Human Cloning: The Negative Effects on Society

Human cloning is possible but also dangerous to society. One day during an assembly in March

1977, a heated debate began over the topic of human cloning. Both sides were getting very

involved in the argument. Suddenly a group of protestors stormed the stage. They were

protesting human cloning while chanting, "We shall not be cloned!" During the protest the group

held up a sign that said: "We will create the perfect race – Adolf Hitler" (Lester and Hefley 55).

The group was right in protesting, human cloning will negatively affect society.

The background of human cloning goes back many years. First, people tried to just clone plants.

Once that was accomplished scientist started to clone small animals such as rodents and insects.

The first cloned animal was a mouse. The scientist took the egg of a white mouse and joined it

with the sperm of a black mouse and then put the egg into the womb of a brown mouse. This was

a breakthrough in the advancement of cloning. Scientist kept experimenting and eventually were

coming up with new ways to clone and also cloning different types of animals.

The political background of human cloning is intriguing. Heated debates have taken place over

the time. Politicians and even regular people have argued whether we should or should not clone

human beings. Often times these debates will go on for hours on end. There are good points to

both sides of the story but more often than not the people on the side of banning human cloning

win. George Bush, along with many other political leaders is against the cloning of humans.

They have even banned it in the United States of America.

The disadvantages to human cloning are certainly clear. Not to mention that the number of

disadvantages far out numbers the advantages. One of the most noticeable is that the cloned child

will have the parent clone's medical history. This means that if the parent were to have a heart

attack at the age of...

Human Cloning Post Date: 11/15/2002

Cloning

Author: John F. Kilner, PhD

We live in a brave new world in which reproductive technologies are ravaging as well as replenishing

families. Increasingly common are variations of the situation in which "baby's mother is also grandma-and sister."1 Sometimes extreme measures are necessary in order to have the kind of child we want.

This new eugenics is simply the latest version of the age-old quest to make human beings--in fact, humanity as a whole--the way we want them to be: perfect. It includes our efforts to be rid of unwanted human beings through abortion and euthanasia. It more recently is focusing on our growing ability to understand and manipulate our genetic code, which directs the formation of many aspects of who we are, for better and for worse.

We aspire to complete control over the code, though at this point relatively little is possible. This

backdrop can help us understand the great fascination with human cloning today. It promises to give us a substantial measure of power over the genetic makeup of our offspring. We cannot control their code exactly, but the first major step in that direction is hugely appealing: You can have a child whose

genetic code is exactly like your own. And you didn't turn out so badly, did you?

Admittedly, in our most honest moments we would improve a few things about ourselves. So the larger agenda here remains complete genetic control. But human cloning represents one concrete step in that direction, and the forces pushing us from behind to take that step are tremendous. These forces are energized, as we will see, by the very ways we look at life and justify our actions. But before examining such forces, we need a clearer view of human cloning itself.

The Rising Prospect of Human Cloning

It was no longer ago than 1997 when the president of the United States first challenged the nation

and charged his National Bioethics Advisory Commission2 to give careful thought to how the United States should proceed regarding human cloning. Attention to this issue was spurred by the reported cloning of a large mammal--a sheep--in a new way. The method involved not merely splitting an early-stage embryo to produce identical twins. Rather, it entailed producing a nearly exact genetic replica of an already existing adult.

The technique is called nuclear transfer or nuclear transplantation because it involves transferring the

nucleus (and thus most of the genetic material) from a cell of an existing being to an egg cell in order to replace the egg cell's nucleus. Stimulated to divide by the application of electrical energy, this egg--now embryo--is guided by its new genetic material to develop as a being who is genetically almost identical to the being from which the nucleus was taken. This process was reportedly carried out in a sheep to produce the sheep clone named Dolly3 but attention quickly shifted to the prospects for cloning human beings (by which I will mean here and throughout, cloning by nuclear transfer).

Quickly people began to see opportunities for profit and notoriety. By 1998, for example, scientist

Richard Seed had announced intentions to set up a Human Clone Clinic--first in Chicago, then in ten to twenty locations nationally, then in five to six locations internationally.4 While the U.S. federal government was pondering how to respond to such initiatives, some of the states began passing legislation to outlaw human cloning research, and nineteen European nations acted quickly to sign a ban on human cloning itself.5 However, the European ban only blocks the actual implantation, nurture, and birth of human clones, and not also cloning research on human embryos that are never implanted. Such research has been slowed in the United States since the president and then Congress

withheld federal government funds from research that subjects embryos to risk for non-therapeutic purposes.6 Moreover, a United Nations declaration co-sponsored by eighty-six countries in late 1998 signaled a broad worldwide opposition to research that would lead to human cloning.7

Yet there are signs of this protection for embryos weakening in the face of the huge benefits promised by stem cell research. Stem cells can treat many illnesses and can have the capacity to develop into badly needed body parts such as tissues and organs. One way to obtain stem cells is to divide an early

stage embryo into its component cells--thereby destroying the embryonic human being. Under President Clinton, the National Institutes of Health decided that as long as private sources destroyed the embryos and produced the stem cells, the federal government would fund research on those cells.8 During 2001, President Bush prohibited federally-funded research on embryonic stem cells produced after the date his prohibition was announced. In 2002, his newly-formed Council on Bioethics raised serious questions about even this form of embryonic stem cell research, through the Council was divided on this matter.9 These developments underscore that there are a number of

technological developments that are closely interrelated and yet have somewhat different ethical considerations involved. While embryo and stem cell research are very important issues, they are distinct ethically from the question of reproducing human beings through cloning. Reproduction by cloning is the specific focus of this essay.

While no scientifically verifiable birth of a human clone has yet been reported, the technology and

scientific understanding are already in place to make such an event plausible at any time now. There is an urgent need to think through the relevant ethical issues. To begin with, is it acceptable to refer to human beings produced by cloning technology as "clones"? It would seem so, as long as there

does not become a stigma attached to that term that is not attached to more cumbersome expressions like "a person who is the result of cloning" or "someone created through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer." We call someone from Italy an Italian, no disrespect intended. So it can be that a person "from cloning" is a clone. We must be ready to abandon this term, however, if it becomes a label that no longer meets certain ethical criteria.10

Why Clone Human Beings?

In order to address the ethics of human cloning itself, we need to understand why people would want to do it in the first place. People often respond to the prospect of human cloning in two ways. They are

squeamish about the idea--a squeamishness Leon Kass has argued we should take very seriously.11 They also find something alluring about the idea. Such fascination is captured in a variety of films, including "The Boys from Brazil" (portraying the attempt to clone Adolf Hitler), "Bladerunner" (questioning whether a clone would be more like a person or a machine), and "Multiplicity" (presenting a man's attempt to have enough time for his family, job, and other pursuits by producing several live adult replicas of himself). Popular discussions center on the wonderful prospects of creating multiple

Mother Teresas, Michael Jordans, or other notable figures.

The greatest problem with creative media-driven discussions like this is that they often reflect a misunderstanding of the science and people involved. The film "Multiplicity" presents human replicas, not clones in the form that we are discussing them here. When an adult is cloned (e.g., the adult sheep from which Dolly was cloned), an embryo is created, not another adult. Although the embryo's cells contain the same genetic code as the cells of the adult being cloned, the embryo must go through many years of development in an environment that is significantly different from that in which

the adult developed. Because both our environment and our genetics substantially influence who we

are, the embryo will not become the same person as the adult. In fact, because we also have a spiritual capacity to evaluate and alter either or both our environment and our genetics, human clones are bound to be quite different from the adults who provide their genetic code.

If this popular fascination with hero-duplication is not well founded, are there any more thoughtful ethical justifications for human cloning? Many have been put forward, and they cluster into three types: utility justifications, autonomy justifications, and destiny justifications. The first two types

reflect ways of looking at the world that are highly influential in the United States and elsewhere today, so we must examine them carefully. They can readily be critiqued on their own terms. The third, while also influential, helpfully opens the door to theological reflection as well. I will begin by explaining the first two justifications. In the following sections I will then assess the first two justifications and carefully examine the third.

Utility

Utility justifications defend a practice based on its usefulness, or benefit. As long as it will produce a

net increase in human well-being, it is warranted. People are well acquainted with the notion of assessing costs and benefits, and it is common to hear the argument that something will produce so much benefit that efforts to block it must surely be misguided.

Utility justifications are common in discussions of human cloning. Typical examples include:

1. By having clones, people can, in some measure, have more of themselves in the world and thereby make a bigger impact.

2. Parents can replace a dying child with a genetically identical new one.

3. Parents can produce a clone of a sick child to provide bone marrow or other lifesaving bodily elements that can be provided with relatively modest risk to the clone.

4. Parents, both of whom have a lethal recessive gene, can produce a child by cloning rather than

risk the one-in-four chance that their child will face an early death.

5. Clones could be produced to provide organs for transplants admittedly, transplants that could jeopardize or even end a clone's life.

6. Other clones could be produced with unusually high or low mental capacities that would suit them well to do socially needed tasks, for example, challenging problem solving or menial labor.

Autonomy

The second type of justification appeals to the idea of autonomy, an increasingly popular appeal in this

postmodern age, in which people's personal experiences and values play a most important role in determining what is right and true for them. According to this justification, we ought to respect

people's autonomy as a matter of principle. People's beliefs and values are too diverse to adopt any particular set of them as normative for everyone. Society should do everything possible to enhance the ability of individuals and groups to pursue what they deem most important.

Again, there are many forms that autonomy justifications can take. However, three stand out as particularly influential in discussions of human cloning:

1. "Personal freedom." There is a strong commitment in many countries, the United States in particular, to respecting people's freedom. This commitment is rooted in a variety of religious and secular traditions. Respect for people entails allowing them to make important life decisions that flow from their own personal values, beliefs, and goals, rather than coercing them to live by a burdensome array of social requirements.

2. "Reproductive choice." Reproductive decisions are especially private and personal matters. They have huge implications for one's future responsibilities and well being. Social intrusion in this

realm is particularly odious.

3. "Scientific inquiry." A high value has long been placed on protecting the freedom of scientific inquiry. More knowledge and better understanding enhance our capacity to make good decisions and accomplish great things in the world.

Utility and autonomy are important ethical justifications. However, they do not provide a sufficient ethical basis for human cloning. We will examine them here carefully in turn.

