it had been relegated to the realms of science fiction. That all changed in 1997 with the announcement that the first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, had been born. It became immediately apparent that human reproductive cloning was not only a possibility, but not very off into the future. Fortunately, there is still time to debate and discuss its implications. Due to the uncertainty that surrounds human reproductive cloning regarding the resulting ethical, biomedical, legal, and economic consequences, human reproductive cloning research should be banned.
There are several differences between human cloning and artificial reproduction. Human cloning for reproductive purposes inherently involves several risks not found in other artificial reproductive procedures. The ethical principle of beneficence, “above all, do no harm,” is not applied in the process of cloning. According to a 2002 National Academy of Sciences report, it was concluded that, “…human reproductive cloning would be dangerous for the woman, fetus, and newborn, and is likely to fail… Data on the reproductive cloning of animals demonstrate that only a small percentage of attempts are successful, many of the clones die during all stages of gestation, newborn clones often are abnormal or die, and the procedures may carry serious risks for the mother.” (NAS) The report concludes with a call for a legal ban on human cloning. Side effects discovered through our experiences cloning animals include: increased susceptibility to illness and earlier death in mice, faulty immune systems in cows, obesity in mice, and other animals aging faster and dying younger. Human cloning does not adhere to the theory of beneficence either because scientists would knowingly subject cloned humans to unnecessary risks during the development of the human cloning process itself.
In addition, cloning posses an additional risk to the human race due to the reduction of genetic diversity achieved through asexual reproduction. Through sexual reproduction, gene sequences have the ability to combine in new ways, creating the wide diversity of the human race we enjoy today. According to Encarta, “Genetic diversity can make a population more resistant to disease and environmental changes. Large populations of cloned plants or animals, on the other hand, may lack genetic diversity.” (Encarta) The reduction of genetic diversity consequence of human cloning does not follow the principle of utility because it does not achieve the greatest good and the least harm.
Due to the fact that human cloning is still a theoretical technique, human reproductive cloning has no proven benefit to society. Although there has been much success with cloning animals, the failures still far exceed the successes. According to a Time Magazine article by Nancy Gibbs, more than 90% of embryos never implant or die before or soon after birth in animal cloning (Gibbs). Through the human cloning process, it could take up to 277 tries to create a viable clone, as was the case in the creation of Dolly the sheep. (Annas) Even with a successful cloning attempt, great risks face the clone. There is significant evidence that human clones would face risks such as more susceptibility to illness, disease, and early death. In the end, a lack of genetic diversity will put the human race as a whole at greater risk of epidemic, causing needless harm. As a result of the increased risk of several diseases due to less genetic diversity, human cloning also disregards the ethical principle of non-maleficence, which states that needless harm need not be inflicted on others.
Perhaps the greatest ethical argument against human cloning for reproductive purposes is its impact on society. According to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NABC) in an article printed in the Hofstra Law Review, “…cloning is wrong because it violates certain fundamental rules about the appropriate relationship between humans and nature, or humans and God; because cloning takes away the necessity of sexual intercourse; and because it confuses our common understandings of kinship and the separation of generations” (Charo). All familial relationships will have to be rethought in light of human reproductive cloning technology.
As noted earlier, several biomedical issues arise from reproductive human cloning as well as ethical issues just mentioned. It is tempting to suggest human cloning is similar to current assisted reproductive techniques such as in-vitro fertilization. However, cloning presents different and more significant concerns than in-vitro fertilization. A discussion of both techniques will foster a better understanding of these concerns.
In-vitro fertilization involves the uniting of eggs and sperm in a laboratory setting. The process of in-vitro fertilization involves ovulation induction, in which hormones are given to stimulate the ovaries to release more eggs. Next these eggs are retrieved via surgery and put into petri dishes, where they are joined with sperm. If embryos result, they are then implanted in the uterus in the hopes of fusing to the uterine wall. Unfortunately, on average, this positive outcome occurs after 2 failed attempts.
