Dolly was not the first animal to
be cloned. Many others followed. In the beginning scientists, politicians and
farmers were adamant that we would not be eating them. “They are only ever
going to be used for breeding purposes”, they claimed. Oh really? In that case,
why did the US Food and Drug Administration declare, in 2008, that meat and
milk from cloned animals are safe for human consumption? If they were not going
to be eaten, was there a need to announce that they are safe? In Britain the
Foods Standards Agency admitted that a great deal depends on the honesty and
openness of the farmers, recognising that a cloned and a non-cloned bullock
look very similar. The same can be said for the milk from a cloned and
non-cloned cow. It is easy for cloned animal products to enter the food chain.
But what is a clone? Basically, a clone is an
identical twin, except that we do not normally use the term ‘clone’ when
referring to children. Most frequently, when scientists talk of a clone, it
means that they have, in one way or another, manipulated genetic material in
order to produce two or more identical organisms which then go on to behave in
an identical fashion to the parent. We make clones ourselves when we take a
cutting from a plant.
One person remarked, “Just
because we can does not mean we should.” If we can produce a herd of
genetically identical cattle in the hope of boosting milk and meat production
or avoiding some disability or disease, it does not mean that the process is
ethical. The problem is that we hear of the successes but not of the failures.
We rarely hear that more than 95 per cent of efforts to clone an animal fail
and that those which are successful have a higher than average rate of birth
defects, disabilities, illness and early death. Neither do scientists proclaim
from the rooftops that “a high rate of late-term pregnancy loss, pregnancy
complications, painful labour, and surgical intervention is unique to clone
pregnancies.”
Important issues arise when we
talk of cloning animals because, step by step, we are coming closer to what
will inevitably happen sooner or later, the cloning of human beings – and that
is where the ethical concerns simply start pouring in. Cartoonists have enjoyed
themselves drawing pictures of production line babies emerging on a conveyor
belt in some baby factory. It is an exaggeration, but it makes the point.
First and foremost, why clone
people? Identical twins, triplets or quads are one thing – and they are
beautiful – but does a family really want a replica of Auntie Daisy so that
they can remember her after she has died? Is a child wanted who is identical to
another family member so that, for instance, bone marrow or a kidney might be
transplanted with no danger of tissue rejection? These questions bring us into
an ethical minefield! First of all, Auntie Daisy can never be duplicated
because the new baby can never have the identical upbringing which made her
such a unique and lovable person. Secondly, we enter the realms of ‘designer
babies’, babies who are created, not for who they are and might become, but for
their usefulness.
Supporters of genetic
manipulation and cloning are clever: they speak of the benefits to those with
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer and heart disease, sicknesses we all know. In
fact, they are only speculating on the possible value and cures and have no
irrefutable proof of their claims.
Many arguments have waged in the
media about the need for human stem cells in disease research and treatment. A
stem cell has the potential to become any type of cell in the body, suggesting
that, when there is disease or injury, they could potentially regenerate and
replace damaged cells and tissues. There are different sources and types of
stem cell, but they all have the same capacity to develop into whatever sort of
cell the body needs.
When stem cell research began, it
was with those which are abundantly present in unborn babies, helping them to
grow and develop within the womb. This raised massive ethical questions because
it meant creating human embryos in order to manipulate and destroy them.
More recently, scientists have
discovered that stem cells are present in adult bone marrow, skin and other
tissues. These do the same as those from a foetus but without the massive
ethical problems associated with the creation and destruction of a human
embryo... or did not have the same ethical problems until now. We have just
heard that, for the first time, adult skin cells have been combined with an
unfertilised human egg, which has been reprogrammed to start developing into an
embryo. It is a process which has worked in some animals, but until now, had
failed in humans. The team of scientists concerned discovered that they could
overcome the glitch in the system with humans by adding caffeine to the mix.
The scientists say that they are
only interested in producing embryonic stem cells, not babies and have no
intention of seeing if they can take their discovery further into the realm of
cloning individuals. They are involved in therapeutic, not reproductive
cloning. “Our research is directed toward generating stem cells for use in
future treatments to combat disease,” said the statement, quoting lead researcher
Shoukhrat Mitalipov. “While nuclear transfer breakthroughs often lead to a
public discussion about the ethics of human cloning, this is not our focus, nor
do we believe our findings might be used by others to advance the possibility
of human reproductive cloning.”
However Cardinal Sean O'Malley of
Boston responded, saying: “This means of making embryos for research will be
taken up by those who want to produce cloned children as ‘copies’ of other
people. Whether used for one purpose or the other, human cloning treats human
beings as products, manufactured to order to suit other people’s wishes.”
“It is inconsistent with our
moral responsibility to treat each member of the human family as a unique gift
of God, as a person with his or her own inherent dignity. A technical advance
in human cloning is not progress for humanity but its opposite.”
Together with Richard
Doerflinger, Associate Director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life
Activities, Cardinal O’Malley pointed out that “Creating new human lives in the
laboratory solely to destroy them is an abuse denounced even by many who do not
share the Catholic Church’s convictions on human life. No matter what the
Oregon researchers intend to do with their studies, the techniques they have
perfected might lead others to pursue human cloning that produces babies.”
In Britain and elsewhere, it is
illegal to implant a cloned embryo into a woman's womb, but, sadly, someone,
somewhere, will ignore legislation and will try it out to see what happens. Are
we now on a new slippery slope towards a frightening future?