Understanding Utility

While the concern for utility is admirable, there are many serious problems with this type of

justification. Most significantly, it is "unworkable" and it is "dangerous." It is unworkable because knowing how much utility cloning or any other practice has, with a reasonable level of precision, is simply impossible. We cannot know all of the ways that a practice will affect all people in the world

infinitely into the future. For example, it is impossible to quantify accurately the satisfaction of every parent in future centuries who will choose cloning rather than traditional sexual reproduction in order to spare their children from newly discovered genetic problems that are now unknown. In fact, as

sheep cloner Ian Wilmut was widely quoted as observing, shortly after announcing his cloning of Dolly, "Most of the things cloning will be used for have yet to be imagined." The difficulty of comparing the significance of every foreseeable consequence on the same scale of value--including comparing each person's subjective experiences with everyone else's--only adds to the unworkability.

What happens in real life is that decision makers intuitively compare only those consequences they are most aware of and concerned about. Such an approach is an open invitation to bias and discrimination, intended and unintended. Even more dangerous is the absence of limits to what can be

justified. There are no built-in protections for weak individuals or minority groups, including clones.

People can be subjected to anything, the worst possible oppression or even death, if it is beneficial to the majority. Situations such as Nazi Germany and American slavery can be justified using this way of thinking.

When utility is our basis for justifying what is allowed in society, people are used, fundamentally, as mere means to achieve the ends of society or of particular people. It may be appropriate to use plants and animals in this way, within limits. Accordingly, most people do not find it objectionable to clone animals and plants to achieve products that will fulfill a purpose--better milk, better grain, and so forth. However, it is demeaning to "use" people in this way.

This demeaning is what bothers us about the prospect of producing a large group of human clones with low intelligence so that society can have a source of cheap menial labor. It is also what is

problematic about producing clones to provide spare parts, such as vital transplantable organs for other people. Both actions fail to respect the equal and great dignity of all people by making some, in effect, the slaves of others. Even cloning a child who dies to remove the parents grief forces the clone

to have a certain genetic makeup in order to be the parents' child, thereby permanently subjecting the clone to the parents' will. The irony of this last situation, though, is that the clone will not become the same child as was lost--both the child and the clone being the product of far more than their genetics.

The clone will be demeaned by not being fully respected and accepted as a unique person, and the parents will fail to regain their lost child in the process.

To summarize: The utility justification is a substantially inadequate basis for defending a practice like cloning. In other words, showing that a good benefit, even a great benefit, will result is not a sufficient argument to justify an action. Although it is easy to forget this basic point when enticed by the promise of a wonderful benefit, we intuitively know it is true. We recognize that we could, for example, cut up oneperson, take her or his various organs for transplant, and save many lives as a

result. But we do not go around doing that. We realize that if the action we take to achieve the benefit is itself horrendous, beneficial results are not enough to justify it.

As significant a critique as this is of a utility justification for human cloning, there is more to say. For

even if it were an adequate type of justification, which it is not, it is far from clear that it would justify human cloning. To justify human cloning on the basis of utility, all the consequences of allowing this practice have to be considered, not only the benefits generated by the exceptional situations commonly cited in its defense. What are some of the consequences we need to be concerned about?

There is only space here to note two of the many that weigh heavily against human cloning.

First, as suggested earlier, to allow cloning is to open the door to a much more frightening enterprise: genetically engineering people without their consent, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of particular people or society at large. Cloning entails producing a person with a certain genetic code because of the attractiveness or usefulness of a person with that code. In this sense, cloning is just the tip of a much larger genetic iceberg. We are developing the genetic understanding and capability

to shape the human genetic code in many ways. If we allow cloning, we legitimize in principle the entire enterprise of designing children to suit parental or social purposes. As one researcher at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations has commented, Dolly is best understood as a drop in a towering wave (of genetic research) that is about to crash over us. The personal and social destructiveness of

large-scale eugenic efforts (including but by no means limited to Nazi Germany's) has been substantial, but at least it has been restricted to date by our limited genetic understanding and technology.12 Today the stakes are much higher.

The second of the many additional considerations that must be included in any honest utilitarian calculus involves the allocation of limited resources. To spend resources on the development and practice of human cloning is to not spend them on other endeavors that would be more beneficial to society. For many years now there have been extensive discussions about the expense of health care and the large number of people (tens of millions), even in the United States, that do not have health insurance.13 It has also long been established that such lack of insurance means that a significant number of people are going without necessary health care and are suffering or dying as a result.14

Another way of observing similar pressing needs in health care is to survey the specific areas that

could most benefit from additional funds.15 In most of these areas, inadequate funding yields serious health consequences because there is no alternative way to produce the basic health result at issue.

Not only are the benefits of human cloning less significant than those that could be achieved by

expending the same funds on other health care initiatives, but there are alternative ways of bringing children into the world that can yield at least one major benefit of cloning children themselves. If there were enough resources available to fund every technology needed or wanted by anyone, the situation would be different. But researching and practicing human cloning will result in serious suffering and even loss of life because other pressing health care needs cannot be met.

An open door to unethical genetic engineering technologies and a misallocation of limited resources, then, are among the numerous consequences of human cloning that would likely more than outweigh

the benefits the practice would achieve. As previously argued, we would do better to avoid attempting to justify human cloning simply based on its consequences. But if we are tempted to do so, we must be honest and include all the consequences and not be swayed by exceptional cases that seem so

appealing because of the special benefits they would achieve.

Assessing Autonomy

Many people today are less persuaded by utility justifications than they are by appeals to autonomy. While the concern for freedom and responsibility for one's own life in this way of thinking is admirable,

autonomy justifications are as deeply flawed as utility justifications. More specifically, they are selfish and they aredangerous.

The very term by which this type of justification is named underscores its selfishness. The word autonomy comes from two Greek words, auto (meaning "self") and nomos (meaning "law"). In the context of ethics, appeals to autonomy literally signify that the self is its own ethical law that it generates its own standards of right and wrong. There is no encouragement in this way of looking at

the world to consider the well-being of others, for that is irrelevant as long as it does not matter to

me. Although in theory I should respect the autonomy of others as I live out my own autonomy, in practice an autonomous mindset predisposes me to be unconcerned about how my actions will affect others.

As long as the people making autonomous choices happen to have good moral character that predisposes them to be concerned about the well-being of everyone else, there will not be serious problems. In the United States to date, the substantial influence of Christianity--with its mandate to love others sacrificially--has prompted people to use their autonomous choices to further the interests

of others alongside of their own. As Christian influences in public life, from public policy to public education, continue to be eradicated in the name of separation of church and state, the self-centeredness of an autonomy outlook will become increasingly evident. Consciously or unconsciously, selfish and other base motives arise within us continually, and without countervailing influences, there is nothing in an autonomy outlook to ensure that the well-being of others will be protected.

When autonomy rules, then, scientists, family members, and others are predisposed to act on the

basis of their own autonomous perspectives, and the risk to others is real. Herein lies the danger of autonomy-based thinking, a danger that is similar to that attending a utility-oriented outlook. Protecting people's choices is fine as long as all people are in a comparable position to make those choices. But if some people are in a very weak position economically or socially or physically, they may not be able to avail themselves of the same opportunities, even if under more equitable circumstances they would surely want to do so. In an autonomy-based approach, there is no commitment to justice, caring, or any other ethical standards that would safeguard those least able to

stand up for themselves.

An autonomy justification is simply an insufficient basis for justifying a practice like human cloning. In

other words, showing that a freedom would otherwise be curtailed is not a sufficient argument to justify an action. We have learned this lesson the hard way, by allowing scientific inquiry to proceed unfettered. The Nuremberg Code resulted from research atrocities that were allowed to occur because

it was not recognized that there are other ethical considerations that can be more important than scientific and personal freedom (autonomy).16

While the autonomy justification itself is flawed, there is more to say about it as a basis for defending human cloning. For even if it were an adequate type of ethical justification--which it is not--it is far from clear that it would actually justify the practice. An honest, complete autonomy-based evaluation of human cloning would have to consider the autonomy of all persons involved, including the people produced through cloning, and not just the autonomy of researchers and people desiring to have

clones. Of the many considerations that would need to be taken into account if the autonomy of the clones were taken seriously, space will only permit the examination of two here.

First, human cloning involves a grave risk to the clone's life. There is no plausible way to undertake

human cloning at this point without a major loss of human life. In the process of cloning the sheep Dolly, 276 failed attempts occurred, including the death of several so-called "defective" clones. An alternative process used to clone monkeys added the necessary destruction of embryonic life to these

other risks. It involved transferring the genetic material from each of the cells in an eight-celled embryo to other egg cells in order to attempt to produce eight so-called clones (or, more properly, identical siblings). Subsequent mammal cloning has continued the large-scale fatalities and deformities that unavoidably accompany cloning research. Were these experimental technologies to be applied to human beings, the evidence and procedures themselves show that many human embryos, fetuses, and infants would be lost--and many others deformed--whatever the process. This tragedy would be compounded by the fact that it is unlikely human cloning research would be limited

to a single location. Rather, similar mistakes and loss of human life would be occurring almost simultaneously at various private and public research sites.

Normally, experimentation on human beings is allowed only with their explicit consent. (Needless to say, it is impossible to obtain a clone's consent to be brought into existence through cloning.) An

exception is sometimes granted in the case of a child, including one still in the womb, who has a verifiable medical problem which experimental treatment may be able to cure or help. However, human cloning is not covered by this exception for two reasons. First, there is no existing human

being with a medical problem in the situation in which a human cloning experiment would be attempted. Second, even if that were not an obstacle, there is typically no significant therapeutic benefit to the clone in the many scenarios for which cloning has been proposed. For the experiment to be ethical, there would need to be therapeutic benefit to the clone so huge as to outweigh the substantial likelihood of the death or deformity that occurred in the Dolly experiment. To proceed with human cloning at this time, then, would involve a massive assault on the autonomy of all clones

produced, whether they lived or died.

There is also a second way that human cloning would conflict with the autonomy of the people most intimately involved in the practice, that is, the clones themselves. Human cloning would radically weaken the family structure and relationships of the clone and therefore be fundamentally at odds with their most basic interests. Consider the confusion that arises over even the most basic

relationships involved. Are the children who result from cloning really the siblings or the children of their "parents"--really the children or the grandchildren of their "grandparents"? Genetics suggests

one answer and age the other. Regardless of any future legal resolutions of such matters, child clones (not to mention others inside and outside the family) will almost certainly experience confusion. Such confusion will impair their psychological and social well being--in fact, their very sense of identity. A host of legal entanglements, including inheritance issues, will also result.

