Christian Ethics Today

To Clone or Not to Clone

Paul D. Simmons

To Clone or Not to Clone
By Paul D. Simmons

Dr. Paul Simmons Is Adjunct Professor at the University of Louisville, and Louisville Presbyterian Seminary, teaching courses in Medical Ethics, Business Ethics, Christian Ethics, and Human Rights. He also teaches at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. He was Professor of Christian Ethics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1970-1992, and was Acting Dean of the School of Theology in 1983. He was Director of the Clarence Jordan Center for Christian Ethical Concerns; chair of the Graduate Studies Committee, and served also as chair of the Faculty Committee.

He has written three books. Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making (1983), Issues in Christian Ethics (1980), both of which were widely used as textbooks, and Growing Up with Sex (1973) a book for early teens.

Simmons is a native of West Tennessee, was reared on a farm near Union City, and is a graduate from Dixie High School where he lettered in baseball and basketball.

With apologies to Shakespeare, the question of the day seems related to cloning. "Hamlet" posed the issue strongly in terms of what it means to be as a human being. The moral question begins in the meaning(s) associated with being human. Whether to clone people or not to clone them is a question pertaining to our being human.

Science, Cloning, and Ethics

Science is constantly producing spectacular feats. But somewhere among the most amazing has to be that of cloning a mammal from an adult. "Dolly" is a sheep exactly like the 6 year-old sheep (Let`s call her "Molly" because twins often have names that rhyme and it helps to tell them apart), from whom a mammary cell was used to develop the cloned cell that became Dolly.

The procedure itself builds upon a scientific theory dating to 1938. A German embryologist had the idea that cells inside every nucleus of the dozen or so cells that make up an embryo contained the ability to make any or any cells of the fully developed body-eyes, liver, brain, etc. That is called totipotency (all potent). But, as these cells develop, they become more specialized, programmed to produce specific organs or body parts. These are differentiated cells. But Hans Spemann, the embryologist, had the bright idea that the nucleus from a differentiated cell retained the genetic information to construct the entire organism. His idea was widely dismissed as so much fantasy. So, Spemann suggested an experiment: remove the nucleus from an unfertilized egg and replace it with one from a differentiated cell.1

That was easier said than done, or presumably it would have been done long before now. Certainly it was beyond the technological capabilities of the 1930s. But now that science has developed micro surgery and hollow needles thinner than a human hair, such a feat is possible. Ian Wilmut, a Scottish scientist, decided to give it a try. It took 277 attempts but he succeeded. The result was Dolly.

Needless to say, such stellar scientific "breakbthroughs" usually generate enormous controversy. Wide-eyes enthusiasts welcomed Dolly`s birth and health with visions of how wonderful the future will be in the assault on disease and infirmities among both animals and people. Histrionic critics were not to be outdone-they envisioned a future in which clones would populate the earth and human uniqueness would virtually disappear. Some more modestly reserved judgment until the nature of the experiment could be assessed more clearly. Considering the points being made from a Christian perspective might be helpful to turn some of the intense heat into some degree of light on the subject.

Cloning: Variations on a Theme

The very idea of cloning raises a number of questions just from a technical point of view. Definitions are important to understanding just what is being discussed.

1. First, just what is cloning? The word is used in several ways. The most basic is simply the creation of an organism that is genetically identical to another. That is done all the time-especially with bacteria, which are reproduced by the billions in huge vats. Nature does its own twinning among humans when a fertilized cell divides, thus producing identical twins or quintuplets, as in the case of the Dionne sisters. A third reference is to the splitting of an embryo into two to four embryos thus creating identical embryos that can come to term as physically identical siblings. The procedure has become especially popular as ways to develop purebred specimen among animals like cows more rapidly. Another type of cloning is the separation of the cells present in a pre-embryo at about the eight-cell stage.2 Each cell or blastomere is able to become a fully developed organism. That has been done with organisms from cows to people, thus creating identical quads or octuplets, or however many cells were separated.

The type cloning that produced Dolly was closer than any of these to a procedure described in a novel by David Rorvik, In His Image, that claimed a rich man had hired a young woman to be surrogate mother for an offspring cloned from one of his cells. The claim created an uproar at the time but there was no basis in fact for the novelists` story. But now there is at least the possibility. The process is one of replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg with the nucleus of another cell, also called nuclear transplantation. It has been done with frogs, mice, sheep, cows, and monkeys.3 The donor cell is fused to the egg by electrical stimulation. The most common approach was using embryonic material; Dolly represents a new step with the use of a somatic cell from an adult.

