Other Articles

Fry Frenzy

Race of Life

Murder and its Ambiguous Causes

On an unremarkable afternoon on July 5, 1996, in a unremarkable shed in Scotland, a rather routine procedure was occurring: a lamb was being born. This lamb was not as ordinary as one might think. This lamb, just by her birth, was to spark a controv ersy that would definitely be one of the defining arguments of this era. This lamb, simply named "Dolly" (after Dolly Parton in reference to the mammary cell used as the donor), was the first clone to be born using specialized cells from an adult mammal.

The fact that the lamb was cloned from these specialized cells - such as muscle cells, liver cells, or mammary cells - is what made this discovery of such importance. Before this, scientists had thought that these cells had lost their ability to grow into a new embryo. They had already cloned embryos, but this revelation meant that a clone could be produced from an adult subject.

At first, one would think that little benefit could be derived from such a discovery, beyond the novelty of being able to make an exact copy of one's self, but scientists soon theorized many benefits that could result from such a procedure. A more hom ogeneous control group for use in science experiments involving animals would be an obvious example. A completely similar group of animals is extremely difficult if not impossible to accomplish without the use of cloning. The current research being cond ucted on aging would benefit greatly from this application of cloning.

The medical field could also be helped by cloning. Cells from a cloned embryo could be used to treat such illnesses as Parkinson's Disease and muscular dystrophy. Also, entire organs could be grown to replace failing ones, thus entirely eliminating t he long wait for a matching donor. This would also eliminate the harvesting of organs from the prisoners of certain Asian nations, who then sell those organs to the highest bidder. "With the right genetic manipulation, for example, it may be possible to grow, in pigs, livers that will not excite the immune systems of humans when there is a need to transplant these organs" ("Cloning Cloning Cloning" 16). Thousands of lives could be saved.

In recent months, the story of this event has swamped the news media. Although many opinions have been expressed, finding anyone who is stating the facts of the issue and not just venting his fears and misconceptions has become extremely difficult. I n fact, despite the enormous controversy surrounding the science, many benefits exist for mankind because of its discovery, and the continued support for the advancement of the science far outweighs any disadvantages that may arise. We cannot afford to l et our emotional biases deter us from allowing this research to continue.

To better understand why this is, one must look at the arguments and misconceptions most commonly associated with those opposed to cloning.

Cloning is immoral.

As the procedure stands now, the cloning of humans is immoral. The procedure used has a low success rate and disfiguration and death is not uncommon, but that is because it has only been developed to be used on animals, with which these types of losse s are far more acceptable. All reasonable scientists agree that the process should not even be attempted until the process is refined to meet acceptable success rates and that those higher success rates will be feasible in the near future. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission concluded that, "for the moment, the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique to create a child would be a premature experiment that would expose the fetus and the developing child to unacceptable risks" (Shapiro). 

Cloning is against God's will.

Many genetic impairments, including Parkinson's Disease, muscular dystrophy, and some retardations, could be prevented with the use of cloning and the advances that would undoubtedly come thereafter. The innocent children afflicted with these genetic defects are brought into the world and, through no fault of their own, must suffer their entire life with their afflictions. No moral person would contend that such persons already existing in the world do not deserve to live, but if a technique were dev eloped that could either detect these disorders before fertilization or correct any irregularities that were found, would this not be a better alternative?

This is just one of the possibilities that will arise from cloning and the resulting sciences. Many more medical applications will certainly arise. Although God's will is completely inscrutable, most sensible people would agree that one main focus mu st be to prevent the suffering of the innocent.

Cloning will lead to a breakdown of traditional family values.

Many opponents of cloning use this argument to strike fear in the middle-class, middle-aged voters, but the truth is that cloning may actually help to build family values.

The most likely users of a cloning procedure would be couples who cannot bear a child of their own. Today, those couples must rely on such practices as adoption or sperm donorship. Although the parents usually love these children, one or both of the parents have no direct, genetic connection to the child. With the use of cloning, this one flaw would be corrected. Cells could be taken from the father and grown into an embryo that would be implanted into the mother; therefore, both parents could take part in the creation of the child. Scientists are also predicting that, in the future, they may be able to combine any cells of the parents into an embryo that would contain characteristics of both parents. This may even provide means to a more traditi onal family for the homosexual communities.

