should human cloning be legalized essay

• The Big Debate: Should Human Cloning Be Legalised?

In 1997, Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell of the Roslin Institute shocked the scientific community and the world when they announced the birth of a successfully cloned sheep named Dolly. After Dolly was born, the cloning  of humans seemed , at least in principle, achievable. The possibility of cloning humans sparked heated debate across the world about the acceptability and necessity of such a procedure. Some felt that biotechnology had gone a step too far while others welcomed such a development. Since then, several other species including, goats, pigs, mules, cows, mice, and cats, have been successfully cloned. The possibility of human cloning engages not only religious, social, cultural, and moral challenges but also legal and ethical issues. The debate on human cloning also raises questions of human and fundamental rights, particularly liberty of procreation, freedom of thought and scientific inquiry, and right to health. There are currently several  types of cloning  carried out by scientists that include cellular cloning, embryo cloning, and molecular cloning. Embryo cloning is further divided into, nuclear transfer, blastocyst division or twinning, and blastomere separation. The cloning technique used to clone Dolly was a type of nuclear transfer.

Arguments In Favor Of Human Cloning

Help infertile couples.

Human cloning technology, once optimized, will have the ability to help infertile couples who cannot produce sperm or eggs to have children that are genetically related to them. A couple could potentially decide to have a clone of the man born through his female partner or a clone of the woman providing the genetic material. A human clone would, therefore, become a “ single parent-child .” Currently, treatment for infertility is not very successful. By some estimates, the success rates of infertility treatments, including IVF (in vitro fertilization) is less than 10%. The procedures are not only frustrating, but they are also expensive. In some instances, human cloning technology could be considered as the last best hope for having children for infertile couples.

Recreate A Lost Child Or Relative

The loss of a child is one of the worst tragedies that parents face. After such a painful ordeal, grief-stricken parents often wish they could have their perfect baby back. Human cloning technology could potentially allow parents to recreate a child or relative while seeking redress for their loss. Cells of a dying child could be taken and  used later for  cloning without consent from the parents. While the new child would not take away the memory, he/she would probably help take away some of the pain. The technology would allow parents to have a twin of their child, and like other twins, the new child would be a unique individual.

Exercise Procreative Liberty

The freedom to decide whether or not to have an offspring is an important concept of personal liberty. People have the right to utilize human cloning technology in the same way they have a right to other reproductive related procedures and technologies such as the Vitro fertilization or contraceptives. A parent’s  right to bear  a child through cloning should, therefore, be respected. When the technology is established and becomes no less safe than natural reproduction, then human cloning should be allowed as a reproductive right. Cloning would also allow members of the LGBT community to have children related to them. In a lesbian couple, one of them could be cloned and brought to term in either of the women. In a gay couple, one of the men could be cloned, but the couple would need to find a woman to donate an egg and a surrogate mother to bring the embryo to term.

Offspring Free Of Genetic Defects

Current knowledge of bioengineering coupled with human cloning technology could help many parents have offspring free of defective genetic material that could cause disorders and deadly diseases. In a case where both parents have recessive genes for the fatal disease, they could avoid more traditional methods that could result in a child with dominant genes, which would consequently lead to the disease. The parents could use human cloning technology to have a child  without the disease  since the genetic makeup of the child would be the same as that of a parent who was cloned.

Provide Medical Cures

Human cloning technology could help children born with incurable diseases that can only be treated through a transplant, where donors with an organ match are not found. Cloning technology would allow a child to be cloned under reproductive purpose, which would allow the resulting clone to donate an organ such as a kidney or bone marrow. In that case, the older child  would be saved , and the younger clone child would also live since bone marrow regenerates, and humans can live with one kidney. The technology would allow a parent to save an existing life through a new life. Human cloning technology could also utilize the nuclear transplantation technique to produce human stem cells for therapeutic purposes. Stem cells from the umbilical cord could be cultured and allowed to develop into tissues such as bone marrow or a kidney when needed. Since the DNA of the new organ or bone marrow is matched to the patient, there would be a lower risk of organ rejection as a foreign matter by the patient’s body.

A Step Towards Immortality

Human clones are sometimes called “ later-born twin s” by those receptive to the idea of human cloning. The term is justified by the fact that the cloned being would have the same genetic material as the original and would be born after the person who is cloned. The process of human cloning can be considered as taking human DNA and reversing its age back to zero. Some scientists believe that the technology would allow them to understand how to reverse DNA to any desirable age. Such knowledge would be seen as a step closer to a fountain of youth. Some people believe that human cloning technology would allow people to have some kind of immortality because their DNA would live on after they die. 