2. A second question is whether such "twins" are really identical. We`ll have to wait and see about Dolly, but scientists do not know the answers to some very interesting questions. For instance, has the age of the cell and thus of the offspring been altered? Or is Dolly really the same age as the ewe from whom she was cloned? Will Dolly show signs of aging prematurely? What a dilemma. If she is to be truly identical, she would have to be the same age, would she not? But if she is really only a few months old, what happened to the genetic clock that was set with Molly? Have scientists (finally) discovered "the fountain of youth" -a formula for rejuvenation? If they did not, Dolly`s life may get a lot of attention during her very brief existence.

There are other intriguing genetic issues. Dolly seems exactly like Molly, but she is not precisely like her. Dolly does not in fact share all her genes with Molly. Mitochondria, or energy-producing organisms within the cell, also contain a few dozen genes. That means Dolly also has a genetic contribution from the recipient egg, not just from Molly`s mammary cell. Will those make a big difference in the type of sheep Dolly turns out to be? Not likely, but it t least poses a problem for those who speak of her being genetically identical to another sheep. There are still other things scientists do not know about this way of bringing another sheep into the world: will it be fertile or sterile? would it have normal offspring or would they be terribly deformed? Was the DNA damaged by the process so as to cause future health problems for Dolly? The fact that other clones actually were formed only to die during the developmental process also raises the question as to whether health crises may lie in Dolly`s future.

Cloning: Right or Wrong?

Moral questions about cloning are even more important than those about technical facts related to genetics or procedures, though the two are fundamentally related. Becoming absorbed with questions of technique is one way to avoid facing the thorny ethical issues involved. Science often seems more concerned with what can be done than with what should be done. Whether it can be done is a question of technology and technique; the should question deals with ethics.

Paul Ramsey once noted that there are many things that can be done that ought not be done. The sine qua non of any morality at all," he said, "is that there are some things that we cannot morally get to know."4 As the debate about the moral acceptability of cloning illustrates, however, there is more agreement about the statement of the issue than about just what is not to be done.

Some objections to cloning are rather superficial if not silly. The fact that business interests have motivated the cloning project has caused some to condemn it as crass commercialism and evidence of the a-morality of corporate greed. PPL Therapeutics, a Scottish biotech firm, is the funding agency behind the Wilmut experiments. The procedures were patented before the public announcement about Dolly. PPL hopes to make millions from its investment. One of its aims is to produce drugs that are therapeutic for people from genetically altered cows. The drug would be produced through the cows` milk. Already such procedures provide large quantities of a protein that holds promise in the treatment of cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, and what is called "mad cow disease."

Morally objecting to cloning because of its commercial aspects would have to claim there is something unethical about either (1) making a profit from developing medications; or (2) there is something about each species that should not be "mixed" with another. As to the profit motive, all pharmaceuticals or drug companies seek nice returns on their research and development of new drugs. If they are to be condemned for making a profit, the entire system of capitalistic enterprise is in moral question.

The moral argument from species specificity maintains that it is a type of genetic bestiality to transfer genetic material from one species to another. Genetically modifying a mouse or cow with human growth hormone would thus be morally prohibited. But such an objection is difficult if not impossible to sustain in light of what science knows about the genetic economy of nature. Snippets of DNA from one species can be spliced into the DNA of another creature thus modifying the original or developing a virtually new organism, GE patented a microorganism specifically programmed to eat oil and thus to help clean up from oil spills. Transgenic animals from mice to pigs are also being developed, building on what we know about genetic similarities among animal species.

Cloning and the Meaning of Being Human

The more serious moral questions pertain to the meaning of cloning for people. The fact that an adult mammal has been cloned certainly raises the prospect of doing so with people. Rorvik claimed it has been done, others are speculating that it most certainly will be done, or at least attempted. The primary factors necessary for such an experiment to take place are now in place. The first is the availability of scientific technique, the second is money. The third is human ego or pride. To those can be added sufficient money to pay for the procedure, and the right contacts within the scientific community to have it done. Someone, somewhere will think highly enough of themselves to buy the services of scientists, physicians, and perhaps a surrogate mother to carry out the project. Cloning has an instant appeal as an ultimate ego trip for the narcissists in our midst.

