To Clone or Not to Clone - Essay Example

To Clone or Not to Clone Introduction Cloning is the creation of an embryo by the method of human somatic cell nuclear transfer. This procedure involves implanting DNA cells from an organism into an egg whose DNA nucleus has been removed then chemically treated so that the egg begins to behave as though fertilization has occurred. This results in the creation of embryonic growth of another organism that contains the complete genetic code of the original organism. Through this process, the cloning of mammals has resulted in, to date, hundreds of cloned organisms born. Those who oppose human cloning argue that this unnatural style of reproduction has an overwhelming potential for decisions being made based on reasons of vanity in regard to children. Their concern is that the very nature of the traditional family is in danger of evolving in a strange, unknown and undesirable direction. Advocates of cloning practices say that it may, among other things, serve society as an effective alternative treatment for infertility. The cloning of animals has stirred the debate about the ethical, legal and social aspects regarding human cloning. Thesis Statement The concept of human cloning is a controversial subject that is problematical to comprehend as the physical and psychological needs, present and future, of someone produced by this method are unknown. Societies throughout the world generally believe that human cloning experiments will violate a moral barrier, taking humans into a sphere of self-engineering. The Dolly Dilemma On February 23, 1997 Ian Wilmut, a Scottish scientist, with his colleagues at the Roslin Institute announced the successful cloning of a sheep by a new method. The technique concerned transplanting the genetic material of an adult sheep into an egg from which the nucleus had been removed. The resulting birth of the sheep, Dolly, was another landmark in mankind’s ability to rule over nature. The birth of Dolly and “the fact that humans might someday be cloned, created from a single somatic cell without sexual reproduction, moved further away from science fiction and closer to a genuine scientific possibility.” 1 The sheep experiment was different from prior endeavors in that it produced an animal that was a genetic twin of one adult sheep instead of being the identical offspring from a pair of adults. Dolly was the first successful clone of a mammal as the sheep contained the genetic material of just one parent. For more than 40 years, the practice of transferring a nucleus from a somatic cell into an egg using nuclei derivative from non-human embryonic and fetal cells continued. Evidence suggested genetic material contained in differentiated somatic cells may retain the potential to direct the development of healthy fertile adult animals. Biologists had examined whether, once cellular differentiation transpires, this process is reversible. However, until Dolly was born, the capacity to do so remained unproved. The event was a momentous scientific occurrence with profound moral implications as it brought society nearer to the realities regarding the responsibilities involved in the new ability to create human clones. The issues surrounding the cloning of human beings have been a disquieting topic of philosophical, scientific, legal and ethical debate throughout all areas of society. Some observers have postulated that the uproar provoked by the modern opportunities cloning presented as a result of Dolly is well out of proportion to many of the issues it has brought forth. Similar concerns were mentioned during previous cloning experiments and were simply budding again in a uniquely more conspicuous manner. Regardless of that, it is essential to recognize the possibilities raised by this unprecedented and radical step as it has had the most impact on the discussions regarding human cloning and its implications to society. The new technique of cloning involved three original developments: “the replacement of sexual procreation with asexual replication of an existing set of genes; the ability to predetermine the genes of a child; and the ability to create many genetically identical offspring.” 2 Enhanced Livestock Research regarding the cloning of animals may supply data that will be useful in the biotechnological and medical sciences. Some of the goals of this research are: “to generate groups of genetically identical animals for research purposes; rapidly propagate desirable animal stocks; improve the efficiency of generating; propagating transgenic livestock; produce targeted genetic alterations in domestic animals and to pursue basic knowledge about cell differentiation.” 3 There has been increased interest in science’s ability to genetically modify farm animals by the induction of genes from other species, humans for example. ‘Transgenic animals’ were initially developed using mice. “Proposed applications of this technology to livestock improvement include the possible introduction of growth-enhancing genes, genes that affect milk quality or wool fibers, or disease-resistance genes” 3 Scientific Questions Several significant uncertainties continue regarding the feasibility in the nuclear transfer cloning of mammals by using adult cells as the source of nuclei. For example, can the procedure that produced Dolly be carried out successfully in other cases and are there true species differences in the ability to achieve successful nuclear transfer? It has been shown that nuclear transfer in mice is much less successful than in larger domestic animals. In mammals, unlike many other species, the early embryo rapidly activates its genes and cannot survive on the components stored in the egg. 4 Will genetic imprinting affect the ability of nuclei to reprogram development during later stages? The creation of Dolly from a somatic cell nucleus suggests that the imprint can be constant, but potentially, an amount of unsteadiness of the imprint could reduce the effectiveness of nuclear transfer from somatic cells. It is known that instability in imprinting leads to developmental irregularities in mice and has been linked to cancer and genetic disorders but this disparity be the result of intense nuclear transfer research performed in domestic animals rather than in mice in this area during the previous decade. But part of the species differences may simply reflect the greater recent scientific efforts in livestock motivated by agricultural concerns. 