Arguments Against Human Cloning

Medical danger.

Based on information gained from previous cloning experiments, cloned mammals die younger and suffer prematurely from diseases such as arthritis. Cloned animals also have a higher risk of developing genetic defects and being born deformed or with a disease. Studies on cloned mice have shown that they die prematurely from damaged livers, tumors, and pneumonia. Since human cloning technology is not tested, scientists cannot rule out  biological damage to the clone. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission report stated that it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the private or public sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning because it would pose unacceptable potential risks to the fetus or child. Human cloning technology would also put the mother at risk. 

Dr. Leon Kass, chairman of the President’s Council of Bioethics, has warned that studies on animal cloning suggest late-term fetal losses or spontaneous abortions occur at a higher rate in cloned fetuses than in natural pregnancies. In humans, a late-term fetal loss could significantly increase maternal mortality and morbidity. Cloning could also pose psychological risks to the mother due to the late spontaneous abortions, the birth of a child with severe health problems, or the birth of a stillborn baby.

Disrespect For The Dignity Of The Cloned Person

One of the most satisfying and difficult things about being a human is developing a sense of self. It involves understanding our capabilities, strengths, needs, wants, and understanding how we fit into the community or the world. A crucial part of that process is learning from and then breaking away from parents and understanding how we are similar or different from our parents. Human cloning technology would  potentially diminish  the individuality or uniqueness of a cloned child. Even in instances where the child is cloned from someone other than their parents, it would not be very easy for them to develop a sense of self. It could also lead to the devaluation of clones when compared to a non-clone or original. Cloning would also infringe on the clone’s freedom, autonomy, and self-determination. Cloned children would be raised unavoidably in the shadow of the person they were cloned from.

Co-modification Of Cloned Children

Human cloning technology would, in return for compensation, provide offspring with specific genetic makeup. Cloning a child would also require some patented reproductive procedure and technology that could be sold. Consequently, human cloning technology would lead society to view children and  people as objects that can be designed and manufactured with specific characteristics. Buyers would theoretically want to pay top dollar for a cloned embryo of a Nobel Prize winner, celebrity, or any other prominent figure in society. 

Societal Dangers

 Some experts have argued that societal hazards may be the least appreciated in discussions on human cloning technology. Such technology could, for example, lead to new and more effective  forms of eugenics . In countries run by dictators, governments could engage in mass cloning of people who are “deemed” of proper genetic makeup. In democracies, human cloning technology could lead to free-market eugenics that could have a significant societal impact when coupled with bioengineering techniques. People could theoretically bioengineer their clones to have certain traits. When done on a mass scale, it would lead to a kind of a master race based on fashion.

International Stand On Human Cloning

In March 2005, the United Nations General assembly approved a  non-binding Declaration  that called on UN member states to ban all forms of human cloning as incompatible with the protection of human life and human dignity. The Declaration concluded efforts that had begun in 2001 with a proposal from Germany and France for a convention against the reproductive cloning of humans. The US and 83 other nations supported a ban on all human cloning technology for reproductive and therapeutic or experimental purposes. The other 34 nations, including the UK, Japan, and China, voted against the ban. While 37 countries abstained from the vote, and 36 countries were absent.

More in Society

The Most Isolated Tribe on Earth

Countries Who Have Never Won A Summer Olympic Medal

25 Most Illiterate Countries

Which Country's Residents Have the Most Tattoos?

Alan Watts' Guide To The Meaning Of Life

Did Nietzsche Believe In Free Will?

Is Metaphysics The Study Of Philosophy Or Science?

5 Islamic Scientific Ideas That Changed The World

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Genetic engineering debate: Should human cloning be legal?

Source: Composite by G_marius based on University of Michigan School of Natural Resources image

Human cloning is possible but unlawful in most countries. We discuss the pros and cons of genetic engineering and cloning, and whether it should be legal. This is your opportunity to convince other people to support or oppose to human cloning. Leave your comments below.

What is human cloning?

Human cloning refers to the creation of replicas or identical copies of human through  genetic engineering techniques . Human cloning was a popular theme in science fiction literature but technological progress has made possible the clonation of species. Scientists have already managed to successfully clone plants and animals and in theory using similar technologies they could also create copies of humans. There are two processes through which humans could be in theory cloned:

• Somatic cell nuclear transfer : This technique consists of removing the genetic material from a host egg cell, and then implanting the nucleus of a somatic cell (from a donnor) into this egg. The somatic cell genetic material is fused using electricity. This was the technique employed to clone the famous sheep Dolly in 1996. 
• Induced pluripotent stem cells : This approach relies on adult cells that have been genetically reprogrammed. A specific set of genes, usually referred to as "reprogramming factors", are introduced into a specific adult cell type. These factors send signals in the adult cell transforming it into a pluripotent stem cell . This technique is still in development and entails some problems but it has already been employed with mice. 

