Human Cloning??

[SkepticalScience]

Hi - I'm sure this has been discussed plenty of times before - but my search didn't provide exactly what I was looking for.

While I am for the cloning for most everything (body parts, animals, etc) I am hessitant to be for human cloning.

I am not sure why. I don't think there is anything like a soul, so it's certainly not influenced by religion.

Just intuitivley, I think I am against human cloning. I am trying to form an opinion on this matter, and am looking for input.

Any ideas??

 

[Mojo]

The only reasonably convincing point I've seen against human cloning is a possible ageing problem, particularly when cloning from adult cells. For example, it was reported that Dolly the sheep may have aged prematurely, but I can't find anything conclusive about this at the moment, or whether it actually was caused by the cloning.

Technical issues aside, I don't really see any problem. We're not talking about producing a perfect replica of an adult human being here: environment is important in determining personality. All we would have is two or more individuals with the same genetic makeup, and identical twins seem to do this without causing any ethical problems.

 

[Kaylee]

...While I am for the cloning for most everything (body parts, animals, etc) I am hessitant to be for human cloning.
...
Just intuitivley, I think I am against human cloning. I am trying to form an opinion on this matter, and am looking for input.

I wrote this offline before I saw Mojo's post and I was too lazy (too slow of a writer actually) to rewrite mine …

I'm against reproductive cloning also. A while ago I was trying to come up with a reason in an effort to make sure that my hesitation was logical and not, perhaps, just reflecting a fear of the unknown . (With new technology that affects genetics, a suspicion of "Frankenstein Science" nurtured by too much bad SF and inferior media coverage is always a possibility. ) What I came up with -- don't laugh -- was to build on an idea from the Declaration of Independence :

We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think it would be useful to extend that thought and to decide, as a society, that it's self evident that all humans should be conceived in equality with those rights as well, and not be expected to be born into a unique type of servitude and cede those rights for the benefit of others. (I also believe in the right to choose, so I know that my wording needs a lot of work.)

Wouldn't it be arrogant to want to make an exact copy of one's self? What would be the real expectation that the original human would have from his or her clone? How would it feel to be the clone?

I grew up in an Orthodox Jewish house. In that culture babies are not named after living relatives because it's thought that everyone has the right to be unique. (At least that was the explanation given to me.)

My mine concern is that human cloning would be done for vanity reasons or worse, and that if it was done on a large scale would have bad side effects for our society. If I could be convinced that would not be the case, I might change my mind.

Two additional side issues (and I'll explain why I think they are side issues later in this post)
1) In the past, cloned animals often were not as healthy as non-cloned animals (Mojo also mentioned this). From the
article

Regularly, new evidence emerges of all sorts of welfare problems with cloned animals. A Japanese group have recently published work showing cloned animals had shorter life-spans than non-cloned animals, apparently due to defects in their immune systems leading to fatal infections, liver disease and cancer. The vast majority of cloned animals die during gestation or soon after birth and those who survive can suffer physical deformities, be abnormally large, suffer diabetes, have fatty livers, underdeveloped lungs, heart and blood vessel defects etc. More and more of these defects are appearing as the first generation of cloned animals are aging, e.g., Dolly's premature arthritis.

2) Clones are not exact copies and can look different than the genetic donor. From the same article:

As medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, Chair, Department of Medical Ethics, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, wrote in a commentary on Feb. 28, "When the creation of 'cc,' the first cloned cat was announced, something puzzling was immediately obvious. The cloned cat looked different than its parent. The folks at Genetics Savings and Clone could not have been pleased. "cc" is a living reminder that cloning is not copying. You don't get an exact replica of the animal. You get the same genes, but any animal, including you and me, is more than its genes.

…

Cc has a different color coat than her genetic donor "mother," a calico cat named Rainbow. A cat's coat color is not determined exclusively by genetic factors.

The reason why I think these are side issues is because:
1) Cloned animal's health issues may be solved in the future, regardless I'm still not in favor of cloning humans.
2) While the fact that clones don't always look like exact copies may eliminate the demand for vanity human cloning, I would still be in favor of making it illegal.

