March 01, 2003
Me, my clone, and I: reflections on the Raelian 'clones'
Over holiday break the Raelians’ much publicized announcement that they had produced a human clone caught the attention of Center for Ethics faculty. Without producing any evidence, Clonaid—a company connected to the Raelians, a UFO cult that believes homo sapiens were created by alien geneticists—announced in a live, internationally broadcast press conference that they had successfully produced the first infant human clone. They have since announced as many as three successful clones. Citing concerns for the personal privacy of mother and child, they have continued to refuse to provide proof of their claims and reversed a initial decision to allow for independent verification. Center faculty’s correspondence follows below:
Arri Eisen:
My thoughts, for what they’re worth, occur at two levels:
(1) Scientific: The possibility that a human has been cloned is very low. I do not believe it, in fact. Now, if by some irresponsible and unlikely twist, it has been done (after all, someone WILL do it, eventually), it is very bad.
Why? For starters, and I’ll leave it at this for now, to clone an organism means you take a cell nucleus from a somatic (non-sperm or egg) cell (containing the genetic material from it) and use it to replace the genetic material of an egg of that same species. Well, this somatic genetic material has "been around" (having been copied many, many times) for the life of the organism. The longer it’s been around, the more errors/mutations it has built up due to biological copying errors, environmental mutagens, etc. So, to take this damaged material and try to grow it into a human is biological disaster; it is in fact not a clone of the "mother organism" you are making, but a clone of this damaged nucleus. I would be surprised if such a damaged "organism" would even grow to term. Even the famous Dolly (a sheep clone that worked only as one out of several hundred attempts) has had all sorts of aging and other problems.
(2) Sense-wise/Ethically: I see no point to human cloning for purposes of making another individual (the Raelians and other nuts have their points, but I will not ennoble them by addressing them) even if you could get it to work "right." If a child of yours dies, making another organism from one of its cells has all the problems I mention above and the fact that the environment is at least as important, and probably more so in the resulting person than any genes (even if they were all in good shape). You will never replace that child fully.
So-called and misnamed "therapeutic cloning." or using genetic material to make a few cells with the same genetic material. to save lives, develop stem cells, etc., is another story, and a good thing, which in my mind is a different discussion altogether.
Even if you could convince me that it makes sense, I think it is immoral and unethical to clone a human being. Genetic therapies to "correct" severe illness I have no problem with (and, by the way, after over a decade of intensive research and trials, have not worked); cosmetic genetic changes don’t qualify as therapeutic as all and should never be attempted in humans. I don’t buy the slippery slope argument. Slippery slopes are what ethicists and free societies are there to de-slippery-ize, to think through, to make laws, to hold reasoned discussion and establish the best place for lines to be drawn given the facts and our beliefs.
John Banja:
Arri’s position is, I think, eminently sensible and informed. I agree with it entirely and would like to add one more reason why “cloning” a human being is morally wrong.
A human being has enough trial and tribulation in life without also having to cope with the fact that “You were brought into this world not for your own sake, but because you are a clone of Jesse Helms.” Persons should be brought into the world for their own sake and should be able to develop their own sense of self, which, of course, is virtually impossible for a clone to do. The “clone” is, in fact, “for another,” such as the narcissistic parent who wanted his or her child to be “a” Jesse Helms, rather than “for itself.”
To me, that’s the #1 argument against cloning. Still, I would like to clone my Border Collie when he proceeds to Doggie Heaven.
Kathy Kinlaw:
I too have my doubts about whether this claim is true.
One primary issue to me is that of safety of the process. The necessity of multiple attempts to derive existing animal clones indicates the biological difficulty of process. We need to know much more about abnormalities/deformities of fetuses not brought to term in animal cloning; current information on Dolly via Steven Stice indicates there are clearly unknowns re physical, cognitive and developmental implications that mean we are not ready to move into reproductive human cloning.
Additionally, there is strength in biological, genetic diversity. Cloning works against this strength for individuals and future generations.
Beyond the safety issue, one has to ask whether human cloning is primarily seen as an assistive reproductive technology. If so, what is its purpose? Is simply another method of reproductive technology like IVF (in vitro fertilization) or GIFT (gamete intrafallopian transfer) needed? Are there reasons to believe that cloning will be more successful than IVF? IVF is still a relatively expensive procedure (around $15,000 I believe) and success rates vary. But I see little information that would support a claim that cloning will successfully resolve infertility problems where other assisted reproductive technologies have failed.
If reproductive cloning is really desired to “re-create” oneself or a lost loved one, then other questions are raised about the limits of one to reproduce or parent. Some of the issues here are similar to ethical concerns raised about “customized” fetuses’ color. A Kantian objection to seeing these infants as means to an end rather than as unique individuals valued in their own right applies. One sees that the likeness of a child tragically lost is not a sufficient reason for creation of a new life (nor will that child re-create the lost child—not physically, as variation occurs, and not psychologically).
More Science, Ethics & Society articles
]
© 2000-2003 by the Center for Ethics, Emory University. Some rights reserved.