The impact that human cloning could have on our societies and future populations have made this topic extremely controversial . Although there are many pros in terms of innovation, reproduction and health, there are also several drawbacks from the ethical and legal perspective. Many countries such as the Australia, Canada, and the United Nations have already passed laws to ban human cloning. However, the issues is far from being settled. Many voices are arguing in favor of human cloning and others are stauch opponents to the legalization of this practice. 

Pros of human cloning 

Many science fiction movies, such as Gattaca , The Island or Moon have dealt with the implications of genetic engineering and human cloning. Most of them have portrayed a somewhat dystopian future and emphasize the problems of genetic manipulation. However, it is also important to stress the potential benefits of human cloning. Here is a list of its pros :

• Reproduction of infertile couples: using human cloning techniques parents could have babies without needing a donnor or a surrogate.
• Defective genes could be eliminated.
• Genetic modification : parents could decide on some characteristics of their children before they are born, such as the sex, and avoid some congenital disease.
• Prevent some genetic disorders and syndromes: some families have a propensity to certain genetic disorders, some of which could be prevented by genetic selection.
• Cure some diseases and disorders: therapeutic human cloning may allow cloning organs and tissues and replacing damaged ones. This would contribute to increase lifespams and quality of life in the world.

Cons of human cloning 

On the other hand we cannot omit the dangers that human cloning may bring to our societies. This is a list of some of the most commonly argued  cons :

• Create divides within society: genetically selected people could be, in theory, more intelligent and physically attractive than other people. This could gradually evolve into a caste system.
• Diversity could be lost if parents would choose similar patterns in selecting the genetic material for their children.
• Faster aging and in-built genetic defects: until cloning technology is fully polished, human cloning may create many problems. Since older cells are often used to create clones this could produce premature aging for people. Moreover animal clones have usually been unhealthy.
• Interference with nature and religion: many people find human cloning to be artificial and to be at odds with their beliefs. Human clones could, thus, be stygmaized.
• Unlawful use of clones: as in some science fiction movies and books, clones could be created just as for the purpose of economic gain. Certain types of humans could be created to work on certain jobs, even under abusive conditions. Clones could be also brought up for unlawful activities. 

Do you think the pros of human cloning outweigh its cons? Should we allow scientists to clone humans (or parts of humans) for therapeutic and or reproductive reasons?

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Human Cloning, Should It Be Banned or Legalized? Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2136

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Introduction

Human cloning has emerged to be among the greatest ethical debates in our era, with most states expressing their opposition or acceptance in the process. In some states, cloning is illegal while others are still debating on its scientific and social impacts. In addition, most federal institutions in the US are prohibited from practicing human cloning, even at experimental levels (Haugen & Musser, 2008). One fact, however, that needs to be placed under consideration is that the cloning technology is already here, and either way, at some point human clones would be acceptable to help in elongating human genetic lines.

In biology, cloning refers to the process of producing populations that look alike with identical genetics that happens naturally when organisms such as plants, insects or bacteria reproduce asexually (Langwith, 2012). In biotechnology, cloning refers to the processes employed to develop copies of DNA portions of organisms or cells. The term also means the making of many copies of a product like software or digital media.

The term ‘clone’ originates from the early Greek word “twig”, which refers to the process whereby new plants can be developed from a twig. Horticulturalists applied the spelling “clon” until the twentieth century, the last ‘e’ was added to show that the vowel is a ‘long o’ and not a ‘short o’. Since the word entered the popular glossary in a more common context, the spelling “clone” has been applied exclusively. Botanists traditionally used the term ‘lusus’.

The United States’ Department of Food and Drugs Administration approved the human consumption of meat and any other products from cloned animals on December 28, 2006, with no unique labeling needed because food from cloned animals had been proved to be the same to the organisms from which they were cloned. Such practice has received strong opposition in other places due to misinformation, like Europe, in particular over the issue of labeling (Feight & Zukairat, 2009).

