Human Cloning Debate: Ethics, Rights, and Social Boundaries

Introduction: Frankenstein and the Cloning Debate

When Frankenstein was adapted for the stage in 1823, the production's title was Presumption; or, The Fate of Frankenstein. A Victorian audience was deeply concerned with the theme of a man's ambition to replace God by creating a new species. Equal emphasis was placed on this aspect of the novel in the 1831 introduction to Frankenstein: "It is Mary Shelley's critique of where such highly abstracted creative powers can lead when put in a 'realizing' scientific context and then driven along by 'lofty ambition' and 'high destiny' (Shelley, 2004, 204) that we see in the pages of Frankenstein." The novel was controversial in that it went against the traditional religious ideas of its time; Victorian morality held that God was the Almighty Creator.

However, modern readers — with less restricted moral boundaries than the Victorians — likely see Victor's main crime within the novel differently. Rather than the act of creation itself, the greater offense lies in the perverse manner in which the creation is carried out and, more importantly, in Victor's failure to nurture his offspring. His crime, in this reading, is against the traditional framework of the family (Feldman and Scott-Kilvert, 1987).

At the very essence of the Frankenstein myth is the idea that humans have the technology and wisdom to create or duplicate life. This idea — cloning — is neither new nor mysterious. It is simply the biological process of producing replicas of organisms through means other than sexual reproduction. In the United States, consumption of meat and other products derived from cloning was approved in December 2006, with no special labeling required.

The Biological and Social Dimensions of Cloning

There are two types of human cloning typically discussed: therapeutic cloning, which uses adult cells for medical purposes, and reproductive cloning, which involves producing human beings. In the United States, House Bill 4808 was introduced in March 2010, banning federal funding from human cloning. That bill had yet to be passed at the time of this writing, and the issues remain quite controversial (HR 4808, 2010).

Parenthood and Social Responsibility in Cloning

At the heart of the debate on cloning, there are two completely different and divergent issues: philosophical/social and biological. Parenthood may be defined as both. A child conceived through sexual reproduction has biological parents; socially, however, biology does not make parents. Witness adopted children who never know their biological parents, or the very common situation of homes in which children are raised by non-biological parents due to divorce or death.

Parenting issues ultimately return to the nature versus nurture debate. A cloned human would likely exhibit certain genetic predispositions based on the biological donor, but these traits would be modulated by parenting style, locale, relationships, and other environmental factors. As far as society is concerned, since a cloned individual would be the "child" of a parent or parents, society's responsibilities would extend to that individual just as they would to any child born through sexual reproduction (McGee, 2000).

Designer Babies and the Eugenics Question

There has been a great deal of speculation regarding the issue of "designer babies." If one can genetically eliminate predispositions toward obesity, heart disease, or cancer, then why not select for traits desired by parents — eye color, facial structure, and so on? This concern is part of the broader eugenics debate: the practice of attempting to improve the human species by discouraging reproduction among those with perceived undesirable traits. The central moral question is: who decides which traits are most desirable?

The temptation, assuredly, would be to select for greater strength and intelligence. As some science fiction authors have prophesied, this could lead toward a society of genetically "perfect" individuals who perpetuate an idealized type. However, in the real world, it is far more likely that initial applications would focus on eliminating negatives — disease, genetic disorders, physical decay — rather than selecting for aesthetic or ideological ideals.