In the future, clones with low intelligence and high physical prowess may be bred to fill the ranks of huge armies.

Numerous science fiction films and novels have portrayed this scenario, and, by looking at some of the terrible results that occurred, most reasonable people would agree that this would be a terrible outcome. Although this is a possibility, it is not a very likely one, but, nevertheless, we should still do everything possible to make certain it doesn't happen. We certainly don't want an army of Hitler clones running around the Earth.

To understand why this is highly unlikely, one must first understand some of the basics of the cloning procedure. Most people, under the misleading influence of science fiction, have the impression that cloning basically involves taking genetic materi al from one animal and then producing an exact, adult copy of that animal in a laboratory. By using this method, any number of clones could be produced in a short amount of time with relatively little cost. One could build an army in an afternoon. Thou gh the end results are the same, the procedure, time requirements, and money involved are much different.

Cloning requires a great deal of resources. Now, one must spend millions of dollars and quite a lengthy amount of time to make a single clone, and a technique to alter the physical characteristics of clones is at the experimental stage at best. The t ime and cost of the procedure are likely to be reduced as the process becomes more efficient, but two facts unlikely to change in the near future are that a woman must carry each clone to term, and, after these children are born, one still has to wait unt il they grow older before they would be of any use as soldiers. Even with accelerated growth techniques, the clones would not be ready to fight for at least a decade. During the soldiers' childhoods, the creator would have to expend even more resources keeping the boys alive.

As one can see, any attempt to create a large army of cloned soldiers would require a large number of women to bear those clones, a quite lengthy period of time, and a large amount of resources. With these restrictions, an army of clones would be unfe asible. However, to guard against this unlikely event, we should do everything possible. Some laws against cloning would be worthwhile, but we should be careful not to make the laws too broad and thereby forfeit the benefits cloning will provide.

Clones will be bred as ignorant, obedient slaves.

Throughout human history, those thought to be inferior have been forced into servitude. In American history, first the Indians and then the Africans were forced into bondage by the Europeans. Albert Jonsen of the University of Washington believes the confrontation could be comparable to what occurred in the 16th century, when Europeans were perplexed by the unfamiliar inhabitants of the New World and endlessly debated their status as humans (Herbert, Sheler, and Watson 61). This tendency is a regret table fact of human society.

As with an army of clones, breeding cloned slaves would not be easy, but, again, the possibility does exist. Actually, this might be more plausible, mostly due to the smaller scale on which these slaves could be produced, reducing the effect of the ti me and resources. In the future, a fairly well-to-do person may be able to purchase a personal slave. Humankind must not allow this to occur, just as many of us have fought against the exploitation of innocent humans in the past.

Clones will result in people that have identical souls or no souls at all.

Webster's Dictionary defines a soul as "an entity which is regarded as being the immortal or spiritual part of the person and, though having no physical or material reality, is credited with the functions of thinking and willing, ... hence determining behavior." Although the religious and scientific definitions of cloning differ greatly, the preceding definition satisfactorily states the basic idea of what a soul is to both groups.

Concentrating on the belief that God creates the soul, that the soul is what lives on after a body dies, and that the soul is the person, the religious definition of cloning differs only slightly. Although the religious community denounces cloning, it recently expressed its ideas on any clones that may be created. The Catholic Church, considered a leader of the religious community, announced that any clones that were born would have souls and that these souls would not be identical because only God c an create souls. The other major religions will likely soon follow these same lines.

Being purely scientific, a person doesn't actually have a soul, but only the electrical impulses and other reactions that occur inside the brain. This is the best scientific definition one can find for what is called a soul. Therefore, according to t his line of thinking, a clone that is considered alive would obviously have a soul, and this soul would not be a copy of the original simply because the molecules comprising it would be different. Because of this, clones would possess a unique soul provi ding that such a thing does exist.

Clones may be created just to be murdered for their organs and other body parts.

Scientists predict the possibility of being able to clone one's self in order to obtain organs and other needed biological components from the clone. This sounds wonderful, but many people are opposed to it on the grounds that they think the clone wi ll have to be killed in order to obtain the organs. They feel that this would be murder in the worst sense of the word; however, if you look at the facts, this is far from the truth.

