Why we should han the cloning of humans.
THE WISDOM OF REPUGNANCE
By Leon R, Kass
ur habii of dt-lighting in eral public. It is now deliberating about series of questions and objections, culmi- news of scientific and leth- what it shotild recommend, both as a nating in the suggestion that "the pro- nological breaklhioiighs matter of ethics and as a matter of public grammed reproduction of man will, in lias bf f n sorely challf nged policy. fact, dehumanize him," by theO birib ainiotinceinem of a sheep (Congress is awaiting the commission's Much has happened in (he inter- named Dolly. Though Dolly shares with report, and is poised to act. Bills to pro- vening years. It has become harder, not previous sheep the "softest clothing, hibit the use of federal funds ior human easier, to discern the true meaning of woolly, briglu." William Blake's question, cloning research have been introduced human cloning. Wt have in some sense "Little Lamb, who made thee?" has tor in the Hotise of Representatives and the been softened up to tbe idea—through her a radically different answer: Dolly Senate; and another bill, in the House, movies, cartoons, jokes and intermittent was, quite literally, made. She is the work would make it illegal "for any person to commentary in the mass media, some not of nature or nature's God but of use a human somatic cell lor (he process serious, most lighthearted. We have man, au Knglishnian, Ian Wilmiit, and of producing a human clone." A fateful become accustomed to new practices in liis fellow scieniisis. What's more, Dolly decision is at liand. "Fo clone or not to humau reproduction: not just in vitro fer- came into being not only asexually— tilization, but also embryo manipulation, ironically, jtist like "He [who] calls Him- clone a hiunan being is no longer an academic question. embryo donation and siu rogate preg- sell a Lamb"—but also as the genetically nancy. Animal biotechnology has yield- identical copy (and the perfect incarna- ed transgenic animals and a burgeoning tion of the form or blueprint) of a science of genetic engineering, easily and mature ewe, of whom she is a clone. This TAKING CLONING SERIOUSLY, soon to be transferable to humans. long-awaited yet not quite expected suc- THEN AND NOW cess in cloning a mammal raised imme- Even more important, changes in the diately the prospect—and the specter— Cloning first came to public attention broader culture make it now vastly more of cloning human beings: "I a child and roughly thirty years ago, following the diftlcult to (express a common and re- Thou a lamb," despite our dilferences, sticcessful asexual production, in Eng- spectful understanding of sexuality, pro- have always been equal candidates for land, of a clutch of tadpole clones by the creation, nascent life, family, and the creative making, only now, by means of technique ol nuclear transplantation. meaning of motherhood, fatherhood cloning, we may both spring from the The individual largely responsible for and the links between the generations. hand of man playing at being God. bringing the prospect and promise of Twenty-five years ago, abortion was still human cloning to public notice was largely illegal and thought to be im- After an initial Hurry of expert com- Joshua Lederbeig, a Nobel Laureate moral, the sextial revolution (made pos- ment and public consternation, with geneticist and a man of large vision. In sible by the extramarital use of the pill) opinion polls showing overwhelming 1966, Lederbei g wrote a remarkable arti- was still in its infancy, and few had opposition to cloning human beings, cle in I'he Americfin Naturatisl detailing yet heard abotit the reproductive rights Pre.sideut Clinton ordered a ban on all the eugenic advantages of human of single wometi, homosexual men and I'fderal support for htiman cloning cloning and other forms oi genetic engi- lesbians. (Never mind shameless mem- research (even though none was being neering, and the following year he oirs about one's own incest!) Then one supported) and charged the National devoted a column in The Washington Post, could argue, without embarrassment, Bioethics Advisory Goinmission to where he wrote regularly on science and that the new technologies of human report in ninety days on the ethics of society, to the prospect of human reproduction—babies without sex—and htmian cloning research. The commis- cloning. He suggested that cloning could their confounding of normal kin rela- sion (an eighteen-mcmber panel, evenly help us overcome the unpredictable vari- tions—who's the mother: the egg donor, balanced between scientists and non- ety that still rules human reproduction, the surrogate who carries and delivers, scientists, appointed by the president and allow us to benefit from perpetuat- or the one who rears?—wotild "under- and reporting to the National Science ing superior genetic endowments. Tbese mine the justification and support that and Technology Council) invited testi- writings sparked a small public debate in biological parenthood gives to the mony irom scientists, religious thinkers which I became a participant. At the time monogamous marriage." Today, defend- and bioethicists, as well as from tbe gen- a youtig researcher in molecular biology ers of stable, monogamotis marriage risk at the National Institutes of Health charges ot giving offense to those adults (NIH), I wrote a reply to the Posl, argu- who are living in "new family forms" or LKON R. K.A.S.S is the Addie Glark Harding ing against Lederberg's amoral treat- to those children who, even without the Professor in The Gollege and The Com- ment of this morally weighty subject and benefit of assisted reproduction, have mittee on Social Thotight at The Univer- insisting on the urgency of confronting a acquired either three or four parents or sity of Chicago.
JUNE 2,1997 THE NEW REPUBLIC 17 one or none at all. Today, one must even on the very identity of onr children, exer- progress, the ethicists have for the most apologize for voicing opinions ihal cising control as never before. Thanks to part been content, after some "values twenty-five years ago were nearly univer- modern notions of individualism and the clarification" and wringing of hands, to sally regarded as the core of our cul- rate of cultural change, we see ourselves pronounce their blessings tipon the ture's wisdom on these matters. In a not as linked to ancestors and defined by inevitable. Indeed, it Is the bit)ethicists, world whose once-given natural bound- traditions, but as projects for our own not the scientists, who are now the most aries are blnrrccl by technological self-creation, not only as .self-made men articulate defenders of human cloning: change and whose moral boundaries arc but also man-made selves; and self- the two witnesses testifying before the seemingly up lor grabs, it is much more cloning is simply an extension of such National Bioethics Advisory Commission difficult to make persuasive the still com- rootless and narcissistic self-re-creation. in favor of cloning human beings were pelling case against cloning human Unwilling to acknowledge our debt to bioethicists, eager to rebut what they beings. As Raskijlnikov put it, "man gets the pasl and unwilling to embrace the regard as the irrational concerns of used to everything—the beast!" uncertainties and the limitations of the those of tis in t>pposition. One wonders future, we have a false relation to both: whether this commission, constituted ndeed, perhaps the most cloning