This situation is problematic enough where a clearly identified family is involved. But during the experimental phase in particular, identifying the parents of clones produced in a laboratory may be even more troublesome. Is the donor of the genetic material automatically the parent? What about the

donor of the egg into which the genetic material is inserted? If the genetic material and egg are simply

donated anonymously for experimental purposes, does the scientist who manipulates them and

produces a child from them become the parent? Who will provide the necessary love and care for the damaged embryo, fetus, or child that results when mistakes are made and it is so much easier just to discard them?

As the U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission's report has observed (echoed more recently by the report of the President's Council on Bioethics), human cloning "invokes images of manufacturing children according to specification. The lack of acceptance this implies for children who fail to develop according to expectations, and the dominance it introduces into the parent-child relationship, is viewed by many as fundamentally at odds with the acceptance, unconditional love, and openness characteristic of good parenting."17 "It just doesn't make sense," to quote Ian Wilmut, who objected strenuously to the notion of cloning humans after he succeeded in producing the sheep clone

Dolly.18 He was joined by U.S. President Clinton, who quickly banned the use of federal funds for human cloning research, and by the World Health Organization, who summarily labeled human cloning ethically unacceptable.19 Their reaction resonates with many, who typically might want to "have" a clone, but would not want to "be" one. What is the difference? It is the intuitive recognition that while

the option of cloning may expand the autonomy of the person producing the clone, it undermines the autonomy of the clone.

So the autonomy justification, like the utility justification, is much more problematic than it might at first appear to be. We would do better not even to attempt to justify human cloning by appealing to this type of justification because of its inherent shortcomings. But if we are to invoke it, we must be honest and pay special attention to the autonomy of the person most intimately involved in the cloning, the clone. Particular appeals to "freedom" or "choice" may seem persuasive. But if only the autonomy of people other than clones is in view, or only one limited aspect of a clone's autonomy, then such appeals must be rejected.

The Destiny Justification

As noted near the outset of the chapter, there is a third type of proposed justification for human cloning which moves us more explicitly into the realm of theological reflection: the destiny justification. While other theological arguments against cloning have been advanced in the literature to date,20 many of them are somehow related to the matter of destiny. According to this justification, it is part of our God-given destiny to exercise complete control over our reproductive process. In fact, Richard Seed, in one of his first in-depth interviews after announcing his intentions to clone human beings commercially, made this very argument.21 No less a theologian, President Clinton offered the

opposite view when he issued the ban on human cloning. Rather than seeing cloning as human destiny, he rejected it as "playing God."22 Whether or not we think it wise to take our theological cues from either of these individuals, what are we to make of the proposed destiny justification itself? Is human cloning in line with God's purposes for us?

To begin with, there are indeed problems with playing God the way that proponents of human cloning would have us do. For example, God can take utility and autonomy considerations into account in

ways that people cannot. God knows the future, including every consequence of every consequence of

all our actions, people do not. God loves all persons equally, without bias, and is committed and able to understand and protect the freedom of everyone, people are not. Moreover, there are other ways that the pursuit of utility and autonomy are troubling from a theological perspective.

The utility of human cloning, first of all, is that we can gain some benefit by producing clones. But using other people without their consent for our ends is a violation of their status as beings created in the image of God. People have a God-given dignity that prevents us from using them as mere means

to achieve our purposes. Knowing that people are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), biblical writers in both the Old and New Testaments periodically invoke this truth to argue that human beings should not be demeaned in various ways (e.g., Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). Since plants and animals are

never said to be created in God's image, it is not surprising that they can be treated in ways (including

killing) that would never be acceptable if people were in view (cf. Gen. 9:3 with 9:6).

An autonomy-based justification of human cloning is no more acceptable than a utility-based justification from a theological perspective. Some Christian writers, such as Allen Verhey, have

helpfully observed that autonomy, understood in a particular way, is a legitimate biblical notion. As he explains, under the sovereignty of God, acknowledging the autonomy of the person can help ensure respect for and proper treatment of people made in God's image.23 There is a risk here, however, because the popular ethics of autonomy has no place for God in it. It is autonomy "over" God, not autonomy "under" God. The challenge is to affirm the critical importance of respect for human beings, and for their freedom and responsibility to make decisions that profoundly affect their lives, but to recognize that such freedom requires God. More specifically, such freedom requires the framework in

which autonomy is under God, not over God, a framework in which respecting freedom is not just wishful or convenient thinking that gives way as soon as individuals or society as a whole have more to gain by disregarding it. It must be rooted in something that unavoidably and unchangeably 'is." In other words, it must be rooted in God, in the creation of human beings in the image of God.

God is the creator, and we worship God as such. Of course, people are creative as well, being the images of God that they are. So what is the difference between God's creation of human beings, as

portrayed in the book of Genesis, and human procreation as happens daily all over the world (also mandated by God in Genesis)? Creation is "ex nihilo," out of nothing. That means, in the first sense, that God did not just rearrange already existing materials. God actually brought into being a material universe where nothing even existed before. However, God's creation "ex nihilo" suggests something more. It suggests that there was no agenda outside of God that God was following--nothing outside of God that directed what were acceptable options. When it came to the human portion of creation, God created us to be the way God deemed best.

It is no accident that we call what we do when we have babies "procreation." "Pro" means "for" or "forth." To be sure, we do bring babies "forth." But the deeper meaning here is "for." We bring new human beings into the world "for" someone or something. To be specific, we continue the line of human beings for God, in accordance with God's mandate to humanity at the beginning to "be fruitful

and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). We also create for the people whom we help bring into being. We help give them life, and they are the ones most affected by our actions. What is particularly significant about this "procreation," this "creation for," is that by its very nature it is subject to an outside agenda, to

God's agenda primarily, and secondarily to the needs of the child being created.

In this light, the human cloning mindset is hugely problematic. With unmitigated pride it claims the right to create rather than procreate. It looks neither to God for the way that he has intended human beings to be procreated and raised by fathers and mothers who are the secondary, that is, genetic source of their life; nor does it look primarily to the needs of the one being procreated. As we have seen, it looks primarily to the cloner's own preferences or to whatever value system one chooses to

prioritize (perhaps the "good of society," etc.). In other words, those operating out of the human cloning mindset see themselves as Creator rather than procreator. This is the kind of aspiring to be God for which God has consistently chastised people, and for which God has ultimately wreaked havoc on many a society and civilization.

Leon Kass has observed that we have traditionally used the word "procreation" for having children because we have viewed the world, and human life in particular, as created by God. We have understood our creative involvement in terms of and in relation to God's creation.24 Today we

increasingly orient more to the material world than to God. We are more impressed with the gross national product than with the original creation. So we more commonly talk in terms of re"production" rather than pro"creation." In the process, we associate people more closely with things, with products, than with the God of creation. No wonder our respect for human life is deteriorating. We become more like that with which we associate. If we continue on this path, if our destiny is to clone ourselves, then our destiny is also, ultimately, to lose all respect for ourselves, to our peril.

Claims about utility, autonomy, or destiny, then, are woefully inadequate to justify human cloning. In

fact, a careful look at any of these types of justification shows that they provide compelling reasons instead to reject human cloning. To stand up and say so may become more and more difficult in our "brave new world." As the culture increasingly promotes production and self-assertion, it will take

courage to insist in the new context of cloning that there is something more important. But such a brave new word, echoing the Word of old, is one that we must be bold to speak.

1 Bette-Jane Crigger, ed., Cases in Bioethics, 2nd ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993).

2 See National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, June 1997.

3 Ian Wilmut et al., "Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells", Nature 385

(1997): 810-13.

4 Peter Kendall, "Image of Human Cloning Proponent: Odd and Mercurial," Chicago Tribune, 11 January 1998, p. 6.

5 "Europe Moves to Ban Human Cloning," Bulletin of Medical Ethics, January 1998, pp. 3-5.

6 President Clinton issued his directive to the National Institutes of Health on 2 December 1994, and congressional action (PL104-91/PL104-208) took effect with the fiscal year 1996 budget.

7 United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (approved on 19 November 1998).

8 Rick Weiss, "NIH to Fund Controversial Research on Human Stem Cells," Washington Post, 20 January 1999, p. A2. See ethical critique at www.stemcellresearch.org

9 The President's Council on Bioethics. Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. July 2002.

10 Labels "must be precisely and relevantly defined. They must be accurately applied. And they must

lead to treatment and serves the welfare of those that are labeled." See Ralph B. Potter, "Labeling the Mentally Retarded: The Just application of Therapy," in Ethics in Medicine, ed. Stanley J. Reiser et al. (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1977), pp.626-31.

11 Leon R. Kass, "The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans," Valparaiso University Law Review 32 (spring 1998): 679-705.

12 See Arthur J. Dyck, "Eugenics in Historical and Ethical Perspective," in Genetic Ethics: Do the Ends Justify the Genes? ed. John F. Kilner et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) pp. 25-39.

13 See discussions in John F. Kilner et al., eds., The Changing Face of Health Care: A Christian Appraisal of Managed Care, Resource Allocation, and Patient-Caregiver Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

14 Office of Technology Assistance, Congress of the United States, Does Health Insurance Make a Difference?(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992).

15 Numerous reports available from the World Health Organization, and UNICEF in particular,

document current unmet needs. Projections of U.S. health care expenditures suggest that significant

needs in the United States and other countries will persist well into the future. See Office of the

Actuary, U.S. Health Care Financing Administration, "The Next Ten Years of Health Spending: What Does the Future Hold?" Health Affairs (September-October 1998).

16 Arthur J. Dyck, "Lessons from Nuremberg," in Ethics in Medicine, ed. Jay Hollman and John Kilner

(Carol Stream, Ill.: Bridge Publications, 1999). See also the classic discussion in Leo Alexander, "Medical Science under Dictatorship," New England Journal of Medicine 241 (July 14, 1949): 40-46; cf. Arthur L. Caplan, ed.,When Medicine Went Mad: Bioethics and the Holocaust (Totowa, N.J.: Humana Press, 1992).

17 National Bioethics Advisory Commission, p. 69.

18 He later expanded on his concerns about human cloning in his article "Cloning for Medicine," Scientific American 279 (December 1998): 58-63.

19 "WHO Adopts Resolution Against Cloning Humans," Reuters News Service, 16 May 1997.