Scientists will probably most often just clone single organs, which is morally acceptable because this technique is no different than the body repairing itself by regrowing a damaged tissue or organ. Another possibility that exists is that people wou ld clone complete copies of themselves for organ harvesting, but because the clones created for this purpose would be genetically altered to have no head and, therefore, no nervous system or brain, they would be "dead" from their earliest beginnings acco rding to science. One could look at it again as no different than the body repairing itself by growing new cells and new organs, for, if no new soul is created, then no new person is created either. This makes the "clone" basically part of the original. At worst, this procedure could be looked upon as killing an animal, a soulless creature, to prevent the death of a human, and few would contest the killing of an animal to save the life of a human.

Secondly, many needed items could be obtained by never growing the embryo beyond a minute size. At this point, the embryo has no nervous system and no heart and could hardly be considered more valuable than the benefit that it could provide. As Kell y Smith of the College of New Jersey put it, "If I have Parkinson's, and I can get someone to donate an egg so I can clone myself and then grow that fetus to, say, 16 cells and then use those cells to treat my condition, it could be less ethically problem atic..." (Mario).

An upperclass of clones could develop if the more genetically endowed people were to start cloning themselves or if the rich were able to give genetic advantages to their offspring through cloning.

Ever since the announcement of the discovery of cloning was made, people have joked about how long it will take until Redmond is overflowing with Bill Gateses. This may sound funny, but actually it is a possibility. One point that does seem to slip p ast many people is the fact that, although these clones would look exactly like Bill Gates, they would act much different. A few might be computer geniuses, but the majority would be much different. At most, their similarities would be comparable to tho se of identical twins. The reason for this is that the clones' environment and experiences would differ greatly from the original. One must remember that genetic make up is only one factor in determining a person's personality, most likely the smallest part.

Another possibility that has been raised by cloning's opponents is that the rich will not only clone themselves but also add desirable genetic traits to the clones that are produced. Through time, this accumulation of these traits could lead to a high er class of people who were more physically and mentally adept. In the far future, they could even develop into an entirely different species, but the fact is that "banks stocked with the frozen sperm of geniuses already exist. They haven't created a ma ster race because only a tiny number of women have wanted to impregnate themselves this way. Why think it will be different if human cloning becomes available?" (Macklin 64).

Cloning would make men obsolete.

When cloning is perfected to a point that allows it to be used on humans, technically only a woman would be required for reproduction. Cloning of men would be possible, but only through the use of a woman. "Besides her DNA, all she would require are an egg and a womb - her own or another woman's" (Herbert, Sheler, and Watson 61). Men wouldn't be required at all; however, many blockades must be overcome before it becomes a reality.

First of all, normal procreation and sex are a basic part of the human lifestyle. For this to change, a major event would have to occur that drastically affected the tendencies of society. This is unlikely to happen in the very near future and would probably only be used in a terrible time, such as nuclear fallout, when no other form of procreation would be feasible. The phrase "not if you were the last man on Earth" would suddenly take on an entirely new aspect of the truth.

Although these are unlikely possibilities, we must, as before, guard against them by playing an active role in the development of cloning.

No one can contest that not all of the questions concerning cloning have been answered. For example, scientists don't even know what genetic age the clones produced will be. Some think that a clone's cells will be the same age as the parent, making t he clone little more than a belated twin. This would shorten his life span drastically. Although these questions might never be answered, they will have no chance of being answered if cloning is strictly prohibited.

If past scientists had succumbed to the fear of those around them, we would not possess most of the knowledge that we have gained today. As with many great scientific discoveries of the past, people will look upon cloning with much skepticism and cont roversy for many years to come, but we no longer live in the dark ages and cannot afford to suppress the advancement of knowledge for fear of the outcome.

Human cloning will no doubt take place within the next few years and having it performed under our watchful eye would be much better than in secret. At least with certain measures or guidelines, we could help to mold its future. "Most important, huma n cloning should be governed by the same laws that now protect human rights" (Macklin 64). We must allow cloning to be performed lawfully and, as the science progresses, deal with any problems that may arise, for "if we can manipulate something for good, chances are we can also manipulate it for evil" (Mario). This means we shouldn't rush into cloning haphazardly, but instead must approach it with caution and wariness.

The most useful words of wisdom come from Ian Wilmut himself, Dolly's creator: "The most important thing is to be as responsible as you can. But the advantages this brings will be enormous" (Carlin 114).

Works Cited