personifies om" desire fulh' to like the previous commissions, can tear depressing feature of tlic dis- control the fiitiue, while being subject to itself sufficieutly free from the accom- cussions that immediately fol- no controls ourselves. Enchanted and modatiouisi pattern of rubber-stamping lowed the news about Dolly enslaved by the glamour of technology, all technical innovation, in the mistaken was theiIr ironical tone, their genial cyni- we have lost our awe and wonder before belief that all other goods must bow cism, their moral fatigtie: "AN UDDER WAY the deep mysteries of nature and of life. down before the gods of better health OF MAKiNf; tAMBS" (Nature), "WHO WILL We cheerfully take otu' own beginnings and scientific advance. CASH IN ON BRKAKllIROtGil IN CLON- in our hands and. like the last tnan. we if it is to do so. the commission liuist ING?" (The Wall Street Journal). "IS Cl-ON- blink. first persuade itself, as we all should per- fNG BAAAA/VA-v\u?" (The Chicago Tribune). suade ourselves, not to be complacent Gone from the scene are the wise and art of the blame for about what is at issue here. Hinnan cotirageous voices of Theodosius Dob- our complacency lies, sadly, cloning, thotigh it is in some respects ?hansky (genetics), Hans Jonas (philoso- with the field of bioethics continuous with previotis reprodtictive phy) and Paul Ramsey (theology) who, itself, and its claim to exper- technologies, also represents something only twent)-llve years ago. all made pow- tise iPn these moral matters. Bio- radically new, in itself and in its easily erful moral arguments against ever ethics was founded by people who under- foreseeable consequences. The stakes cloning a human being. We are now too stood that the new biology toucbed and are very high indeed. I exaggerate, but sophisticated for snch argumentation; threatened the deepest matters of our in the direction of the truth, when I we wouldn't be catight in public with a humanity: bodily integrity, identity and insist thai we are faced with having to strong moral stance, never mind an abso- individuality, lineage and kinship, free- decide nothing less than whether lutist one. We are all, or almost all, post- dom and selt
18 THE NEW REPUBLIC JUNE2, I997 clones—could be produced by nuclear and already availing tbemselves of way for later baby-making implantations, transfer. In principle, any person, male in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic in anticipation of htmian cloning, or female, newborn or adult, could be sperm injection and other techniques of apologists and proponents have abeady cloned, and in any quantity. Wilh labora- assisted reprodtiction, cloning wotild be made clear possible uses of the perfected lory rnltivaliou and storage of tissues, an opti(.)n with virttially no added fuss tecbnoiog), langing from tbe sentimen- cells outliving ibeir sources make it possi- (especially wben tbe success rate im- tal and compassionate to the giandiose. ble even to clone tbe dead. proves). Sliould commercial interests They include: providing a child for an Tbe teclmical stumbling block, over- develop in "nucleus-banking," as tbey infertile couple; "replacing" a beloved come by Wilmut and his colleagues, was bave in sperm-banking; should famous spouse or child wbo is dying or has died: to find a means of reprogramniing the athletes or otber celebrities decide to avoiding the risk of genetic disease; per- state of tbe DNA in tbe donor cells. market their DNA tbe way they now mar- mitting reprodnction for homoscxital reversing its differentiated expression ket their autographs and just about men and lesbians wbo want nothing sex- and restoiing its full totipotency, so that everything else; should techniques of ual to do witb the opposite sex: seciu ing ii could again direct the entire process embryo and germline genetic testing a geneticalK identical sotirce of organs of producing a mature or tissues perfectly suit- organism. Now tbal able for transplantation; this piobtem has been getting a cbild witb a solved, we sbotild expect genotype of one's own a rusb to develop cloning cboosing, not excltiding for other animals, espe- oneself: replicating indi- cially livestock, in order viduals of great genius, to piopagatc in perpetu- talent or beauty—bav- it\ the champion meat or ing a child who really milk producers. Tbotigb exactly bow soon some- could "be like Mike": one will succeed in clon- and creating large sets ing a human being is any- of genetically identical body's guess, Wilrnut's btuiiaiis suitable for re- technic]tie, almost cer- search on, lor instance, tainly applicable to hu- tbe (juestion of nattire mans, makes atlenipling versus nurtme, or for tbe feat an imminent special missions in peace possibility. and war (not excluding espionage), in wbicb Yet some cautions are tising identical humans in order and some possi- would be an advantage. ble misconceptions need Mosi people who envi- correcting. For a start, sion the cloning of hu- cloning is not Xeroxing. man beings, of cotnse, As has been reassuringly waut none of these sce- reitei-ated. the clone of narios. That tbey cannot Mel C.iljson. iliough his say wby is not surprising. genetic double, would What is surprising, and enter tbe world bairless, welcome, is tbat. in our toothless and peeing in cynical age, they are say- bis diapers, just like any ing anvtbing at all. otber human iniant. Moteover. tbe success rate, at least at first, will probably not be very THE WISDOM OF higb: the British trans- REPUGNANCE ferred 277 adult nuclei into enucleated sheep "Offensive." "Gro- tesqtte." "Revolting." eggs, and implanted UK.AWlNt. !1\ \ I N r l.WVkl- Nl.b lOk ] II 1-. NhW kl. I'l HI. II twenty-nine (lonal embryos, but tbey "Reptignant." "Reptil- achieved the birtb of only one live Iamb atid manipulation arrive as anticipated, sive." These are tbe words most com- clone. For this reason, atnong others, it is increasing tbe use of laboratory assis- monly beard regarding the prospect of unlikelv that, at least for now, tbe prac- tance in order to obtain "better" human cloning. Such reactions come tice would be very popular, and tbere is babies—sbotild all this come to pass, both from the man or woman in the no immediate worry of mass-scale pro- tben cloning, if it is permitted, could street and from the intellectuals, from duction of multicopies. The need of become more tban a marginal practice believers and atheists, from humanists repeated surgery to obtain eggs and, simply on the basis of free reproductive and scientists. Even Dolly's creator has more crucially, of numerous borrowed cboice, even without any social encour- said he "would find it offensive" to clone wombs foi* implantation will sinely limit agement to upgrade the geue pool or to a human being. use, as will tbe expense: bcsities, almost replicate superior types. Moreover, if lal)- People are repelled by many aspects of (x'eryone wbo is able will doubtless pre- oratory research on human cloning pro- human cloning. They recoil from the fer nattii e's sexier way of conceiving. ceeds, even without any intention to pro- prospect of ma.ss production of human duce cloned bumans, the existence of beings, witb large clones of look-alikes, Slill. lor the tens of thousands of peo- cloned human embryos in the labora- compromised in tbeir individuality; the ple already sustaining over 20U assisted- tory, created to begin with only for idea of fatbei-son or mother-daughter reprodiiction clinics in the United States research purposes, would surely pave the twins: tbe bizarre prospects of a woman