 

[athon]

Reproductive Cloning is an enormous social wall to climb for one reason; you are experimenting with the life of a human being.

In a cell line, if you are aiming for a 1 in 10 chance of success, nine cells will be 'unsuccessful'. That either means they die or do not reflect the results you were aiming for.

At present, reproductive cloning in animals is aiming for about 5% success rate. We're not even at 1 in 10 yet for those, and success is an extremely loose definition (if it doesn't die, it is successful...very dodgy).

For humans, we would need something much much closer to human viability, something like 20-25%. To have it acceptable by the public, it would have to be vastly better than those figures. Until we have a remote chance of achieving that, reproductive cloning should not be experimented with.

The stigma applied to less than viable infants born via reproductive cloning today would be enormous.

How do we then get to that point without experimentation? With great difficulty. Hence I must admit, we have a lot of changes due before we can consider reproductive cloning as a practical science. Nope; stick to therapeutic cloning for a while, methinks.

Athon

 

[SkepticalScience]

Hmm - athon, is there a reason to be against experimenting with non-fully formed humans??

Forgive the sci-fi'ness of this, but say we could create a human body that lacks a brain - and was just used for creating human parts for other people. Is there any reason why we should be opposed to this??

Or say, using our cloning technology, we create soilders that have no feelings, and can follow orders perfectly. Would it be wrong to do that??

Something in me doesn't quite like the feeling of that, but I am not sure what.

It could however, be that my feeling is wrong.

SS

 

[Kaylee]

say, using our cloning technology, we create soilders that have no feelings, and can follow orders perfectly. Would it be wrong to do that??

Hi, I know you asked Athon, but I felt compelled to answer.

Yes, it would be wrong. Because we would intentionally be creating an unequal class of beings, and either a new kind of caste system or slavery.

To get around the temptation of doing that, before every human being is cloned (if ever) we should ask if the new human life we are creating is in HIS best interest, OR if is he being created to be exploited by others.

If we extend the belief that all people are created equal and are entitled to the same rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to potential cloned human beings, than I think we increase our chances of making decisions in the best interest of society overall.

(To tie this in to my earlier post, when society makes this evaluation, we may decide that it wouldn't be in any human being's best interest to be created as a clone compared to the option of being created from a sperm & egg donation (aka the usual way) -- and then use that as a reason to make cloning humans illegal).

... say we could create a human body that lacks a brain - and was just used for creating human parts for other people. Is there any reason why we should be opposed to this??

Conceivably creating a human body without a brain may be considered creating body parts and not a human being. However, there is a concept called "putting a gate around a law" IIRC. The idea being that the law or idea is so important that we will protect it with a gate, or an additional protective law.

So as an example, since we think human life is important Society made it illegal to murder people. We may decide (as a Society) that creating a human body without a brain to be killed at leisure for spare parts, looks so much like murdering people -- that in the future we may decide to make it illegal to breed brainless human bodies for slaughter. That would be putting a gate around the law that says it's illegal to murder a human being. Hope that makes sense.

Just as a side note, in the past we have decided not to commericialize human beings by making the following illegal:

* slavery
* prostitution
* selling children for adoption (granted to be reimbursed for related expenses is not illegal -- but the law does make a distinction)
* I think in most countries its illegal to sell body parts (e.g. "spare" kidney)

It will be interesting to see what decisions society makes over human genetic material in its various forms as we advance in this area.

 

[drkitten]

Forgive the sci-fi'ness of this, but say we could create a human body that lacks a brain - and was just used for creating human parts for other people. Is there any reason why we should be opposed to this??

Or say, using our cloning technology, we create soilders that have no feelings, and can follow orders perfectly. Would it be wrong to do that??

I think you have to distinguish at some point between development and use of a technology, and misdevelopment and misuse of a technology. Especially when the concerns you raise are of misuse of a technology at least two breakthroughs beyond what is currently being hoped for in the technology itself.

As has been pointed out, there are some rather serious technical issues that need to be resolved before human cloning itself becomes feasible. When this happens (as I expect it will), we will still be unable to develop people to order, to duplicate people personally, or to "create a human body that lacks a brain." As has been pointed out, if you clone a calico cat (with current technology), the clone doesn't even look like the original. There's certainly no reason to assume that it would act, behave, or learn as the original.