Many ethical myths such as the role of God, the soul as well as the quality of life that the clones would live has become the basis for many arguments against cloning. Such persons also need to put into consideration the positive aspects of cloning such as quick medical interventions, long life spans, and better life quality. This speech explores into the pros and cons of cloning, putting into consideration both the technological and the social impacts that it will cause. Relatively, this paper seeks to answer the questions as to whether cloning would help the society and whether it is ethically responsible to clone humans to create new lives. Through reference to a number of animal cloning instances, the speech will consider the effectiveness and levels of benefits that were accrued from such clonings.

History of Cloning

The success in animal cloning formed the basis of the heated argument regarding human cloning in the contemporary world. Various attempts have been made in regards to human cloning, and they have revealed a great success. Dolly the sheep is the world most famous cloned animal known. The sheep were cloned through somatic nuclear transfer from the udder cell of a six-year-old sheep in the year 1996 after 276 failed attempts. To make Dolly, researchers isolated a somatic cell from adult female sheep. Next, they removed the nucleus and all its DNA from an egg cell. Then they moved the nucleus from the somatic cell to the egg cell, after a couple of chemical tweaks, the egg cell, with its new nucleus behaved like a freshly fertilized egg. It developed into an embryo, which was implanted into a surrogate mother and carried to term. Since the successful attempt of animal cloning, various experiments has been placed under way to shed more light on this process.

Applications of Animal Cloning

Xenotransplantation; Involve transplantation of nonhuman tissues or organs into human recipients. Increasing demand for human organs has led to the adoption of this method as an alternative. The only obstacle is immunological responses which may lead to rejection of these organs by the body (Winters, 2007). However, researchers are still working on various ways through which such immunological responses can be addressed so as to make the complete process a success.

Breeding endogenic body tissues; Modern study shows that organs from cloned pigs produce organs that can be used in a human transplant. Pig organs are approximately similar to those of humans, including plumbing regions. The only problem using pig’s organs is that they are coated with sugar molecules and trigger acute rejection in humans. Scientists are however working to produce pigs that produce sugar lacking genes through cloning (Winters, 2007). The success of this technology would bring about a great breakthrough in the area of human cloning.

Animal models; The technique has been used to create models of human diseases. Hepatitis C virus a very persistent disease can not be proficiently propagated in cell cultures, researchers have heavily relied on the animal model to study physical characteristics of HCV and events associated with its infections. This has been done in molecular cloning of HCV genome in chimpanzees (Roleff, 2006).

Pros of Human Cloning

Despite the many hullabaloos that surround cloning, it is important to consider its positive impacts on the livelihood of human nature. There are plethoras of payback that come with human cloning; some of which include the following:

Elimination of defective genes; Genetic illness may not be the leading killers today, but there are chances of them developing into major killers in future. As human reproduction progresses, there are many damages that occur on their DNA lines. As a result, defective genes and mutations could occur and ruin the quality of lives. However, with the cloning technology, such defective genes and mutations can be eliminated to improve the quality of lives for these people (Johnson, 2008).

Enhances quick healing from traumatic injuries; certain life happenings such as fatal accidents and life conditions often result into trauma for the victims. Recovery from such traumatic injuries may take long depending on the cause of harm. This situation is likely to change with the introduction of cloning technology since the victims would have their own cells cloned and used in replacing the injured parts. This would even hasten the healing process.

Quite a solution to infertility; In spite of many infertility treatments being successful, cloning provides a quick and most efficient solution to infertility (Haugen & Musser, 2010). Imagine creating a twin brother or sister of your infertile partner from the clone and beginning a new family; it feels good and many people would prefer it to undergoing the painful process of infertility treatment.

Cons of Human Cloning

Despite the above benefits, many religious and social activists largely condemn the act of human cloning for a number of reasons. Most of these revolve around the supremacy of God as well as the quality of lives that the clones would live. Here are some of the issues that largely demean the art of human cloning.

Possibilities of quick aging; Cloning involve taking older human cells and using them to create new ones. There are often many possibilities that the developing embryo would adopt the imprinted age, and as a result cause premature aging issues (Haugen & Musser, 2008). In some instances, the clones would succumb to premature deaths. This makes human cloning a great peril to the social livelihood.

Cloning lowers the individual’s sense of humanity. A human clone may be a new life, having unique preferences, however, the clone is simply a twin of another person, and no matter the age, there would be a potential personality loss, which makes the process inefficient.

Reduction in human life value; with the existence of cloning, humans are likely to become more of commodities than living beings (Macintosh, 2009). For instance, if you do not like behavior or something else in your child, you simply clone another and only make sure the problem is solved this time round. With this type of life, new societal divisions could be created, in which perfect clones, are treated better than the humans got through the natural process.