JUNE 2. 1997 THIi Nt-:w REPUBLIC 19 giving birth to and rearing a genetic copy may be the only voice left that speaks up The meliorist perspective embraces of herself, her spouse or even her de- to defend the central core of our hti- valetudinarians and also eugenicisLs. The ceased fathei" or mother; the grotesque- matiity. Sliallow are the souls that have latter were formerly more vocal in these ness of conceiving a child as an exact forgotten how to shudder. discussions, but they are now generally replacement for another who has died; T'he goods protected by repugnatice happy to see their goals advanced under the utilitarian creation of enihryonic ge- are generally overlooked by our custom- the less threatetiing banners of freedom netic duplicates of oneself, to be frozen ary ways of approaching all new biomed- and technological growth. These people away or created when necessary, in case ical technologies. The way we evaluate see in cloning a new prospect for im- of need for homologous tissues or organs cloning ethically will in fact be shaped by pro\ing humati beings—minimally, by for transplantation: the narcissism of how we chatacterize it descriptively, by ensuring the perpetuation of healthy iti- those who would clone themselves and the context into which we place it, and dividuals by avoiding the risks of genetic the arrogance of others who think they by the perspective from which we view it. disease inherent in the lottery of sex, know who deserves to be cloned or The fnst task for ethics is proper descrip- and maximally, by producing "optimimi which genotype any child-to-be should tion. And here is where our failure be- babies," preserving outstanding genetic be thrilled to receive; the Frankenstein- gins. material, and (with the help of soon-to- ian hubris to create human life and in- come techtiiques for precise genetic creasingly to control its destiny; man ypically, cloning is dis- engineeting) erthancing itiborn huuian placing God. Almost no one finds any of cussed in one or more of capacities on many fronts. Here the the suggested reasons for hiunan cloning three familiar ccmtexts, moralit)' of cloning as a means is justified compelling; almost everyone anticipates whicb one might call the solely by the excellence of the eud, that its possible misvises and abuses. More- technologicalT , the liberal and the melior- is, by the outstanditig traits or individu- over, many people fee! oppressed by the ist. Under the fust, cloning will be seen als cloned—beauty, or brawn, or brains. sense that there is probably nothing we as an extension of existing techniques can do to prevent it from happening, for assisting reproduction and determin- hese three apptoaches, all This makes the prospect all the more ing the genetic makettp of c hildren. Like quintessentially American revolting. them, cloning is to be regarded as a neu- atid all perfectly fine in tral technique, with no inherent mean- their places, are sorely ing or goodness, but stibjcct to multiple wantinTg as approaches to human procre- evulsion is not an argu- ment; and some of yester- uses, some good, some bad. The moralit\" ation. It is, to say the least, grossly distort- day's repugnances are of cloning thus depends absoliuely on ing to view the wondrous mysteries of today calmly accepted— the goodness or badness of the motives birth, renewal and indiviciualily, atid the thoughR, one must add, not always for the and intentions of tlie clotiers: as one deep meaning of parent-child relations. better. In crucial cases, however, repug- bioethicist defender of clotiing puts it, largely through the lens of our reductive nance is the emotional expression of "the ethics must be judged [only] by the science and its potent technologies. Sim- deep wisdom, beyond reason's power way the parents nurtiue and rear their ilarly, cotisideting reproductiou (and the fnlly to articulate it. Can anyone really resulting child and whether they bestow intimate lelations of family life!) primar- give an argument fully adequate to the the same love and affection on a child ily under the political-legal, adversarial horror which is father-daughter iucest brought into existence by a technique of and individualistic uotion of rights can (even with consent), or having sex with assisted reproduction as they would on a only uuderuiiue the private yet finida- animals, or miuilating a corpse, or eating child horn in the usual way." mcntall) social, cooperative and dtm- human flesh, or even just (just!) raping laden character of child-bearing, child- The liberal (or libertarian or libera- rearing and their bond to tbe covenant or nuirdering another human being? tionist) perspective sets cloning in the Would anybody's failure to gi\e lull i atio- of tnarriage. Seeking to escape entirely context of rights, freedoms and personal from natiu e (in ot der to satisfy' a nattn al nal justification for bis 20 THH NEW REPtJBLIC JUNE 2, 1997 iiizid. ilu' {'ihical jiidginenl on cloning our common humanity, our genetic children's) genetic constitution is pre- can no longer be reduced lo a matter of individuality is not humanly trivial. It selected by the parent(s) (or scientists). motives and intentions, rights and free- shows itself forth in our distinctive Accordingly, as we will see, cloning is vul- doms, benefits and harms, or even appearance tbrough whicb we are every- nerable to three kinds of concerns and niean.s and ends, It must be regarded pri- where recognized; it is revealed in our objections, related to tbese tbree points: marily as a matter of meaning; Is cloning "signatiue" marks of fingerprints and cloning threatens confusion of identity a fulllllmeni of liuman begctling and oiu~ seli-recogiii/.ing immnne system; it and individnality, even in small-scale belonging!' ()i- is cloning ralhcr, as I con- symbolizes and foreshadows exactly the cloning; cloning represents a giant step tend, their pollution and perversion? To iniiqiie. never-to-be-repeated character (though not the first one) towaid trans- pollution and perversion, the fitting ol each human life. forming procreation into manufacture, response can only be horror and revul- Human societies virtually ever^'where that is, toward the increasing depersonal- sion; and conversely, generalized horror bave structured cbiid-iearing responsi- ization of the process of geneiatiou and. and revulsion are prima facie evidence of bilities and systems of identity and rela- increasingly, toward the "prodnction" of human children as artifact.s, products of fonlness and violation. The burden of tionship on the bases of these deep natu- moral argimient must lall entirely on human will and design (what olhers bave I'al facts of begetting. Tbe mysterious yet called the problem of "coinmodifica- ihose who want to declare the wide- ubiquitous "love of one's own" is every- tion" of new life); and cloning—like spread repugnances of humankind to be wbcre cnltnrally exploited, to make sure other forms of eugenic engineering of mere timidity or superstition. that children are not jtist produced but the next generation—represents a form Yet repugnance need not stand naked well cared for and to create for everyone of despotism of the cloners over the before the bar of reason. The wi.sdom of clear ties of meaning, belonging and cloned, and thus (even in benevolent onr horror at human cloning ran be par- obligation. But it is wrong lo treat .sucb rases) represents a blatant violation of tially articulated, even if this is Mnally natiu ally rooted social practices as mere the iimer meaning of paient-child rela- one of iliose instances about whi( h tbe cultuial constructs (like left- or right- tions, of what it means to have a child, of heart bas its reasons tbat leason cannot driving, or like bni-yiiig oi* cremating the what it means to say "yes" to our own entirelv know. dead) tbat we can alter with little buman demise and "replacement." Before turning to tbese specific THE PROFUNDITY OF SEX etbical objections, let me test my claim of the profundity of tbe nattnal To see cloning in its proper con- way by taking up a challenge receullv text, we mnst begin not. as I did posed by a friend. Wbat if the given before, witb laboratory technique, natural bnniau way of I'eproduction but witb tlie anthropolog\'—natnial were asexual, and we now had to deal and social—of sexual leprodiutiiin. witb a new tecbnologieal innova- Sexual reproduction—by whicb I tion—artificially induced sexual di- mean tbe generation of new life from morpbism and the fusing (3f comple- (exactly) two complementary ele- mentai y gainete.s—wh()se inventors ments, one female, one male, (usu- argued that sexual reproduction ally) tbrough coitu.s—is established promised all sorts of advantages, in- (if that is the right term) not by cluding hybrid vigor and tbe creation biunan decision, culture or tradition, of greatly incieased individuality? bill by nalure; it is tbe natural way of Would one then be forced to defend all mammalian reprodnction. By natural asexuality because it was natu- nature, each cbild has two comple- ral? Conid one claim that it carried deep human meaning? mentary biological progenitors. Eacb cost. Wbat would kinship be without its cbild tbus stems from and unites exactly clear natural grounding? And what The response to this challenge two lineages. In natmal generation, would identity be witbout kinship!' We broacbes the ontological meaning of moreover, the precise genetic constitu- must resist those who have begnn to sexual reprodnction. For it is impossible, tion of ibe ix'sulling offspring is deter- refer to sexual reproduction as tbe "tra- I snbmit, for there to have been bnman mined by a combination o( nature and ditional method of reproduction," wbo life—or even higher forms of animal chance, not by human design: each would bave us regard as merely tradi- life—in the absence of sexuality and sex- buman child shares tbe common natural tional, and by implication arbitrary, wbat ual reproduction. We find asexual repro- human species genotype, eacb child is is in ti nth not only natural bnt most cer- duction only in tbe lowest forms of life: genetically (equally) kin to each (both) tainly profound. bacteria, algae, fungi, some lower inver- parent(s). yet each child is also geneti- tebrates. Sexualitv brings witb it a new cally unique. Asexual reprodnction, which pro- duces "single-parent" offspring, is a radi- and enriched iclationship to tbe world. Tbese biological truths about our ori- cal depaitme from the natnral human Only sexual animals can seek and find gins forelell deep trutbs about our iden- way, conlounding all normal under- ccjmplementary otbers with whom to tity and abi)ut our innnan condition standings of father, mother, sibling, pursue a goal that transcends their own altogether. Every one of us is at once grandparent, etc., and all moral relations existence. For a sexual being, ihe world equally himian, equally enmeshed in a tied thereto. It becomes even more of a is no longer an indifferent and largely particular familial nexus of origin, and radical departure when the resulting off- homogeneous otherness, in pai t edible, in equally individuated in our trajectory spring is a clone derived not from an part dangerous. It also contains some from birth to death—and, if all goes embryo, but from a mature adult to very special and related and cotnple- well, equally capable (despite our mor- whom the clone would be an identical mentary beings, of tbe same kind but of lality) of parlicipating, with a comple- twin; and wben tbe process occnrs not by opposite sex, toward wbom one reaches mentary otiier, in the very same renewal natural accident (as in natui'al iwinuing), out witb special interest and intensity. In of such hmnan possibility tbrougb pro- but by deliberate human design and higher birds and manmials, the outward ciealion. Though less momentous than manipulation; and when the child's (or gaze keeps a lookout not only for food JUNE 2,1997 THE NEW RHPUBLIC 21 and predators, but also for prospective commingled being externalized, and being as bastards or witb no capacity' or mates; the beholdiiif^ of the many spleii- given a separate and persisting exis- willingness to look after them properly. doi'cd world is suffused with desire lor tence. Unification is enhanced also by And we believe that to do this intention- union, tlic animal antecedent of human their conmiingled work of rearing. Pro- ally, or even negligently, is inexcusable cros and iho germ of socinlity. Not by viding an opening to the futm'e beyond and clearly unethical. accident is the liimian animal hoth the the gi'avc, carrying not only our seed but The objection abotit the impossibility sexiest animal—whose females do not go also our names, oiu" ways and our hopes of prestmiing consent may even go be- Into heat but are receptive tbrotighout that ihey will surpass us in goodness and yond tbe obvious and sufficient point tbe estrous cycle and whose males must happiness, children are a testament to that a clonant, were he subsequently to therefore have greater sexual appetite tbe possibility of transcendence. Gender be asked, could rightly resent having and energy in order lo rcprf>dtu e suc- duality and sexnal desire, which fh'st been made a clone. At issue are not just cesslully—and also rlie most aspiring, draws our love upward and outside of benefits and harms, btit dotibts about the the most social, the most open and tbe ourselves, finally piovide for the partial very independence needed to give prop- most intelligent animal. (.(vercoming of tbe confinement and lim- er (even retroactive) consent, that is. not itation of perishable embodiment alto- just the capacity to choose but ihe dispo- be soul-elevating power of getber. sition and ability to choose fieely and sexuality is, at bottom, Human procreation, iu sum, is not sim- well. It is not at all clear to what extent a rooted in its strange con- ply an activity of our radonal wills. It is a clone will truly be a moral agent. For, as nection to mortality, which more complete activity precisely because we sball see, in tbe very fact of cloning, it simultaiieonslT y accepts and Irics to it engages us bodily, erotic ally and spii itu- and of rearing bim as a clone, bis makers overcome. Asexual reprodn( lion may be ally, as well as rationally. There is wisdom subveit the cloned child's in 22 THE Nt'iW RF.PUBLIC- JUNE 2,1997 tcrs plenty. That, after all, i.s ihe only rea- velop a desire ibr a relationship to her "father's" or "mother's"—necessarily ex- son lo clone, whether huiiuiii beings or "father," and might understandably seek cluded? It is no answer to say tbat our soci- sheep. The odds that clones of Wilt out the father of her "mother," who i.s ety, with its high incidence of divorce, Chamberlain will play in the NBA are, I after all also her biological twin sister. remarriage, adoption, extramarital