5 How will the aging of cells affect the ability of somatic cell nuclei to predetermine typical development? As somatic cells divide they progressively age. This process involves the progressive shortening of the ends of the chromosomes and other unfavorable genetic changes. “Germ cells (eggs and sperm) evade telomere shortening by expressing an enzyme, telomerase, that can keep telomeres full length. It seems likely that returning an adult mammalian nucleus to the egg environment will expose it to sufficient telomerase activity to reset telomere length, since ocytes have been found to be potent sources of telomerase activity.” 6 Will the mutations that accumulate in somatic cells affect nuclear transfer efficiency possibly leading to diseases in the progeny? “As cells divide and organisms age, mistakes and alterations (mutations) in the DNA will inevitably occur and will accumulate with time. If these mistakes occur in the sperm or the egg, the mutation will be inherited in the offspring.” 6 An additional contention of advocates of creating a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer focuses on the need to encourage research and scientific advances. Scientific Autonomy The freedom of the ethical and responsible pursuit of knowledge is supported by scientists and non-scientists as well. Historically in the U.S., scientific experimentation has been encouraged but many argue that simply because there may be importance attached to science that is free from constraints, this does not mean the pursuit of science without regard to a measure of limitation based on society’s ethical and moral standards. All acknowledge the immense public gain in maintaining the ‘sanctity of knowledge and the value of intellectual freedom.’ However, “international statements about the ethics of research with human subjects, such as the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki, make it abundantly clear that science, however valuable, must, as scientists and non-scientists agree, observe important moral boundaries.” 7 For example, scientific study must not jeopardize rights or safety of the public or impose unnecessary distress to animals. At present, both federal and state governments regulate the researcher’s methods so as to monitor community safety concerns and to ensure the rights of research subjects. It is a socially and legally accepted precept that research may be restricted, to guard the subject’s sovereignty by requiring their consent, for example. “If the government can show that restrictions on cloning and cloning technology are sufficiently important to the general well-being of individuals or society, such restrictions are likely to be upheld as legitimate, constitutional governmental actions, even if scientists were held to have a First Amendment right of scientific inquiry.” 7 Consequently, even if scientific experimentation were found by the courts to be a constitutionally protected right, the government could regulate this activity in order to protect the public against harms it might inflict. An example is the bodily risks created by use of somatic cell nuclear transfer methods to produce human children. Government regulation may not disallow research in an effort to stop the development of novel invention or knowledge but it may conditionally restrict or even forbid the means used by researchers if those means involve harm to individuals or the public at large. “The freedom to pursue knowledge is distinguishable from the right to choose the method for achieving that knowledge, since the method itself may permissibly be regulated.” 8 Researchers themselves are ultimately liable for upholding ethical and scientific principles and must endeavor to incorporate this within the performance of their work. Moral concerns have generated new ethical apprehensions regarding the impressive advances in biomedical science. Society has become increasingly perceptive to the dangers of cloning research and its future consequences, particularly to human participants. Although there have been exceptions, scientists and their innovative experimentations, for the most part, have benefited from a great deal of autonomy in regards to the direction and regulation of their research plans. Since the mid-twentieth century however, public demand for peripheral regulations of scientific experimentation techniques have amplified. This is because, in part, much scientific exploration is publicly funded, especially in the biological sciences and therefore requires an additional degree of answerability to the public. According to Bernard Davis of Harvard Medical School “society sometimes seeks to regulate or restrict research when it poses the specters of dangerous or unfamiliar products, powers, or ideas.” 9 The regulation of science has justifiably become accepted as necessary, especially for those science programs that accept federal funding. Scientists are compelled by societal needs to observe animal, human and environmental protection concerns by tolerating restrictions on specific forms of experimentation. Scientific applications impact public ventures therefore society recognizes that the unrestrained sovereignty of scientific experimentation is not an unconditional right. The public expects scientists to perform their research according to the generally held ethical principles of prevailing public opinion. Most agree that there are certain situations where boundaries on scientific liberties must be defined, even if such definitions are perceived as unnecessary limitations by the scientific community. Suitable ethical constraints are a subject for both scientists and the public to together devise and apply. However, limits on freedom of scientific experimentations must be reasonable and justifiable while allowing a continuing public discourse to reconsider legislative limitations as scientific and public knowledge advances. Most also agree that scientific boundaries should not encroach upon long established rights and freedoms, that impositions on any freedoms should always satisfy certain conditions. Limitations should not ever be arbitrary in nature or gratuitously oppressive and should only materialize from the thoughtful harmonization of both cost and benefit to humanity. 