< Changing Worldviews.Commentary >

Words are powerful - Thoughts shape - Ideas have consequences

Lawrence Roberge

Author, Bioethicist, Biomedical Researcher
Posted March 28, 2005

Cloning: Scientific, Technological, and Ethical Considerations
Part V

E. HOW WILL SOCIETY LOOK AT CLONES?
This issue alone could fill an entire text (and some day may well occur!). But, the reality of the situation is that how society views human clones will determine whether clones are treated as human beings or a property, or something ambiguously in the middle.

The questions asked to society include: would society consider clones as a person? Would a clone have a soul? One need only examine how the Church views identical twins and children born out of in Vitro Fertilization (IVF) techniques as having souls and it is conceivable that the presence of souls in human clones would not be any different.

As mentioned earlier, would clones be considered as property? Also, related to the last question, would they be considered a living being ONLY after being born? This last question is important, especially in light of the fashion that Dr. Stillman and Dr. Hall (1, 4, 28) treated the human embryos.

Also, the attitude that human embryos do not have the same rights as human beings already exists and is discussed by the American Fertility Society (AFS) in their ethical guidelines for treatment of human embryos (46). This classification that human embryos are "human-like, but not human is the justification for experiments on human embryos prior to the 14 day implantation benchmark. Furthermore, this re-classification allows for rapid disposal of human embryos upon completion of the experiment. This ethical reasoning is the same reasoning for the justification of new abortifacient technology, which acts on the early stage embryo to terminate pregnancy. One of the developers of the abortion vaccine, Dr. G.P. Talwar, stated clearly in one interview that life does not begin until implantation of the embryo into the uterine wall (47). With these ethical structures, it is clear to understand how human clones could face rapid erosion of human rights (including the right to life) in the upcoming years.

With clones viewed as property, we begin to see how science fiction writers could dream up the future as one in which clones are the new slaves. Human clones could be made to serve as prostitutes, work in hazardous conditions, or used to fight future wars. Whenever a clone dies or is injured, another clone is rapidly made as a replacement. Although this maybe hard to visualize, one need only recall the horrors of Nazi Germany and their own human experimentation programs, to understand the possible depths of darkness that humanity can descend into.

Finally, would clones be viewed as the new underclass? If society does not embrace the true humanity of any clone, then the rights and dignity of the clone would be compromised. The deciding manner of discrimination could be natural versus unnatural creation, or perhaps what was the clones source donor cell, a movie star or a street sweeper. As Professor Annas discussed (62), the clone might not be viewed as an individual, but rather as a mere copy of the donor. As such, the liberties and freedoms of choices of the clone would be constrained by how society views and values the donor-scientist, soldier, or window washer. Furthermore, although Professor Robertson in his essay (61) may not have been aware of it, he too also supports the limitations of liberties of the clone-at least when its purpose is to replace a dying child or to supply replacement organs or tissues for the donor. The clone would be expected to be the spare parts box for the donor regardless of the clone's feelings or objections to the procedure. The cloned child might suffer psychological pressure (by the parents) to emulate the affections and temperaments of the original (now deceased) child.

Finally, as previously discussed, with the possibility of using cow oocytes as the universal recipient for nuclear transfer, perhaps the factor for discrimination could be the origin of the oocyte for the clone. As Ian Wilmut stated during his discussion of his discomfort with the idea of human cloning, he said, "Do you really believe that you would treat that new person as an individual?"(27). Sadly, it is possible that many people-researchers and laypersons-would not be able to answer that question in the affirmative.

11. HOW CLONING WILL CHALLENGE SOCIETY'S VIEWS AND THE CHURCH'S IDEALS

Human cloning will challenge the ideals and views of many elements of society. It will not come over night, but the challenges are present now and will continue to grow as human cloning technology is perfected and proliferates.

A few of these challenges of ideals include: God, Family, reproduction, and abortion (AKA culture of life).