If you're concerned that people will misuse the ability to create duplicates of themselves to order ..... well, they might. But "human cloning" doesn't even offer that ability.

 

[Rolfe]

If we leave aside all the difficulties that have been discussed as problems which might be solved one day, when you really get down to it, when you can create a human clone, you've got a baby.

I don't have any problem with any safe method of producing a wanted child.

Rolfe.

 

[athon]

Shera's answer is pretty good, but I'll offer my POV as well.

Hmm - athon, is there a reason to be against experimenting with non-fully formed humans??

Strickly speaking, no. When we experiment with cell lines, in a way we are really dealing with non-fully formed humans. At what point does it become 'human'? In my opinion, when the 'collection of cells' adopts a form of awareness in anticipation of stimulus gathered from its environment. A very fuzzy line, I know, but it's as defined as I can say without having a discussion on what it means to be a human being.

Forgive the sci-fi'ness of this, but say we could create a human body that lacks a brain - and was just used for creating human parts for other people. Is there any reason why we should be opposed to this??

Good question; yes and no is my best answer.

No...see my reply above.

Yes, because:

a) How are you going to get an acephalic organism? Through genetic manipulation or through chemical/hormonal manipulation. Both require prior attempts to attain this level of science. What I'm saying is that in any science, failures are inevitable. I don't feel that it is moral to 'fail' in this situation, with any attempt at creating such a result.

b) Why would we ever need an acephalic 'body factory'? It's great for spec' fiction material, but totally pointless in any perceivable medical capacity. Why not aim towards using cloning technology to grow those organs as required? No need to preserve a 'sleeve' for your lifetime that way.

Or say, using our cloning technology, we create soilders that have no feelings, and can follow orders perfectly. Would it be wrong to do that??

Something in me doesn't quite like the feeling of that, but I am not sure what.

It could however, be that my feeling is wrong.

SS

Biological 'robots' might be possible, if rather sci-fi.

The sticking point is that we focus a lot on scientific advances, which in some ways are the easy parts. If left to pure science, we would be much further advanced in terms of technology than we are now. The catch is that we, as humans, are still bound by the same social rules millions of years of evolution have programmed into us. It took decades for us to accept, as a society, heart transplants and 'test tube' babies (IVF). They are now common place.

Social evolution is a lot slower than technological evolution. And that might not be a bad thing, arguably.

Another advance will be implants to provide communication and entertainment. Would you get a retinal implant to watch television, in light of modern laser therapy for sight correction? I sure would not be the first in line...but it will one day be common place to have surgery for 'entertainment', non medical reasons.

There is no scientific reason for feeling odd about reproductive cloning potential. But we are not scientific creatures by nature; we are sociological, and we must take that into account.

Athon

 

[Kaylee]

When we experiment with cell lines, in a way we are really dealing with non-fully formed humans. At what point does it become 'human'? In my opinion, when the 'collection of cells' adopts a form of awareness in anticipation of stimulus gathered from its environment. A very fuzzy line, I know, but it's as defined as I can say without having a discussion on what it means to be a human being.

I think that's a great defiinition Athon!

Just curious, about when does that happen in a lab setting, (if you happen to know)?

Thanks, Shera

 

[athon]

I think that's a great defiinition Athon!

Just curious, about when does that happen in a lab setting, (if you happen to know)?

Thanks, Shera

I'm not sure what you mean by that. When does a cell line become 'aware'? Well, depending on how you define 'aware'...either never (if awareness involves a sense of self or an awareness of prior decision-making processes) or immediately (if it is a simple sense / response).

At present we have a number of lineages of cell culture all over the world which are a blank cell called a 'stem' cell. These are what we test in present human-based cloning biotechnology. These are just like the cells you are made from initially post-fertilisation. They have no specific function, yet can differentiate into any cell in our bodies depending on how they are influenced to change (although today, we have a limited number of techniques and hence a limited number of resulting differentiated cells).