child- stibinit, infinitely greater than they are Would "grandpa." who thought his bearing and the rest, already confounds for clones of Robert Reich. paternal duties concluded, be pleased to lineage and confuses kinship and respon- Curiously, this conclusion is sup- discover that the clonant looked to him sibility lor children (and everyone else), ported, inadvertently, by the one ethical for paternal attention and support? unless one also wants to argue that this is, sticking point insisted on by friends of Social identity and social ties of rela- for children, a preferable state of affairs. cloning: no cloning withotit the donor's tionship and responsibility are widely consent. Though an orthodox liberal connected to, and supported hy, biologi- uman cloning would also objection, it is in fact quite puzzling cal kinship. Social taboos on incest (and represent a giant step to- when il comes from pcf)ple (such as adultery) everywhere serve to keep clear ward turning begetting Rutb Macklin) who also insist that geno- who is related to whom (and especially into making, procreation type is not identity or individtiality, and into manufacturH e (literally, something which child belongs to which parents), as who deny that a child could reasonably well as to avoid confounding the social "handmade"), a process already begun complain abotit being made a genetic identity of parent-and-child (or brother- witb in vitro fertilization and genetic test- copy. If the clone of Mel (iibson would and-sister) with the social identity of ing of embryos. With cloning, not only is not be Mel Gibson, wby should Mel Gil> lovers, spouses and co-parenLs. True, the process in hand, but the total genetic son have grounds to object that some- social identity is altered by adoption (but blueprint of the cloned individual is one had been made his clone? We as a matter of the best interest of already selected and determined hy the human already allow researchers to use blood living children: we do not deliberately artisans. To be sure, suhsequent develop- and tissue samples lor research purposes ment will take place according to natural of no benefit to their sources: my falling produce children ibr adoption). True, artificial insemination and in vitro fertil- processes; and the resulting children will hair, my expectorations, my urine and still be recognizably human. Btit we here even my biopsied tissues are "not me" ization with donor sperm, or whole em- would be taking a major step into and not mine. (Courts have held that making man himself simply another the profit gained from uses to which one of the man-made things. Human scientists put my discarded tissues do nature becomes merely tbe last part not legally belong to me. VVTiy, then, of nature to succumb to the techno- no cloning without consent^—-includ- logical project, which turns all of ing. I assume, no cloning from the nature into raw material at human body of someone who just died? What disposal, to be homogenized by our harm is done the donor, if genotype is rationalized technique according to "not me"? Truth to tell, the only pow- the subjective prejutlices of the day. erful justification for objecting is tbat genotype really does have something How does begetting differ from to do with identity, and everybody making? In natural procreation, knows it. If not, on what basis could human beings come together, com- Michael Jordan object that someone plementarily male and female, to give cloned "him," say, from cells taken existence to another being who is from a "lost" scraped-otf piece of his formed, exactly as we were, hy lohal we skin? The insistence on donor con- are: living, hence perishable, hence sent tmwitlingly reveals the problem aspiringly erotic, human beings. In of identity in all cloning. clonal reproduction, by contrast, and bryo doiialioii, are in some way lornis in the more advanced forms of manufac- Genetic distiiictiveness not only sym- of "prenatal adoption"—a not altogeth- ture to which it leads, we give existence bolizes the uniqueness of each human er unproblematic practice. Even here, to abeingnot by whatwe are but by wbat life and ihe independence of its parents though, there is in each case (as in all sex- we intend and design. As with any prod- that each human child rightfully attains. ual rcproduciion) a known male source uct of our making, no matter how excel- It can also be an iinpoitant support for of sperm and a known single female lent, the artificer stands above it, not as living a worthy and dignified life. Such source of egg—a genetic father and a an equal but as a superior, transcending arguments apply with great force to any genetic mother—should anyone care to it by his will and creative prowess. Scien- large-scale replication of human individ- know (as adopted children olten do) who tists who clone animals make it perfectly uals. But they are sufficient, in my view, is genetically related to wliom. clear tbat they are engaged in instrumen- to rebut even the first attempts to clone tal making; the animals are, from tbe In the case of cloning, however, there is start, designed as means to serve rational a luiman being. One must never forget but one "parent." 1 he usually sad situa- ihat these are human beings upon human purposes. In human cloning, sci- tion of the "single-parent child" is here entists and prospective "parents" would whom our eugenic or merely playful fan- deliberately planned, and with a ven- tasies are to be enacted. be adopting the same technocratic men- geance. In the case of self-cloning, the tality to human children: human chil- Troubled psychic identity {distinctive- "offspring" is, in addition, one's twin; and dren would be their artifacts. ness), based on all-too-evident genetic so the dreaded result of incest—to be par- identity (sameness), will be made mueh ent to one's sibling—is here brought Such an arrangement is profoundly worse by the utter confusion of social about deliberately, albeit without any act dehumanizing, no matter how good the identity and kinship ties. For. as already of coitus. Moreover, all other relation- product. Mass-scale cloning of tbe same noted, cloning radically confounds lin- ships will be confotmded. Wiiat will individual makes the point vividly; but eage and social relalions, for "offspring" father, grandfather, aunt, cousin, sister the violation of human equality, free- as for "parents." As bioethicistJames Nel- mean"' Who will bear wbat ties and what dom and dignity are present even in a son bas pointed out, a lemale child burdens? What sort of social identity will single planned clone. And procreation cloned from her "mother" might de- someone have willi one whole side— dehumanized into manufacture is fur- JtJNE 2, 1997 THE NEW REPUBLIC 23 ther degraded by com modification, a vir- unhappy parents; John Doe Jr. or the Iff ing children ectogenetically from sperm ttiiilly inescapable result of allowing baby- is tincier the burden of having to live up to term (should it become feasible) and inakiiig lo proceed under the bantif r of to his forebear's name. Still, if^ most par- to prcidticing children whose entire ge- conitnerce. Genetic and reproductive ents have hopes for their children, netic makeup will be the product of biotechnology companies arc alreaciy cloning parents will have expec- parental eugenic planning and choice. If growth iiidtislries, but they will go into tations. In cloning, stich overbearing reproductive freedom means the right to coninieicial