First, as human cloning evolves and is even accepted into society, the status and role of God could be tested. From the clone's perspective, is God a savior…or is he a man in a white coat with a petri dish? Also, if the old concept of God is one in which we are made in His image, then for the clone (and perhaps us) is his or her God the donor of the nuclei? Or the lab tech? Also, does cloning allow us to consider ourselves God in some way. As Dr. Seed stated it, "Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God."(31).

Will human cloning affect our view of the family? Granted the traditional nuclear family has been under social assault from a variety of factors, but how will cloning affect the family? Would the family of the future be composed of "My CHILDREN and I" or "My CLONES and I"? Also, would human cloning affect how an individual passes onto posterity their genes? Would cloning be viewed as an alternative to the two parent requirement for having children? As previously noted, one of Philip Kitcher's reasons to support human cloning would be to provide children for lesbian and gay couples (41). Thus, the pro-family advocates and those activists opposing gay couples raising children would lose the battle completely as human cloning technology became the answer to childless gay couples.

The social view of reproduction would also be affected by the onset of human cloning. Perhaps in the future, the question asked regarding having children will not be "Boy or Girl?", but rather "Sexual or Asexual?". Also, how would the cloned child be viewed, as an individual or as a child having ONLY dad's eyes, nose, hair, etc? Would the cloned child be allowed to grow up independent of his or her donor's history, or would parents REALLY try to make the child into a "spiting image" of their parent?

Finally, as abortion has become the pox of death upon this nation, so human cloning will help accelerate the growth of the "Culture of Death". As previously noted, basic techniques of human cloning and animal cloning research have had low success rates, high mortality to cloned fetuses and cloned embryos, and have been accompanied by a general cavalier attitude to the disposal of cloned human embryos. With disposal techniques of human embryos, we see the continued degradation of respect for early life. With the low success rates of the present cloning techniques, the road to any live cloned human birth will inevitability be littered with many spontaneously aborted embryos as well as many more stillborn or deformed fetuses brought to term. The darker aspects of human cloning will only accelerate the societal decline into the "Culture of Death".

12. CONCLUSIONS

As animal cloning technologies expand and improve, it will be necessary for society and the Church to examine and understand this technology. Besides understanding and embracing the appropriate uses of animal cloning, it will be necessary for the Church and society to understand how technology transfer of animal cloning technology will help to bring forth human cloning. In delineating between animal cloning and human cloning, the Church and society can avoid becoming anti-technology Luddites as they seek to clarify the appropriate and inappropriate applications of cloning technology. Also, society and the Church would be well served to examine what alternative technologies exist to problems that may serve as a reason to develop and use human cloning as a solution.

In the event that human cloning does come into the society, extreme care must be issued so as to avoid prejudice and discrimination against those persons that have been cloned. It would be well advised for society to explore and clarify what human rights, legal status, and anti-discrimination protection the government will guarantee. Although it is important for the Church to fastidiously monitor cloning research in the scientific community and to speak out when disrespect for life-cloned or otherwise-occurs, the Church has another duty. It is important for the Church to rapidly assert the presence of personhood, including the presence of the Soul, in any human cloned life that is born. This will be no different that asserting that identical twins each have a soul, but it will present a challenge to educate the laymen on the concepts and significance of this issue. Finally, should human clones enter into the sub-human status of "Property", the Church (and Society) must aggressively speak out against any advocates labeling human clones as property (AKA slavery) and to condemn any legislation which allows for the treatment of human clones as property.

In conclusion, with regards to cloning technology, society must be "smartened up", not "dumbed down". As Francis Bacon stated, "Knowledge itself is power!". Society and the Church must become very articulate to the complex issues of cloning and how they will enhance life and how they will destroy life. From these actions, humanity will move towards the light of a "Culture of Life' and not in the shadows of the "Culture of Death".

