The scientific and moral complexities of cloning were described in great depth in this week’s three readings.
Human Cloning and Human Dignity by Leon R. Kass et al. explained the terminology for cloning, such as cloning-to-produce-children and cloning-for-biomedical research (63). These are the identified uses for cloned embryos. The former refers to creating a cloned embryo for the “goal of producing a child who will be genetically virtually identical to a currently existing or previously existing individual” (63). The latter involves using the cloned embryo to study its influence on human disease and for its stem cells, with the goal to cure diseases such as Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries and many others (63, 145). Both involve injecting a human body cell into an egg that has had its nucleus removed rather than the union of an egg and sperm.
The President’s council on bioethics in Human Cloning and Dignity had a majority and minority recommendation at the end of the report. Both groups unanimously agreed there should be a ban on cloning-to-produce-children (231, 246). This view is in line with both Congress and many Americans as of 2002 when this report came out (232). There are potential benefits of cloning embryos for medicine such as removing genetic disease and obtaining organs that would not reject their intended user. There are also social contexts cloning could be applied, such as remaking a deceased relative and to reproduce. Despite these potential benefits, the council believes there are more ethical dilemmas than benefits. These include experiments on human beings – no matter the definition, since egg donors and gestating mothers are also involved – problems of identity, eugenics and exploitation of women for their eggs (196-106, 113-114). There is a divergence in opinion, however, for whether to allow cloning-for-biomedical-research.
Like stated before, both proposals include a ban on cloning-to-produce-children. Additionally, the majority recommendation is to have a four-year moratorium on cloning-for-biomedical research. This would delay the process for biomedical research to allow for more time to research risks and safe ways to undergo cloning. The minority recommendation is to have regulation of cloned embryos for research, thus allowing the practice to begin immediately with rules set in place (231, 246).
A large dilemma comes up, however, if the committee endorses cloned embryos for biomedical research and not reproduction. A foreseen consequence by the council is by making it illegal to use cloned embryos for reproduction, but allowing embryos to live for up to 14 days for biomedical research, this creates a “class of embryos that it would be a felony not to destroy. It would require, not just permit, the destruction of cloned embryos…the very opposite of showing…’special respect’” (189). This will need to be addressed since the definition of human life varies among the American people, and the idea of cloned embryos being mass produced and eventually destroyed could be unsettling to many. On the other hand, it is also unsettling that there are humans suffering from disease that could be cured with these same embryos, and other attempts to eradicate these diseases has been unsuccessful.
The foreseen consequence described above is one of many ways this text did a good job of coming up with anticipated arguments to all sides on the issue. I enjoyed that all views of the ethical committee were presented, rather than glossing over differences to try to make an agreement. One area that was missing in this text was a lack of citing how certain religious groups would react. This could have been written in more detail when discussing the issues of making it a felony not to destroy certain embryos. We must bear in mind though that this committee was formed by President Bush; therefore, discussions on how cloning related to religion would likely be inappropriate to include, since the committee created policy recommendations and America tolerates religious freedom.
Barbara Prainsack’s “Negotiating Life: The Regulation of Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Israel” and Michael Broyde’s “Cloning People: A Jewish View” discuss the religious views of Judaism in the context of cloning. These two authors provide us a religious point of view about cloning.
Broyde immediately tells the reader that Judaism views all bioethical technologies on a case-by-case basis (504). Broyde explains under Jewish law it is required to “procreate by having a minimum of two children – a boy and a girl” (524). Broyde states cloning is permissible under Jewish Law because it does not have some of the technical problems seen in IVF and surrogate motherhood, such as who the donors are, or the controversy between the gestational mother and genetic mother (516). Cloning can also be a mechanism for people to reach the obligatory procreation number under Jewish law.
An area that Broyde’s article discussed that was not addressed in Human Cloning and Human Dignity are differences in who the mother and father of the clone based off whether the donor is male or female. Broyde’s article concludes that it is harder for “the mother of her cloned progeny than…for a man to be considered the father of his cloned progeny” (516). This is due to similar complications of surrogacy that questions the genetic versus the gestational mothers, whereas if some male clones himself there is no question he is the father.
