“The Ethics of Cloning”
On February 24, 1997 Dolly the Sheep was born. Dolly was the first successfully cloned animal, and with her birth came a series of questions. What is the potential for this new technology? What are the ethics of using it? The most intense debate is over the possibility of human cloning. The two most intensely debated forms of human cloning are therapeutic and full birth, but what is not known to as many people is the third form of cloning, commonly called recombinant cloning. The potential for recombinant cloning, also commonly known as genetic engineering, in many ways surpass all other forms, and so do the ethical consequences of ever exploring its possibilities.
Recombinant cloning is the process in which a gene of interest is taken from one species and is placed in “a self-replicating genetic element such as a bacterial plasmid.” (Cloning Fact) From there the gene is then inserted into another organism, giving that organism the trait coded for that gene. While it is true this technology has been around since the 1970’s and “has become a common practice in molecular biology labs today,”(Cloning Fact) it has mostly been used up until now in the study of genes. The only application of this technology so far that goes near its potential is genetically modified plants that have been created, though that too can be further improved upon.
Imagine being able to create a plant that has all the nutritional value needed by humans to survive. Not only that, but it requires very little water to grow and tastes delicious. By using recombinant technology it is theoretically possible to create such a plant. Most people are fine with the idea of using the technology for such a purpose, the only real concern being that an allergen may get spliced into the new plant, and someone might die from eating it because they didn’t know something they were allergic to had become a part of the plant. A few people are worried that using this technology will decrease the diversity of plant species. The reason for this argument being that if a disease were to wipe out this plant and there weren’t any to fall back on, then a lot of people would starve. Most likely there would be several varieties of super plants created, limiting the likelihood of such an event occurring. The far more debated topics concerning recombinant cloning are the genetic modification of human beings.
There are two main branches of hypothetical human clones, designer babies and super clones. These two groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive, though they often have a few differences. For one thing, designer babies are much more likely to be created in real life than super clones, which are often the subject of science fiction novels.
A designer baby is an individual whose parents have picked out their genetic traits for them, probably using their own DNA, but picking only their strengths and ridding their child of any genetic flaws they might have. While it is possible that designer babies would be created through “germline manipulation, causing not only them, but all of their descendents to possess the gene modifications” (Hayes, Richard) most would probably be created so that the modifications would “have an impact solely on a single person (somatic manipulation).” (Hayes, Richard) Because an embryo going through the process of germline manipulation would still have to have somatic manipulation done to them in order to reap the same benefits the germline manipulation would give their descendents, somatic manipulation would be quicker and probably less costly to perform.
This would mean that there would probably be a great deal of genetic diversity, since not everybody’s ideas for the perfect child are the same. Most would look different, though the majority would probably look better than what people these days think of as average. It’s unlikely any would have genetic disorders and probably would be given enhanced immune systems and strength. No doubt they’d be smarter than the average person is today. But while they would almost certainly be “better” physically than most people are today, it is unlikely your average “designer baby” would be that great of an improvement over the general human race. Which brings up the first argument against them.
While most designer babies would be an improvement over their parents (since the parents would most likely use their own DNA, but would get rid of their flaws) there is some concern that the “Rich” could use their wealth and influence to acquire the genetic material of the exceptionally gifted for their children, instead of using their own DNA. If they had enough money they could theoretically obtain genetic material from all of the top professionals, allowing their offspring to have genius IQ’s and creativity, exceptional athleticism, and phenomenal speed. This would give them a further “leg up” on the rest of society, potentially splitting society into two groups. The first theoretical group is sometimes referred to as “"GenRich" who control "the economy, the media, and the knowledge industry."” (Hayes, Richard) The fear is that everyone not in that first group would be forced to work in less than quality conditions for the “GenRich.” Of course there’s always the possibility that if all the rich and powerful people in the world were actually intelligent, things might improve for everybody.
Of course, this is only one of the arguments against “designer babies.” Another fear by many people, particularly Christian Conservatives, is that “designer babies” would be treated by their parents as “more like objects or commodities rather than as equals”(Human Cloning) and would feel undue pressure to succeed, regardless of whether they had any desire to do so. For example, if someone were given the genes of Michael Jordan, they may feel pressure from their parents to become a basketball player, even though the child may not have any desire to play basketball. Because of their genes, a child might have the potential to succeed in a certain area, but they may not have any desire to do so. Most parents already put pressure on their children to succeed, but if the parents of a “designer baby” are vain enough, they may “expect” their genetically enhanced child to excel and attempt to control their child’s life in an attempt to “direct” their child toward the profession intended when they had their “designer baby.” This possibility is in many ways a scarier idea than the “GenRich”.
But the opposite might hold true as well. It is questionable whether such a child would consider a donor of genetic material “an appropriate parent.” (McGee, Glenn) After all, unlike in real parent-child relationships, the child would probably not have the same flaws of his or her “parents.” They would most likely be smarter, and depending on the situation, may come to believe, and even be right, that they would do better off by themselves than with their parents by their early teens.