Dr. Wilmut, who developed Dolly, says that cloning people would be "inhumane," and that such experiments with people are not practical, possible, or ethical.5 His objections are based on two arguments. First, the learning curve involved in such procedures will produce many failures; second, such procedures somehow diminish the humanity of the clone. These are serious objections that go to the heart of the debate.

Experimentation and The Destruction of Embryos. Strong opposition to cloning persons comes from those who oppose any experimentation with pre-embryos because of the belief that one is a person from the moment of conception. Very likely there would be losses of large numbers of embryos when and if the experiment were tried on humans. There are those who believe that no experiment could be moral that involves such losses especially since they can be reasonably anticipated. Can it be moral willfully and knowingly to engage in experiments that result in the death (loss) of embryos? Such concerns are widespread among those who regard any experiment with a pre-embryo as immoral.

Dolly was only one of the 277 attempts; others started development only to die soon afterward. Others came to term terribly deformed and died soon after. John Kilner calls the loss of such embryos through experimentation "the deaths of human beings" and alludes to the reprehensibility of the Nazi experiments.6 David Gushee of Union University thinks "cloning a person would not be morally permissible under any circumstances." Glen McGee, professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, says it would be "obviously immoral" to apply the procedure to human beings.7

Just why and on what grounds any scientific procedure that mimics what nature already does can be said to be "obviously" immoral was not explained. Such procedures are certainly not so regarded either by all scientists, all theologians, or all medical ethicists.

The Vatican has condemned the procedure morally and called for a legal ban around the world. That position is consistent with its condemnation of any procedure to assist a couple to have a child that involves in-vitro fertilization, which the Vatican thinks should also be forbidden by law.8 It is also consistent with the official Vatican position against all family planning procedures except their so-called rhythm method.

On the heels of the announcement of the successful experiment with cloning, President Clinton imposed a 90-day ban on human cloning research, and Sen. Chris Bond (R-MO) proposed legislation to make the ban permanent. "There are aspects to life that should be off-limits to science," Bond argued, believing that "we must draw a clear line. Humans are not God and they should not be allowed to play God. It is morally repugnant."9

The Artificial Creation of People. Gilbert Meilander of Valparaiso University argues that there should be no separation of procreation from marriage. Coitus would not be involved in child production by cloning, which he believes would be bad for children. "The child inevitably becomes a product, someone who is made, not begotten." For him, "To beget a child is to give birth to one who is like us, equal in dignity, for whom we care, but whose being we do not simply control. To `make` a child is to create a product whose destiny we may well think we can shape."10

Meilander embraces something like the "artificial versus natural" approach to reproductive issues. Having a scientific and technical intervention in the process of cloning that would bring about a new person makes it morally problematic, according to this view. The only morally acceptable approach is coital-gestational which is entirely "natural" and unassisted by technology. The same arguments are used to condemn in-vitro fertilization (assisting the fertilization of an egg by sperm in a petri dish and then returning the embryo to the woman`s womb to achieve a pregnancy). All those children-now well over 10,000-are somehow supposed under that line of reasoning to be less than people-objectified as "things" and simply controlled and determined by those who brought them into being.

But is that the case? After twenty years of the humane use of this technology, literally thousands of parents have been blessed by a child they love as the unique gift it truly is. Ask any of those parents as to whether the child is a "thing" to them or a "product" that is somehow less important because their coming into being involved the artful use of technology in the hands of caring physicians. The Ayala`s of California conceived a child by IVF hoping it would be a compatible donor for their daughter Annisa who had leukemia and needed a bone marrow transplant. It is a beautiful and happy story. Marissa is healthy and deeply loved; Anissa is apparently cured of leukemia. Is Marissa seen simply as a means to an end? Is she somehow less loved because she has served her purpose? Hardly. A child brought into being under unusual circumstances is nonetheless a child of love in this family who cares for one another.11

Should Cloning be Banned? The move from perceiving a moral issue to proposing a legal ban is a major leap, of course. And, it is always a curious phenomenon. There are those who believe that if they think a procedure is wrong (for whatever reason) it ought to be illegal, which is hardly the case. For one thing, such a ban would be virtually impossible to police or to enforce. The technology is actually quite simple and the agreement between contracting parties could be privately and secretly carried out. Or, it could be conducted in a country where the laws were not so stringent. Where issues of the magnitude and importance of cloning are concerned, no law will be adequate to stop it.