Cloning is a much more complex. First, a somatic adult cell is stimulated to the point of “re-activation”, which allows a new organism to be created from it. This cell is crucial to the cloning process. First, the DNA is removed from a female egg, leaving it without a nucleus, and therefore, genetic material. Next, the “re-activated” cell with its own genetic material is fused into the hollow egg cell through a process known as nuclear transplantation. The fertilized egg is implanted into the womb of another woman who will carry the fetus to term. It is necessary that she have no genetic relationship to the embryo inside her.
Though cloning involves simply a complex method of IVF, it is in fact significantly different. It involves the transplantation of DNA from one individual to another, as IVF does not. IVF requires the cells of both parents in order to form a viable offspring, while cloning requires the cell of one, a form of asexual reproduction.
Infertile couples that would like to have a biologically related child commonly use IVF. Eugenics is not a factor, although the healthiest of embryos are selected for implantation. According to George J. Annas in Taking Sides, “the use of cloning simply provides parents another choice for choice’s sake, not out of necessity” (Levine 203). John A. Robertson believes that “cloning is just one of several techniques potentially available to select, control, or alter the genome of offspring” (Annas). Parents have the ability with cloning to select specific physical characteristics, such as eye color or height, whereas this is not possible in IVF. If an infertile couple wishes to have a biologically related child, IVF is often safe and effective, many times leading to a positive outcome. Cloning is experimental and the long-term effects are unknown.
Although IVF is considered to be a fairly risky procedure, it is much safer than cloning. Unfortunately, cloning has an incredibly low survival rate. Only 1-5% of all cloned animals have survived the process. Dolly was the only surviving clone out of 277 attempts. The potential for “large offspring syndrome” also exists. Fetal overgrowth occurs when the baby and its internal organs and limbs are extremely oversized in proportion to other babies. Many clones are also known to suffer from obesity, although the precise cause is unknown. Obesity in itself is a threat as it leads to heart disease, diabetes, and even death. As cloning has yet to be performed on human beings, the risk of such side effects may be greater.
Birth defects are also more common in cloning than in the general animal population. Noted abnormalities include skeletal and immune system defects, as well as problems with hearts, lungs, and other organs. Risks are also posed to the surrogate mother. Surrogacy is required in cloning, but not in IVF. Miscarriages and spontaneous abortions are possible, as well as death to the surrogate due to her body’s inability to carry a large fetus (due to fetal overgrowth). In addition, the possibility of premature aging exists. Dolly the sheep died of premature aging, giving credence to the idea that the use of older cells will in fact contribute to early death.
In addition to ethical and biomedical questions raised by the development of reproductive human cloning techniques, legal considerations must be taken into account as well. Both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, various governmental committees, the FDA, and the individual states have questioned whether or not cloning research should be funded. Within days of the birth of the world’s first cloned mammal in 1997, Clinton requested an extensive report on the implications of cloning from the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC). He didn’t even wait for the report before issuing an executive order barring the used of federal funds for cloning research.
By July 2001, the House of Representatives had passed a bill banning human cloning. The bill mandates civil and criminal penalties for anyone “participating in, performing, or attempting to perform” human cloning. Today, the legislation remains stalled in the Senate. While a majority of the Senate favors a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Orrin Hatch, which effectively bans human cloning for reproductive purposes but leaves the door open for stem-cell research, it does not have the support of the 60 senators needed to overcome a potential filibuster.
At the same time, the FDA and state governments are regulating cloning as well. The FDA warned that conducting the procedure without its expressed approval would violate federal law and that it would initiate legal action against anyone who attempted the procedure. However, the FDA’s jurisdiction over the procedure would require that an embryo be considered a “product.” States, however, have varying laws regarding the use of embryos in all types of cloning research. At the state level, California, Michigan, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Virginia all ban human cloning. In addition, nine states have banned all experiments on human embryos. Aside from these edicts, recommendations, and state statutes, no laws currently regulate cloning.
