sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ethics of cloning, Leon Kass, Wisdom of repugnance

In Defense of Nathan Bruner

Mary Had a Little Lamb Mary had a little lamb, its fleece was slightly gray It didn’t have a father, just some borrowed DNA.

It sort of had a mother, though the ovum was on loan, It was not so much a lambkin as a little lamby clone.

And soon it had a fellow clone, and soon it had some more, They followed her to school one day, all cramming through the door.

It made the children laugh and sing, the teachers found it droll, There were too many lamby clones, for Mary to control.

No other could control the sheep, since the programs didn’t vary So the resolved it all, by simply cloning Mary.

But now they feel quite sheepish, those scientists unwary, One problem solved but what to do, with Mary, Mary, Mary. ---- Anonymous Internet post

“Much Confusion Over Cloning,” a recent common misconceptions concerning human headline reads. Few could find words to describe cloning; third, present some common the situation better. Since its emergence as an ever against cloning and explain why these seem to fail; approaching scientific possibility, the cloning of and finally, present a positive for the complete complex , including humans, cloning of human beings. has sparked much fear, debate, and confusion in our society. This new possibility has raised many What is Cloning? questions, chiefly, “Should we clone humans?” One of the greatest problems in the debate Largely, it seems, the answer to this question has over cloning humans is the extent to which been a resounding “No!” Unfortunately this debate widespread misconceptions exist about what has been mostly one-sided, with almost everyone cloning involves. One key to debating any issue is taking a position against cloning. I believe this has to know what exactly is being discussed. caused a number of harmful side effects. First, weak Unfortunately, few people know what cloning arguments are tolerated for lack of anyone willing actually is in its present form. With this in mind, let to take the opposing view. Second, misconceptions us examine exactly what the procedure is that is and misunderstandings about cloning are widely now being debated. circulated because few make any effort to correct ‘Cloning’ is a term with multiple meanings them. Third, the conclusions reached are in biology and . It refers to a number of uninformed at best. It is very difficult, perhaps procedures that create a duplicate of some kind of impossible to make a good decision about any . As Gregory Pence explains, “‘Cloning’ is matter without having heard both sides of the an ambiguous term, even in science, and may refer debate. It is for this that I have decided to to molecular cloning, cellular cloning, embryo present a defense of the position in favor of cloning twinning, and nuclear somatic transfer (NST)” humans. To do this I will first, explain what exactly (Pence, 11). The current debate concerns the last of the process of cloning is as most people intend to these, nuclear somatic transfer. What this procedure refer to it; second, take a look at a few of themost entails is removing the nucleus from an egg cell and

7 replacing it with the nucleus from a normal adult the same, have every memory, every scar, and the tissue cell. If all goes well, the host egg will develop same personality and intelligence as her into an embryo, going through the normal counterpart. This, however, is clearly beyond the development into a full organism with an exact reach of current science. What a human clone will copy of the adult’s DNA. Actually this does not be is, very simply, a genetic twin of the person exactly describe the situation. One thing that is not being cloned. She will be much younger than her identical in the clone is its mitochondrial DNA. counterpart, as the counterpart will be an adult Mitochondria are the little organelles in every cell when the clone is being birthed, and she will have that create chemicals to catalyze reactions in the slight differences in mitochondria, as we saw cell. In strict nuclear somatic transfer all of the earlier. She will have none of the counterpart’s mitochondrial DNA is provided by the host egg, but memories, as DNA does not contain memory, and in 1997, Dr. Ian Wilmut and his team used a slightly she may have somewhat different intelligence and different form of NST to clone Dolly the lamb, the personality. All this indicates that cloning will, in first complex, adult creature to be cloned by no sense, create a “Xerox copy,” as some people scientists. In this process, called “fusion,” seem to think from seeing science fiction portrayals mitochondria from the host egg and the donor cell (Pence, 49-51). are mixed, creating a closer, but still not exact Another misconception that results from match to the donor’s mitochondrial makeup. This science fiction is what I would like to call the “ difference in mitochondria, while minor, could still uses” misconception. Many people seem to think affect how a clone turns out. The clone will not be that clones, if created, will be used for all kinds of genetically identical to the DNA donor unless the evil purposes. Among these is creating clones for donor also provides the host egg, which, of course, use as slaves or menial laborers, humans who must will only be possible with females (Pence, 11). The obey our every command because we created them, process outlined above is what I will be referring to or “growing” a biological twin in order to harvest throughout the rest of this paper when I use the term her organs in case of an emergency. Surprisingly, ‘cloning.’ these are beliefs not merely held by laypeople, but by some considered to be experts as well. Nigel A Few Misconceptions Cameron, theologian and bioethicist at Trinity Many ideas that people have concerning International University, says that cloning “would cloning are not grounded in actual scientific be perhaps the worst thing we have ever thought of knowledge of the procedure and its consequences, in the maltreatment of our species. It would be a but are grounded in ideas propagated by inflated new kind of slave class. You would have human media stories and by the far-off realm of science beings who were made by other human beings for fiction. From press stories about future “baby their purposes” (Pence, 46). Guardian Unlimited, an manufacturing plants” to fiction stories about international news and information website based in armies of clones created to fight for humanity but England reports, “A supply of donor organs, [is instead turning against us, numerous fantastical one] of the more mainstream to clone ideas about cloning are floating around. Far too humans” () many exist to address in a short essay, but I would This, however, is absurd. If clones were like to examine at least a few misconceptions that treated in this manner certainly it would be horrible, people hold. but there is no reason to think that clones will be Cloning has been a popular topic in science treated in this manner. A clone will be just as much fiction movies, books, and television. Blade Runner, a living, breathing, thinking, emotional, and distinct Multiplicity, Star Trek, Jurassic Park, The Boys human being as anyone. The only difference from Brazil, and many others have portrayed between her and other humans would be her cloning in some manner. One of the most popular “unnatural” conception. But others are alive through misconceptions that results from science fiction means of “unnatural” conception. Consider artificial portrayal is that a human clone will be identical in insemination and in-vitro fertilization. People every way to the person being cloned. She will look conceived by these methods are treated no worse