Most religious activists also view human cloning as an act that largely diminishes the role of God in creation. Some of the many questions that may remain unanswered include whether the human soul exists and whether it is lost during cloning. Most of these revelations would be contrary to the religious beliefs of many people, hence causing a stir in the social beliefs.

Considering the above pros and cons of human cloning, both sides of argument hold sufficient weight and justify their stand. It is, however, a fact that the ban or illegality of human cloning would just be momentary since most technological advances would automatically embrace this new culture (Haugen & Musser, 2010). The increasing practice of animal cloning is increasingly becoming extensive and given more time, human cloning would suffice. The major successes achieved in the field of cloning over the past two centuries have been remarkable. Given the pros of human cloning, it is evident that its practice would be upheld and many nations may come up with universal laws concerning the art of human cloning. Despite the bone of contention regarding its applicability within the current social system, the practice will gradually increase hence creating the demand for its applicability. Human cloning may come with activities that are contrary to many social norms, however, the benefits also needs to be emphasized on.

Barber, N. (2013). Cloning and genetic engineering.New York: Rosen Publishing’s Rosen Central.

Feight, J., & Zuraikat, N. (2009). Cloned food labeling: History, issues, and bill S. 414.International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 3(2), 149-163.

Fiester, A. (2005). Ethical Issues In Animal Cloning. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48(2), 328-343.

Haugen, D. M., & Musser, S. (2008). Human embryo experimentation . Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Haugen, D. M., & Musser, S. (2010). Technology and society . Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Johnson, J. A. (2008). Human cloning . Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Macintosh, K. L. (2009). Illegal Beings Human Clones and the Law . Leiden: Cambridge University Press.

Wimmer, T. (2009).   Cloning: Dolly the sheep . Mankato, MN: Creative Education.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Analyzing an Author’s Life Experiences, Essay Example

Apple Inc Strategic, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

• Subscribe to BBC Science Focus Magazine
• Previous Issues
• Future tech
• Everyday science
• Planet Earth
• Newsletters

© Getty Images

Should human cloning be allowed?

A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has claimed that human cloning could become a reality within the next 50 years.

The British biologist Sir John Gurdon carried out pioneering frog cloning work during the 1950s and 60s – research which led to the creation of Dolly the sheep in 1996.

During an appearance on BBC Radio 4’s The Life Scientific , Gurdon said that the time period between his cloned frogs and Dolly the sheep could be similar to the time we have to wait until the first human clone.

He said: "When my first frog experiments were done, an eminent American reporter came down and said 'How long will it be before these things can be done in mammals or humans?'”

"I said: 'Well, it could be anywhere between 10 years and 100 years – how about 50 years? It turned out that wasn't far off the mark as far as Dolly was concerned. Maybe the same answer is appropriate."

Advocates of human cloning argue that it would have important uses, such as allowing parents to clone a child who’s been tragically lost in an accident or through illness. The technology could also allow scientists to grow replacement tissues and organs that are accepted by the body without the need for immunosuppressive drugs.

On the flipside, critics highlight the fact that many cloned animals end up being deformed, warning that human clones could be similarly damaged. Others worry that cloning might lead to a loss of human dignity and individuality, as vividly depicted in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World .

Despite such complex ethical issues, however, Gurdon believes that human cloning would soon be accepted by the public if it turns out to have valuable medical uses.

• What’s the biological difference between identical twins and clones?
• Could we clone a mammoth or a dinosaur?

Follow Science Focus on Twitter , Facebook , Instagram and Flipboard

Share this article

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy policy
• Cookies policy
• Code of conduct
• Magazine subscriptions
• Manage preferences

You are now being redirected to goldpdf.site....

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 21 March 2017

The global governance of human cloning: the case of UNESCO

• Adèle Langlois 1  

Palgrave Communications volume  3 , Article number:  17019 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

71k Accesses

10 Citations

135 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations
• Science, technology and society

Since Dolly the Sheep was cloned in 1996, the question of whether human reproductive cloning should be banned or pursued has been the subject of international debate. Feelings run strong on both sides. In 2005, the United Nations adopted its Declaration on Human Cloning to try to deal with the issue. The declaration is ambiguously worded, prohibiting “all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life”. It received only ambivalent support from UN member states. Given this unsatisfactory outcome, in 2008 UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) set up a Working Group to investigate the possibility of a legally binding convention to ban human reproductive cloning. The Working Group was made up of members of the International Bioethics Committee, established in 1993 as part of UNESCO’s Bioethics Programme. It found that the lack of clarity in international law is unhelpful for those states yet to formulate national regulations or policies on human cloning. Despite this, member states of UNESCO resisted the idea of a convention for several years. This changed in 2015, but there has been no practical progress on the issue. Drawing on official records and first-hand observations at bioethics meetings, this article examines the human cloning debate at UNESCO from 2008 onwards, thus building on and advancing current scholarship by applying recent ideas on global governance to an empirical case. It concludes that, although human reproductive cloning is a challenging subject, establishing a robust global governance framework in this area may be possible via an alternative deliberative format, based on knowledge sharing and feasibility testing rather than the interest-based bargaining that is common to intergovernmental organizations and involving a wide range of stakeholders. This article is published as part of a collection on global governance.

