A physician will never prescribe more medicine to an individual who was hospitalized for an overdose. So why would more genetic enhancement be the solution for negating or eliminating genetic enhancement from prior generations?

In the essay “Human genetic enhancements: A transhumanist perspective” Nick Bostrom exemplifies the many great benefits that genetic enhancements can bring. Bostrom refers to the increase in intelligence, health, life span (Holland 105), the reduction of diseases (Holland 106,113) and the ability to gain new human capabilities (Holland 105, 112). In other words power. In Bostrom’s eyes, genetic enhancement provides power. However, this ‘power’ can cause larger problems that will affect the balance of society and can even cause health risks that have not yet been resolved or discussed.

The balance of society can be greatly affected with the introduction of widespread genetic enhancements. Through the access to genetic enhancements, “ inequities grow much larger thanks to genetic interventions that only the rich can afford, adding genetic advantages to the environmental advantages already benefitting privileged children (Holland 112). Bostrom believes that “…the increase in unjust inequalities due to technology is not a sufficient reason for discouraging the development and use of the technology,” (Holland 113).  However, this access to genetic enhancements for certain communities will undoubtedly affect the balance in society. Some may be unable to provide themselves or their children with the “gift” of genetic enhancement, just as some families are unable to send their children to private schools.  The poor and underprivileged will not only be fighting against poverty, but  these individuals will be subject to being ridiculed and mistreated because they are of “average” height, build, intelligence, etc. simply because they could not afford genetic enhancements. And yes, these differences will undoubtedly bring about societal issues, let’s not forget about slavery, the Holocaust, and the massacres in Sudan, which all erupt because individuals feel superior in comparison to others.  Society will split into parts, with the rich and genetically enhanced on one side, breeding amongst themselves, and with those that cannot afford or utilize this technology in another group.

Genetic enhancement is believed to be of value to human health. Bostrom also incorrectly supposes that “If we become healthier, we are personally better off and others are not any worse off,” (Holland 111). However, this statement contains a great deal of false assumptions. One would think that at least the healthier individuals are better off and can benefit. However, those that are “healthier” can catch a virus or infection which their bodies will not be able to combat because of the lack of exposure to these illnesses and thus they may end up more sick than the “less healthy” individuals. If the antigens in our body are not exposed to any sort of illness, it will be unable to act strongly enough to fight off a common cold, fever, etc and thus the individual will remain sick. (More about antigens).  Those that will be unable to utilize genetic enhancements to “improve” health may lose resources that provide medicine and treatments because these resources may be changed in order to cater to the new illnesses of the genetically altered humans.

Genetic enhancement also caused the premature death of the cloned sheep Dolly. So we increase the value of human health, by diminishing life span?

As stated by Darren Shickle, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”: rather than use a man-made solution to a man-made problem, it is better not to create the problem in the first place. If difference was accepted (or even appreciated), then there would be no prejudice to eliminate tendency of mankind to pursue short-term advantage without considering the long-term consequences.” Why combat problems that come from genetic enhancements, such as medical illnesses and shortened life span, by providing more genetic enhancements? If  an individual does not want his genetically enhanced unnatural height to pass to an offspring, him or his offspring will have to undergo even more genetic engineering to reverse the former procedure?

And with genetic enhancements, just as new Iphones and Ipads are presented to society each day, new human norms will be presented each day. No one will feel “good enough” because there is a new genetic procedure that can make then 10 times as fast, 100 times as smart, and 1000 times as strong. Our natural baselines will be looked upon as elementary and substandard.

Plastic surgery can be addictive and also life-threatening. I have no doubt that genetic enhancements will do the same thing, and government regulations may not be of much use.

There will never be a way out of the compelling “power” of genetic enhancements. This won’t make anything right.

Bostrom, Nick. “Human genetic enhancements: a transhumanist perspective.” In Arguing about Bioethics, edited by Stephen Holland, 105-115. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Shickle, Darren. “Are “Genetic enhancements” really enhancements?” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9, no. 3 (September 8, 2000): 342-52.

McPherson, Jerry. Disabled World. http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/genetic-engineering.shtml.

Medline Plus Trusted Health Education for You. NIH. “Immune System.” http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000821.htm

Imagine that cloning oneself could produce an exact replica. The clone would be the same age, have the same mind, and even the same scar that he received as a kid. Many people wish cloning worked this way because they could then be in two places at once and double their productivity rate. In addition, as long as both the person and the clone were treated as individuals this useful procedure seems ethical because the person wants to be cloned, and since the clone has an identical reasoning pattern, the clone would also consent to being a clone. Unfortunately, cloning does not work this way, and the clone would in reality be a completely different individual with identical DNA to the original person.

