Human Cloning: A Research Paper

Introduction

Several years before the turn of the century, news published in the journal Nature caused concern and alarm, solicited different reactions, and disturbed the whole world. Through the efforts of the Scottish scientists Ian Vilmut, K.H.S. Campbell and their team at Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute, they’ve “produced” something new and nevertheless, troubling: the sheep named Dolly through cloning. With the overcoming of this supposed impossibility, the way opened to human cloning. For some, human cloning is totally unacceptable and for the few others, this is progress and advancement of knowledge. But is cloning really beneficial? And if it is, do these benefits transcend the negative effects?

Chemical Engineering and Cloning

A chemical engineer deals with the industrial design of today’s most important processes to optimize the production of certain products. One of the applications of chemical engineering is the bioprocess engineering where principles are used to effect desirable chemical conversions using living cells, subcellular organelles, or enzymes. This bioprocess engineering includes the technology of cloning. Therefore, as a chemical engineering student, the challenge lies in the future application of my basic knowledge of the field and my morality to achieve a certain design objective and still be able to maintain harmony with my environment. Hence, I have chosen human cloning as a topic for this paper to really understand not only the processes involved but also the consequences of such practice. 

What is Cloning?

Cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another. It involves “replicating the genetic material from another animal to create a physically and biologically identical clone.  When organisms are replicated, the result is a genetically identical copy of the original organism” (Nguyen, 2000).  Within the last decade, scientists from PPL Therapeutics were able to clone the famous sheep, Dolly, who ignited the flame for the many controversial issues to follow.  She was specifically “formed by a nuclear transplantation of a parental nucleus into a donor egg; she inherited the DNA outside of her nucleus from the donor’s egg” (Milgram, 1999) .The scientists removed all genetic material from the egg and then injected the nucleic material from the donor into the egg.  After doing so successfully, they harvested this egg in the uterus of a lamb and the rest is history.  

According to the article “Reflections on Human Cloning” of the Pontifical Academy for Life, there are two new aspects to the cloning of the sheep Dolly. The first is that it is not a question of splitting but of a radical innovation defined as cloning, that is, an asexual and agamic reproduction meant to produce individuals biologically identical to the adult which provided the nuclear genetic inheritance. The second is that until now this type of true and proper cloning was considered impossible. It was thought that the DNA in the somatic cells of the higher forms of animal life, having already undergone the imprinting of differentiation, could no longer recover their original totipotentiality and, consequently, their ability to direct the development of a new individual. 

Reasons for Cloning

In its report, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) imagined a few situations in which people might avail themselves of cloning. In one scenario, a husband and wife who wish to have children are both carriers of a lethal recessive gene: 

“Rather than risk the one in four chance of conceiving a child who will suffer a short and painful existence, the couple considers the alternatives: to forgo rearing children; to adopt; to use prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion; to use donor gametes free of the recessive trait; or to use the cells of one of the adults and attempt to clone a child. To avoid donor gametes and selective abortion, while maintaining a genetic tie to their child, they opt for cloning” (Wachbroit, 1997)

In another scenario, the parents of a terminally ill child are told that only a bone marrow transplant can save the child's life. "With no other donor available, the parents attempt to clone a human being from the cells of the dying child. If successful, the new child will be a perfect match for bone marrow transplant, and can be used as a donor without significant risk or discomfort. The net result: two healthy children, loved by their parents, who happen to be identical twins of different ages” (Wachbroit, 1997). The Commission was particularly impressed by the second example. Indeed, the report suggests that it would be a "tragedy" to allow "the sick child to die because of a moral or political objection to such cloning” (Wachbroit, 1997).

The Church’s Stand

While there are predictions that Christian churches will one day accept cloning, the Catholic Church is firm on her stand about the issue, teaching that cloning involves “destruction of embryonic human life” and is “contrary to God’s will”. Therefore, the practice of cloning is “immoral no matter what its possible benefits maybe” (Stem-Cell Research and the Catholic Church)

In an article published in the internet, priests who opposed to cloning provided several reasons why cloning is immoral and should be condemned. First, cloning changes the specific meaning of human reproduction. Also, in the cloning process the basic relations of the human person are changed: filiations, consanguinity, kinship, parenthood: “A woman can be the twin sister of her mother, lacks a biological father, and be the daughter of her grandmother” (Pontifical Academy for Life, 1997). In vitro-fertilization (as in fertilization in the laboratory), this relationship has already been dented but cloning will mean the radical rupture of these bonds. The idea is encouraged that some individuals can have a total dominion over the existence of others, to the point of programming their identity. The importance of a person has reduced to the number of traits he/she possesses that are valuable for cloning and not to his unique identity.

A prohibition of cloning which would be limited to preventing the birth of a cloned child, but which would still permit the cloning of an embryo-fetus, on the other hand, would involve experimentation and would require their suppression before birth. In that case, such experimentation is immoral because “it involves the arbitrary use of the human body (by now decidedly regarded as a machine composed of parts) as a mere research tool. The human body is an integral part of every individual's dignity and personal identity” (Pontifical Academy for Life, 1997).

Misconception on Cloning

According to NBAC, some concerns regarding the effects of cloning, at least, are based on false beliefs about genetic influence and the nature of the individuals that would be produced. “Consider, for instance, the fear that a clone would not be an "individual" but merely a "carbon copy" of someone else -- an automaton of the sort familiar from science fiction. As many scientists have pointed out, a clone would not in fact be an identical copy, but more like a delayed identical twin. And 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 her non-contemporaneous twin. 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” (Wachbroit, 1997).

Reflections and Recommendations

Cloning is a powerful tool for manipulating an organism’s cell structure to produce desirable traits for the said organism. I believe that its uses can greatly benefit human beings especially in the field of health and medicine but I also believe that a human’s body is sacred and, therefore, should not be taken for granted and use for purposes other than what God has intended. Thus, no matter what its possible benefits may be, all of these do not surpass its possible consequences. We should not let ourselves manipulate other human person’s life for our advantage. This is just isn’t fair. You see, our right ends where the right of other person begins (even if that other person is an undeveloped embryonic cell). 

I am not opposed to research; in fact, I am currently in a research study. As emphasized in articles I’ve read, there is a place for research, including cloning, in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, wherever it answers a need or provides a significant benefit for man or for other living beings. Provided, of course, that the rules for protecting the animal itself and the obligation to respect the biodiversity of species are observed. When scientific research in man's interest aims to cure diseases, to relieve suffering, to solve problems due to malnutrition, to make better use of the earth's resources, it represents a hope for humanity, entrusted to the talent and efforts of scientists. 

In sum, there should be a balance between technology and morality. The objective is not only to produce a certain product using a design process but also to discover the effects, negative or positive, for such process. As the late Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin put it, “While technology merely asks, 'can it be done? Ethics on the other hand brings us one step farther and asks, 'if it can be done, should it be done?’"

REFERENCES

Milgram, A. (1999). Cloning: For and Against. Illinois: Carus Press.

Nguyen, P. (2000). Cloning, Ethics, and What Lies Ahead. Retrieved September 12, 2007

Philippine Daily Inquirer. (2001, June 12). Church Leader Urges Use of Safe Alternatives to GMO. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from http://www.biotech-info.net

Pontifical Academy for Life. (1997). Reflections on Human Cloning. Retrieved September 4, 2007, from Priest For Life: http://www.priestforlife.com

Stem-Cell Research and the Catholic Church. (n.d.). Retrieved September 4, 2007, from http://www.americancatholic.org

Wachbroit, R. (1997). Genetic Encores: The Ethics of Human Cloning. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy: http://www.puaf.umd.edu/ippp