20 See, for example, the 1998 essays in the journal Ethics & Medicine--including those by C. Ben Mitchell (vol. 14:1) and John Grabowski (vol. 14:3). See also the collection of essays in the spring 1998 issue of theValparaiso University Law Review (vol. 32:2), featuring articles by such people as Gilbert Meilaender and Daniel Heimbach.

21 On the ABC program Nightline, 7 January 1998.

22 This language was explicitly affirmed in his 1998 State of the Union address.

23 Allen D. Verhey, "Playing God," in Genetic Ethics: Do the Ends Justify the Genes? pp. 60-74.

24 Leon Kass, Toward a More Natural Science (New York: Free Press, 1985), p. 48.

Back to main page

Please note: If you came here using a search engine and are interested in ethical

questions regarding cloning, the article in the free encyclopedia Wikipedia

called 'human cloning' is quite comprehensive and up to date. The article below is

primarily here for personal reference purposes, although I do take credit for being

among the first authors to actually speculate about the issues surrounding cloning.

Problems of Cloning and Possible Solutions

Copyright © by Erik Möller

Version 1.1, Apr 8 1997

Summary: How cloning can affect our society in negative ways and how these

problems could be avoided.

Keywords: Cloning, Society, Ethics, Children, Parental Rights

Cloning humans no longer remains a fantasy of Science-Fiction authors. Cloning adult

mammals is possible now and cloning humans is in the reach of science. It has

become obvious once more how technological progress can force us to review our

ethics again.

While no human has officially been cloned yet and some governments agreed to

totally ban cloning of humans, many people like the idea of cloning themselves or

"reviving" dead personalities. The process of cloning is often misunderstood due to

insufficient scientific knowledge. Therefore the real problems of cloning are often

forgotten and useful discussion does not result. See Anders Sandberg's

article "Cloning - What It Is And Isn't" for details.

Cloning is by no means a technology without danger. But we have become so used to

being threatened by mass destruction weapons that smaller dangers are often ignored.

People are afraid of armies or whole planets of clones, like described in Aldous

Huxley's "Brave New World" (external link, homepage dedicated to A. Huxley).

While they are not impossible, these scenarios are very unlikely simply because of the

expense of cloning. The problems of cloning are clearly less important than problems

like unemployment, impoverishment and hunger. But they must not be forgotten on

the way into the future.

Preface: Ethical implications of cloning humans, restrictions

Many groups have expressed their concern about the new ethical implications arisen

from the possibility to clone humans. Some countries have proposed or already passed

total bans to human cloning. But are these bans really total bans or do they just

monopolize the knowledge? Large enterprises are rarely threatened by such laws, but

smaller research groups will have problems with them. Therefore, the state or the

industry lobbying it, depending on one's point of view of politics, limit human cloning

to those who can get around the laws: themselves.

It is clear that such possible monopolization of knowledge is not desirable, especially

as it would require most of the activities regarding cloning to take place secretly. But

is a total legalization of cloning desirable? Normal parents usually want their children

to grow up healthy. They will register them with the local authorities and the born

children are protected by the state from then on.

But a cloned human might be harmed by its own creator.

Violence against children by their own parents is often ignored, but the problem could

become much worse with clones. Although violence is generally useless, private

scientists might clone humans and treat them like guinea pigs.

Some kind of restriction is needed to prevent the loss of human rights for clones. The

best way is probably not a total ban, but a limitation to certain purposes for cloning

humans. For the treatment of cloned humans is determined by the purpose for which

they have been cloned.

This article tries show the dangers connected to certain ways of cloning and to provide

alternatives and long-time solutions. It only deals with dangers for the near future, a

future in which cloning of humans is possible, but very expensive and therefore not a

a widely spread technology.

Many of the problems can be avoided if there is better information about cloning (a

new "enlightenment") and cloning has become a commonly used technology.

Generally one thing should be pointed out: Restrictions are only a way to stop people

from acting uninformedly. If everyone had the same ethical views and the same

knowledge, certain mistakes would not be made. Therefore education is a good way to

complement and maybe finally replace restrictions.

The following table is supposed to be an overview. The colors of the rows indicate the

degree of the dangers. Click on the possibility to see a more extensive explanation

of its dangers and the alternatives.

Possibilities Problems and Dangers Alternatives

I. Asexual reproduction

for infertile or same-sex

couples

If the donator of the genome lives near

the child or meets it later: Upbringing of

the cloned child is much more difficult

than upbringing of a "normal" child,

social isolation of the child, psychical

damage, identity crisis.

Adoption, In-vitro fertilization

II. Immortality, Smart

Kids

Real immortality is not achieved, child's

personality develops much different

from donator. Genome doesn't

necessarily transport the desired talent.

Normally born children with

sufficient education, mind

uploading, cryonics (for later

uploading or longevity after

Parental expectations are probably

disappointed, child grows up in

isolation.

restoration), knowledge

preservation

III. Physical/Biological

research: Quantum

Effects, growth , DNA

etc.

Ethical rules for scientific research might

be considered as unnecessary for

clones.

Volunteers (grown-up clones,

twins)

IV. Sociological projects,

Communities

Clones are used as test persons from

the beginning of their lives, may develop

totally desolate personality, high

psychical damage and social isolation.

The end is open.

Computer simulations/internet

scenarios, roleplaying,

extrapolations from current

knowledge, anthropology

V. "Funcloning": cloning

humans for personal or

public entertainment

Both: Mutations are created for more

"fun". Personal: Risks for the child to live

isolated or to grow up without loving

parents are extremely high, risk of

death/suicide. Public: Clones are used

for "entertaining" (maybe even deadly)

gameshows.

Virtual housepets, computer

games

VI. Medical

experiments, effects of

radiation, chemical

substances, biological

weapons

Humans are just guinea pigs, life loses

its value.Possible next steps: disabled

persons are used for medical

"research", humans are valued and

sorted into those who may exist and

those who must not.Clones are

generally considered as not lifeworthy.

Computer simulations, tests on

animals or organic structures,

total stop of research in certain

areas

I. Asexual reproduction for infertile or gender-identical pairs

Dangers:

1. If the donator of the clone's genome lives near the child:

The child is regularly confronted with a version of itself that is older, more developed

and has a certain personality. The child might learn to handle this if the reasons are

explained early and clearly, but it might cause serious identity problems later. The

child will know its later outlook and some personal characteristics it has not

discovered in itself yet.

2. If the donator of the clone's genome also brings up the child:

The problem in I./1. is bigger, as when seeing its further-developed biological

counterpart regularly the child is also able to watch its development. If the donator

dies, this might cause heavy psychical damages.

In addition, it may be more difficult for the child to find friends, because cloning will

probably remain an expensive and not widely used technique and potential friends

will be frightened by it.

3. If the clone is confronted with its donator long after its birth and does not know that

it is a clone / what a clone is:

The child is suddenly confronted with an older version of itself it was never prepared

for. This can cause very big psychical damage.

4. If the clone is confronted with its donator later and was told that it is a clone in its

youth:

Probably the best way to bring up a cloned child. It is unlikely that it will suffer from

social isolation or psychcal damage.

5. If multiple clones of the same age live together (with or without the donator):

Probably the most dangerous way to bring up clones. 2 cloned children living without

their donator may grow up like twins, but the social problems will rise with the

number of clones. Twins have always been some kind of "attraction" and are likely to

have social problems especially in their early childhood. For one of the oldest laws of

humanity does still count: Those that look "alien" are treated like aliens.

Much enlightenment about cloning is necessary before such clonings should be

allowed.

Alternatives:

1. Adoption:

The easiest way of getting children for gender-identical or infertile pairs. Collides

with the idea of many parents to transport parts of themselves to their children

(although it is doubtful that transporting biology is more important than transporting

ideas, which is possible with adopted children, too). There are lots of poor children in

the world who have to grow up without parents and adoption is therefore not only an

ethical alternative to cloning but also an ethical alternative to natural reproduction.

2. In-Vitro Fertilization:

(Short explanation: The mature egg cells of a human female are fertilized with male

sperm outside the body and then inserted into the uterus of the same or another

human female for normal gestation.)

A good alternative to cloning that works for many pairs, especially since eggs, sperm

and even embryos can be frozen for later implantation.

Table of Contents

II. Immortality, Smart Kids

Dangers:

This idea follows an entirely wrong concept which would require the genome to

transport not only biological data but also knowledge and experience which is actually

obtained in the lifetime. Based on this wrong prerequisite some potential donators

would like to clone themselves in order to prolong "their" lives, to create a new

version of themselves.

Another concept is that certain talents are transported with the genome, like the ability

to play musical instruments or "intelligence", whereas the concept of intelligence

itself is misunderstood by many. There may be certain talents which are transported

with the genome, but most are achieved with training. And intelligence alone, no

matter which definition one uses, is not only useless but can also be dangerous. It is

the knowledge that makes us what we are, and this knowledge has nothing to do with

the biological data.

Clones which are brought up in the expectation to fulfill the donators' desire for

immortality or intelligence will most likely disappoint them and might therefore grow

up in social isolation, not loved by their "parent" and supposed to differ from the

"average humans" they are expected to excel.

Alternatives:

The best ways currently known in order to achieve real physical immortality or at

least longevity are mind uploading and cryonics (perhaps for later uploading). Both

are extensively discussed in >Hx and not usable yet. "Real" immortality cannot be

achieved yet, neither with nor without cloning. But informing oneself about uploading

and cryonics is certainly more realistic than hoping to become immortal by cloning.

But there is another possibility which requires a new definition of self. Are two people

having exactly the same knowledge not actually the same? They will probably make

the same decisions, at least while their knowledge base is still identical. So if a human

chooses to collect all knowledge important to him, to sort and to process it and to

transport this knowledge to one or multiple other persons, he also transports parts of

himself to the person who receives the knowledge. This knowledge preservation is a

cheap way for any human to clone not his body but his mind.

One might argue that a clone would be better suitable for transferring knowledge. This

is untrue, as the cloned child's brain structure doesn't differ from the structure of any

other child of the same age in the beginning. But the child would probably revolt

against his donator's ideas because few people want to be a copy of another person.

A sexually born child can easily change its outlook. But a clone will not only be

expected to know what its donator knows, but also to behave and to look like him.

Even if it is not expected to do so, it is always reminded by its donator's and

educator's presence that it's just a biological copy of another person and shall now

become a copy of his mind, too. Being expected to become such an exact copy is

probably to much for most clones. Therefore the clone might develop exactly the

opposite positions of its donator.