However, parenting is “the teaching of values and knowledge to children in an act of stewardship,” (McGee, Glenn) so it is likely there would not be a great deal of difference between the relationships of most children and their parents today and that between the “designer babies” and their “engineers.” Perhaps the ability to use somatic manipulation may progress enough that individuals could employ upon themselves the same techniques used on “designer babies.” Today’s applications are limited to gene therapy on such diseases as cystic fibrosis, but science is advancing rapidly.
The idea of individuals being able to pick the traits of their children is the most likely application of recombinant cloning in human beings, but it is not the only one. There is a much darker possibility that has far larger potential consequences; the creation of super clones. The idea of super clones runs along the same lines as the rich using the very best genetic material for their offspring. But the difference is super clones would be created with multiple copies “in case something went wrong” (Peel, 56) by governments or other organizations for an intended purpose, rather than by private individuals who want to give their kids an advantage in life. Also, most super clones would probably be created using germline manipulation instead of somatic manipulation, so the offspring of super clones would share in their genetic abilities. Another key difference between “designer babies” and super clones is “designer babies” are born, as where super clones would probably spend their time as an embryo in an artificial womb and be “hatched” out once they were strong enough to survive outside the womb.
Imagine a country that could make an army of identical soldiers, with genetic traits for strength, endurance, obedience, and all the other qualities desirable in a soldier, commanded by officers with the genetic qualities for strategic planning, intelligence, and so forth. They’d be able to crush other countries with ease.
Maybe they’d try something less specific though, creating a set of individuals “with superior health, intelligence, talent.” (Kaye, 186) If the individuals were all around better than everyone else, fewer would have to be created for the same purposes, allowing their creators to hide them with a greater degree of effectiveness. Of course the danger of “a national government bureaucracy creating an elite human species” (Kaye, 187) for any purpose is that the super clones may decide they don’t like being ordered around by people who are weaker and less intelligent than themselves and decide to take over, which is why it would be more likely for an obedient army of super soldiers to be made, instead of “a master race”(Kaye, 187) not only capable of all the physical feats of the super soldier, but of independent and brilliant thought.
Of course the chances of any government making a group of super clones, even if they had the technology, is rather slim: the chances of a democratic government doing virtually none. The general public would never knowingly allow the government to create super clones for a militaristic purpose. Which is why a private organization with the resources and connections to keep such a project secret, is far more likely to be the one to create a set of super clones. Should it ever happen, we can only hope the goal would be scientific advancement, and not an attempt at control.
If it were an attempt by the organization to gain control though, they’d have to focus on different aspects of the human genome. Sheer intelligence and strength, while good when you’re backed by the resources of a government with police and an army, would not work well for an organization that wishes to maintain secrecy for as long as possible. The most efficient way to accomplish this goal is to specialize in the genes controlling specific areas of intelligence, such as hacking.
If you have a group of individuals “designed to be computer geniuses” (Peel, 56), with abilities such as naturally excelling at hacking into vital systems, you can effectively control almost any area of modern human life. By the time recombinant technology reaches a level where super clones are feasible, humans will probably be even more dependent on computers. But the probability of either of these possibilities coming to pass is unlikely.
There is one final potential use for super clones, and the only one that the general public might willingly allow to happen. Sooner or later, should humans survive long enough, our species will attempt to colonize other planets. When this happens there are three main possibilities. One, humans only colonize planets suitable for our survival, or build domes or another structure that can contain a hospitable environment. This would limit human expansion significantly. Two, humanity terraforms planets to suit its needs, making it possible to live on previously unusable planets. This would undoubtedly be costly and would probably take a great deal of time to accomplish. Three, super clones could be created that can survive in a foreign environment, such as another planet.
If “their bodies were designed for life in the vacuum of space,” (Morioka, 25) then they could live in very low-level atmosphere environments without as much help. A planet like Mars, one that has a scarce source of water and the possibility for small amounts of oxygen, could easily be colonized by a race of this type of super clone. But like all types of super clones, this possibility raises several ethical dilemmas.
Besides the obvious questions of whether the government would use super clones to take over and whether the clones themselves might take control, there is also the question of whether super clones would even be human. Many are unsure whether beings genetically modified to be superior, or to survive in harsh environments, could be called human.
The simple fact of the matter is that if a super clone could reproduce with a “natural” human and produce viable offspring, then they too would be human by definition. It would be like comparing a Doberman Pincher with a Chihuahua. Most Dobermans are faster, stronger, and smarter than your average Chihuahua, but despite these key differences, they both still belong to the same species and as such, any offspring produced by a cross between the two would be able to reproduce.