8 than other humans. We do not use them for slave moral clarity and seriousness” and having labor or as organ donors, because we know that they “transcended the initial commentaries on all sides of are just as much human as us. In the same way, the issue” (Long, ix). Also, he artfully presents because it is known that clones will be normal three of the most common arguments against humans, they will not be used for these evil designs cloning. Yet I feel that each of the objections either. As Pence states in his book Who’s Afraid of presented by Dr. Kass falls short of its aim of Human Cloning?, “Because humans originated by showing that cloning humans is morally wrong. cloning are persons, it follows that we cannot kill such persons for their organs. This would be no A Repugnant Argument more ethical or legal than knocking out your Dr. Kass presents his arguments in “The brother, transporting him to a hospital… and taking ,” an essay that he wrote out one of his organs for transplantation” (Pence, and published fairly quickly after the lamb Dolly 47). Now this is not to underestimate the capacity was cloned. The first is the argument from which for evil in some people. There surely are some who his essay gets its title. This argument presents his would want to use clones for just such purposes. view that our natural revulsion or repugnance to But with clear, established governmental guidelines cloning humans, almost universally felt, represents and good education on the process, such people a deeper wisdom or understanding that the cloning would be prevented from carrying out their wishes. of human beings is fundamentally morally wrong. A A number of other misconceptions exist Gallup poll conducted by CNN and Time magazine about cloning, which I would like to point out, but a in 1997 revealed that, of , 93% are short essay does not afford the space to go over all opposed to cloning human beings (Long, ix). Such a of them. Let us now move to the heart of the debate, consensus on any issue is far from ordinary. When and examine some the arguments given by those asked why they are opposing cloning, many will most vocal about the of cloning. surely respond with “It feels wrong” or “It’s just unnatural.” They cannot perhaps put precisely into Arguments argument form why they believe cloning is wrong, seems to despise cloning. A but they just fundamentally feel and, in a sense, professor at one of the most prestigious universities “know” that it is. And this almost universal in the nation, the University of , Dr. Kass revulsion is perhaps a sign that humans have a real holds the Addie Clark Harding Professorship in the understanding into this issue that cannot be Committee on Social Thought, and has written discounted. Dr. Kass would argue that they indeed several books including Toward a More Natural do have this understanding: Science: Biology and Human Affairs. Dr. Kass was In crucial cases, however, repugnance is called on to testify before the National the emotional expression of deep Advisory Commission (NBAC) during its review of wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to the ethics of cloning human beings in the process of articulate it. Can anyone really give an creating their report to President Clinton and argument fully adequate to the horror Congress on this issue. He has also been the major which is father-daughter incest (even advisor that President Bush has consulted on the with consent), or having sex with issue. I would like to focus most of my attention for animals, or mutilating a corpse, or eating arguments against cloning on those presented by Dr. human flesh… Would anybody’s failure Kass. I have several reasons for focusing on this to give full rational justification for his man. Because Dr. Kass is so well known and revulsion at those practices make that respected, his arguments represent what most who revulsion ethically suspect? Not at all… are against cloning consider to be good arguments. We are repelled by the prospect of Indeed, in the introduction (written by members of cloning human beings not because of the the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy strangeness or novelty of the Research) to a book that contains his chief essay on undertaking, but because we intuit and the subject, he is praised for having “stood out for… feel, immediately and without argument,

