Ethics of Human Cloning: Arguments For and Against

Introduction

In 1971, Nobel Prize-winning scientist James Watson wrote an article warning about the growing possibility of a "clonal man." Because of both the moral and social dangers cloning posed to humankind, Watson called for a worldwide ban on any research leading to cloning technology (Watson 8).

Until then, cloning had been largely relegated to the realm of science fiction. Scientific research concerning cloning and in vitro fertilization was obscure and technical, and hardly covered in the news. Watson, however, was a highly respected scientist — a Harvard professor famous for his discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. The article he wrote sparked an intense debate over cloning, a debate that was renewed with the 1996 birth of Dolly the lamb, the first cloned mammal.

The argument no longer centers on whether cloning is possible, but on whether cloning is ethical. This paper examines the ethical arguments of those who advocate the use of cloning technology in light of Ronald Dworkin's ethical writings on "the sanctity of life" and John Rawls' theory of justice.

In the conclusion, this paper argues that because the present state of cloning technology violates the intrinsic value of human life, research involving cloning should be banned.

The first step in current cloning technology is removing the nucleus of an egg cell. This enucleated egg then receives transplanted chromosomes harvested from a donor cell. With the new nucleus, the egg behaves as if it has been fertilized. If the transplant is successful, the egg cells begin to divide. This "fertilized" egg is then implanted as an embryo into a womb for a normal gestation period (McGee 7–8).

Background: How Cloning Works

This was the technique that resulted in Dolly, who was cloned from the cell of an adult sheep. Though human DNA is far more complex, the technique could conceivably serve as the basis for cloning humans. Many experts believe that a human could be successfully cloned within the next few decades.

For its proponents, cloning technology represents unprecedented opportunities to cure a myriad of social ills. They cite the possibilities for curing diseases, helping infertile parents and same-sex couples, and providing organs for transplant.

For writer Ronald Bailey, cloning technology is the foundation for "research that could find cures for cancer, genetic diseases...damaged hearts, livers, and brains" (75). Indeed, physicians and scientists are now using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which creates stem cells — the embryonic cells that could be grown into skin, nerve cells, hearts, and other necessary organs (Bailey 76).

Arguments for Human Cloning

Cloning technology could represent a breakthrough in the treatment of leukemia, one of the more formidable forms of cancer. Current leukemia treatment relies on bone marrow transplants that must come from a closely matching donor. Since perfect genetic matches are rare, many leukemia patients die before they can find appropriate donors.

However, the same technology that resets the DNA of an enucleated egg cell can be applied to this case. A skin cell nucleus can be taken from the patient and "programmed" to grow into bone marrow. This process would eliminate the long wait for a matching donor and also remove the possibility of rejection (Bailey 76).

Similarly, cells can be "programmed" to grow into organs and tissues. A diabetic, for example, could grow a new pancreas that produces adequate insulin. The cells could also be used to grow or repair tissues that have been destroyed or damaged, either through illness or accidents (Bailey 76–77).

This technology, however, is in its infancy. Researchers still need to experiment further with human eggs to learn how to properly "reset" and "reprogram" these cells. Such research could also lead to a discovery of why cancer cells divide uncontrollably. Bailey argues that current attempts to block such research will result in delays to new treatments, and that people who might otherwise have been saved will die unnecessarily (Bailey 77).

Though still in its infancy, cloning technology represents a new method of reproduction, offering hope for many couples who could not otherwise have children of their own.

Gregory E. Pence, an ethicist and professor of philosophy, cites the hypothetical case of Sarah and Abe Shapiro, a Jewish couple with a four-year-old son named Michael. Abe was killed in a car accident and Michael was declared brain dead, though still in a coma. Since her pregnancy with Michael had rendered Sarah infertile, she believes she would want one of her eggs enucleated and reinserted with Michael's DNA. In this way, Sarah believes she could ensure the continuation of both Michael and Abe's lineage (Pence 91).

In theory, such technology is not far off. Cloning technology thus offers another method of reproductive technology for people who want to have children. Aside from people like Sarah and infertile couples, this technology could be a boon for the growing number of same-sex couples who are either barred from adopting children or who wish to raise genetically related children of their own. Though such children would be born through cloning technology, they would be "human being(s) with all of the rights and responsibilities of any other human being" (Bailey 78).

Cloning technology also carries the possibility of making changes to the genomes of embryos. This represents a significant development for parents who are carriers of genetic diseases and risk passing those illnesses on to their offspring. Through cloning, parents could have the DNA of their embryos repaired. It is thus possible that future generations of children will not have to suffer from illnesses like PKU, cystic fibrosis, and Tay-Sachs disease (Bailey 79).

On the matter of cloning, moral arguments usually oppose the technology. For ethicist Gregory Pence, however, it is the attempts to ban cloning that are immoral and unethical.

Following John Stuart Mill's arguments in On Liberty, Pence argues that the "tyranny of the majority" should never be allowed to impose its beliefs on a "dissenting minority." The rule of thumb in deciding such matters is the "harm principle": individuals should be free to commit private acts as long as those acts do not harm other people (Pence 92).

Based on this proposition, Pence argues that cloning is a private activity and should therefore be largely free from state regulation. Pence criticizes proponents of a ban on cloning for "assuming the worst possible motives in parents" (95). By formulating the hypothetical case of Sarah, Pence illustrates his belief that most people or parents who take advantage of cloning technology would not do so simply to create "a little slave-child to walk the dog and clean the kitty litter" (96).

Bailey's arguments for the potential medical benefits of cloning technology give rise to another moral argument — the good of the majority. In this utilitarian argument, the needs of the greater segment of society prevail over the needs of the few. Cloning represents potential life-saving treatment for millions of people. Thus, attempts to ban cloning research are immoral and unethical, because such regulations will infringe on the rights of millions of people to life and to good health.

In summary, proponents of cloning technology base their arguments on three main areas. First, cloning represents the potential treatment for a vast number of illnesses. Second, cloning will help fulfill the basic human need for family for people who are otherwise prevented from having children of their own. Finally, attempts to regulate cloning are considered immoral and unethical because they infringe on individual personal liberties and put millions of lives at risk.

Conclusion

As cloning technology progresses, the debate over the ethics of cloning continues. The death of Dolly the sheep and claims by the Raelian cult to have successfully created two cloned babies have only fueled the debate further.