In his essay “Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans: The Wisdom of Repugnance” Leon Kass lists many uses of human cloning. Two of these uses include “’replacing’ a beloved spouse or child who is dying or has died” and “replicating individuals of great genius, talent or beauty” (Holland 34). Like the scenario discussed earlier, these two circumstances are completely impossible because cloning does not duplicate a person. Even identical twins, which are actually clones of each other, are completely different individuals altogether. According to Tina Hesman Saey, “by birth, genetic doubles use their DNA differently…by regulating the activity of certain genes, they can profoundly influence how the DNA blueprint is used to create and operate a living organism.” (sciencenews.org). Hence, the clone may not look the same or have the same physical capacities of the original person due to these epigenetic differences. For instance, check out these clones (identical twins), Otto and Ewald:

Moreover, underlying diseases that were completely shut off or mild could become severe in the cloned individual. If the clone is living a miserable existence due to a diseased state, then this raises even more ethical questions concerning the cloning process.

Furthermore, in the case of cloning females, there is a chance that they could express entirely different genes. This was made evident in the case where a calico cat named Rainbow was cloned, but the CC (carbon copy), the clone, had a completely different fur color. This is because fur color is partially determined by genes that reside on the X chromosome. Female mammals have two X chromosomes, but only one is activated in each cell. The activation pattern varies amongst cells. When CC was cloned, her cells did not adopt the activation pattern of Rainbow. “Rainbow and CC are living proof that a clone will not look exactly like the donor of its genetic material” (Genetic Science Learning Center).

                 Even if epigenetics did not play a role in development, the environment would drastically effect the clone’s development. The clone cannot undergo every single nurturing experience of the original person; hence, they cannot develop an identical mindset, personality, talent, or desires of the original person. The clone would develop into an individual that may not want to have the pressures of living up to the potential of someone else.

Subsequently, it is highly implausible to “replace” a lost family member or friend as well as to “replicate” a celebrity (or rather their talent). Doing so requires duplicating a person’s nature and nurturing exactly. In any matter, this subjects one to appreciate and enjoy, instead of taking for granted, the rare gift that is human life. Additionally, it allows the introduction of new skills into society and/or the creation of a legacy of person who has passed away.

Sources:

Genetic Science Learning Center. “Why Clone?.” Learn.Genetics 26 January 2014      http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/whyclone/

Kass, Leon R. “Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans: The Wisdom of    Repugnance.” Arguing About Bioethics. Ed. Stephen Holland. New York:   Routledge, 2012. 130-48. Print.

Lloyd, Sam. “Check out Identical Twins Otto and Ewald.” The Sam Effect. Inbound     Marketing, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014. http://thesameffect.com/check-out-identical-twins-otto-and-ewald/.

Saey, Tina Hesman. “Study Shows Where Identical Twins Part Ways.” Science News. Society for Science & the Public, 17 July 2012. Web. 26 Jan. 2014. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/study-shows-where-identical-twins-part-ways

Are personality, identity, and social relations dictated by the environment, or is it an entity that is controlled solely on genes? Are those entities partly controlled by environment and partly controlled by genes? This profound question has continually peered its head into the conversation of many hot topics and discussions. This question has even found its way into the medical topic of cloning. As David Elliott claims, “…it is not clear that the cloned individual, like any other natural twin, needs to see her individuality as importantly connected to her genome, or even to phenotypic similarities with others” (p 158). Some individuals feel that cloning diminishes a sense of uniqueness in both the clone and the cloned person. Proponents against cloning also say that the lack of genetic variability creates a non-unique genome which will “impose limitations on an individual’s capacity for self-development, leading to a sense of disempowerment and personal inadequacy” (p.159) and that this lack of self-development affects human worth. In Elliott’s view, genetics is not the strongest factor that decides personality, identity and social relations. Thus creating clones from the genes of a donor does not restrict an individual, or clone from “feeling non-unique” (p.158). Therefore the idea that not having a “felt identity being psychologically damaging is not plausible” thus this is not a strong reason against cloning (p 158).