If there is no desire to clone oneself but only to have "smart kids", a human might also

choose to provide very good education to his children. He could even improve his

own knowledge at the same time. This possibility is probably the most progressive

one, especially if the thereby educated child decides to do the same with his children

and the knowledge base of each child is better than that of its parent(s).

Table of Contents

III. Physical and Biological Research

Dangers:

Clones will, with high certainty, remain something special for a very long time. They

are a minority, but they differ from the minorities of the past. In a way, any larger

number of clones from a single donator is a minority. The donator therefore is the

only "advocate" of the created minority. Considering the fact that cloning will remain

a privilege of the rich for a long period, these rich people can decide the ethics for

cloning.

Funded physical and biological research to explore growth, quantum effects, DNA

code and similar phenomena therefore only follows the ethics of the funder, regardless

of politicians which can easily be lobbied into taking a different position or media

which might be even possessed by the same persons. As most businessmen follow the

ethics of maximum profit, they might ignore the human rights of created clones.

They might argue that this physical and biological research does not damage the

clones. While this may be true, it is likely that once the human rights of a single

cloned individual have been neglected without public protest the possibilities that they

are neglected again increases.

This might even be the case if the clones are voluntaries. Once they are used for

scientific experiments, the discussion about the rights of clones might rise again.

Alternatives:

If suitable for the experiments, volunatry twins will probably be the better alternative

to using clones for non-dangerous scientific experiments because of their different

social status and their lower likeliness to be discriminated as a minority.

Table of Contents

IV. Sociological projects, Communities

Dangers:

"How about buying this small island and putting 500 male clones on it, let's see how

they develop without the possibility to reproduce." This kind of science may provide

interesting results, but the dangers to involuntarily participating human clones are

very big. First, the results are unpredictable. In the example given above, the clones

might manage to establish a peaceful communities, while on the other hand, they

might kill each other. Their decision to do so is not free but influenced by a given

environment.

The scientists doing these experiments are often only interested in the results, not in

the participators. Cloned humans might therefore be ignored or passed to "clone

communities" after the projects. As the clones have been test persons all their lifetime,

the psychical damage would probably be immense.

While the experiments might be basically interesting, they are to dangerous to be

executed without being examined by "ethical investigators" first. Especially the

occupation of the clones after the project has ended must be secured.

The danger of the ethical rights for clones to be "discussed" and decreased remains

much larger than in III, though.

Alternatives:

There are a lot of useful (and cheap) alternatives to the use of clones in sociological

projects. The most interesting one is probably the use of computers in order to obtain

the desired knowledge.

The Internet is a kind of "realtime society". While it lacks some attributes of normal

societies and cannot be used as a research base without modifications, scenarios can

easily be set up in it. They range from simple written mail-simulations, where the

"players" are real humans who describe the development in the virtual world, over

complex rolelpaying games with exactly set rules to perfect computer simulations

programmed with the use of data from real sociological research.

But before doing such experiments it is useful to examine the available data,

regardless of their origins. In many cases, the behavior of humans can be predicted

with the help of this data, but only if it is carefully sorted and processed. A general

sociological archive set up by anyone working in the area might be helpful to avoid

duplicated research or violations of human rights.

Table of Contents

V. "Funcloning"

Dangers:

A very alarming but realistic idea is that of cloning humans for personal or public

entertainment.

1. Personal Entertainment

Some people might decide to clone themselves "just to see how I am". Children

cloned just for this kind of "fun" are unlikely to be loved and will probably be highly

psychically damaged, if they survive (suicide and starvation are major danger). One

might argue that a donator would not punish his own image like that, but it is very

probably that someone who clones himself just for fun will lose this fun very soon, as

the clone does not develop the way he/she wants it to. The donator would become

bored and discard the clone like a damaged toy. An expensive toy that might be

announced like this:

"Clone yourself for just $ 5000! Disposal for free if clone doesn't kill itself

after 10 years!

Special offer 1: Get clone of a certain age! Every year will cost you just $

100!

Special offer 2: Want to bring up famous personalities? We have Abe

Lincoln, we have Clinton, Bush and Reagan! The president is yours!"

Et cetera. Most clones would lose their human rights, no one would really care about

them.

2. Public Entertainment

TV shows have got more sensational in the past few years. Modern entertainment

searches for the best ways to give the consumers a "kick", like a drug does. Modern

gameshows will be more brutal, and clones are a perfect, not too expensive possibility

to create a sensational action-gameshow without having to face serious ethical

concerns. Modern gladiators, some kind of Running Man, would be the most famous

among these. It is clear that the clones used would not be asked for their kind

permission.

Culturally, humans have changed a lot in the last 300 years. Biologically, they have

stayed the same. The same mechanism that made a hunter feel proud and happy when

he has brought down some deer thousands of years ago is applied when gameshows

like the one described are broadcast. Any regular way of entertainment will not be

able to compete with that.

Restrictions are necessary, not only for this kind of entertainment, but for many kinds

of future entertainment, in order to prevent the majority of humanity from becoming a

horde of mindless zombies.

Alternatives:

Of course it must be considered if alternatives are wanted at all. But if someone looks

for entertainment, he/she should better use computer games or virtual housepets like

those described in "Creatures". Some are educative, some aren't, so it is necessary to

inform oneself about the software available first.

VR 3D action games are quite useless, but still better than entertainment damaging

humans (clones) physically.

Table of Contents

VI. Medical Experiments (tests of the effects of ABC-weapons etc.)

Dangers:

The worst scenario possible is probably that of cloned humans being used as guinea

pigs for questionable pseudo-scientific experiments. This military research, which is

often blamed on the government but actually an interest of large enterprises and

banks, is rarely used to perfectionize the ways to protect humans (although it is called

"medical research"), but in order to perfectionize the weapons used to kill them.

Therefore one cannot argue that clonetests, even those on clones brought up without

brains (which is something most people wouldn't like, because the reactions are

supposed to be tested, too), would reduce the number of killed people. In many cases

the opposite would be the case.

But the possibility is not that unlikely. During World War II, the Japanese did similar

tests on the Chinese, but this was covered up by the US in order to use the research

results. That makes it assumable that the governments would love to do such tests, but

they are afraid of a bad public image. Clones could change all that.

Again, the danger doesn't only lie in the actions but also in their moral consequences.

If brainless clones can be killed, why not do it with stupid clones? If stupid clones can

be killed, why not do it with normal clones? If normal clones, why not do it with

disabled persons? If disabled persons can be killed, why not do it with Jews, Serbs,

Muslims, Russians... The tendency is fascist and racist, and thus are its origins fascist

and racist, too.

Alternatives:

The best alternative is, of course, to stop developing "better" weapons. But for real

medical research used to improve people's health, organic structures and computer

simulations are usually sufficient. If they aren't, tests on animals could give the last bit

of certainty.

Table of Contents

Cloning has affected things where many around the world. One of the affected things

are that cloning has caused many types of societies around the world to be gripped by

debates over the ethics of cloning.(The Ethics) These debates are well founded.

Because the ethics of cloning are very important issues to most people around the

world. The reason for the debates is that cloning can effect the world in a negative

way or positive way. So it needs to be carefully debated before it continues. Or it

could drastically effect the world badly.

A major affect cloning has had on a lot of people is that they are really bothered about

the idea that cloning is now possible. (Cloning) The reason cloning has bothered

people so much is because this new technology will affect everyone not just a handful

of people. Because it affects the whole world most people still have to make up their

mind up about how they feel about cloning.

Another thing cloning has affected is the unbalance of several governments. (The

Ethics) Cloning has unbalanced them by causing arguments about what steps should

be taken to prevent human cloning research, or at least government funded

research. (The Ethics) But this is only a prevention for human cloning research not

animal cloning research. So the only thing the government is worried about now is

human cloning. But animal cloning is still okay with them. (The Ethics) This is

unacceptable, because if the government wants to stop one cloning they should stop it

all together. Not just pieces at a time.

One other effect of cloning is that if the cloning of animals where to go on then world

famine would fizzle and go away. (Survey) This is one of the good effects of cloning.

But the problems that have been discussed earlier would be in full rampage. People

would like that famine is gone but they would be scared that science animal cloning is

perfected then what would stop scientist from cloning humans. (The Ethics)

When the people of the US started to argue about the ethics of cloning and if it is right

to clone humans. So president Cliton issued orders that no “federal” dollars could be

spent to attempt to clone humans.(Man) This meant that scientists with the goal of

cloning a human would not come true. Ian Wilmut is now in a hole because he has to

find funding from another source other then the government. This has made the goal

of cloning humans even harder. (The Ethics)

One last effect cloning has caused is a very interesting one. Scientists hypothesize that

if you could clone a human sexually transmitted disease will not occur. (The

Ethics) The situation in which this would be used would be if two parents had a

recessive gene. (The Ethics) Then scientists could clone one parent so that the

offspring would only have the one recessive gene and it would not have the

disease. (The Ethics) This would cause most disease that are on the X chromosome

would never occur. (The Ethics) This could make it where more children would be

born with no disease.

Will cloning end human evolution?

By Mautner, Michael

Publication: The Futurist

Date: Saturday, November 1 1997

Share:

More

You are viewing page 1

Cloning is not only less fun than sex, it would freeze evolution and destroy our chances for survival in the

future.

The recent cloning of the first mammal brings the prospects of human cloning closer to reality. Now the

public should ponder the implications. Among these, the most important is the effect on our future

evolution.

Cloning will be attractive because of some medical uses. Genetic replicas of geniuses might also benefit

society. On the other hand, ruthless and egocentric despots may replicate themselves millions of times

over. Cloning on a large scale would also reduce biological diversity, and the entire human species could

be wiped out by some new epidemic to which a genetically uniform population was susceptible.

Beyond these important but obvious results, cloning raises problems that go to the core of human

existence and purpose. One important fact to recognize is that cloning is asexual reproduction. It

therefore bypasses both the biological benefits of normal reproduction and the emotional, psychological,

and social aspects that surround it: courtship, love, marriage, family structure. Even more importantly, if

cloning became the main mode of reproduction, human evolution would stop in its tracks.

In sexual reproduction, some of the genetic material from each parent undergoes mutations that can lead

to entirely new biological properties. Vast numbers of individual combinations become possible, and the

requirements of survival - and choices of partners by the opposite sex - then gradually select which

features will be passed on to the following generations.