Similar content being viewed by others

Dutch perspectives on the conceptual and moral qualification of human embryo-like structures: a qualitative study

Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data

Crispr in context: towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing, introduction.

UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) was founded in 1945, aiming to “build peace in the minds of men” through education, science, culture and communication ( UNESCO, 2007 ). Its Bioethics Programme began in 1993. The organization deems itself uniquely placed to lead the way in setting bioethical standards, as the only UN agency with a mandate for both the human and social sciences ( UNESCO, 2016e ). To this end, it has adopted three declarations on bioethics: the 1997 Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (UNESCO, 1997), the 2003 International Declaration on Human Genetic Data (UNESCO, 2003) and the 2005 Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UNESCO, 2005b). After drafting three declarations in the space of a decade, UNESCO decided to take a “normative pause” and instead focus on fostering take-up of the existing declarations regionally and nationally ( UNESCO, 2005a ). Before long, however, it started to consider a fourth bioethics instrument, an international convention on human cloning. From 2008 to 2011 it investigated whether an international convention to ban human reproductive cloning is warranted. The Working Group assigned to this question “flip-flopped” back and forth: in 2008 it recommended a convention, in 2009 it decided continued international dialogue would be sufficient and in 2010 it went back to a convention. As member states could not agree on a way forward, the issue was dropped in 2011 without a firm decision being made on the need or otherwise for a convention. This can be seen as a global governance failure. In 2014, the Bioethics Programme began to revisit the issue. This time there was greater consensus on the need for a ban on human reproductive cloning, but no practical progress has been made.

This article takes a traditional global governance scenario—a debate within a UN agency about whether to draft an international convention—and asks why the outcome was unsatisfactory. The analysis draws on first-hand observations of UNESCO’s publicly held bioethics meetings in 2010 and 2011, official UNESCO records of these and other meetings and UNESCO reports on human cloning. After a brief introduction to (a) developments in global governance and (b) the science and ethics of human cloning, the article charts the progress and ultimate collapse of the UNESCO cloning debate from 2008 to 2011 and developments from 2014 onwards. It concludes that, although human reproductive cloning is a challenging subject, establishing a global governance framework in this area may be possible via an alternative deliberative format.

Global governance

Ruggie (2014 : 5) defines governance as “systems of authoritative norms, rules, institutions, and practices by means of which any collectivity, from the local to the global, manages its common affairs”. At the global level these systems, particularly within formal intergovernmental settings such as UNESCO, are increasingly seen to be inadequate, with scholars variously describing them as “facing a deep crisis” ( Pauwelyn et al., 2014 : 737), “suboptimal” ( Ruggie, 2014 : 15) and suffering the “pathologies” of gridlock, fragmentation, disconnect between related issue areas and conflicts of interest ( Pegram and Acuto, 2015 : 586). The old, hierarchical model of multilateral governance is considered too rigid ( Pauwelyn et al., 2014 : 737) and to have “limited utility in dealing with many of today’s most significant global challenges” ( Ruggie, 2014 : 8). Traditional intergovernmental organizations have not adapted to the increasing complexity of society and the ensuing need for flexible regulatory mechanisms that can keep pace with scientific development ( Pauwelyn et al., 2014 : 742–743).