Though Elliott presented a few points that did have a sense of validity, there were a few points I want to argue against. Elliott argues that if biological similarities that persist between the cloned individual and the clone can reduce individuality and limit self-development, then the same could be said about twins and triplets. He also explains that environment is a better determinant of identity than genetics due to the data that demonstrates that separated twins show more divergent personalities. However, I believe that he omitted the myriads of data that demonstrate how twins that are separated tend to grow up with similar traits, likes, and dislikes. He cannot argue that genetics does not play a strong role in identity and thus he cannot argue that clones, who have similar genes, will develop different personalities and unique characters based on environment. Mikayla Stern-Ellis and Emily Nappi, two young girls from northern and southern California were shocked to find that they were half sisters, they both shared a sperm donor from Colombia. Having lived in different environments from birth up until their undergraduate career in college, it is remarkable to see how strong a role genetics plays in behavior. These sisters grew up in different parts of California, yet have very similar features such as a cleft chin, thick, curly hair, same skin tone, and same smile. Both also have similar interests in the sciences. And even more, they both ended up at Tulane University thousands of miles away from California. It is easy to say that their genes played a very strong role in their identity and personality. (Watch Video Here)

Elliott also omitted the fact that clones will more than likely be in the same environment as the cloned person and therefore their environment will similarly mold their personalities. Thus, there is a factor of developing very similar personalities since they are in the same environment and have identical genes. Elliott therefore cannot argue that uniqueness will not be threatened.

The argument that cloning will inhibit uniqueness is actually a very strong argument against cloning in that the large similarities between the cloned person and the clone will limit self-development and may feel of less worth. In my opinion, Elliott is missing pieces of data in his counter-argument to support cloning.

Elliott, David. “Uniqueness, individuality, and human cloning.” In Arguing about Bioethics, edited by Stephen Holland, 149-62. New York: Routledge, 2012.

I decided that I wanted to do a bit of research on Dolly, the sheep that captured the world’s attention and sparked much debate about cloning for the public. All I knew of Dolly was that she existed and was a clone. She was heralded as a huge scientific breakthrough, which unarguably, she certainly was. But much to my surprise, it’s not for the reason I thought (and many others I’m sure). I believed that Dolly was famous because she was the first animal to be cloned and honestly, to this day, still believed her to be the only successfully cloned animal. Neither of these is true. Dolly is not even the first sheep to be cloned. Nor was she the first sheep to be cloned by Ian Wilmut of The Roslin Institute who is famous for her creation.

Dolly was actually the ninth of ten sheep cloned at The Roslin Institute by Ian Wilmut (2). So why is it that she is the only one that I have ever heard about and the only one that the media so desperately followed the story of? Because even though Dolly was not the first, she was the most significant (scientifically speaking).

All 10 of these sheep were cloned using the most common process of doing so: Nuclear Transfer. This is when the nucleus of an existing cell is removed and replaced with that of a new donor cell. I was curious about what was done with the “old” nucleus (wondering if it could pose as an ethical issue of its own), but couldn’t find any information about it. The 9 other sheep cloned at The Roslin Institute were cloned using embryonic cells. As stated in David Elliot’s paper (Chapter 12), Dolly was considered a break through because of the fact that she was cloned using the adult cells taken from an adult ewe’s udder. It was the first time something had been cloned using cells other than embryonic cells. Why had that never been done before?

The body contains many different types of cells, such as blood cells, liver cells, skin cells, etc. These specific types of cells are referred to as differentiated cells and although all of them contain the same genetic information, they “can only access the genes needed for its particular function” (3). Differentiated cells were thought to be non-reprogrammable and therefore it was not believed possible to clone an entire being using only differentiated cells. Ian Wilmut proved that this was false and that it was in fact very possible to use differentiated (adult) cells for cloning. What he did was to take these adult cells and grew them under “starvation conditions” (3). This entails depriving the cells of various forms of “nutrients” such as carbon for instance. This causes the cells to de-differentiate and enter what is called the g0 state, essentially turning them back into unspecific, embryonic cells. This is why Dolly was special. Her creation represented the possibility to turn a differentiated cell back into any kind of cell.