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1-Fackelman, K.A., Cloning human embryos. Science News, 145, 6, Feb 5, 1994, 92-93, 95.

2-Willadsen, S. M., A method for culture of micromanipulated sheep embryos and its use to produce monozygotic twins. Nature, 277, Jan 25, 1979, 298-300.

3- Van de Graaff, K.M., Fox, S.I., Concepts of Human Anatomy and Physiology, 1986, Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa.

4-Fackelman, K.A., Researchers 'clone' human embryos. Science News, 144, 18, Oct 30, 1993, 276.

5-Gurdon, J.B., The birth of cloning. The Sciences, 37, 5, Sept/Oct 1997, 26-31.

6- Willadsen, S.M., Nuclear transplantation in sheep embryos. Nature, 320, Mar 6, 1986, 63-65.

7-Campbell, K.H.S., McWhir, J., Ritchie, W.A., Wilmut, I., Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. Nature, 380, Mar 7, 1996, 64-66.

8-Wlimut, I., Schnleke, A.E., McWhir, J., kind, A.J., Campbell, K.H.S., Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells, Nature, 385, Feb 27, 1997, 810-813.

9-PR Newswire, ABS Global announces birth of cloned calf and formation of Infigen to commercialize novel technology. Aug 7, 1997.

10-Wakayama, T., Perry, A.C.F., Zuccotti, M., Johnson, K.R., Yanagimachi, R., Full-term development of mice from enucleated oocytes injected with cumulus cell nuclei. Nature, 394, Jul 23, 1998, 369-374.

11-Campbell, K.H.S., Loi, P., Otaegui, P.J., Wilmut, I., Cell cycle co-ordination in embryo cloning by nuclear transfer. Rev. Reprod., 1, 1996, 40-46.

12-Wallace, D. C., Mitochondrial DNA in aging and disease, Scientific American, 277, 2, August 1997, 40-47.

13-Sgaramella, V., Zinder, N.D., Dolly confirmation [Letter]. Science, 279, Jan 30, 1998, 635-636.

14-Campbell, K.H.S., Colman, A., Wilmut, I., Dolly confirmation [Letter]. Science, 279, Jan 30, 1998, 636-637.

15-Solter, D., Dolly is a Clone-and no longer alone. Nature, 394, Jul 23,1998, 315-316.

16-Ashworth, D., Bishop, M., Campbell, K., Colman, A., Kind, A., Schieke, A., Blott, S., Griffith, H., Haley, C., McWhir, J., Wilmut, I., DNA Microsatellite Analysis of Dolly. Nature, 394, Jul 23, 1998, 329.

17-Signer, E.N., Dubrova, Y.E., Jeffreys, A.J., Wilde, C., Finch, L.M.B., Wells, M., Peaker, M., DNA Fingerprinting Dolly. Nature, 394, Jul 23, 1998, 329-330.

18-Schnieke, A.E., Kind, A.J., Ritchie, W.A., Mycock, K., Scott, A.R., Ritchie, M., Wilmut, I., Coleman, A., Campbell, K.H.S., Human Factor IX transgenic sheep produced by transfer of nuclei from transfected fetal fibroblasts. Science, 278, Dec 19, 1997, 2130-2133.

19-http://cnn.com/TECH/9703/02/monkey.monkey/index.html [INTERNET] Scientists grow monkeys from cloned embryos, CNN News, Mar 2, 1997.

20- www.abcnews.com/sections/science/DailyNews/cloning980723.html [INTERNET] A Brave New World, Karen C. Fox, ABC News, Jul 23, 1998.

21- Meade, H. M., Dairy Gene. The Sciences, 37, 5, Sep/Oct 1997, 20-25.

22-Campbell, K.H.S., McWhir, J., Ritchie, W.A., Wilmut, I., Implications of Cloning. Nature, 380, Apr 4, 1996, 383.

