SHOULD Saddam Hussein be killed and cloned the next day, would there be an end to terror?
This is just one of the many questions bugging the world after the second cloned baby was born, as claimed by Rael, founder of Clonaid, the first human cloning company in the world. A former French journalist and car-racer, Rael claims to have cloned another human from a lesbian couple in Netherlands.
Cloning is an asexual reproduction of any organism wherein the nucleus of a cell from the body of the single parent is stimulated to divide itself and inherit all the genes from one parent. This makes the clone genetically identical to that parent. One of the most dramatic recent examples of this new scientific discovery is the successful cloning of Dolly, an adult sheep cloned in Scotland in 1997.
Clonaid believes people are clones of extraterrestrial aliens who started the human race through cloning 25,000 years ago. After shunning moral and ethical standards, the religious cult Raelian is now faced with controversies. s
Scientists of the US National Academy of Science (NAS) said Clonaid’s claim is another fraud similar to a hoax in the late 1970s.
Ethical issues
The cloning issue has been debated extensively in First World countries where financial and technological resources are abundant.
Despite the attention given to a religious sect’s claim to have cloned the first human, ethicists are more concerned with the issue of cloning embryos for medical research than the pros and cons of reproductive cloning. Many religious ethicists, most notably Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians, remain firmly opposed to all forms of cloning.
In a January 13, 2003 report published by Newsweek, Cynthia Cohen, research fellow at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University in the United States, said the moral status of the embryo “arouses the most vehement discussion” when she addresses Church and civic groups. According to her, embryonic research on cloning must be studied further in order to prevent devious claims from dubious scientists.
“There’s no doubt (early) cellular material is human material and has the human genome, but you can’t put it together and say you have a human being,” she said.
UST Rector Fr. Tamerlane Lana, OP, a professor of theology and ethics at the UST Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, said he agrees with Cohen as long as research “is done within limits and under proper regulation.”
In an interview with the Varsitarian, Fr. Lana said he bases his support for embryonic research on such biblical texts as Psalm 139:14, which says, “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” Being “made” suggests a process of development that begins with a single cell and grows into trillions, he said.
“What is early is not the same as late,” he said. “An embryo is not a child.” It would be “unthinkable to take apart a child,” but a 100-cell embryo is a different matter, he said referring to Cohen’s statement that a 14-cell embryo may be excusable.
Benefits
While majority of scientists opposes reproductive cloning, they support therapeutic cloning in the hope of curing degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and diabetes by growing healthy cells to replace defective ones. With this process, damaged body tissues will be cloned to produce replacement for damaged organs.
While NAS is in favor of a ban on all reproductive human cloning, citing safety concerns, they call for work to continue in the field of embryonic cloning, where scientists create embryos in order to extract stem cells for use in medical research.
“If such research leads to the healing of a person with a heart disease, particularly a child, then it’s morally acceptable,” said Dr. William Olalia, director of the UST Health Service. “It’s also a Christian responsibility,” he added.
Fears
Aside from the ethical and moral constraints posed by cloning, what the society fears in general is the future of the cloned human – the fear that a clone would not be an “individual” but merely a “carbon copy” of someone else. As foreign scientists have pointed out in a report published in NewScientist (www.newscientist.com), a clone would not in fact be an identical copy, but more like a delayed identical twin. Just as identical twins are two separate people — biologically, psychologically, morally and legally, though not genetically — so, too, a clone would be a separate person from his non-contemporaneous twin.
The magazine also quotes Dr. Joel Feinberg, Philosophy professor at the University of Michigan, “to think otherwise is to embrace a belief in genetic determinism” — the view that genes determine everything about us, and that environmental factors or the random events in human development are insignificant.
Assuming that scientists were able to clone human beings without incurring the risks mentioned above, what concerns might there be about the welfare of clones? Some opponents of cloning believe that such individuals would be wronged in morally significant ways, denying them the “right to an open future.” For example, a child might be constantly compared to the adult from whom he was cloned, and thereby burdened with oppressive expectations. Worse, the parents might actually limit the child’s opportunities for growth and development: a child cloned from a basketball player, for instance, might be denied any educational opportunities that were not in line with a career in basketball.
Finally, regardless of his parents’ conduct or attitudes, a child might be burdened by the thought that he is a copy and not an “original.” The child’s sense of self-worth or individuality or dignity would thus be difficult to sustain.