Human Cloning Is Here Post Date: 11/26/2001

Cloning

Reproductive Ethics

Author:

John F. Kilner, PhD

On Sunday, November 25, 2001, Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Worcester, Massachusetts

announced that it had produced several human embryos through cloning. The cloning technique involved the transfer of nuclear material from an existing person to donated human egg cells whose nuclear material had been removed. All of the embryos died before growing beyond the six-cell stage.

That they died so early was not a surprise. Cloning often does not work in animals, and there has not yet been a single published report of successful nuclear transfer cloning in primates. So there is far

less reason to expect that it would work in human beings. Even had the human embryos lived longer,

they would have intentionally been killed when their stem cells were removed.

Such intentions are acknowledged in ACT's published report on the research in the online Journal of Regenerative Medicine (Volume 2, November 26, 2001, www.liebertpub.com/ebi/ebiopaper1.pdf). ACT's stated policy is that "no embryo created by means of nuclear transfer technology may be maintained beyond 14 days of development." In CNN's published interview with ACT President Michael West (www.cnn.com), West suggests that those pursuing the end of fully developed human clones are misguided and "need some reins put on them."

The idea here is that embryonic "therapeutic cloning," as the ACT report terms it, be allowed now--but that "reproductive cloning" to produce full-grown human beings not be allowed now. This approach is seriously flawed for many reasons explained at length in The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity's paper "Human Cloning: The Necessity of a Comprehensive Ban." Among the flaws are the following.

First, the very term "therapeutic cloning" is dangerous. "Therapeutic" research is that which has the potential to benefit the research subject, whereas non-therapeutic research is intended to benefit others. In "therapeutic" cloning, the subject of the research is the embryo, who is necessarily

destroyed. The term "therapeutic cloning" is a misnomer, since destruction is hardly beneficial. Although the ACT research guidelines themselves acknowledge that risks to human subjects must be "minimized," they are not minimized here for the primary subjects, the embryos.

Manipulating terms is usually a sign that people are trying to evade an ethical responsibility. Such is the case here, and this is the second serious problem, respecting the humanity of the embryos. We all began as embryos. Of course, part of what makes up our body at various stages of development was

once food, chemicals, sperm, egg, and other materials. The entity that is you or me did not come into

existence until our unique genetic code became active within an embryo, directing our development.

Being attached to a woman's uterus made no difference in that starting point--it just gave us the support we needed to keep developing.

Third, to prohibit reproductive cloning but to allow non-reproductive cloning is to establish a

requirement to destroy all cloned embryonic human beings before birth--even to punish those who refuse to do so. Such a requirement goes beyond allowing killing, to requiring it. While unethical, such a requirement is also directly opposed to the legal positions of many national governments, including the long-standing U.S. Congressional prohibition against funding for any research that significantly harms human embryos. Required killing is also unenforceable.

Fourth, ACT's research goes beyond using already-existing embryos originally intended for other purposes: It produces human embryos with the intention of manipulating and discarding them. Many

people, including the U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, have opposed the creation and subsequent destruction of clonal embryos for research purposes, and for good reason. It reduces human life to a "thing" to be manipulated in any way people wish--a raw material for manufacturing

products that people want. It is dehumanizing in the extreme.

Fifth, since so many people consider the intentional production of human embryos for destruction to be so offensive, many will reject any treatments developed from stem cells derived from clonal

embryos. The tragedy here is that all people could benefit from the wonderful benefits of stem cell research if adult stem cells were the exclusive focus of research instead. Such cells can be obtained without loss of human life, and have already successfully been used, for example, to treat brain tumors, fatal blood disorders, and autoimmune diseases.

Finally, it is not only predictable but ethically appropriate that many people should reject clonal embryonic stem cell research, because of its primary rationale. A core ethical flaw in ACT's justification for the human cloning research is the claim that since so much medical benefit will likely result, the

research must surely be justified. This utilitarian claim that "the ends justify the means" has marked the darkest episodes in medical research history. Utilitarian research--often with good intentions--focuses simply on the potential benefits, and doesn't take seriously the question of the human price

paid in the process. However, benefits are not an automatic justification. We have learned that the hard way. May we not have to repeat our mistakes.

An Overview of Human Cloning Post Date: 07/02/2001

Cloning Author:

John F. Kilner, PhD

Now that researchers have cloned a sheep, we know that producing identical genetic copies of human

beings is also likely possible. The process is novel though the concept is not.

We have long known that virtually every cell of the body contains a person's complete genetic code. The exception is sperm or egg cells, which each contain half the genetic material until the sperm fertilizes the egg and a new human being with a complete genetic code begins growing. We have now learned that the partial genetic material in a female's unfertilized egg cell may be removed and replaced by the complete genetic material from a cell taken from an adult. With a full genetic code,

the egg cell behaves as if it has been fertilized and begins to grow. At least, that's what happened in a sheep.

We've been anticipating this possibility in humans for decades and have been playing around with its

possibilities. Many years ago there was the movie "The Boys from Brazil" about an attempt to clone Adolf Hitler, as well as Aldous Huxley's book Brave New World in which clones were produced to fulfill undesirable social roles. More recently the movie "Multiplicity" portrays a harried man jumping at the

chance to have several clones of himself made--one to do his office work, one to handle the home chores, etc. It all seems so attractive at first glance, in an overly hectic, achievement and efficiency crazed society.

The Difficulty of Getting There

But how do we achieve this seemingly blissful state? "Multiplicity" is silent on this matter, implying that the technique is best left to the scientists to handle, as if people in general would be interested only in the outcome. But the experiments of Nazi Germany and the resulting Nuremberg Trials and Code taught us long ago that there is some knowledge that we must not pursue if it requires the use

of immoral means to get it.

To the extent that the research necessary to develop human cloning will likely cause the deaths of human beings, the cost is unacceptably high. In the case of the sheep cloning process, it would seem likely that many human embryos would be lost as the technique is improved. In the case of the monkey cloning process more recently announced, a living embryo is intentionally destroyed by taking the genetic material from the embryo's eight cells and inserting it into eight egg cells whose partial

genetic material has been removed.

The Danger of Being There

Yet, is the production of human clones even a worthwhile goal in the first place? As the movies and novel suggest, and godly wisdom confirms, human cloning is something neither to fool around with nor to attempt seriously to do.

Cloning typically involves genetically copying some living thing for a particular purpose--a wheat plant

that yields much grain, a cow that provides excellent milk. The problem with such a utilitarian approach to human beings, however, is that they are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6;

Jas. 3:9). They have a God-given dignity that will not allow us to use them merely as a means to fulfill our desires. We must not, for instance, produce clones with low intelligence to serve society's needs for menial labor, or produce clones to provide transplantable organs (in that the identical genetic code would minimize the threat of organ rejection). We should not even produce a clone of a child who dies tragically in order to remove the parents' grief, as if the clone could actually be the child who died. All people are special creations of God who should be loved and respected as such. We must not demean them by fundamentally subordinating their interests to those of others, forcing upon them conditions

that they might not have consented to had it been possible to consult them.

There are a host of problems with human cloning that humanity has yet to address. Who are the parents of a clone produced in a laboratory? The donor of the genetic material? The donor of the egg into which the material is transferred? The scientist who manipulates unwanted cells from anonymous donors and facilitates the production of a new life? Who will provide the love and care this embryo,

fetus, and then child will need--especially when mistakes are made and it would be easier simply to

discard "it." The problems become legion when having children is removed from the context of marriage and even from responsible parenthood. The Bible portrays children as the fruit of a one-flesh love relationship, and for good reason. It is a context in which children flourish--in which their full humanity, material and non-material, is respected and nourished. Those who provide them with physical (genetic) life also care for their ongoing physical as well as non-physical needs.

It is all too easy to lose sight of the fact that people are more than just physical beings. What most excites many people about cloning today is the possibility of cloning Michael Jordans or Mother

Theresas or--fill in your own hero. However, were clones of any of our heros to begin growing today, these clones would not turn out to be our heros, for our heros are not who they are simply because of

their genetics. They, like us, are shaped by genetics and environment alike, with the spiritual capacity

to evaluate, disregard, and at times alter either or both. Clones would be subject to unique sets of environmental influences, and there is no good reason to think that God would deny them souls.

Indeed, new genetic and reproductive technologies are making it possible to intervene into two of life's

great mysteries: the genetic code and the conception of life. The problem here is not the mere fact that technology is involved. Technology is a gift that can help us better do what God has for us to do. The problem arises when we use technology for our own purposes, i.e., when those purposes conflict with God's. In a sense, we are like sheep after all, for "we all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way" (Isa. 53:6). Yet God calls us and enables us to be more--to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus expanded people's vision to see as a neighbor even the farthest away person: the enemy (Matt. 5:44). Today that vision remains large enough to encompass

the seemingly distant clone as well.

To produce people to serve others' needs without their consent--even for well-intended reasons-- is no frivolous matter. It is not yet to institute a new high-tech slavery or to establish Huxley's oppressive

brave new world. But it is to propel us, perhaps unstopably, in that direction.

The Coming Clone Age Post Date: 02/08/2001

Cloning

Global Bioethics

Reproductive Ethics Author:

C. Ben Mitchell, PhD

The January decision of the British House of Lords to allow human embryonic cloning coincided nicely with the publication of Wired magazine's lead article predicting that someone will clone a human in the next twelve months. The decision by the House of Lords is troublesome in many ways. First, the Peers had the opportunity to postpone their decision in favor of establishing a select committee to assist in doing the ethical analysis warranted by such a momentous step. After all, some of the most respected voices in England, including Lady Warnock's, called for such a commission. Instead, the Lords rushed

in where angels fear to tread. Even worse, the policy proposed by the House of Lords requires that any cloned human embryo would have to be destroyed within 14 days after the procedure. Mandatory destruction hardly seems a fitting end for a human being who entered this world at the will of human somatic cell nuclear manipulators.

The temptation to manipulate another human life is almost irresistible to some. University of Kentucky reproductive physiologist, Panos Zavos, announced on 26 January that he and an Italian colleague,

Severino Antinori, have joined a global consortium, which plans to produce the world's first cloned

baby within one to two years. Some of his colleagues have labeled Zavos a 'medical cowboy'. Yet he and his collaborator doubtless believe they are more like Lewis and Clark than Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

It hardly takes prognosticatory gifts to know that someone has already successfully cloned a human being or that a human will be cloned soon. The near inevitability of cloning does not, however, make its imminence more welcome. We are exquisitely ill-equipped morally to deal with the reality of a human clone in our midst.