These problems have led to changes and innovations in both the theory and practice of global governance ( Ruggie, 2014 ; Weiss and Wilkinson, 2014 ; Pegram and Acuto, 2015 : 588). As Pauwelyn et al. (2014: 734) note, “Formal international law is stagnating in terms of both quantity and quality. It is increasingly superseded by ‘informal international lawmaking’ involving new actors, new processes, and new outputs”. They refer to this stagnation as “treaty fatigue” ( Pauwelyn et al., 2014 : 739). The international system is becoming more pluralist and less dominated by sovereign states pursuing narrow interests. There has been movement towards voluntary rather than binding regulation, as well as capacity building ( Pauwelyn et al., 2014 : 736; Pegram and Acuto, 2015 : 591). Particularly for emerging areas, such as the internet, regulation has been informal, with no discussion of a legally binding treaty ( Pauwelyn et al., 2014 : 738). In turn, a “second generation” of global governance scholarship, which recognizes the complexity of global governance in a changed global context, is focusing less exclusively on intergovernmental politics. In the introduction to their special issue of Millennium on global governance’s “interregnum”, Pegram and Acuto (2015 : 586 and 588) predict a “more innovative global governance research and practice-oriented agenda” and a transition to “a potentially more pluralist (and hopefully more democratic) intellectual and practical ecosystem, as well as to new structures of power”. This article applies some of these new practices and ideas to UNESCO’s human cloning debate, answering Pegram and Acuto’s call for “more empirical research” ( Pegram and Acuto, 2015 : 595).

Human cloning and its current international regulation

Although the idea of human cloning excites strong views, there is much confusion about what it would actually entail. Cloning can take two forms: “reproductive” cloning and “therapeutic” or “research” cloning. These terms are not scientifically accurate, but are commonly used nevertheless. They stem from the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, whereby an enucleated egg receives a nucleus from a somatic (body) cell. In reproductive cloning, the embryo is implanted into a female for gestation. Through this method, Dolly the Sheep became the first mammal to be cloned in July 1996. In therapeutic cloning, an embryo is harvested for stem cells rather than brought to term ( Wilmut et al., 1998 : 21; Bowring, 2004 : 402–403; Isasi et al., 2004 : 628; United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, 2007 : 6). Although therapeutic cloning is held by many to have great potential medically, as a source of compatible tissue and organs for those who need transplants, it generates considerable controversy. For people who see human life as beginning at fertilization, therapeutic cloning is also reproductive ( Isasi et al., 2004 : 628; Lo et al., 2010 : 17).

Since the cloning of Dolly the Sheep, ethicists, lawyers and scientists have argued vigorously both for and against developing this technology for use in humans. Those in favour draw on liberal values, citing reproductive freedom, or hope that cloning will provide a new means to tackle infertility. Those against fear for the psychological health of the clone, who would be unable to enjoy what they see as the inherently human quality of having a unique identity. Clones might be expected by their “parents” to conform to a particular life pattern, or feel shackled by knowing about the life of the person from whom they were cloned. Those on both sides mostly agree that, based on the poor success rate in animal cloning and the potential health risks to mother and child, on safety grounds it would be unethical to attempt human cloning currently ( Kass, 1998 : 694–695; Robertson, 1998 : 1372, 1410–1411 and 1415–1416; Burley and Harris, 1999 : 110; de Melo-Martín, 2002 : 248–250; Harris-Short, 2004 : 333 and 344; Tannert, 2006 : 239; Mameli, 2007 : 87; Morales, 2009 : 43; Shapsay, 2012 : 357; The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2012 : 804–805; Wilmut, 2014 : 40–41).

Many countries have banned reproductive and/or therapeutic cloning. In most cases, their laws refer to somatic cell nuclear transfer rather than cloning more generally and thus newer technologies are not covered ( Lo et al., 2010 : 16). Several international and regional measures also prohibit human reproductive cloning: UNESCO’s 1997 Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (UNESCO, 1997), the World Health Organization’s resolutions of 1997 and 1998 on the implications of cloning for human health (WHO, 1998), the Council of Europe’s 1998 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings (Council of Europe, 1998) and the European Union’s 2000 (amended 2007) Charter of Fundamental Human Rights (European Union, 2012). As the Council of Europe’s protocol has been ratified by only 23 of its 47 member states, the EU Charter is limited to the enactment of EU law and UNESCO’s declaration is by definition non-binding, none of these represent an absolute ban ( Council of Europe, 2016 ; European Commission, 2016 ). Hence, at the request of France and Germany, in 2001 the UN General Assembly began to deliberate on a binding treaty to prohibit human reproductive cloning. Four years of dispute and discord followed. Some states were concerned that an embargo on reproductive cloning specifically would implicitly endorse therapeutic or research cloning, whilst those wishing to pursue therapeutic cloning could not support a holistic ban. With agreement on a binding convention seemingly elusive, the General Assembly opted for a non-binding declaration. The United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning was duly adopted on 8 March 2005, but not unanimously. 84 states voted in favour, 34 voted against and 37 abstained ( Arsanjani, 2006 ; Isasi and Annas, 2006 ; Cameron and Henderson, 2007 ). The declaration, rather ambiguously, calls on states to “prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life” ( United Nations, 2005 ). It is considered too weak an instrument to either thwart rogue research or promote legitimate scientific endeavour ( Isasi and Annas, 2006 : 63; United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, 2007 : 19).