Kass et al. and Prainsack’s texts both discuss the ethical dilemmas of pre-embryo stem cells versus adult stem cells. Prainsack states no government explicitly states they are in favor of cloning-to-produce-children (178). She points out that Bush failed “to prohibit reproductive cloning worldwide,” which was a “relief” for the medical and scientific community (178). I found this interesting to see this parallel between the readings for this week since the committee on Human Cloning and Dignity unanimously agreed on a ban on cloning-to-produce-children, but this view is clearly not representative for everyone.
Human Cloning and Dignity was written sixteen years ago, but there is still controversy about the right to life of embryos, as we have seen in other texts this semester such as in the abortion debate. This will be a recurring dilemma in the context of cloning, although there seems to be general acceptance of the practice among Jewish law.
Lindsay
Nice post! I found it very informative and you gave us a good sense of the content found in each reading. Although your entire post was strong, I was hooked by the final paragraph. Based on my reading and interpretation, I felt that you were trying to imply that the main controversy over cloning (and other ART like abortion) is this idea of the right to life of an embryo. As we’ve learned, this concept of right to life is often embedded into an individuals morals and religious beliefs. For that reason, we see it as a divisive issue not only in regards to cloning but all artificial reproduction procedures that involve the use of embryos.
In the beginning of your post, you focused a lot on differentiating between cloning to produce children and cloning for biomedical research. You also mentioned how the Council of Bioethics seemed to “approve” (with conditions) of cloning for biomedical research only. If you believe that embryos are the main problem and embryos are required for both forms (child producing and biomedical research) of cloning, do you think that cloning for biomedical research will ever be approved and not cloning for reproduction? Where do we draw the line and make this distinction?
– Grace
Hi Lindsey,
I thought your post was very clear and well written. As I was reading Human Cloning and Dignity, I too found it interesting that the committee did not dig deeper into religious perspectives on the issue. Although it seems justified that they chose not to include a religious perspective in recognition of America’s religious freedom, I personally think that without defining how religions shape the moral ground of this transformative technology, their arguments weaken to reflect the American population as a whole. After all, previous works we have read (Swati Bhattacharya’s A Hindu Bioethics) suggested that the idea of finding a completely secular ethical approach is nearly impossible since religion has served humanity’s foundation of understanding morals and ethics. Rather than just put aside the religious perspectives, I overall think that the committee may have benefited from at least a sub-committee or follow up conference for religious leaders to voice their opinion.
Hi Lindsay,
I think you did a great job summarizing each of the three readings, and smoothly tied them together. I find your first paragraph very informative, summarizing what the two main terminologies for cloning mean. In Human Cloning and Human Dignity, I do agree that the text misses on religious views about cloning. However, like you said, since the committee was formed by America, under American law that tolerates religious freedom, I feel that inclusion of religious view would have confused a lot of people. Furthermore, because the last two readings discuss the religious views, I thought the combination of the three readings were great, although it was only Judaism.
I also find it interesting that Prainsack stated “no government explicitly states they are in favor of cloning-to-produce-children.” I wonder if she is saying this since there weren’t a “real” law in place to ban this cloning process. Like you mentioned, it would be interesting to see what she says after providing her with the committee’s view on Human Cloning and Dignity. Overall, great work!
Lindsay,
You had a very thoughtful post for this week. First, I liked how you mentioned that religion wasn’t mentioned in the proposals. In a way, I think this is refreshing because it allows us to see a somewhat objective side of the issue. I believe that policies shouldn’t include justifications on the basis of religion, but instead, offer a solution that allows individuals to still practice their religion freely. This is because the law doesn’t have the responsibility to set moral guidelines– only ensure safety and order in society.
I’m still struggling to understand distinctions between human cloning and reprouction since the Bush administration seemed to be against certain reproductive technologies for women. I’m wondering if the council makes an inherent value claim that places research and technological advances over the ability of a woman to have control over her pregnancy. Additionally, this council doesn’t seem to focus on the lived experience of women like the ethnographic we’ve read earlier in the class.