Since the genetic material for super clones would theoretically come from human beings who exemplify the desired traits, there is no reason super clones would be genetically different enough to become a separate species. The only possible way that would happen is if the genetic designers of the super clones went outside of the human race to get the desired characteristics, splicing in animal DNA. But this would be far harder to do than making the average super clone due to compatibility issues and could not be done successfully until scientists had mastered the gene splicing techniques that would be used in making “regular” super clones, so it is not worth going into great detail at this point in time.
Another issue of great debate about super clones is whether or not they would replace the general population over time. This is a ridiculous argument for a couple of reasons. First, while it is true that in nature if a small portion of the species becomes more adapted toward survival they usually end up replacing their weaker counterparts, humans have all but gotten rid of survival of the fittest. We help junkies, alcoholics, whores, and pretty much anybody else down on their luck, whether they can benefit society or not. In a species where even the most useless individuals are given millions of dollars of support, it would be impossible for super clones to replace the general public no matter how superior they might be. There just wouldn’t be enough of them for there genes to spread throughout the entire human population, ever. Super clones taking over the “natural” population is far more likely than them replacing us.
Secondly, who in their right mind cares? It is a near impossibility, but if the human race could become completely made up of people with the genes of super clones maybe humanity would be better off. As previously stated, a super clone would be just as human as anyone living today, but they would be stronger, faster, more endurant, and most importantly, smarter. The majority of human suffering, and environmental destruction, comes from making bad decisions that could easily be avoided if the people who made them had been a little bit smarter. So it might not be so bad if super clones replaced the general population.
Another concern that is widely spread but has little merit, is the idea that “each human should be arising from an act of love between a husband and a wife and not reduced to a laboratory procedure.” (Human Cloning) This argument is made mostly by religious conservatives and is in many ways more ridiculous than the idea that super clones would replace us. First, in society today there are almost a million children born to unmarried women a year in the U.S. Clearly the belief that everybody should be born in a marriage is not shared by everyone.
Secondly, since it is more logical for people to only have sex in wedlock since it carries far fewer risks, it is probable that once the initial generation of super clones grew up they would not have children outside of marriage. In fact, the output of the chemicals that cause some people to be more faithful to a single person is controlled by genes. It wouldn’t be that hard to code the genes of a super clone towards fidelity, making it easy for them to make the “moral” choices so many people today find hard. In short, while they themselves would not arise “from an act of love between a husband and a wife,” (Human Cloning) their children almost certainly would.
Thirdly, the number of ways to reproduce is continually increasing. With such options as inverto-fertilization and sperm banks, along with surrogate mothers, there are plenty of ways to have children outside of marriage besides the plain old-fashioned way. So it seems very odd that there are so many people who find one of the most objectionable things about cloning to be the fact they are not created by a husband and wife.
Of course, there are several ethical arguments that work better against both super clones and designer babies, than against either one individually. The main argument is that cloning is “tampering with God and with what God intends.”(Human Cloning) While this argument is by far the most widespread, it is also the most ignorant.
“This argument assumes that someone knows God's intentions. Even among Christians there is substantial disagreement as to what is God's will. Who is to say that it is not God's intention that we clone ourselves?”(The Ethics of Cloning) Humans are imperfect, but recombinant technology, if used wisely, could allow humans to rid themselves of their physical, and many of their mental, imperfections. The improved intelligence of clones would almost certainly help us make the sort of choices humans have believed for centuries is what God wants, but rarely ever do in present day. It is silly to believe that it is horribly immoral to create clones, and that nothing good can come of it.
But what if it is against God’s will? One of the main reasons people of all religions are currently against human cloning is “it took the scientists who created Dolly 277 tries before they got a healthy, viable lamb. Because cloning humans is more complicated, even more deaths and lethal birth defects can be expected during experimentation.”(Human Cloning the religious and ethical debate) Most of the failures are completely unexplained. They just died or went awry, with no apparent cause. Some might argue that God is causing the problems in an attempt to get us to stop. This isn’t quite as flawed an argument as previous ones. It has been agreed upon that the risks of human cloning are too great at this time because of the unexplained defects. Since recombinant cloning is the next step after direct human cloning, it will never happen until an explanation for the problems can be found and fixed in animal cloning.
If it really is God causing the defects, then the conservatives lobbying against human cloning shouldn’t worry so much, since the chances of humans thwarting God’s “will” are pretty slim. Human cloning and genetic engineering would never come to pass. Nonetheless, just because something might be against the will of God and be impossible to achieve, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. There is no way of knowing for sure if we don’t.
Not everyone is against the idea of human recombinant cloning. The main religion against it is Catholicism. Many Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and even some Muslims believe that “humans are created co-creators who have a responsibility to participate with God in shaping a better future.” (Human Cloning the religious and ethical debate) Quite a few of them believe that recombinant technology is a good way to accomplish this. But whatever the course humans take, it would be a good idea for governments to prepare for the eventuality of human clones by making laws and policies concerning the subject, instead of trying to stall the future, and keep it from happening.