A rchive Date
[ 01-01-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Science & Technology ]
|
[Irreparable harm already done by cloning claim
By M. JEAN KITCHEL
Dec. 31, 2002, 5:24PM
As I write this, we have not yet seen the promised evidence authenticating the claim of Dr. Brigitte Boisselier that her company, Clonaid, has successfully cloned five human babies, one of which was born on Dec. 26.
In fact, whether Boisselier's claim is verified or not, irreparable damage has been done just by making it. If, as many of us suspect, the authentication is lacking, Boisselier and Clonaid have unconscionably attempted a fraud that can seriously undermine research done by reputable scientists who reject human reproductive cloning as a matter of ethics.
If the claim is true, Clonaid has unconscionably reduced the human person to a commodity, which can seriously damage the future of humanity. Consider the way in which Clonaid has allegedly cloned "Eve."
The accepted standard for research with eventual human applications requires that there be extensive animal research conducted before using human subjects. Though there has been research involving reproductive cloning of agrarian animals, the offspring have experienced serious difficulties as they matured, the cause of which is not yet understood. Clonaid offers no evidence of conducting animal research that overcomes these problems, making Boisselier's assertion that "Eve" is "fine" less than reassuring.
If this child has been cloned, what can we expect for her development? Humans have the longest period of maturation from infant to adult of any species we know. Will a cloned human suffer from premature aging as did Dolly the sheep [cloned in 1997]? Will it have a compromised immune system, as appears to be true with cloned cows? What about fertility? Or cognitive function? We have no paradigms in existing research to answer these questions or justify the risks involved. This defies reputable medical research, which is always governed by the ethical principle, "Do no harm." It does not ease my mind that Boisellier would not be specific about something as ordinary as the baby's score on the Apgar test for developmental indicators. This is something known about the baby within minutes of birth, and it is very easy to remember.
To be sound, scientific research must be offered to the entire community for scrutiny and verification. Yet in the case of the research leading to "Eve" there have been no papers in refereed journals, no presentations at refereed conferences, no opportunities for others to seek replication of results in their own labs. Even though the rest of the scientific community has rejected reproductive human cloning as a legitimate area of research, if Clonaid wishes its claims to be accepted, these protocols still must be followed.
Instead, there is every indication that there was a race to be the first to achieve a human clone, which casts light on Clonaid's motivation: profit. Boisselier was disingenuous about costs. Standard in vitro fertilization procedures cost thousands of dollars and have a lower success rate than the 50 percent claimed by Clonaid. It took 276 attempts before Dolly was brought to successful live birth. How many attempts did it take before Clonaid had 10 embryos deemed suitable for implantation? Boisselier's vague reply? The parents have "invested" in Clonaid's economic future.
This brings me to what is wrong about any effort to use cloning as a means of human reproduction. In nature, human beings are conceived by a process in which each of two parents contributes genetic material to a completely new individual. A clone has only the genes of the one cloned, which eliminates the true "newness" of the individual.
There is also an intangible element of our nature, which I call the soul, manifested in our unique rational choices throughout life. Individuality and rational self-determination are so essential to our nature that mainstream scientists are unwilling to jeopardize them through reproductive cloning. The risk is so unpredictable and uncontrollable that a rational being would not choose it and thus ethically we cannot impose it on our children. But would such clones really be perceived as our children? How will a woman ultimately perceive the child who is biologically her identical twin? How will a man perceive a child who is identical to his wife? Which twin is "real" and which is the clone? How will those who are not clones perceive those who are?
Because the reproductive cloning of humans is meant by Clonaid to be a money-making proposition, how great a leap will it be to humans cloned not to be our children, but to be our tools? And what will happen when there is a clone of a clone of a clone? We know what happens when there is a copy of a copy of a copy. This raises the specter of a "less than" human underclass with all its attendant social horrors. It brings us closer to author Aldous Huxley's dysfunctional Brave New World than anyone of sound mind and good will should wish to be.
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the reproductive cloning of humans is an ability we ought not to seek, and if some have now achieved it, they offer us an opportunity to say "no" in the strongest possible terms.
Accepting the forbidden fruit did not give the first Eve the powers of a god. I see no evidence that things have changed.
Kitchel is professor and chair of the Department of Philosophy at Houston's University of St. Thomas. She is a specialist in medical ethics
 World Fact Book (CIA]
|