The larger question is whether government should even attempt to ban scientific research procedures. When the church advocates legal controls on science, it is only a step from the heavy-handed treatments given such notables as Galileo. Ironically, while the Roman Catholic church apologized for its treatment of Galileo on the 400th anniversary of the ban on his teachings, it continues to condemn and attempt to prohibit similar types of scientific research. Glen McGee is among those who oppose a legal ban, saying such efforts are "superficial and mindless."12 That is in spite of his (moral) objections to cloning people.

At a minimum, a law banning such research would be premature and ill-informed. Many people`s first reaction to an innovative scientific procedure is often that "there ought to be a law!" But an emotional reaction is hardly the same as a moral insight. At this stage, government would be creating regulations for something we know almost nothing about, as Professor Andrea Bonnicksen says.13

The debate about whether there are appropriate limits to place around science is probably unresolvable. Opponents have diametrically opposing views of science and its relation to God`s activity in the world. We can say with confidence, however, that there are no biblical or theological reasons to believe in "forbidden knowledge"-that God says there are questions science should not ask nor seek to answer. That notion seems more related to the Greek myth of Prometheus than to the Judeo-Christian belief in God as Creator. God created people imago dei, which means, at least in part, that people are participants with God in creative activity. They become partners in the project of new creation. Instead of "playing God," they reflect by such activity their unique quality of having been made in God`s image and likeness.

To Clone or Not to Clone?

So, will someone attempt to clone a human being? The answer seems an unqualified "Yes." Christian understandings of human nature helps answer the question: it will be tried and perhaps accomplished. People are insatiably curious and seem determined to mine every nook of nature for the least fragment of information. Where the frontiers of knowledge are concerned, no law is adequate to stop the urge to find out. Curiosity and the desire to know will win out over whatever pressures there are against such ventures.

Manufacturing a Human Being. The most serious objection to cloning a human being focuses on the impact it would have on the developing persons. Would the clone be thought of simply as "a clone"? Would he or she be de-personalized, deprived of any possibility ever of developing their own unique sense of identity and personhood? How will the details about one`s formation influence and shape the personality? Will a clone be seen simply as a (younger) reflection of the one from whom they have come? Would a clone of Michael Jordan, Bill Gates or Janet Reno be just like them? And how would they feel about being cloned in the image of some famous person?

If substantive harm would take place to the person cloned, any argument in favor of cloning would be undermined. The Kantian norm of treating persons as ends in themselves and not as a means to an end surely has relevance to this substantive question. But it hardly settles it, as some seem to assume. Jeremy Rifkin, for instance argues that "it is a horrendous crime to make a Xerox of someone else. You are putting a human into a genetic straitjacket. For the first time, we`ve taken the principles of industrial design-quality control, predictability-and applied them to a human being."14

If Rifkin is right, Christian concern for the individual as individual would be challenged. Christian theology insists that each person is unique in the eyes of God. In spite of the fact that we are all alike in some ways, we are all unique individuals. But would a clone feel unique?

Some help might come from those "clones" in our midst-identical twins. Are they unique individuals or just a mirror reflection of the twin? The answer seems obvious once the question is posed. I have never met "identical" twins who could not be told apart. Even in their looks there is a difference. And there is certainly a big difference in who they are as individuals. They have a unique personal identity or sense of self. They are as strongly ego-centered as any other person, never confusing their own "self" with that of the twin Their similarities are certainly interesting, but their uniqueness is what is truly impressive and important. We can confidently say that there is no threat to the uniqueness of personhood in making it possible for nature to duplicate or replicate a particular DNA or genetic code. Each person is still imago dei with a uniqueness that nurtures their personality and individuality.

Psychologists confirm that insight. Even if a Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, or Janet Reno should clone themselves, the "clone" might be considerably different. They would have different life experiences, they may well have different inclinations and abilities, they would certainly have their own personalities and values by which they shape their future. Michael`s offspring might prefer music, Bill`s clone might not go for information technology, and Janet`s clone might be a minister, not an attorney. Uniqueness of personhood is not simply determined by genes. Our particular story involving significant places, persons, events, success and failures, hopes and dreams all go into shaping our self-identity. Needless to say no two identities or self-understandings are exactly alike. Cloning a person will not change that.