There is some controversy about the successfulness of Dolly. The process by which she was created was without a doubt a novel success. But how did Dolly fare in regards to health and life? Wanting Dolly to live as normal a life as possible, she was allowed to breed and over the course of her life gave birth to 6 lambs. In 2001, Dolly developed arthritis which was odd for a sheep of only 5 years. The cause of this was never determined and after medication, her stiffness disappeared (1). In 2000, 2 of the other cloned sheep died of sheep pulmonary adenomatosis (SPA) which causes tumours to grow on the sheep’s lungs (1). Later, one of Dolly’s own babies contracted the disease and it was confirmed that Dolly herself was infected. When she was seen coughing in February of 2003, she was given anaesthetics and a CT scan was performed. The scan confirmed the presence of tumours on her lungs. Not wanting Dolly to suffer from this painful disease, the decision was made not to allow her to regain consciousness, and an over dose of anaesthesia was administered and Dolly was put to sleep on February 14, 2003. Sheep generally live to be around 12 years old and the development of SPA is not commonly seen in young sheep. Dolly developed it around the age of 5. This, along with her development of arthritis, has caused concern that using differentiated, adult cells causes premature aging in the clones. This has yet to be proven. (1)

Kass, in Chapter 11, calls for a universal ban on human cloning while still allowing “all cloning research on animals to go forward” insisting on the “inviolable distinction between animal and human cloning” (146-147). Researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Edinburgh have successfully developed genetically modified chickens   that are incapable of transmitting the avian bird flu. They have been provided with an RNA molecule that stops the reproduction of the virus, and although they can still be infected with the bird flu, the fact that they are incapable of passing it on to other chickens has the potential of stopping the transmission of the virus. (1) It is easy to see the appeal of genetic modification in this sense. But again, a distinction must be made both between animals and humans and between cloning and genetic modification.

Just as an interesting side note, many animals have actually been successfully cloned. They include cows, cats, a deer, goats, sheep, frogs, horses, mice, pigs, monkeys, wolves and dogs. One of the dogs (according to Wikipedia) glows when exposed to UV lighting. (4)

1)      http://www.roslin.ed.ac.uk/public-interest/dolly-the-sheep/

2)      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/644616/Sir-Ian-Wilmut/281350/Dolly-and-Polly

3)      http://www.dnalc.org/files/swfs/animationlib_swf/cloning_101.swf

4)      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_that_have_been_cloned

Leon Kass argues in the article “Why we should ban the cloning of humans: the wisdom of repugnance” that we need to enact a universal ban on cloning, as cloning is an insult to both morality and human dignity.  What I found so interesting about Kass’ argument was that he describes not only to the logical but also the emotional consequences of cloning.  Kass uses the feeling of repugnance to do just this.

The Process of Cloning:

Cloning is the process of creating a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit from which it was derived. The nucleus of a mature and unfertilized egg is removed and replaced with a nucleus obtained from a specialized cell of an adult organism, which contains almost all the hereditary material.  While experts make it clear that cloning is not like Xeroxing, due to differences in environment and circumstances, the clone with share the same genome as the donor.

Argument of Revulsion

Kass argues that there is a reason most people feel deep revulsion to the idea of cloning human beings, a feeling similar to the one we get when considering cannibalism or incest.  He describes potential situations that could arise in the future if cloning is allowed in order to bring about disgust and emotional fears in readers such as: the mass production of identical human beings, women giving birth to and rearing a genetic copy of herself or someone in the family, replacing someone who has died with an exact copy, the narcissism of those who clone themselves, and the hubris required to control life and control destiny allowing man to play God in a way that is not natural.  Kass understands that revulsion is not entirely a valid argument, since there are plenty of examples of things that our ancestors would have been repulsed now that we see perfectly normal. However, he describes repugnance as the emotional expression of deep wisdom; wisdom beyond reason’s power to fully articulate.

Cloning Goes Against the Natural:

While I thought the emotional argument Kass posed was strong, he does not leave it to stand-alone.  He supports his argument by providing evidence as to why cloning would be damaging to the children, the family dynamic, and the process of human procreation. Kass argues that sexual reproduction is established by nature and is a process that should not be influenced by human design. He worries that cloning threatens confusion of identity and individuality and that the cloning of human beings represents a giant step toward transforming procreation into manufacture, straying from the natural and pushing children to become products of human will and design rather than a result of a loving family.

Reflecting on Kass’s Argument:

I can see where this argument for the need to maintain a traditional family and reproduction system may not appeal to some people, however I agree with his desire to maintain the natural cycle of birth, procreation, and death. I think Kass does a good job of appealing to both the emotions and logic of readers and was effective in convincing me that cloning humans is something that needs to be banned worldwide.

Sources: Kass, Leon R. “Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans: The Wisdom of Repugnance.” Arguing about Bioethics. London: Routledge, 2012. N. pag. Print.

Welcome to the blog site for Bioethics.  Start blogging!

Notice the tabs immediately above this post.
These are pages that will stay accessible.

The Site Instructions page has some tips for
using WordPress.  The Resources page has,
well, resources: links to other useful ethics
blogs and websites.