9 the violation of things that we rightfully cloning, however this repulsion is, it seems, largely hold dear. Repugnance, here as based on misconceptions like those talked about elsewhere, revolts against the excesses above. It is doubtful that very many would be so of human willfulness, warning us not to repulsed by the process if they understood the facts. transgress what is unspeakably profound So the widespread revulsion towards cloning does (Kass, 18-19). not in itself discount cloning as a potentially viable and morally allowable procedure, nor does it seem Universal repugnance, however, does not likely that this revulsion is accurately represented imply that something is wrong. Human beings have by the numbers (in surveys and other studies). revulsions about a number of things. I feel repugnance towards going to the dentist or Custom Babies? receiving an injection or eating mold or giving Another argument that Dr. Kass outlines and blood or rolling around in mud, and most people employs in his discussion is what I would like to probably feel the same way. However, no matter call the “custom baby” argument. Human cloning is how many people feel repugnance nor how strong a process where the end result is largely decided by that repugnance is, those feelings do not mean that the one having the procedure done. When someone the actions they are directed at are morally wrong. chooses to be cloned or have someone else cloned, On the contrary, some of the actions towards which they are deciding exactly what the new baby’s people have the most extreme are very genetic makeup will be. While it may seem fairly beneficial to human beings. For example, the act of innocuous, this action is the first step in a series mutilating a corpse causes instant disgust and leading towards complete control of the procreative mortification in just about anyone. Yet surgeons and process, eventually allowing couples to determine doctors all over the world have explored the internal the looks, sex, abilities, intelligence, and many anatomy of cadavers in order to learn how to better other genetically endowed traits in their new baby. treat living human beings. Most people are As science progresses, more and more people will extremely repulsed by this action even knowing that choose to have a “custom” baby rather than one it is for a good purpose, yet no one concludes that developed from natural sexual dimorphism. As repulsion implies that the use of cadavers is morally Kass states, objectionable. Cloning represents a giant step… toward Our understanding of reason helps us to transforming procreation into manufacture, that realize that, while an action seems very repugnant, is, toward the “production” of human children it may actually serve a good and noble purpose. as artifacts, products of human will and Pence states aptly, “Especially on issues such as design… And cloning—like other forms of human cloning, our emotional responses may eugenic engineering of the next dictate what we want to do and may not be justified. generation—represents a form of despotism of Our feelings may just be the result of too much the cloners over the cloned…But here we would science fiction. We cannot allow such unreflected be taking a major step into making man himself emotion to rule our lives” (Pence, 5). Most people simply another one of the manmade things very much dislike the idea of having blood removed (Kass, 27-38). from their body, yet these very same people will line up to give blood in a time of emergency and Scenes come to mind reminiscent of Gattaca, a film need. Repugnance, like any other emotion, has its in which just such technology is widely used, where place as an important motivational factor, yet no a genetic “upper class” develops from those who emotion can take the place of an argument, the were conceived through scientific rather than place of reason, and an with no natural means. Those who are conceived naturally reasons to back it up cannot be taken as an are considered inferior and refused good jobs that argument. Therefore, this objection based on the genetic “upper class” hold a monopoly on. repugnance fails without reasons to back it up. Having a baby has become more science and less Many people are repulsed by the idea of human the loving beautiful process it has always been.