Humanity and the Prospect of Cloning. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) opposed any effort to prohibit cloning by law as "demeaning to human nature."15 He apparently had two things in mind. First, it is uniquely human to engage in such research. Curiosity belongs to personhood and science is a uniquely human enterprise. Efforts to put a stop to scientific research is contrary to the inclination of people toward more complete knowledge and new technologies. Second, Harkin was concerned about the effect on human well-being that would inevitably follow such a ban. He has lost two sisters to cancer. Part of his mission in life is to encourage medical science. He believe strongly that cloning is a type of research that "holds untold benefits for humankind in the future."

Knowing more about the benefits and possible harms that might come from cloning research is necessary for any substantive ethical response to the ethics of cloning. At this point, we simply do not know what benefits might come from such experiments. Harold Varmus, Director of the National Institutes of Health said before a Congressional hearing that cloning research might lead to several scientific breakthroughs such as the regeneration of mature injured nerve cells, developing new skin for burn patients, and turning off genes that lead to cancer. He thinks human cloning raises endless possibilities for curing diseases, reversing injuries, and ending the transfer of genetic abnormalities from one generation to another.16

The National Bioethics Advisory Commission appointed by President Clinton to bring recommendations regarding cloning seems to have developed a supportable consensus. Among the recommendations are (1) that the government not ban human cloning research; (2) efforts to develop a child by cloning should be forbidden; and (3) the moratorium on federal funds for such research be continued. Even private groups, such as IVF clinics, would be prohibited from attempting to clone people. Should states attempt to ban cloning research, the panel recommended such laws be crafted so as to expire after three to five years unless a panel of experts concluded there was a need to make the ban permanent. Further, the issue will be studied for the next four years after which a final report will be made.17

The Commission concluded that research should continue but that too many questions remain unanswered to permit or encourage efforts to develop a person by cloning. The report angers those who believe any type research with embryos is morally unacceptable, of course. But it stops short of any effort to place a straight-jacket on science in this important area of research and investigation. By the end of four years many technical questions will have been answered. And we will all be more aware of the continuing human quest for a more perfect insight into who we are as persons and how cloning may affect the human future.

Conclusion

The arguments of those who oppose any type of research into human cloning seem either unconvincing or poorly grounded. Arguments in support of any research and the application of all genetic knowledge that science develops seem at times cavalier and unduly optimistic. A Christian theology of human sin underscores the prospect for harm or evil that attends almost every breakthrough in scientific ingenuity and technology. But the Christian doctrine of stewardship requires that we pursue the future as persons committed to doing good for those who suffer from the limitations and diseases imposed through the mishaps of genetic combinations. We cannot claim either to be moral or loving and be indifferent to such suffering while opposing scientific efforts to develop new cures and healthier bodies and minds for our children and theirs. We are called to work with God toward the creation of persons who may more perfectly bear the image of God. With a critical but open vigilance, cloning techniques may offer a step in that direction. For that, responsible people should work and pray.

Endnotes

[1] Science News, April 5, 1997, p. 214.

[2] See John A. Robertson, "The Question of Human Cloning." Hastings Center Report, March/April, 1994.

[3] Science News, id.

[4] Paul Ramsey, "Shall We `Reproduce`? 1. The Medical Ethics of In-Vitro Fertilization." Journal of the American Medical Association, June 5, 1972, p. 1347.

[5] The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY), Th., Mar. 13, 1997, A-12.

[6] John F. Kilner, "Stop Cloning Around," Christianity Today, Apr. 28, 1997, p. 10.

[7] Bob Allen, "Does cloning like sheep mean science has gone astray? Western Recorder (Kentucky), Mar. 4, 1997, p. 9.

[8] See, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Respect for Human Life, the Vatican, 1988.

[9] The Courier-Journal, Thurs., March 13, 1997, p. A-12.

[10] Quoted by Kilner, Christianity Today, id at 11.

[11] Time, June 17, 1997, pp. 54ff, and L. Elliott, "A Healing Birth." Reader`s Digest, June, 1997, 147-152; 231ff.

[12] Allen, Western Recorder, March 4, 1997, p. 9.

[13] Medical Ethics Advisor, April, 1997, p. 41.

[14] Time, March 10, 1997, p. 70.

[15] The Courier Journal, March 13, 1997, p. A-12.

[16] Medical Ethics Advisor, April, 1997, p. 41.

[17] New York Times, Sunday, June 8, 1997, p. 18y.

Share on Facebook
Tweet
Follow us
Exit mobile version