He or she would first have to suffer the notoriety of being born through human somatic cell nuclear

transfer. Next, his or her future would be shaped by someone else's past. That is to say, those who reared the clone would, no doubt, want to duplicate the environment of the donor as much as possible. Otherwise the experiment would be less likely to produce an identical replica of the original,

since environment is as important as inheritance. So much for that celebrated quality called human freedom. Furthermore, proprietary interests would be at stake. Who owns a clone--the cloned, the clone, or the cloner? In the commodified world of biotechnology, the one with the most investment money is likely to win. So, obviously, the cloner would own the clone. Prospective parents might be able to purchase a clone, but the market would determine the selling price. Will the price be set in pounds, dollars, Euros, or yen?

If there were ever an appropriate time to clone a human being (and there is not), this is not that time.

At the beginning of the 21st century, we are experiencing a period of unequaled technological prowess combined with unparalleled moral vacuity, especially when it comes to judging who counts in the moral equation. Do clones count as persons? On what moral basis could one make such a judgement? On what moral ground could one deny the personhood of a cloned human? When does protectable

personhood obtain? How does one avoid being arbitrary in determining personhood? Until these questions are answered thoroughly and satisfactorily, cloning a human being ought to be forthrightly

banned or effectively postponed in order to engage in a global debate about the morality of human cloning. Critics of such a proposal say that the debate would prove intractable. Perhaps that fact alone is a necessary and sufficient reason to prohibit cloning a human being in the next twelve months, twenty-four months, or forever.

Human Cloning: Reproduction or Procreation? Post Date: 03/01/1999

Cloning

Reproductive Ethics

Author:

John F. Kilner, PhD

Is it part of our God-given destiny to exercise complete control over our reproductive process? Richard Seed, in one of his first in-depth interviews after announcing his intentions to clone human beings commercially, made this very argument. U.S. President Bill Clinton offered the opposite view when he issued the ban on human cloning. Rather than seeing cloning as human destiny, he rejected it as "playing God." Is human cloning in line with God's purposes for us?

It is no accident that we call what we do when we have babies "procreation." "Pro" means "for" or "forth." To be sure, we do bring babies "forth." But the deeper meaning here is "for." We bring new human beings into the world "for" someone or something. To be specific, we continue the line of human beings for God-in accordance with God's mandate to humanity at the beginning to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). We also create for the people whom we help bring into being. We help give them life. They are the ones most affected by our actions-far more than the rest of society and

even far more than we ourselves. What is particularly significant about this "procreation"-this

"creation for"-is that it is a creation that is by its very nature subject to an outside agenda-to God's agenda primarily, and secondarily also with due respect to the needs of the child being created. In this sense, only God is Creator-the only one who creates something out of nothing ("ex nihilo") and is subject to no outside agenda.

The human cloning mindset, then, is hugely problematic. With unmitigated pride it claims the right to create rather than procreate. It looks neither to God for the way that God has intended human beings

to be procreated and raised by fathers and mothers who are the secondary-i.e., genetic-source of their life; nor does it look primarily to the needs of the one being procreated. It looks primarily to the

cloner's own preferences or to those of society. People operating out of the human cloning mindset

see themselves as Creator rather than procreator. This is aspiring to be God which God has consistently chastised people for, and for which God has ultimately wreaked havoc on many a society and civilization.

Today, as we lose sight of the Creator God, we increasingly orient more to the material world than to God. We are more impressed with the Gross Natural Product than with the original creation. So we more commonly talk in terms of reproduction rather than procreation. In the process, we associate people more closely with things-with products-than with the God of Creation. No wonder our respect for human life is deteriorating. We become more like that with which we associate.

This Little Piggy Goes to the Organ Market? Cloning, Genetic

Engineering, Xenotransplantation and the Drive to be First Post Date: 01/14/2001

Cloning

Genetics

Organ Donation & Transplantation Author:

Nancy L. Jones, PhD

In early January, two teams of researchers announced their success in genetically modifying pigs via a cloning technique. Scientists from the University of Missouri and Immerge Bio Therapeutics published details of their achievement in the journal Science; the other company, PPL Therapeutics of Blacksburg, VA, announced the results of their experimentation at a news conference.

The rationale for the research was to produce pig organs with greater compatibility for human transplantation. Pig organs have long been viewed as a potential solution to the limited supply of

transplantable organs because of their physiological and anatomical similarities to human organs. The supply of pig organs is also far less limited than the supply of human organs. However, the threat of rejection has diminished the favorability of transplanting pig organs into humans. Scientists have identified two molecules that play a key role in triggering rejection. One is a sugar molecule (called alpha-1-galactose) that coats pig cells. Scientists who achieved the cloning breakthrough took cells and inactivated, or "knocked out," one of the copies of the gene that directs this sugar molecule's

production. They then used these cells as nuclear donors to create embryos via a cloning technique. The resultant cloned pigs now carry one inactivated gene for this sugar molecule, as will their offspring. Ultimately scientists hope to breed animals in which both copies of the gene are inactivated. It is important to note that whether or not the genetically engineered pig organs will result in less rejection has yet to be empirically demonstrated.

What are the ethical concerns behind this recent breakthrough? Some of the fear associated with xenotransplantation stems from the prospect of creating a human-animal hybrid such as those in The

Island of Dr. Moreau. The repugnance invoked by such organisms is consistent with the biblical conviction that breeding between humans and animals is wrong. Scripture declares that God created species to reproduce "after their own kind." Therefore, human beings should not attempt to create human-animal hybrids by blending different species at the genetic level. However, simply transplanting an animal organ into a human patient will not alter his or her genetic make-up in a manner that will affect the genetic constitution of future generations. Such a procedure would be similar to the accepted practice of injecting bovine-derived insulin into a diabetic. On the other hand,

some scientists have begun trying to make pig-human hybrids for xenotransplantation, defending their pursuit with the persuasive outcome-based justification that such hybrids may alleviate the critical

shortage of human organs. Christians must wrestle with the fact that the creation of pigs that pass on

human genetic material to subsequent generations runs counter to God's design for each species to reproduce after its own kind.

Another major ethical concern associated with xenotransplantation is "zoonotic transmission," which is

the transmission of pathogens across traditional species barriers. For example, some have suggested that the porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV), or other viruses which presently do not cause disease in humans, might mutate and cross the traditional species barriers as the result of transplanting a pig organ into a human recipient. This possibility has caused the American Medical Association to propose ethical guidelines for animal-to-human organ transplantation. Subjects enrolling in these experiments would be required to waive their traditional right to drop out of the study in order that potential public health concerns could be monitored in an ongoing manner.

Those concerned with animal welfare are also troubled by the purposeful genetic manipulation of animals in order that they may serve as organ sources. As Christians, we understand that human beings have been given dominion over the created order. However, we must also be responsible

stewards. Selective breeding and animal husbandry techniques can be ethical means of improving our food and medical products. The type of genetic manipulation required to "knock out a gene" would be very similar to selective breeding practices for low fat content or coat color. The major difference is

the gross inefficiency associated with the former type of genetic modification. For example, scientists at the University of Missouri and Immerge Bio Therapeutics implanted three thousand genetically-modified pig embryos into 28 surrogate sows, but only seven piglets were born, with just four surviving.

The most pernicious aspect of technologies such as xenotransplantation may be their lure to idolize the power of science and scientific achievements. We need to exercise caution and recognize that selective breeding and genetic manipulation can produce unintended and unexpected results, which

may not always be immediately evident. God's design is amazingly interlinked and delicately balanced so that single genetic changes may have far reaching consequences. We should never allow the race to develop therapies to outstrip ethical consideration. PPL scientists chose not to undergo the peer-review process before publicly announcing their achievement, justifying this decision as one motivated

by pressure from their stockholders to announce breakthroughs in a timely fashion. Immerge Bio Therapeutics should be applauded for submitting to the peer-review process before announcing its breakthrough.

As we seek to analyze science's "advances" through a "Christian lens," our duty is to determine if the means as well as the ends are ethical. Selective breeding for certain characteristics that are beneficial to humans, sacrificing animals' lives for the welfare of humans (as long as it is done in a humane way), and transplanting animal organs into humans are compatible with a Christian ethic. Although some might disagree on grounds of prudence, using a pig organ to meet human needs would not run counter to God's created order. However, if scientists seek to create human-animal genetic hybrids for

xenotransplantation, this should give us pause.

"The Harmful Effects of Cloning" by Brooke Myers

With the technological knowledge in the world growing from day to day, there is no way to predict where science may lead us in the future. Just a few years ago, cloning was something of a fictional nature that most scientists had thought about, but never seriously considered it as an experiment. Recently, animals have been cloned, and cloning has become no less than true reality. In a few more years, the knowledge on how to clone humans could be present. Before that advancement arrives, we need to ask ourselves if this knowledge of cloning is a beneficial idea or a destructive one. Cloning will have negative effects on our society in the future because: cloning devalues uniqueness of the individual cloned, clones could be used in crimes or used as weapons, cloned animals that are reintroduced into the ecosystem could cause the ecosystem to change drastically, people who try to clone their dead loved ones will be shocked to find that the clone may resemble the person that they love, but it really isn't the person that they love, finally, animals that are cloned for medical reasons don't deserve to be brought into this world just to be used only for their organs and other body parts. If something isn't done to avoid cloning humans before it is too late, then cloning could upset the balance of our society drastically, possibly causing irreversible mishap in the world as we know it today.

The knowledge on how to clone humans doesn't exist yet, but the knowledge on how to clone animals is presently being utilized in research labs worldwide. Standard cloning involves taking DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) from a cell of a particular species and transferring it into an egg cell from another animal belonging to the same species or another one. Before this process can take place, the nucleus from the original cell must be removed from that egg. The result is then implanted into the surrogate mother. This mother will then provide the food and nutrients for the embryo to develop until the mother gives birth to the clone. Until recently, the surrogate mother had to be of the same species, but now, with recent technological advances, one species can now give birth to a different species ("Science and Technology" 100).