10 Individual Autonomy In the U.S., one of the most important values common to all citizens is the commitment to personal liberty which is maintained because of the prevalent concern that an individual’s personal life choices may be inhibited if subjected to the decisions made by the majority. To the degree that making a private choice is a form of personal fulfillment, to maximize our combined personal achievement is to make available as many personal choices as practical. In addition, “personal autonomy is considered valuable in and of itself, since it is viewed by many as the deepest expression of one’s individuality and personality such as the deepest expression of one’s self.” 11 Many people contend that the society’s obligation and responsibility to perpetuate the individual’s autonomy requires that people remain free to create children using somatic cell nuclear transfer if that is their choice. Playing God? The history of man is marked with countless occurrences where the public, or papal, outcry of ‘playing God’ has at least attempted to impede the advancement of science. This catchphrase is generally used to define a moral boundary not to be crossed by science or medicine on the basis that it draws uncomfortable distinctions of human’s role within God’s tenets. Surprising no one, the announcement of successful somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning in mammals has again caused this argument to be vocalized. Those that believe that people should not ‘play God’ are opposed to the scientists investigating the dark mysteries of life, which are only God’s to control and that humans lack the divine authority to decide when life begins or ends. In other words, the fallible human does not have the knowledge, especially knowledge of future outcomes, attributed to divine omniscience and would make a disaster in the attempt. “Men ought not to play God before they learn to be men, then, after they have learned to be men, they will not play God.” 12 The proponents of human cloning might surmise that the faction who are opposed to ‘playing God’ evaluate scientific and medical developments according to a narrow, partial, and self-interested perspective. For the major religious organizations of the world such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is not generally regarded as theologically intimidating. For example, Islamic scholars emphasize that scientific discoveries are simply the continuation of divinely ordained revelations to man. Sheikh Fadlallah, a Shiite Muslim jurist, stated that cloning of Dolly occurred “because God allowed it.” 13 Abdulaziz Sachedina, an Islamic scholar, concluded that “cloning may be a divinely given opportunity for human moral training and maturation.” 14 A statement in the Calvinist tradition suggests that humans receive glimpses of God within the sciences. The broad diversity of religious traditions and beliefs characterizes the American culture. There is no single religious view on the subject human cloning because religious outlooks on human cloning vary in their individual premises and methods of reasoning and therefore draw different conclusions. Conclusion Creating children by utilizing cloning methods described in this discussion is unethical. Overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that such techniques are not safe at this progression in the state of cloning technology. Even if apprehension regarding the physical and psychological well being of patients were to be resolved, major concerns would continue regarding the destructive influence and the potential for abuse that the technology would cause to both society and to individuals. Society remains divided on the issue. Some consider that human cloning, through somatic cell nuclear transfer, will never be an ethical consideration because it undercuts essential social values that hold together the fabric of society and that cloning will always pose the risk of causing psychological and physical harm to the child. Fear has been unnecessarily raised regarding the creating of children through cloning based on the mistaken belief that selecting a child’s genetic makeup is comparable to selecting the child’s personality. A benefit that merits more prevalent discussion is that cloning would be lead to a wider understanding that a person’s traits, such as personality and their life achievements is dependent more so on educational opportunities and the social environment, as well as an individual’s genetic history. Undoubtedly, there is a need for further public, scientific and political reflection on the significant moral issues raised by the potential cloning of humans. Many important questions remain unanswered, such as the character and extent of our moral interest in the liberty to make reproductive choices and whether that autonomy should include creating a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning. References Braude, P.; Bolton, V.; & Moore, S. (1988). “Human Gene Expression First Occurs Between the Four- and Eight-Cell Stages of Preimplantation Development.” Nature. Vol. 332, pp. 459-61. Davis, B.D. (1980). “Three Specters: Dangerous Products, Powers, or Ideas.” Genetics and the Law II. A. Milunsky and G.J. Annas (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press. Di Bernadino, M.A. (1997). Genomic Potential of Differentiated Cells. New York: Columbia University Press. Fadlallah, S.M.H. (March 13, 1997). As cited in “Cloning Should be Punishable by Death or Amputation: Saudi Cleric.” Agence France Presse. Fundele, R.H. & Surani, M.A. (1994). “Experimental Embryological Analysis of Genetic Imprinting in Mouse Development.” Developmental Genetics. Vol. 15, pp. 515-22. Mantell, L.L. & Greider,C.W. (1994). “Telomerase Activity in Germline and Embryonic Cells of Xenopus.” EMBO Journal. Vol. 13, pp. 3211-17. Ramsey, P. (1970). Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control. New Haven: Yale University Press. Robertson, J.A. (March 14, 1997). “A Ban on Cloning and Cloning Research is Unjustified.” [Testimony Presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission]. Sachedina, A. (March 14, 1997). “Islamic Perspectives on Cloning.” [Testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission]. Solter, D. (1988). “Differential Imprinting and Expression of Maternal and Paternal Genomes.” Annual Review of Genetics. Vol. 22, pp. 127-46. Ward, K.A. & Nancarrow, C.D. (1995). “The Commercial and Agricultural Applications of Animal Transgenesis.” Molecular Biotechnology. Vol. 4, pp. 167-78. Wilmut, I; Schnieke, A.E.; McWhir, J.; Kind, A.J.; & Campbell K.H. (1997). “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells.” Nature. Vol. 385, pp. 810-13. Read More