23-Zawada, W.M., Cibelli, J.B., Choi, P.K., Clarkson, E.D., Golueke, P.J., Witta, S.E., Bell, K.P., Kane, J., Ponce De Leon, F.A., Jerry, D.J., Robl, J.M., Freed, C.R., Stice, S.L., Somatic cell cloned transgenic bovine neurons for transplantation in parkinsonian rats, Nature Medicine, 4, 5, May 1998, 569-574.

24- www.nandotimes.com/newsroom/ntn/health/072098/health11_7938_body.html [INTERNET] Chinese scientists plan to try cloning endangered pandas, Nando Times News, Jul 20, 1998.

25- Michod, R. E., What good is sex?, The Sciences, 37, 5, Sep/Oct 1997, 42-46.

26- Hart, R., Turturro, A., Leakey, J., Born Again? The Sciences, 37, 5, Sep/Oct 1997, 47-51.

27-Klotzko, A. J., Voice from Roslin: the creators of Dolly discuss science, ethics, and social responsibility, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 7, 1998, 121-140.

28-Fackelmann, K.A., University probe faults 'cloning' research. Science News, 146, 25, Dec 17, 1994, 406.

29- Nash, J.M., Cloning's Kevorkian, TIME, 151, 2, Jan 19, 1998, 58.

30-http://cnn.com/WORLD/9801/12/cloning.ban/ [INTERNET] 19 European nations sign ban on human cloning, CNN News, Jan 12, 1998.

31-http://cnn.com/TECH/9801/07/cloning.folo/ [INTERNET] Opposition to human cloning will 'blow over', scientist says, CNN News, Jan 7, 1998.

32-Interview with Joe Palca, NPR Radio, All Things Considered, January 7, 1998.

33-http://www.d-b.net/dti/970512china.txt [INTERNET] Chinese academy of sciences bans cloning research, Reuters News Service, May 12, 1997.

34- http://www.msoe.edu/~tritt/sf/sacloning.html [INTERNET] South African doctor ready to clone humans, InteliHealth News, February 16, 1998.

35-http://southafrica.net/news/1998/february/february17.html [INTERNET] Doctor denies report on cloning, Daily News Bulletin, February 17, 1998.

36-http://cnn.com/TECH/9703/04/clinton.cloning/index.html [INTERNET] Clinton bars federal funds for human cloning research, CNN News, March 4, 1997.

37-http://cnn.com/TECH/9706/04/cloning/index.html [INTERNET] Presidential panel to recommend law banning human cloning, Bierbauer, C., CNN News, June 4, 1997.

38-http://cnn.com/HEALTH/9801/10/clinton.cloning/index.html [INTERNET] Clinton stresses urgent need for human-cloning ban, CNN News, January 10, 1998.

39-Bouchard, T.J., Whenever the twain shall meet, The Sciences, 37, 5, Sep/Oct 1997, 52-57.

40- http://www.seattletimes.com/news/health-science/html98/clon_012098.html [INTERNET] FDA claims authority on cloning, Weiss, R., Seattle Times.com, January 20,1998.

41-Kitcher, P., Whose self is it, Anyway? The Sciences, 37, 5, Sep/Oct 1997, 58-62.

42- Brower, V., Conference offers a look at the implications of mammalian cloning for science and society, GENETIC ENGINEERING NEWS, 17, 14, August 1997, 1, 6, 50.

43-http://cnn.com/HEALTH/9803/26/cloning.controversy/index.html [INTERNET] Journal says human cloning research ban would be 'misguided', CNN News, March 26, 1998.

44-http://wiscinfo.wisc.edu/news/thisweek/research/Bio/Y98/clone.html [INTERNET] UW Scientists report new twist in mammalian cloning, NEWS@UW-MADISON, January 19, 1998.

45-Pennisi, E., After Dolly, a pharming frenzy, Science, 279, Jan 30, 1998, 646-648.

46-Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society. Ethical Consideration of New Reproductive Technologies. Fertil. Steril., 53, Suppl. 2, 1990.