orbit once the Human Ge- parents take at the start a decisive stpp have a child of one's own choosing, by nome Project nears completion. Supply which contradicts the entire meaning of whatever means, it knows and accepts no will create enormous demand. Even the open and forward-looking nature of limits. beforcf the capacity for human cloning parent-child relations. The child is given But, far from being legitimated by a arrives, established companies will have a genotype that has already lived, with "right to reproduce," the emergence of invested in the harvesting of eggs from full expectation that this blueprint of a techniqties of assisted reproduction and ovaries obtaiiifcl at autopsy or throiigti past life ought to be controlling of the genetic engineering should compel us to ovarian surgery, practiced embryonic life that is to come. (Moning is inherently reconsider the meaning and limits of genetic alteration, and iniliatcci the despotic, for it seeks to make one's chil- stich a putative right. In truth, a "right to stc^ckpiling of prospectivt.' donor tissues. dren (or someone else's children) after reprodtice" has always been a peculiar Through the rental of surrogate-womb one's own image (or an image of one's and problematic notion. Rights gener- services, and through the buying and choosing) and their future according to ally belong to individuals, but this is a selling of tissues and embryos, priced one's will. In some cases, the despotism light which (before cloning) no one can according to the merit ot the donor, the may be mild and benevolent. In other exercise alone. Does the righl then coinmodification of nascent human life cases, it will be mischievous and down- inhere only in couples? Only in married will be unstoppable. right tyrannical. Bui despotism—the couples? Is it a (woman's) righl to carry control of another through one's will—it or deliver or a right (of one or more par- inally, and perhaps most inevitably will be. ents) to nurture and rear? fs it a righl to important, the practice of have your own biological cbild? Is it a human cloning by nuclear right only to attempt reproduction, or a transfer—like other antici- MEETING SOME OBJECTIONS right also to succeed? Is it a right to pated Fforms of genetic engineering of acqtiire the baby of one's choice? the next generation—would enshrine The defenders of cloning, of cotirse, The assertion of a negative "right to and aggravate a profound and mis- are not wittingly friends of despotism. reproduce" certainly makes sense when it chievous mistinderstanding of the mean- Indeed, they regard themselves mainly as claims protection against state inter- ing of having children and of the parent- friends of freedom: the freedcjm of indi- ference with procreative liberty, say, child relationship. Wlien a couple now viduals to reproduce, the freedom of sci- through a program of comptilsory steril- chooses to procreate, the partners arc entists and inventors to discover and ization. But surely it cannot be the basis saying yes lo the emergence of new life in devise and to foster "progress" in gencjtic of a tort claim against nattjre, to be made its novelty, saying yes not only to having a knowledge and technique. They want good by technology, should free efforts at child btit also, tacitly, to having whatever large-scale cloning only for animals, but natural procreation fail. Some insist that child this child turns out to be. in accept- they wish to preserve cloning as a himian ing our fniitude and opening ourselves the I ight to reproduce embraces also the option for exercising our "right to repro- right against state interference with the to otir replacement, we are tacitly con- duce"—our right to have children, and fessing the limits of our control. In this free use of all technological means to children with "desirable genes." As law obtain a child. Yet such a position cannot tibiqtiitous way of nature, embracing the professor |ohn Robertscm points out, future by procreating means prcci.sely under our "rigfit to reproduce" we al- be sustained: for reasons having to do that we are relinquishing otir grip, in the ready practice early forms of unnatural, with the means employed, any commu- very activity of laking up otir own share artificial and extramarital reproduction, nity may rightfully prohibit surrogate in what we hope will be the im- and we already practice earlv forms of pregnancy, or polygamy, or the sale of mortality of htiman life and the htiman eugenic choice. For this reason, he babies to infertile couples, without violat- species. This means that our children are argues, cloning is no big deal. ing anyone's basic human "right to repro- not our children: they are not our prop- duce." When the exercise of a previously erty, not our possessions. Neither are We have here a perfect example of the innocuous freedom now involves or they supposed to live our lives for us, or logic of the slippery slope, and the slip- impinges on troublesome practices that anyone else's life btit their own. To be pery way in which it already works in this the original freedom never was intended sure, we seek to guide them on their way, area. Only a few years ago, slippery slope to reach, the general presumption ol lib- imparting to them not just life but nur- arguments were used to oppose artificial erty needs to be reconsidered. turing, love, and a way of life; to be stire, insemination and in vitro fertilization they beai' otir liopes that they will live using unrelated sperm donors. Princi- e do indeed already prac- fine and flotirishing lives, enabling us in ples used to justify these practices, it was tice negative eugenic small meastire to transcend our own lim- said, will be used tojtistif)' more artificial selection, through gene- itations. Still, their genetic distinctive- and more eugenic practices, including tic screening and prena- ness and independence are the nalinal cloning. Not so, the defenders retorteci, tal diagnosisW. Yet otir practices are gov- foreshadowing of the deep truth that since we can make the necessary distinc- erned by a norm of health. We seek to they have their own and never-before- tions. And now, without even a gesture at prevent tbe birtb of children who suffer enacted life lo live. They are sprung from making the necessary distinctions, the from known (serious) genetic diseases. a past, but ttiey take an uiic harted course continuity of practice is held by itself to MTien and if gene therapy becomes possi- into the future. be justificatory. ble, such diseases coulcl tben be treated, The principle of reprodtictive free- in utero or even before implantation—I Mtich harm is already done by parents dom as currently enunciated by the pro- have no ethical objection in principle who try to live vicariously through their ponents of cloning logically embraces To such a practice (though 1 have some children- ('hildren arc sometimes com- the ethical acceptability of sliding down practical worries), precisely because it pelled to ftilflll the broken dreams of the entire rest of the slope—to produc- serves the medical goal of healing exist- 24 THE NEW REPUBLIC JUNE 2,1997 ing individuals. But therapy, to be tber- the health records and the accomplish- Though I recognize certain continu- apy, implies not only an existing "pa- ments of his stable of cloning donors, ities between cloning and, say, in vitro tient." It also implies a norm of health. In samples of whose tissues are in his deep fertilization, I believe