Is Cloning an Attack on Human Dignity?

correspondence Is cloning an attack on human dignity? Sir — Appeals to human dignity, and to the some basis for objections to cloning based eggs, or for research, or simply to be moral obligation to protect it, have been a on human dignity, is Axel Kahn’s invocation destroyed. It cannot be morally worse to use feature of responses to the cloning of Dolly of this principle in his Commentary on an embryo to provide information about its the sheep (Nature 385, 810–813; 1997). cloning (Nature 386, 119; 1997). sibling than to use it for more abstract Dr Hiroshi Nakajima, director general of But the Kantian principle, which is research or simply to destroy it. If it is the World Health Organization (WHO), generally interpreted as demanding that “an permissible to use early embryos for said: “WHO considers the use of cloning for individual should never be thought of as a research or to destroy them, their use in the replication of human individuals to be means but always also as an end”, crudely genetic and other health testing is surely ethically unacceptable as it would violate invoked, as it usually is, without any also permissible. The same would surely go some of the basic principles which govern qualification or gloss, is seldom helpful in a for their use in creating cell lines for medically assisted procreation. These medical or bioscience context. It would therapeutic purposes. include respect for the dignity of the human outlaw blood transfusions and abortions A moral principle that has at least as being.” carried out to protect the life or health of the much intuitive force as that recommended The European Parliament rushed mother. It would also outlaw one form of by Kant is that it is better to do some good through a resolution banning cloning, cloning, embryo splitting, which could allow than to do no good. It cannot, from the which stated as part of the rationale (clause genetic and other screening by embryo ethical point of view, be better or more 6) that the parliament “believes it is biopsy. One embryo could be tested to moral to waste human material that could essential to establish ethical standards, ascertain the health and genetic status of the be used for therapeutic purposes than to use based on respect for human dignity, in the remaining clones, and then destroyed. To it to do good. If it is right to use embryos for areas of biology, biotechnology and this it is objected, pace Kahn, that one twin research or therapy then it is surely also right medicine”. Neither of these august would be destroyed for the sake of another. to produce them for such purposes, as is authorities provided a scrap of argument as It is bizarre and misleading to marshal usual in IVF. Kant’s prohibition does after all to how the idea of human dignity is relevant the Kantian principle as an objection either refer principally to use. Of course some will to the ethics of cloning. to using cell mass division to create clones think that the embryo is a full member of A first question to ask when the idea of for screening purposes, or to creating clones the moral community with all the rights and human dignity is invoked is: whose dignity by nuclear substitution to generate spare protections possessed by Kant himself. is attacked and how? Is it the duplication of cell lines. It is surely ethically dubious to Although this is a tenable position, it cannot a large part of the genome that is supposed object to one embryo being killed for the consistently be held by any society that to constitute the attack on human dignity? sake of another, but not to object to it being permits abortion, post-coital contraception If so, we might legitimately ask whether and killed for nothing. In in vitro fertilization or research with human embryos. how the dignity of a natural twin is (IVF), for example, it is, in the United John Harris threatened by the existence of the other Kingdom, regarded as good practice to Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, twin. The notion of human dignity is often store spare embryos for future use by the University of Manchester, also linked to Kantian ethics. A typical mother or for disposal at her direction, Manchester M13 9PL, UK example, and one that attempts to provide either to other women who require donor e-mail: [email protected]

over the sample and any access to it. As far He has no way of accounting for the Protect patients’ rights as protecting the rights of the donor is uniqueness of an observation or Sir — Those of us who are concerned about concerned, it is immaterial whether the considering the changes in our the increasing incidence of biomedical third party seeking access to the sample is understanding that can result from discrimination and violations of medical wearing a lab coat or not. breakthrough discoveries. His reliance on privacy appreciate your attention to these Philip L. Bereano citation is like poll-driven government: it issues (Nature 386, 533; 1997). We need, (Chair, American Civil Liberties Committee on has some value but isn’t necessarily the best. however, to deal directly with the fact that Data Access, Storage, and Dissemination) In particular, he says that, “although the research scientists do not have an Department of Technical Communication, Hubble Space Telescope has been extremely exemplary track record. University of Washington, successful, Figure 1 shows that it has not yet For example, recent media coverage of Box 352195, Seattle, justified its high costs…”. I submit that this the Tuskegee experiment (see Nature 387, Washington 98195-2195, USA conclusion is ridiculous and that, after 116; 1997) serves as a reminder of why the seeing the wealth of unique and revealing United States had to develop the institution observations that have been and are still of Human Subjects Review Boards. Abuses Hubble ‘worth the price’ pouring from Hubble, an observational of the rights of patients have contributed to scientist is driven to finding out what is the increased development of notions of Sir — David Leverington claims to be wrong with Leverington’s arguments rather appropriate informed consent. measuring cost-effectiveness of than accepting his conclusion. After all, if In this regard, I believe your coverage astronomical observations, and your we assign a factor of 3 for uniqueness, then has put too much emphasis on the needs of provocative headline, “Star-gazing funds the space observations would meet even his research scientists, while underplaying the should come down to Earth,” shows that his absurd criteria. integrity and dignity of research subjects. conclusion can lead to important Jay M. Pasachoff For example, as the increasing number of consequences (Nature 387, 12; 1997). But, Hopkins Observatory, state legislative enactments protecting as his Correspondence shows, he is really Williams College, genetic information indicates, the donor or merely measuring the number of times Williamstown, Massachusetts 01267, USA source of the material must have control various papers have been cited. e-mail: [email protected]