Therefore, you could ask at what point does a stem-cell differentiate enough to become 'aware'. Again, hard question that requires a definition of 'awareness'. But I will hazard an assumption that the awareness we are discussing requires a level of neurological complexity that involves the ability to make and store meaningful memories to be used in reference to imminent decisions (or in other words, the ability to learn).

Very basic and incomplete definition, I know, but without going philosophical, it gives you an idea of what is required to be aware.

Athon

 

[Kaylee]

Thanks Athon. I was actually wondering about what the time frame was for the awareness to kick in for the "collection of cells". But I'm glad you answered the question the way you did, the additional information is very interesting!

I happened to see this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell" target=_blank>
Wikipedia article on stem cells </a> that included this paragraph:

A blastocyst is a stage of development of an embryo when it is around five days old and made up of about 100 cells. A blastocyst at the stage at which embryonic stem cells would be extracted is still young enough to be able to divide into two embryos, making identical twins, or in rare cases, merge with another blastocyst, even one of the opposite sex[1], to create a chimera, an individual comprised of populations of cells with two different sets of DNA. From the biological point of view, these points mean the blastocyst is not yet an individual. Blastocysts are an early developmental stage far from possessing a nervous system, and thus biologically speaking do not have feelings.

If I understood the article correctly, it sounds like researchers extract the stem cells at around the 5th day of development for the embryo. It sounds like the ethical considerations for picking that time don't have to do with the blastocyst's level of awareness (as there's no nervous system yet), but because it's not considered an individual yet from a biological point of view.

Another Wikipedia article includes a description of two methods used to create an embryo for therapeutic cloning and I thought it was interesting also.

 

[athon]

Here's the basic issue; as far as we can tell using science, humans are no different to any other organism in so far that we are a series of complex chemical reactions moderated by enzymes. It might seem overly simplistic, but when you get down to it, we are just a massive city of cells that are basically tiny chemical machines. All of our feelings, beliefs, emotions...are chemical reactions.

That is worth all of the awe a religion can inspire, IMHO.

Therefore, we have a dilemma when we try to ascertain a level of complexity we can make moral decisions on. It's ok to crush a bug, but not ok to stomp on a cat's head. It's acceptable to destroy a billion bacteria on a desk top using bleach, but totally unacceptable to use bleach to kill a single possum that's nesting in your ceiling.

What I'm saying is that science does not have the means to address issues such as these because they are not scientific issues. There is no objective 'when', or quantifiable level which can define what level of chemical complexity an organism can attain to become sacred.

These things have more to do with our social rules; themselves evolutionary relationships that have formed in the patterns of our brains to help us survive in an unpredictable environment. For the first time in the history of living things, an organism (us) has conflict between the instinctual rules it possesses and an adaptation of intelligence called 'rationality'.

What happens from here, in the vastness of evolutionary history, will be interesting to watch. A shame I'm only here for a relative blink of an eye.

Athon

 

[Kaylee]

It is a social issue, but I think that when people (especially American politicians ) try to make decisions with a poor grasp of the subject -- they end up making silly and even harmful decisions.

As a society our decisions will be reflected in laws and budgets passed by politicians around the world, but these politicians will be elected (hopefully!) and influenced by all of us.

I think forums like this help, and personally I found the insights and opinions posted here very valuable.
Discussions like this (on this board as well in hopefully the many other places it's taking place) help make it more probable that the decisions made will be grounded in knowledge, logic and reasonableness vs. in ignorance, irrationality and/or for the sake of special interests.

I agree that what happens from here on out will be very interesting.

 

[Soapy Sam]

There are the two issues here , technicality and morality.

I agree with those who know the technicalities. It is too early for reproductive cloning of human beings.

Morally, I find I have few qualms about it. I have no intrinsic fear of identical twins, why would clones upset me?
The uses to which people might put them should be covered in law before the issue becomes real. It seems to me this is simply an extension of the abortion issue- when is a foetus a human?
30 seconds after conception? six weeks? forty weeks? five years?

It's a judgement call. If you can't agree, pull a number out of a hat and live with it.

If it can shoot back, it's probably human or merits similar treatment. But remember, we have laws defining when it's alright to kill adults, too.