that cloning differs this respect, even germline gene "ther- freeze. Why not, dearly beloved, a more in essential and important ways. Yet those apy," though practiced not on a human perfect baby? who disagree sln)uld be reminded that being but on egg and sperm, is less radi- The "perfect baby," of course, is the the "continuity" argument cuts both cal than cloning, which is in no way thera- project not of the infertility doctors, but ways. Sometimes we establish bad prece- peutic. Butonce one blurs the distinction of the eugenic scientists and their sup- dents, and discover that they were bad between health promotion and genetic porters. For them, the paramount right only when we follow their inexorable enhancement, between so-called nega- is not the so-called right to reproduce logic to places we never meant to go. tive and positive eugenics, one opens the but what biologist Bentley Glass called, a Can the defenders of cloning show tis door to all ftiture eugenic designs. "To quarter of a century ago, "tbe right of today how, on their principles, we will be make sure that a child will be bealtby and every child to be born witb a sound phys- able to see producing babies ("perfect have good chances in life": this is Robert- ical and mental constittition. based on a babies") entirely in the laboratory or ex- son's principle, and owing to its latter sound genotype ... the inalienable right ercising full control over their genotypes clause it is an utterly elastic principle, to a sound heritage." But to secure this (including so-called enhancement) as with no botmdaries. Being over eight feet right, and to achieve the requisite quality tall will likely produce some very good ethically different, in any essential way, control over new human life, human from present forms of assisted reprodnc- chances in life, and so will having the conception and gestation will need to looks of Marilyn Monroe, and so will a tion? Or are they willing to admit, de- be brought fully into the bright light of spite their attachment to the principle of genius-level intelligence. the laboratory, beneath which it can be fertilized, notirisbed, pruned, weeded, continuity, that the complete oblitera- Proponents want us to believe tbat watcbed, inspected, prodded, pinched, tion of "mother" or "father." the com- there are legitimate uses of cloning tbat cajoled, injected, tested, rated, graded, plete depersonalization of procreation, can be distinguished from illegitimate approved, stamped, wrapped, sealed and the complete manufacture of human uses, but by their own principles no stich beings and the complete genetic con- limits can be found. (Nor could any trol of one generation over the next sucb limits be enforced in practice.) would be ethically problematic and Reprodtictive freedoin, as they under- essentially different from current stand it, is governed solely by the sub- forms of assisted reproduction? If so, jective wishes of the parents-to-be where and how will they draw the line, (plus the avoidance of bodily harm to and why? 1 draw it at cloning, for all the child). The sentimeutaliy appeal- the reasons given. ing case of the childless married cou- ple is, on these grounds, indistin- guishable from tbe case of an indi- BAN THE CLONING OF HUMANS vidual (married or not) who would like to clone someone famous or tal- What, then, should we do? We ented, living or dead. Further, the should declare that human cloning is principle here endorsed justifies not unethical in itself and dangerous in only cloning but, indeed, all future its likely consequences. In so doing, artificial attempts to create (manufac- we shall have the backing of the over- ture) "perfect" babies. whelming majority of our fellow A concrete example will show Americans, and of the human race, how, in practice no less than in prin- and (I believe) of most practicing sci- ciple, the so-called innocent case will delivered. There is no other way to pro- entists. Next, we should do all that we merge with, or even turn into, the more duce the perfect baby. can to prevent the cloning of human troubling ones. In practice, the eager Yet we are urged by proponents of beings. We should do tbis by means of parents-io-be will necessarily be subject cloning to forget about the science fic- an international legal ban if possible. to the tyranny of expertise. Consider an tion scenarios of laboratory manufacture and by a tniilateral national ban, at a infertile married couple, she lacking and multiple-copied clones, and to focus minimum. Scientists may secretly under- eggs or he lacking sperm, that wants a only on tbe bomely cases of infertile cou- take to violate such a law, but they will be child of their (genetic) own, and pro- ples exercising their reproductive rights. deterred by not being able to stand up pose to clone either husband or wife. But why, if the single cases are so in- proudly to claim the credit for their Tbe scientist-pbysician (wbo is also co- nocent, should multiplying their per- technological bravado and success. Such owner of the cloning company) points formance be so off-putting? (Similarly, a ban on clonal baby-making, moreover, out the likely difficulties—a cloned child why do others object to people making will not harm the progress of basic is not really their (genetic) child, but the money off tbis practice, if the practice genetic science and tecbnology: On the child of only OH^ of them; this imbalunce itself is perfectly acceptable?) When we contrary, it will reassure the public that may produce strains on the marriage; folk)W the sound ethical principle of scientists are happy to proceed without the child might suffer identity confti- universalizing our choice—"would it be violating the deep ethical norms and sion; there is a risk of perpetuating the right if everyone cloned a Wilt Chamber- intuitions of the human community. cause of sterility; and so on—and he also lain (with his consent, of course)? Would points out the advantages of choosing a This still leaves the vexed question it be right if everyone decided to prac- about laboratory research using early donor nucleus. Far better than a child of tice asexual reproduction?"—we discov- their own wotild be a child of their own embryonic buman clones, specially cre- er what is wrong with these seemingly ated only for such research purposes, choosing. Touting his own expertise in innocent cases. The so-called science fic- selecting healthy and talented donors, with no intention to implant them into a tion cases make vivid the meaning of uterus. There is no question tbat such the doctor presents the couple with his what looks to us, mistakenly, to be be- latest catalog containing the pictures. research holds great promise for gaining nign. fundamental knowledge about normal JUNE 2,1997 THE NEW REPUBLIC 25 (iuid abnormal) differentiation, and for thi.s matter shotild be watched with the a ban will prove ineffective; perhaps it developing tisstie lines for transplanta- greatest care. Yielding to the wishes of will eventually be shown to have been a tion that might be tisc^d, say, in Ueating the scientists, the commission will almost mistake. But it would at least place the leukemia or in repairing brain or spinal surely recommend that cloning human burden of practical proof where it be- cord injuries—to mention jtist a tew of embryos for research he permitted. To longs: on the propcjnents of this horror, the conceivable benefits. Still, tinre- allay public concern, it will likely