47-Profile: Gursaran Prasad Talwar: Pushing the envelope for vaccines. Scientific American, 275, 1, July 1996, 38-40.

48-http://southafrica.net/news/1998/february/february16.html [INTERNET] Local doctor "set to clone humans", Saturday Star, Daily News Bulletin, Feb 16, 1998.

49-http://www.sciam.com/explorations/090297/clone/beardsley.html [INTERNET] Cloning hits the big time, Beardsley, T., Scientific American, Sept 2, 1997.

50-McGrath, J., Solter, D., Nuclear transplantation in the mouse embryo by microsurgery and cell fusion, Science, 220, 4603, Jun 17, 1983, 1300-1302.

51-http://cnn.com/TECH/9707/24/polly/index.html [INTERNET] Report: Cloned sheep has human gene, CNN News, Jul 24, 1997.

52-Kerr, S.F., Calf cloning details in magazine, Springfield Union News, May 27, 1998, B4.

53-Cibelli, J.B., Stice, S.L., Golueke, P.J., Kane, J.J., Jerry, J., Blackwell, C., Ponce de Leon, F.A., Robl, J.M., Cloned transgenic calves produced from nonquiescent fetal fibroblasts. Science, 280, May 22, 1998, 1256-1258.

54-Travis, J., Cloning comes to the rescue of a lady. Science News, 154, 10, Sep 5, 1998, 152.

55-O'Brien, S.J., Wildt, D.E., Bush, M., The cheetah in genetic peril. Scientific American, 254, 5, May 1986, 84-92.

56-http://cnn.com/TECH/science/9809/07/clone.seed.ap/index.html [INTERNET] Chicago physicist says he'll clone himself with wife's help, CNN News, Sep 7, 1998.

57-Kasirer, J.P., Rosenthal, N.A., Should human cloning research be of limits? New Eng. J. Med., 338, 13, Mar 26, 1998, 905-906.

58-Human cloning prohibition act of 1998, 105th Congress, 2nd Session, S. 1599.

59-Human cloning prohibition act, 105th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 923.

60-http://www.austin360.com:80/news/001metro/08aug/24/24clone.htm [INTERNET] Professor: People have right to clone themselves, Stanley, D., Austin American-Statesman, Aug 24, 1998.

61-Robertson, J.A., Human cloning and the challenge of regulation, New Eng. J. Med., 339, 2, Jul 9, 1998, 119-122.

62-Annas, G.J., Why we should ban human cloning, New Eng. J. Med., 339, 2, Jul 9, 1998, 122-125.

63-Goodman, E., It takes true love to bear husband's clone. Springfield Union-News, Sep 18, 1998, A11.

64-Kolata, G., Clinics selling embryos made for 'adoption'. The New York Times, Nov 23, 1997, 1, 34.

65-http://www.cbn.org/news/stories/971216.asp [INTERNET] Redesigning the embryo, Totheroh, G., CBN News, Dec 16, 1997.

66-Vigue, D.I., Boston clinic sued over use of embryo. Boston Globe, Aug 20, 1998, A1, A20.

67-http://cnn.com/HEALTH/9706/25/nfm.cloning/index.html [INTERNET] Embryo splitting caught in cloning controversy, Rowland, R., CNN News, Jun 25, 1997.

© Lawrence Roberge 2005 Reprinted with Permission

LAWRENCE F. ROBERGE M.S.is a biotechnology consultant, college instructor, bioethicist, and biomedical researcher. He is the author of the new book, THE COST OF ABORTION (Four Winds Publications, LaGrange, GA, 1995). He has consulted for pharmaceutical, medical, and biotechnology corporations across the United States, Canada, and Europe. He has published research on neuroscience, biomedicine, abortion vaccine technology, and the adverse effects of abortion on women.

Contact: Lroberge@map.com Website: www.lawrenceroberge.com