Cloning

Abstract

‘Cloning’ is the popular name given to Cell Nuclear Replacement (CNR) or Cell Nuclear Transfer (CNT) techniques. CNR involves a recipient cell, generally an egg (oocyte), and a donor cell. The nucleus of the donor cell is introduced into the oocyte. With appropriate stimulation the oocyte is induced to develop. In some cases, the created embryo may be implanted into a viable womb and developed to term. The first mammal to be born by CNR was Dolly the sheep (1996–2003). It is thought that CNR may have various potential applications ranging from reproduction to treatment of some of the most serious and life-threatening diseases that afflict humankind (such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries). However, many technical problems must be addressed and resolved before CNR becomes viable for use in either therapy or reproduction. Although research on CNR is still at its early stages, CNR (cloning) attracts people’s attention in a way that few other advances in biomedical research do. Public debate on cloning has unfortunately been influenced more by fiction than science. The horrendous or absurd scenarios pictured in novels and films are often mistakenly believed to be possible, or even likely, outcomes of cloning. The international community, immediately after news of the birth of Dolly, imposed restrictions that may make it difficult to refine the technique used. Against ‘reproductive cloning’ a prohibition is enforced virtually everywhere. ‘Reproductive cloning’ is considered offensive to human dignity and a threat to the well-being of the child or even to the future of humankind. Most of these objections are based on either a misunderstanding of CNR or on inconsistent philosophical arguments. Against ‘therapeutic cloning’ objections are also raised. The strongest are that CNR involves the creation and destruction of embryos, and this is widely believed to be unethical. Advocates of this position contend that, although CNR may save human lives, the technique still involves the taking of an innocent life and therefore is the equivalent of killing one person to save another. The debate on the moral status of the embryo is ongoing, in bioethics, philosophy and theology. However, if the arguments against the killing of the embryo for the morally important, life-saving purposes envisaged for CNR were to be accepted, then the current legal and social context of most European countries would have to be revised, and abortion and in vitro fertilization (IVF) made criminal offences. Abortion and IVF (which involves creation of extra-embryos that may be destroyed) are in fact accepted practices in most European countries. Those who believe that abortion, even in its therapeutic form, and IVF are acceptable, admit that it may be ethical to destroy an embryo either to save a life or to treat infertility. If this is accepted, it is unclear why is it unacceptable that embryos are used to treat highly serious and lethal diseases (cancer or Parkinson’s disease for example).

Human reproductive cloning and biotechnology: Rational, ethical and public concerns

“…Is the parent (the 'father') who donated the genes the father of the child, or is he the brother of the child? In my opinion, these concerns are not overstated or mere speculations as Macintosch (2005) and Harris (2004) would have us believe, but real social and ethical concerns about the possible negative impact of human cloning on reproduction, parenthood and family relations.…”

“…The literature emphasises that these debates include speculations about the effects of cloning on human life as we know it and the creation of humans (Davis 2009;Evans 2002;Harris 2004;Macintosch 2005;MacKinnon 2000;Pence 1998a;Strong 2005a;West 2003). These works suggest that most arguments on human cloning are, to a large extent, built on misconceptions and false assumptions, influenced by popular literature and science fiction films, about the technology of cloning and its potential application to human beings.…”

“…Some authors claim that the lack of clarity on the permissibility of human cloning, and consequently the absence of clear international legislation, is the result of severe criticism from the public. This is because they are misinformed as their opinions are influenced by popular publications, the media, science fiction literature and films that portray the technology of cloning as an evil process manipulated by irresponsible scientists (Dawkins 1998;Green 2001;Harris 2004;Kitcher 2000;Macintosch 2005;Pence 1998a). …”

“…In reaction to public sentiments and misconceptions, some advocates of human embryonic stem cell research (Harris 2004;Macintosch 2005;Pence 1998aPence & 1998b do not take public opinion seriously. As a result, the deeper social and ethical values on which publics frequently base their opinions are ignored.…”

Bringing Life from Death: Is There a Good Justification for Posthumous Cloning?

“…This is because other than attributing genes the characterization of "blood relations" and the imperative of spreading all of our genes to secure our survival, one of the many dimensions or interests we have in cloning concerns immortality [13]. The wish to avoid death by offering, for example extensive and futile life-saving treatments, our desire to live forever and postpone our aging and decay of our bodies, through various procedures and drugs, or our beliefs in revival when effective treatments become available through thawing our cryopreserved bodies, may support the idea that survival of our own or beloved ones' genes enables us to combat death in a way that makes us feel living.…”