10 Is this really what cloning will entail—a genetic engineering, among other things. The reason downward spiral towards a world where children for this is that we know that much good medical are no longer conceived through sex, where, right advancement is likely to result from the project, alongside the car factory and the electronics plant, such as a cure for Huntington’s disease and other we will find a baby factory manufacturing babies a genetic disorders. We have a faith in humanity to dime a dozen? What seems to be employed here is choose to put this technology to good uses. Should the all too common argument. It is we not also have this same faith in humanity to stated that cloning, if allowed, will naturally carry choose to put cloning to good uses, such as allowing humanity on a series of steps that will finally result an infertile couple to have a child? I do not think in widespread ability and desire to create the that Dr. Kass can successfully use the slippery slope “custom” baby. Since this end result is wrong, here unless he is willing to use it on a number of cloning must be wrong. This argument, however, is other promising avenues of development such as the not about cloning at all. It is an argument about Human Genome Project. something that might conceivably result from cloning somewhere down the road. The argument does not give any reason why cloning is morally The Risk Factor wrong. Like many forms of technology and When the lamb Dolly was cloned in 1997, progress, it perhaps has potential for being used in many thought of it as a miracle of science. As it an evil manner, but this seems to imply that we turns out, little did they know how much of a should be on our guard against evil uses rather than miracle it was. Dolly came from one of 277 ruling out all uses, good or bad. embryos created using Dr. Wilmut’s fusion nuclear The Human Genome Project is working (and somatic transfer procedure. Of those 277 embryos, may be finished by the time this essay is read) on she was the only one to survive to full term (Pence, completing its map of a complete DNA sequence of 12). The procedure as it stands right now is far from the common human genetic code. This project will perfect, and the process of perfecting it is likely to lead to much research on genes and gene therapy, be riddled with failures along with limited successes correcting genes with defects and harmful in which the clone has deformities caused by errors mutations, and technology to “rewrite” part of in the process. This is the basis for the third someone’s genes. I would argue that this project, objection that cloning, if allowed, will likely result with its potential for research in manipulating the in deformed babies, miscarriages, and other genetic code, is more of a step in the direction of problems. As Dr. Kass puts it, “any attempt to clone “custom” babies than cloning is. All cloning allows a human being would constitute an unethical us to do is form a twin of a living human being. The experiment upon the resulting child-to-be. As the Human Genome Project, however, will lead to animal experiments (frog and sheep) indicate, there research into technology for manipulating DNA. are grave risks of mishaps and deformities” (Kass, This technology would be much more important for 31). Therefore, because of all these risks to the choosing genetic traits in a child than cloning could child, we should not allow cloning. ever hope to be. A couple could have their egg and There is a likelihood, if an attempt was sperm joined together outside of the womb (through made at this time to clone humans, that birth defects a process such as in-vitro fertilization) and then would result, however, this probably will not have the resulting genetic code of the child altered always be the case. With extensive testing on for the traits they desire. (This is exactly the picture animals, including primates, who have extremely presented in Gattaca.) This would not involve similar genomes to our own, it seems highly likely cloning in any way. They might perform embryo that the process will be able to be perfected to the twinning to maximize their chances at conception, point where we can be virtually certain that the risk but as we have seen earlier, this is not nuclear will be very small. (This would, of course, require somatic transfer, which is what is being debated. discussing whether or not it is ethical to present this Almost no one, Dr. Kass included, objects to the risk to animals, but I will leave this question for Human Genome Project, in spite of its potential for