also call requiring them to show very clearly what stricted clonal embryo research will for a temporary moratoritim-—not a leg- great social or medical good can be had surely make the production of living islative ban—on implanting cloned em- only by the cloning of human beings. human clones much more likely. Once bryos to make a child, at least until such We Americans have lived by, and! pros- * the genies put the cloned embryos into time as cloning techniques will have been pered under, a rosy optimism about sci- the bottles, who can strictly control perfected and rendered "safe" (preci.sely entific and technological progress. The •* where they go (especially in the absence through the permitted research with technological imperative—if it can be of legal prohibitions against implanting clonecl embryos). But the call for a mora- done, it must he done—has probably them to produce a child)? torituii rather than a legal han would be served tis well, though we should admit i appreciate the potentially great gains A moral and a practical failure. Morally, that there is no accurate method for in scientific knowledge and medical treat- this ethics commission would (at best) be weighing benefits and harms. Fven when, ment available from embryo research, waffling on the main ethical question, by as in the cases of environmental pollu- especially with cloned embryos. At the refusing to declare the prodtiction of tion, urban decay or the lingering deaths same time, I have serious reservations human clones unethical (or ethical). that are the tinintended by-products of about creating human embryos for the Practically, a moratorium on implanta- medical success, we recognize the tin- sole purpose of experimentation. There is tion cannot provide even the minimum welcome otitcomes of technological ad- something deeply repugnant and fun- protection needed to prevent the pro- vance, we remain confident in our ability damentally transgressivc about such a duction of cloned humans. to fix all the "bad" cionsequences—usu- utilitarian treatment of prospective hu- ally by means of still newer and better Opponents of cloning need therefore technologies. How successful we can con- man lite. This total, shameless exploita- to be vigilant. Indeed, no one should be tion is worse, in my opinion, than the tinue to be in snch post hoc repairing is at willing even tcj consider a recommenda- least an open question. But there is very "mere" destruction of nascent life. But I tion to allow the embryo research to pro- see no added objections, as a matter of good reascjn for shifting the paradigm ceed unless it is accompanied by a call around, at least regarding those techno- principle, to creating and using cloned for frrohihiting implantation and until early embryos for research purposes, logical interventions into the htiman beyond the objections that I might raise to steps are taken to make such a prohibi- body and mind that will surely effect doing so with embryos prodticed sexually. tion effective. fundamental (and likely irreversible) changes in human nature, basic human And yet, as a matter of policy and pru- echnically, the National relationships, and what it means to he a dence, any opponent of the manufacture Bioethics Advisory Com- human being. Here we surely shotild not of cloned humans must, I think, in the mission can advise the pres- be willing to risk everything in the naive end oppose also the creating of cloned ident only on federal policy, hope that, should things go wrong, we human embryos. Frozen embryonic especiallTy federal funding policy. But can later set them right. clones (belonging to whom?) can be given the seriousness of the matter at shuttled around without detection. (Com- hanct, and the grave ptiblic concern that The president's call for a moratorium mercial ventures in htmian cloning will goes beyond tederal funding, the com- on htmian cloning has given us an im- be developed without adequate over- mission should take a broader view. (If it portant opportunity. In a truly tuiprece- sight. In order to build a fence around doesn't, ("ongress surely will.) Given that dented way, we can strike a bicjw tor the the law, prudence dictates that one most assisted reproduction occurs in the human control of the technological pro- oppose—for this reason alone—all pro- private sector, it would he cowardly and ject, for wisdom, prudence and htiman duction of cloned human embryos, even insufficient for the commission to say, dignity. The prospect of hnman cloning, for research purposes. We should allow simply, "no federal funding" for such so repulsive to contemplate, is the occa- all cloning re.search on animals to go tor- practices. It wotild be disingenuous to sion for deciding whether we shall be ward, hut the only safe trench that we can argue that we should allow federal lund- slaves of unregulated progress, and ulli- dig across the slippery slope, I suspect, is ing so that we would then be able to regu- niately its artifacts, or whether we shall to insist on the inviolable distinction late the practice; the private sector will remain free human beings who guide between animal and human cloning. not be bcnind by stich regulations. Far our technicjue toward the enhancement better, Icjr virtually everyone concerned, of human dignity. If we are to seize the Some readers, and certainly most sci- would be to distinguish between research entists, will not accept such prudent occasion, we must, as the late Paul Ram- on embryos and baby-making, and to call sey wrote, restraints, since they desire the benefits for a complete national and international of research. They will prefer, even in tear ban (effected by legislation and treaty) of raise the ethical questions wifh A serious and trembling, to allow htniian embryo the latter, while allowing the former to cicming research to go forward. and nol a frivolous conscience. A man <»f proceed (at least in private laboratories). frivolous conscience announces ihai there Very well, [.et us test them. If the scien- The proposal for such a legislative ban are elhical ([uanfturies ahead that we must tists want to be taken seriously on ethical is without American precedent, at least urgently consider hefort' the luiiire catches giounds, they must at the very least agree in technological matters, though the up willi us. By this he olten means thai we that embryonic research may proceed if British and others have banned cloning need Lo devise a new t-thics that will providf and only if it is preceded by an absolute of human beings, and we ourselves ban the rationalization for doing in the fuitire and effective ban on all attempts to incest, polygamy and other forms of whai men are bound tt) do because of new implant into a titertis a cloned human "r eproduc tive freedom." Needless to say, actions ;iiid intervenlious science will have embryo (cloned from an adult) to pid- working ont the details of snch a han, made possible. In contrast a man of serious ducc a living child. Absolutely no permis- conscience means to say in rai.sing tirgenl especially a global one, would he tricky, etliical quf.stioiis thai there may he some sion for the former without the latter. what with the need to develop appropri- ihings that men should never do. The f^ood The National Bioethics Advisory Com- ate sanctions for violators. Perhaps stich things ihai men do can be made complete mission's recommendations regarding only by the things they refuse to do. • 26 THE NEW REPUBLIC JUNE 2,1997