Reproductive cloning ethics

Arguments against the creation of human clones^[1]

The majority of arguments against reproductive cloning have highlighted the possible adverse consequences on individuals, family relationships and society as a whole.  However principled objections to human cloning in itself have also been raised.  

a) Principled objections to reproductive cloning 

• Instrumentalisation of human beings.  Cloning represents the creation of a human individual as an instrument of another human’s will and purposes.  It reflects a view of humans as objects that can be tailor-designed and manufactured to meet certain characteristics and specifications^[2].

• The child as a reflection of the love between a man and a woman.  In orthodox Christian thinking, human procreation is seen as indissolubly linked to the committed love of a man and a woman.  In other words “making love” and “making babies” belong together and every child should be a reflection of a love relationship.  Reproductive cloning as an asexual form of reproduction destroys the link between a human relationship and the being of a child.  

• Uniqueness diminished.  Reproductive cloning threatens widely and deeply held convictions about the individuality of human beings, which is closely linked to notions of human freedom.

 b) Adverse consequences of reproductive cloning 

• Safety Fears Concerning Human Cloning. Current scientific experience indicates that between 95 – 98% of mammalian cloning experiments have resulted in miscarriages, still births and life threatening abnormalities^[3].  There is increasing evidence that mammalian clones are likely to have subtle abnormalities of complex and poorly understood genetic control mechanisms.   In 2001, at a National Academy of Sciences conference in Washington, DC scientists who opposed reproductive human cloning presented the results of s research, which indicated that approximately a third of cloned mammals have developed abnormalities^[4]. Such abnormalities include the large offspring syndrome (LOS), where the offspring is born oversized with disproportionately large internal organs and suffers from respiratory, circulatory and other problems.  Many argue that with current understanding of cloning techniques similar abnormalities would probably occur in human somatic cell nuclear transfer.

W. French Anderson, the pioneer of human somatic gene therapy in the early 1990s, has remarked that due to the unknown harmful effects of manipulating the germline, there needs to be long-term research carried out with somatic gene therapy in hundreds of patients, with data generated over the course of at least ten years. Furthermore, reliable, reproducible, and safe procedures must be shown in primates first before proceeding any further with human reproductive cloning.  Anderson also argued that before germline intervention is initiated in human beings, a full understanding of the risks and costs associated with germline interventions, as well as social awareness and societal approval, must also be gained^[5].   

• Social and psychological consequences of cloning. It has been argued that a child clone would inevitably suffer adversely from the existence of their nuclear donor and from the knowledge that they had been created for a specific purpose.  Thus a “replacement” child would suffer from continuous comparisons and memories of somebody else, and would not have the normal celebration of a new person, a new life: their life. Simply creating a clone to replace a beloved child tends to dehumanise both the child and its replacement clone.  Similarly a child that was created to be a genetically identical donor for an existing human may feel coerced or abused by the process.  Reproductive clones may also encounter various forms of social discrimination and stigmatisation. 

• The slippery slope argument.  Once reproductive human cloning was permitted, it may become more difficult to prohibit and restrict other more dangerous applications of genetic and reproductive technology.  The technology can easily be utilised outside governmental scrutiny and is ultimately impossible to control.

Arguments in favour of creating Human clones^[6]

• The existence of identical twins. It is argued that identical twins represent a natural form of cloning.  However, whilst the identical twins share the same genetic make-up, they are not deliberately planned copies of their parents created by asexual reproduction.  In addition identical twins are the same age as one another, and recognise each other as brothers and sisters, whereas a cloned child would be genetically the same as a parent or another human of a different age.

• A novel form of human reproduction. For those who are unable to have children through other fertility treatments (i.e. those who produce neither eggs nor sperm), human cloning may provide a viable alternative to having a genetically related child.  However, individuals who are in this position are relatively rare.

• Children for lesbian couples or single women. Human cloning would provide lesbian couples or single women with an opportunity to have a child without using donor sperm.

• My Child: Mark II.  Protagonists of human cloning such as Dr. Richard Seed, argue that parents of a child who died prematurely or even through a tragic accident would, through reproductive cloning, be able to compensate for their loss through having a ‘second version’ of their child ^[7]. On the other hand, seeking to create a “replacement child” may not bring all that the parents aspire to replace.  Indeed, the clone will be exposed to different environmental influences and will develop in a different way from the original child. 

• Creation of a genetically identical donor.  Cloning will enable the creation of a genetically identical child who may provide desperately needed tissue or organs for the cloned adult which cannot be obtained in any other way.  A clone could provide bone marrow, tissue (such as skin or muscle) or even solid organs such as a kidney.  

• Safety concerns can be overcome.  Proponents of cloning argue that most medical technology brings with it an element of risk, and that normal human reproduction is not risk free.  There were initial safety concerns about in vitro fertilisation but this is now widely accepted and practiced.  It is also argued that incidents of LOS are probably due to poor embryonic culture conditions. The techniques of embryo manipulation are rapidly improving and the problem may be eradicated  ^[8].Once the process of reproductive cloning has been improved and perfected in mammals, it is believed that human trials can be commenced with a reasonable degree of safety.  

• The slippery slope can be prevented. It is argued that robust legislation, democratic accountability and effective governance of professional practices will prevent the abuse of reproductive technology. Gradual extension of practices are not inevitable and as a society we have the mechanisms to prevent unacceptable developments from occurring. 

• A reproductive right? Some believe that human cloning is a reproductive right.  Hence from a libertarian perspective it should be allowed without restriction, provided that the safety concerns have been overcome and cloning is demonstrated to be no less safe than natural reproduction. Yet rights are socially negotiated and imply duties and responsibilities on others.

References:-

1. Department of Health, Stem cell research: Medical progress with responsibility, 15^th April 2005, https://www.dh.gov.uk/AboutUs/MinistersAndDepartmentLeaders/ChiefMedicalOfficer/ProgressOnPolicy/ProgressBrowsableDocument/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4108203&MULTIPAGE_ID=5123628&chk=Qtrt1p [accessed 23^rd January 2007] 
2. Center for Genetics & Society (2003), Reproductive Cloning Arguments,
   https://www.genetics-and-society.org/technologies/cloning/reproarguments.html [accessed 23rd January 2007]. 
3. The President’s Council on Bioethics, The Ethics of "Reproductive" Cloning: Child, Family, and Society, (Staff Working Paper, February 2002), https://www.bioethics.gov/background/workpaper6.html [accessed 23rd January 2007] 
4. Center for Genetics & Society (2003), Reproductive Cloning Arguments,
   https://www.genetics-and-society.org/technologies/cloning/reproarguments.html [accessed 23rd January 2007]. 
5. Bryne, J.A. and Gurdon, J.B., Commentary on human cloning, (Blackwell, 2002), https://www.reproductivecloning.net/cloning.pdf [accessed 23rd January 2007].  
6. Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future, Impact of the Germline Intervention on Individuals and Society, https://www.thehumanfuture.org/topics/germlineintervention/impact.html [accessed 23rd January 2007]. 
7. Center for Genetics & Society (2003), Reproductive Cloning Arguments,  https://www.genetics-and-society.org/technologies/cloning/reproarguments.html [accessed 23rd January 2007]. 
8. Human Cloning Foundation, People: Richard G. Seed PhD, https://www.humancloning.org/seed.htm [accessed 23rd January 2007].