Human Cloning: Why the Ethicists Are Concerned

What a world we live in today. The kinds of ethical questions being raised were unthinkably remote in years gone by. When Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1932, his setting was 600 years A.F. (After Ford.) One wonders what he’d be thinking were he alive today to see the fruit of the Human Genome Project or Dolly the cloned ewe.

Huxley’s book was not really about a future utopia. He was lifting the veil to see what an inhuman place the world can become when we permit an anything goes future with regard to ethics and morality.

While reading Michael Crichton’s last novel Next in November I wanted to comment more on a major current issue in ethics: Should cloning humans be allowed?

The issue raises so many unresolved questions.
Is it human? Would it be ethical to create clones to harvest organs for rich people who can afford it? Is it ethical to try to clone humans when scientists know that 98-99% die to make one? What about the future when we can’t tell who is human and who is clone? Would cloning open the doors to the creation of an army of psychopathic terror agents who live to kill without a second thought?

The trigger event for me was lunch with a friend last week who, when I raised the issue, said, “I think there should be no restrictions on science. We have to find out what we can do.”

This kind of amoral approach to knowledge is the basis for Mary Shelley’s exploration of the theme in Frankenstein. Should we be permitted to make monsters before we’ve evaluated the consequences?

There are plenty of places where decisions need to be made in the realm of genetic science. In fact, unless one is a serious student of the issues, my guess is that most of us are incapable of understanding any of the subtler, more complex issues bio-science is grappling with today.

One major problem in this arena is that not everyone cares about ethics. The U.S. can step in and outlaw certain kinds of research, and global international pharmaceutical firms can move their research to Singapore or Beijing. In point of fact, the leading institutes in this arena already have connections with research facilities overseas. And when ethical lines are drawn, only the ethical follow the rules. This is why prohibition did not work in the 20's, or the banning of handguns in England today. The bad guys will still get their guns.

Of Crichton’s book, LibraryThing.com writes that Next “is the latest in a series of Crichton works which are structured on the same premise: Take a current scientific/medical topic, explore it, explain it and then illustrate the dangers presented if the science is not properly regulated and/or controlled. This has been a constantly recurring theme with Crichton since his first novel, Andromeda Strain and its subject of killer viruses.”

Inklingmagazine.com summarizes Crichton’s conclusions as follows:

1. Stop patenting genes.

2. Establish clear guidelines for the use of human tissues.

3. Pass laws to ensure that data about gene testing is made public.

4. Avoid bans on research

5. Rescind the Bayh-Dole Act (which allows universities to patent and make money from their research).

Essentially, Crichton has pulled a fire alarm to waken us to the issues which have been raised by Human Genome research. Of course at the heart of it all, with regard to human cloning, is the issue, “What does it mean to be human?” If the abortion debate has failed to produce a conclusive answer to “When does life begin?” you can be sure debates on human cloning won't produce answers where there is universal agreement. Ultimately, decisions will be made by those who have the power to make the decisions.

From all I’ve read thus far, my gut tells me human cloning is wrong. I recommend you begin to read and think about these things because they're certain to be part of tomorrow’s discussions in the news and in our lives, possibly sooner than you think.