11 perhaps another discussion.) In such a case, with I have focused mainly on defending cloning against risk not being a real factor, this objection no longer arguments and misconceptions, but it is important applies. Certainly right now the process would pose that I present an argument in favor of cloning great risk to the forming child. So, for the time humans in order for my defense to be complete. being, cloning should not be attempted on humans. One potential benefit of cloning is for couples with But, based on this objection, there seems to be no fertility problems. The husband may not be able to reason why cloning should be banned permanently produce sperm or the wife able to produce eggs. if the procedure can be perfected. Still some might Options do exist for couples such as in-vitro argue, “We still won’t know absolutely with 100% fertilization (IVF) or artificial insemination with certainty that the procedure will work. We should donor eggs or sperm. However, this can be like not perform the procedure unless it has 0 risk.” playing a twisted version of the lottery. The couple This however is unfounded and, in fact will not know who the donors are or what genetic hypocritical. No one would even suggest that we diseases they may carry, and the child will be should not allow normal sexual reproduction unless unrelated to one of the parents (or both if the whole we were absolutely certain the resulting child would embryo is donated). This is highly undesirable for not be harmed. Such an argument would rightfully many people. Also, IVF is a painstakingly difficult be called absurd. Yet sexual reproduction poses a process. The female must take hormone drugs that definite level of risk to potential children. Forty cause her to superovulate so several eggs can be percent on average of human embryos fail to even removed at a time (Pence, 107). These drugs cause implant, and of those that do implant one to two a number of difficult side effects including percent will be born with major deformities of some depression, extreme mood swings, other emotional type (Pence, 132-33). Huntington’s disease is a problems, and an increased risk of cancer. Many horribly debilitating sickness that attacks and kills women are unwilling to go through this, and the most of its victims in their midlife, well short of old cost, which is upwards of $8,000, prohibits many age. If a person with Huntington’s were to have from being able to afford it. Adoption is also not an children, each child would have a fifty percent risk option for many couples because they may not of inheriting the disease. Fifty percent is an qualify, and because there are not enough babies up enormous risk to the new child. Yet no law or edict for adoption to go around. For such couples, cloning of Congress prevents Huntington’s carriers from would offer a viable alternative, giving them an having kids. Therefore, if the procedure can be opportunity to reproduce, when otherwise they made to have an equal level of risk with normal would not be able to, or would not want to go sexual reproduction, there is no reason not to allow through the difficulty imposed by other methods cloning on the grounds of risks from birth defects such as IVF. The cost would likely be much less and genetic disorders. As a final note on this than in-vitro fertilization; the child would come objection, with cloning it will be known exactly from a known source of DNA; and the process is what resulted from the particular DNA sequence likely to be less difficult than IVF. that was donated. By cloning a healthy normal adult The potential benefits of cloning, however, with no genetic disorders, the risk factor will be that are not merely restricted to cases with infertile much greatly reduced in the forming child, and couples. Cloning, because it uses DNA from a unlike sexual reproduction, where risk is always known and proven source, would likely actually be present for recessive and dominant genetic a wonderful gift to the new child. Consider a couple disorders, cloning in this case would guarantee a in which one of the partners has or carries “good set” of genes. Huntington’s disease. By having a child through cloning, the couple could ensure that the child will not have Huntington’s disease. In fact, this can be The Positive Argument generalized to say that every genetic disease could Up to this point, I have not answered one be eliminated from the child if the right donor is major question: Why do we want to clone humans? chosen. This could be a most precious gift indeed. As Pence states:

12 Although we do not know how much early least to the same level involved with normal sexual death is caused by heritable diseases, a lot is… reproduction, this argument no longer applies. For the other two million Americans who die Moreover, cloning has benefits, such as allowing each year, the statistics aren’t much better: infertile couples to reproduce in a manner that suits 750,000 from heart diseases, 500,000 from them, preventing the new child from having genetic cancers, and over 150,000 from strokes. Over disorders, and giving the child a good foundation of 70% of deaths may be from preventable, genetic health and intelligence. With understanding, the causes. Seen in this light, originating humans by reproduction of human beings through cloning is [cloning] from healthy adults doesn’t seem quite not so scary as it first seems, and this is, perhaps, so crazy (Pence 103). the strongest defense of cloning.

As well, there is substantial that human Works Cited intelligence is largely heritable. Matt Ridley, in his Kass, Leon R. “The Wisdom of book Genome discusses this topic: “No study of the causes of intelligence has failed to find a substantial Repugnance.” The Ethics of Human heritability… The conclusion that all these studies Cloning. 1998. The AEI Press: Washington, converge upon is that about half your IQ was D.C. inherited…” (Pence 82-83). This indicates that a Long, Clarisa, and DeMuth, Christopher. child could also benefit greatly in intelligence by being cloned from someone with high intelligence. “ Introduction.” The Ethics of Human And a healthy donor gives the child almost Cloning… complete certainty of living a healthy life herself. Pence, Gregory E. Who’s Afraid of Cloning, therefore, benefits couples with fertility problems by providing them with another choice for Human Cloning. 1998. Rowman & reproduction; it benefits children by preventing Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: Lanham, them from inheriting genetic diseases, if cloned Boulder, New York, and Oxford. from the right donor; and it also benefits children by Ridley, Matt. Genome. 1999. purposefully equipping the cloned child with a great HarperCollins Publishers: New York. foundation of intelligence derived from the DNA of someone who has proven themselves in life.

Conclusion An almost universal opposition to cloning presently exists in the United States and similar sentiment seems to be echoed throughout the world. This is rare for practically any issue. The opposition, however, seems largely to result from misconceptions, created by science fiction and the media, a fear of the unknown, and a general lack of education on the issue. With education and understanding, misconceptions on the issue disappear. The lopsided debated has allowed many Nathan Bruner is a senior majoring in Philosophy arguments to circulate, which, upon examination, from Huntsville, AL. He is a member of the Blount fall short of showing that cloning is wrong. One Undergraduate Initiative. He is also the winner of argument that does work, that cloning exposes the the Marten and Marie Ten Hoor Prize of the child-to-be to grave danger, works only so long as Philosophy Department for this essay. that danger exists, but once that danger is reduced at

13