The Ethical Aspects of Cloning - Essay Example

Cloning The debate regarding cloning has been raging for over a decade, and the core issue of the debate is ethics. The argument is largely between science and religion, and the possibilities of cloning strike a strong emotion in many who consider it. The very idea of cloning human embryos has initiated new laws in nations where no provisions were made for such an advanced scientific achievement, and even the bible has no reference to it; the Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt not kill,” but nowhere does it say, “Thou shalt not create.” Margaret Talbot (New York Times magazine, 2001) embarked on a bold and delicate journey to explore the issues behind human cloning for the purposes of recreating lost loved ones. Beginning with an example of the death of a 10-month-old baby boy caused by something going wrong during a minor operation. The parents of the infant want to clone him, giving the reason that he should have a chance of life. Although they are a healthy, fertile couple with the ability to produce another child, they do not want another child. They want that child. Talbot goes on to wonder if people realize that creating a genetically identical copy of a human does not mean that the clone will be the same person, only a replica. The idea of cloning a human being for the purposes of replacing what was lost is ludicrous in my opinion. First of all, as Talbot’s article states, the clone would not have the same memories or necessarily the same personality as the original. A good case in point to demonstrate a difference in personality between an original human and a clone would be identical twins; they are genetically alike, yet they have different preferences, different personalities and sometimes are so different that they may as well have come from different families. It is easy to become so familiar with a person, a pet or a friend that to associate anyone or anything that looks like them is associated with the original, with expectations of sameness. This is a very basic human reaction and the desire for continuity. Religious or spiritual beliefs aside, everyone and everything is unique, even if similar. I believe that the exclusively human abhorrence of death is the core of the desire to clone a child or person from the original. Yet simple analysis shows that the reality of the idea is inharmonious with the expectations of the people who want a clone. In exploring a fringe science group called the Raëlians, Talbot explores the rationale behind cloning “replacement children.” The Raëlians believe that humans are genetically altered clones of extraterrestrials, and they have a membership of over 55,000 people worldwide. They also have enormous resources and a team of brilliant scientists, which lends them some amount of credibility. The statement of this group is, if someone wants a clone, why shouldn’t they have one? Although the raw logic of the Raëlians is not really flawed, the thinking of the many hopeful customers is. Talbot points out that a cloned child would be raised by its parents with unprecedented expectations, whether conscious or not, and the child would have no memories of previous experience with the family. Talbot wonders if people really realize the brevity of that. Still, grieving does alter one’s sense of reason, and cloning seems to be offering hope to many who have lost children in unfortunate and sudden circumstances such as accidents. The research done by Talbot lead her to a 77 year old woman who wishes to clone her son Matthew, who at age 37 died after falling out of a tree. The woman acknowledged that someone else would raise Matthew because of her age (she calls the hypothetical clone Matthew), an idea she doesn’t really like. So what, Talbot asks, will she be getting if she could have Matthew successfully cloned? The answer is, “his mind.” He had an I.Q. of 165 and the world needs a mind like that. Again, here is a flawed pattern of thinking: even if the original could be cloned, there is no guarantee that the clone would have the same mind. Raised in a different environment, under completely different circumstances and with even a different set of neurological pathways and as yet undiscovered differences in neurological construction, it does not seem likely that the same mind could be replicated. At this point it might be wise to consider the philosophers of old such as Descartes, who delved into the ability of the mind alone to perceive truth. Descartes’ journey into the distinction between mind and body is in harmony with the Eastern philosophies which state that it is the mind that returns into a different body at some point in the future (reincarnation), yet that very mind is separate from the brain, which is simply the organ that organizes and processes information perceived. Using this argument, there is no guarantee that the same mind (or “soul”) would animate the body of the clone. Granted, this is stretching reason, but it is a point to consider. We cannot use hypothetical or theoretical arguments for or against cloning, because the truth is, we simply do not know enough about the nature of the mind or even the secrets of the brain to form an absolutely factual opinion. Yet in exploring the human condition, Talbot does a good job approaching the illogical desire for humans to reproduce a copy of an original with hopes that it will be the same, as is the case of the parents who lost the infant in surgery. Philosophy did not conceive of cloning, yet it still can address it in terms of what is ethical and what is not. This really rests with the individual, on a psychological basis. What is one hoping to reproduce? For whom? The answer is completely egocentric in that people who wish to clone a lost child want what they want are do not wish to take chances. Yet it is obviously not realized that the clone itself is a chance. The clone would be a completely different and unique person; in the case of the 10-month-old, let us say that a successful clone is achieved. Raised by the same parents, the parents would obviously wish to shape the personality of the clone to be as close as possible to the original. They very well could mistake gestures and imitations on the part of the infant as the original having returned, when it is simply a matter of normal infant behavior and development of cognitive and motor skills. Even looking into the future, the life path of the infant would not be the same as the original. A body can possibly be cloned, but not a mind or a set of decisions, preferences, or even attraction to the same things. While there is nothing inherently wrong with cloning an individual, great care needs to be taken in examining the motives for creating the clone, and it is likely that we are not yet ready for such an enormous undertaking of soul-searching and reflection as to what the true purpose of the clone would be. Reference Talbot, Margaret. “A Desire to Duplicate.” The New York Times Magazine. February 4, 2001, p. 40. Read More