Human cloning

Human cloning
Openness, realism essential when technology outpaces ethics

November 27, 2001

Researchers in Massachusetts have succeeded in cloning a human embryo, and in doing so, have redefined a debate that until now had focused on "what if?"

The "if" is past; the question has become "what now?"

The researchers, at a company called Advanced Cell Technology, say they have no interest in implanting the cloned embryos, although that technology is well-developed. Instead, their goal is to provide replacement cells that circumvent the problems of incompatibility and unavailability. That’s a laudable end, with implications for such diseases as diabetes, strokes, cancer, AIDS and neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease. However, the ethics of the means are what opponents are questioning.

Anti-abortion activists, who traditionally see life in terms of potential, say that any use of these embryos other than implantation, pregnancy and birth is immoral.

"This corporation is creating human embryos for the sole purpose of killing them and harvesting their cells," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. "Unless Congress acts quickly, this corporation and others will be opening human embryo farms."

Further, many reason that because so many unwanted infants are already born into the world, creating more embryos through technology is also immoral. Attractive though that argument is, it does not address the demand for the therapeutic technology that human cloning may be able to facilitate, and some scientists argue that withholding such technology — which will inevitably be developed — from patients is also immoral.

The president, who called the breakthrough "morally wrong," approves of experimentation only on existing stem cell lines, and Congress and federal regulators are considering a ban on human cloning.

The company’s CEO, Michael West, who says he is also pro-life, says the research involves cellular life, not human life, a statement which also dodges a crucial point: certain extremely useful types of cells are available only from embryos in the earliest stages of their development.

The embryos discussed in the announcement did not remain viable long enough to be harvested for stem cells, although that development will likely be achieved before Americans develop the framework within which to deal with it or even the language to discuss it. The speed at which progress is being made requires us to proceed with open discourse about a topic that’s very sensitive to all of us: the boundaries of human life.

It will be possible, of course, for those who object to refuse treatments that involve such technology. Our legal system allows for religious exemption from immunizations and other accepted medical practices. In order for such a system to work, informed-consent procedures would need to be revamped to make clear to the patient the source of the cells used in treatment. Objectors are free to decline to donate cells or participate in any other way.

Those safeguards address the ethical concerns of individuals, but they don’t resolve our concerns about our participation as a society.

About the only point that’s absolutely clear right now is that technology has outpaced our ability to assimilate it into our collective belief systems. Few people, including those who are avowedly pro-choice, are completely comfortable with this technique. We don’t know what to make of it. Yet it’s here to stay, and deal with it we must, in a dialogue that is both open and realistic.