Due to the absence of clear legal guidelines in this situation, lawyers have been forced to study existing law pertaining to reproductive processes, such as Roe vs. Wade, in light of their application to possible cloning technology. Through this process, it has become apparent that there is a need for clear definition for terms such as embryo and fetus. In other words, a consensus must be reached as to when life actually begins before practical laws regarding cloning can be formulated and upheld. In the years to come, new areas of law will arise to deal with the particular set of issues surrounding artificial reproduction, including cloning.
Finally, as cloning technology becomes refined as the 21st century progresses, society as a whole will have to consider the economic costs of reproductive cloning as well. The cost of healthcare will rise exponentially as the ramifications of human cloning become tangible. In addition, the fundamental shift in the very fabric of society will take a toll on the productivity of the individuals involved and society as a whole. Most importantly, the money spent on research to develop and perfect reproductive human cloning techniques could be better spent elsewhere.
Cloning, as yet an unproven technology, has the potential to completely change the genetic make up of the human race. According to the article “Controlling Cloning”, “clones are likely to manifest subtle differences in gene expression, which might be manifest as unacceptable traits in human offspring.” (Miller) With these new, subtle differences in gene expression, the likelihood of increased genetic disease or even new genetic diseases is great. With the rising cost of healthcare already taking a toll on our economy, we can’t afford to take the risk of the development of new, costly genetic diseases.
In addition, the uniqueness of the reproductive cloning technique raises more societal questions than it answers. For example, the concepts of parenthood, family, and self-identity are all brought into question through the use of cloning. In addition, the very value of a human life will be brought into question as cloning techniques are perfected. Children will become a commodity, replaceable. Clones will have the burden of carving out their own identity in the shadow of their “parent” and coming to terms with their role in society. There is the possibility that a percentage of clones will not be psychologically capable of being a productive member of society, placing a large burden on the world economy.
Perhaps the best economic reason against reproductive cloning is the high opportunity costs associated with developing cloning technology to the point where it is possible to clone a human being safely. The money currently being used to fund cloning research could be put towards other research efforts, such as AIDS. Unlike other types of research, reproductive cloning research offers no tangible benefit to society. Currently, there are more effective methods of helping infertile couples have children, such as IVF, that are safe, effective, and do not result in a greater number of genetic mutations. There is no need for reproductive human cloning due to perceived societal benefits in relation to the high opportunity costs.
While there is extensive interest in research devoted to human reproductive cloning, at this time there are still too many ethical, biomedical, legal, and economic questions that need to be answered before implications of such research and its consequences can be fully accepted. As a result, cloning research that focuses on developing cloning techniques for the purpose of reproduction should not be permitted. Unfortunately, privately funded cloning research is still permitted in some instances.
Works Cited
Annas, George J. “Why We Should Ban Human Cloning.” Ed. Levine, Carol. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues. Guilford, Connecticut: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2001. 201-206
Charo, R. Alta. Cloning: ethics and public policy.” Hofstra Law Review. 1999 ed.
“Cloning,” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2003
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
“Complications of Cloning”. www.bio.davidson.edu. 4/9/03.
Durrell, Justine. “Can the law handle cloning? Creating a human being through cloning still smacks of science fiction, but developments in biotechnology bring it closer to reality every day. Are our laws – and our lawyers – ready?”
Trail. October 2002: Vol. 38, I. 10: pp. 24 (7).
Gibbs, Nancy. “Abducting the Cloning Debate.” Time. 13 Jan. 2003: 46-49.
“In-vitro Fertilization (IVF)”. http://sharedjourney.com. 4/8/03.
Miller, Henry I. “Controlling cloning.” Regulation. Fall 2001, pp. 14-15.
Panel on Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Cloning. Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. 8 Jan. 2002 National Academy of Sciences. 6 Apr. 2003 .
Sunstein, Cass R. “Is there a constitutional right to clone? (Conceiving a Code for Creation: The Legal Debate Surrounding Human Cloning). Hastings Law Journal. July, 2002, Vol. 53, I. 5: pp. 987-1005.