The laundry list of complaints about cloning begins with the fact that cloning humans decreases the value of uniqueness of the individual. According to ABC News, "About 87 percent oppose cloning humans, and 93 percent don't want to be cloned themselves" (Rembert 15). With statistics that strong, it proves that the extent to the public's opposition to the cloning of humans. The Vatican has always been known to be truthful to what they say. The church has a great deal of influence on many people's opinions, and the church believes that human cloning is also immoral because it violates the human dignity of the individual ("Vatican"). How would you feel if you found out that you were a clone? You probably wouldn't feel like a person that was truly meant to step foot on this earth. You would probably feel like a nobody, someone's creation. John Colvin, a writer forThe Humanist magazine, says that if cloning is used frequently in our society, "…human biodiversity will be diminished and human evolution will cease" (Colvin 39). People will start to look and act more like each other, and if one person's genes contains vital information for the future and he/she doesn't reproduce sexually, it would be shared with another individual and evolution of the human race will never take place again. Fr. Frank Pavone, a well-respected writer for the church, feels that clones would also feel less of human beings because "value is intimately tied to uniqueness" (Pavone). If people were being cloned one after the other, then there wouldn't be much diversity in the society. This will also diminish the value of uniqueness.

Some other possibilities of cloning that can also upset our economy include such unlawful behavior as using cloning for crime or as a weapon. In an article released last year on cloning by Pamela Schaeffer, who is a writer for the National Catholic Reporter, Schaeffer says that all it takes is for one cell to start the cloning process and that cell can be taken without the donor even knowing about it (Schaeffer 21). If a person was to obtain someone else's cells, then it would be possible for that person to clone those cells and create an individual that looks exactly like the person that the cells were taken from. The person that cloned the cells could force their newly developed clone to commit any type of crime possible. This is an example of a case of fraud or framing. Since the clone committed the crime, and is an exact replica of the person that was cloned, it would be extremely difficult and almost impossible to prove the framed person innocent by claiming that it was a clone, and not the person that was cloned. Dr. Patrick Dixon, who is a doctor opposed to cloning, and has written several articles on the effects of cloning, states "there are powerful leaders in every generation who will seek to abuse this technology for their own purposes" (Dixon). A tyrannical leader of a country could clone an army of his/her elite soldiers to create a super-army of human clones to be used for domination and war. Nobody knows the number of criminals in the world right now, just waiting for the science field to announce the development of human cloning. With so many individuals who are possible abusers of cloning, and with so many ways to abuse the technology, nobody knows how many negative directions that cloning could take us. It may soon be possible to clone Adolf Hitler or any other oppressive figure from our past. The only thing that would be needed is a cell, perhaps even some of his bone marrow from his skeleton. Other individuals, such as John Colvin believe that a person could also clone a subclass of slaves (Colvin 39). With the ability to clone people, there is nothing to stop the production of slaves. The slaves may be used to do labor for the crimes for their

owner. Slavery is illegal and when the time comes that humans can be cloned, there will be nothing to stop people from cloning slaves and abusing the technology in many other ways.

Also, people have had the idea of cloning extinct species to bring them back from the dead and once again into the environment. Nichole Myers, a biologist for WIL Research, studies cloning daily and the effects that it will have in the future, believes that cloning of endangered or extinct animals is a dreadful idea. If a species is reintroduced into a habitat that it isn't adapted for them, then it could throw off the entire ecosystem and cause another species to die out due to competition, or the reintroduced species could prey on another species causing them to die out of the environment (appendix A). Another reason that cloning of animals is bad, according to Tracey Rembert, writer for E magazine, is because if a species is cloned, the species could lose the genes that are resistant to a certain disease, and if a species is cloned many times, similar to what would happen to humans, cloning would weaken the genetic diversity of the animal's species (Rembert 15). If cloning takes place again and again, then the population would be living in one generation and evolution within our species will cease to exist. The Economist magazine says biologists are not able to clone one species within another species ("Science and Technology" 100). Michael Lemonick, a writer for Time magazine, wrote on this subject and found that with this knowledge, scientists are now trying to clone prehistoric animals such as the wooly mammoth (Lemonick 96). With a creature as gigantic and prehistoric as a wooly mammoth, the effects of this animal on the ecosystem today would be devastating, especially if the beast was to become out of control and begins to run amuck, causing mass destruction on earth, damaging the environment, and hurting innocent civilians, all due to cloning.

Not only have scientists thought about bringing extinct animals back from the dead and cloning them, but now they are trying to bring people back alive who have died too. If a loved one died and the opportunity arose to clone that individual, would you have him/her cloned? Before you answer, take into consideration that the clone "…would not be the same child, though it would look very similar" (Rembert 15). Environmental factors play a critical role in human development (Schaffer 21). If one child is brought up in one environment and his/her clone was brought up in another, they would be different. They would learn different values, develop different tastes, and make different friends. Like animals, when cloning humans there is also the chance the clone could develop some kind of defect or side effect of cloning that has yet to be predetermined (Lemonick 21). Cloning a person is also very risky because "…the genetic material used from the adult will continue to age so that the genes in a newborn baby clone could be—say—30 years old or more on the day of birth" (Dixon). This means that if an adult were cloned, the clone's genes would be just as old as the cells that the clone was derived from. If the genes were 30 years old at the time of cloning, the genes would be the same age in the newborn clone. Many attempts to clone animals resulted in severe abnormalities due to genetic mutations, and the same mutations are very possible to happen to human clones also (Dixon). Who would want to put a loves one of theirs through this pain, just for the selfishness of trying to keep that person in their life for as long as possible? No person has the power to predict how a clone will turn out, and it may not be a risk that is worth taking just to have a loved one back. Once a mistake is made in cloning humans, there is no turning back, what is done is done.

Many scientists believe that cloning could add great benefits to the health field. For example, organs and tissue of animals or humans could be cloned to help save the lives of individuals who are suffering from a disease. Currently in the United States alone, more than 70,000 Americans who are on waiting lists to receive blood transfusions, organ transplants, or any other part of the human body that could be transplanted from the body of one individual to another. A person may have been born with a serious birth defect, had an accident that left the person unable to function properly, or the person may have a disease that limits their daily activities. According to David Ayares, a research director with PPL therapeutics, scientists are cloning pigs just to use their body organs "…their organs are roughly the same size as those of humans, meaning that operations can be performed with a relative snap-out, snap-in simplicity" (8). In order to obtain cloned organs, scientists have to clone the embryo of the animal that will be used to get the replacement tissues or organs, after the clone is grown to the appropriate size, the needed organs are then taken from the animal and utilized for transplants in human beings, leaving the animal who was unwillingly brought onto earth for dead. Until the day comes when a lone organ can be cloned, cloning an embryo just to get an organ is wrong because the clone would have to die after giving up the organ.

Other people have argued that cloning animals to increase the world's food supply would be beneficial to humans. CeresNet, a program run by Georgetown University says it could be done by taking low-cost embryos, clone them, and reusing the DNA again and again to get more food ("Cloning of food animals). This may give a better food supply, but one has to remember that for each developing embryo, there has to be at least one donor female to carry the embryo to full terms. This means that clone animals would not produce more food, because reproduction would move just as fast as cloning would.

In addition, pro-cloning individuals believe that cloning can increase scientific knowledge. Rory Watson, a writer for the British Medical Journal, informs people that animal cloning could benefit in the preparation of vaccines and medicines (Watson 847). Chairman of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, Sir Colin Campbell, said: "Cell nucleus techniques might be helpful with research into and eventually treatment of serious conditions such as Parkinson's, and various types of cancer" (Mayor 1613). It is true that these are beneficial ideas, but they are not fully tested. There is no way to tell whether these proposals will work until they are tested, which hasn't been completed yet (appendix A). The proposals are yet to be tested because scientists have not found a way to clone humans, therefore they can't find out if these proposals work.

Moreover, parents of twins or other multiples that are identical would argue that their children are unique, so they can each have different feelings, beliefs, and personalities, thus making them individual. This is yet another way of proving that a clone may resemble the original human being, but it's really not the same human being. Cloning is not the same as having twins because cloning is planned, while having multiple babies is something that is rare and unpredictable, which makes each baby very special. Plus, multiple babies have their own DNA structure, while clones have identical DNA structure. No one baby is more important than the other, however a clone would not be as precious as the person who was cloned. This bias is simply associated with the spontaneity and beauty of birth. With all types of multiples, the miraculous and unpredictable nature of human life shines through reminding us that we never know what to expect around that next corner. With cloning that mystery and awe is replaced with statistics and scientific equations.

Obviously, cloning can affect our society drastically. Some type of law needs to be passed and put into effect as soon as possible, stating that the cloning of human beings and animals is wrong and illegal. Passing a law stating this, or even similar to this statement could prevent the many negative affects that cloning will have one our society before it is too late. Once scientists begin cloning human beings, there will no easy way to fix the many destructive effects that are sure to happen. How would we go about morally eliminating a human clone? Can we kill it? Can we lock it up in solitary confinement? Do we leave it on the streets to cause more problems? If a law isn't passed soon, the many negative aspects of cloning stated in this paper may soon be reality for the world. Ranging from criminals cloning humans to be used as weapons in crimes, to large prehistoric beasts rampaging the streets and harming innocent civilians, these worldly problems may soon occur all due to cloning. We must stop this technological advancement before it is too late.

Works Cited

"Cloning of Food Animals." CeresNet 2000.5 Nov. 2000

http://www.ceresnet.org/ViewEntry.cfm?ID=82&Section=outreach

Colvin, Jonathon. "Me, my clone, and I (or in defense of human cloning)." The Humanist May/Jun. 2000: 39.

Dixon, Dr. Patrick. Don't Clone – 3 Reasons. 31 Oct. 2000

http://www.globalchange.com/noclones.htm

Lemonick, Michael D. "Could a clone ever run for President?" Time 8 Nov. 1999: 96.

Mayor, Susan. "UK authorities recommend human cloning for therapeutic research." British Medical Journal 98: 1613.

Myers, Nichole. Personal Interview. 1 April. 2001.

Pavone, Fr. Frank. "What does it mean to be Me?" 31 Oct. 2000

http://www.priestsforlife.org/pressreleases/clonepress.html

Rembert, Tracey C. "Me and my shadow." E Jul/Aug. 1997: 15–21.

Schaeffer, Pamela. "Many oppose human cloning." National Catholic Reporter 22 Oct. 1999: 19,21.

"Science and technology: New kid on the block." The Economist 14 Oct. 2000: 100.

"Vatican: No to human cloning." National Catholic Reporter 22 Oct. 1999: 21.

Watson, Rory. "European parliament wants world ban on human cloning." British Medical Journal 97: 847.