The UNESCO Bioethics Programme

The UNESCO Bioethics Programme began in 1993 with the formation of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC), made up of independent experts. An Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC), comprising state representatives, followed in 1999. Each committee has 36 members. The IBC meets yearly and the IGBC biennially. Regular joint meetings of the two committees are also held. The IBC has various functions, including promoting bioethics education and reflection on ethical issues. The IGBC’s mandate is to examine the recommendations of the IBC and report back to the Director-General of UNESCO ( UNESCO, 1998 ). The IBC works on the basis of 2-year Work Programmes (human cloning, for example, featured in the 2008–2009 and 2010–2011 programmes), with reflections on particular topics being drafted by specially appointed Working Groups, comprising a small number of IBC members, over the 2-year cycle. Each Group presents their work-in-progress at IBC and IGBC meetings and takes the views expressed at these meetings into account in their final reports.

Scholars from both within and without the Bioethics Programme have analysed its efficacy as a forum for ethical debate and standard-setting. Footnote 1 These analyses have mostly focused on the negotiation of the 2005 Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights . The interest-based bargaining often seen within intergovernmental organizations led to vague wording on beginning and end of life issues and risk assessment, while controversial issues such as sex selection, gene therapy and stem cell research were left out entirely, as states could not reach a consensus on these ( Schmidt, 2007 ; Langlois, 2013 ). UNESCO claims that its status as an intergovernmental body differentiates it from ethics institutions outside of the UN like the World Medical Association, a professional body ( ten Have, 2006 : 342). However, there has been a lack of buy-in from the global bioethics community, particularly academics, who have questioned the expertise and representativeness of the IBC ( Cameron 2014 : 237 and 240). The lack of enforcement power of the 2005 declaration, as a non-binding instrument, has also been noted. Yet Cameron (2014 : 252 and 261) argues that declarations have advantages over conventions, because of their reliance on moral persuasion and their inclusivity in comparison to conventions, which are only binding on those states that accede to them. UNESCO suffered a major setback in 2011, when the United States withdrew funding in light of Palestine’s admittance as a member state, a cut of 22 per cent of the operational budget ( UNESCO, 2011e ; UNESCO, 2013a ). 2 The Bioethics Programme has emerged relatively unscathed, however, as its budget allocation has largely been protected (UNESCO, 2013c; UNESCO, 2016a ).

The human cloning debate at UNESCO 2008–2011

At the request of then Director-General of UNESCO, Koïchiro Matsuura, in 2008 the IBC decided to investigate the possibility of a convention on human cloning and appointed a Working Group on Human Cloning and International Governance ( UNESCO, 2009a : 1–2). This was a response to the publication of a report the previous year by the United Nations University’s Institute of Advanced Studies, entitled Is Human Reproductive Cloning Inevitable: Future Options for UN Governance . The Working Group was tasked with reviewing “whether the scientific, ethical, social, political and legal developments on human cloning in recent years justify a new initiative at international level”, rather than examining the ethics and science of human cloning per se or drafting a legal text ( UNESCO, 2008a : 1). The IBC and IGBC meetings where human cloning was discussed took place as follows: ( Table 1 )

The Working Group’s first report was an interim report, published in September 2008. It recommended a new, binding international convention to ban human reproductive cloning ( UNESCO, 2008b : 4). The report was discussed the following month by the IBC and IGBC (the IBC met for 2 days by itself and then jointly with the IGBC for 2 days), where it was given an ambivalent reception. Many participants did not believe there had been sufficient change in national positions to avoid a repetition of the fractious debate and unsatisfactory outcome at the UN General Assembly a few years before. On the other hand, some delegates underlined the potential utility of a convention for those developing countries yet to legislate on cloning ( UNESCO, 2010a : 6 and 12). In response to these discussions, the Working Group was more cautious in its final report of June 2009. Judging that the introduction of a new international normative instrument would be premature, it recommended increased global dialogue as an alternative ( UNESCO, 2009a : 7). This suggestion was commended by the IGBC at its July 2009 meeting, with several participants noting that developing countries that do not have “a well-developed national bioethics infrastructure” would benefit particularly from international level debate ( UNESCO, 2009b : 4).

The cloning mandate continued into the next Work Programme of 2010–2011. After discussion at its November 2009 meeting and on the advice of the IGBC, the IBC instructed an expanded Working Group to continue its work on cloning by examining three issues: (a) the ethical impact of terminology (b) dissemination activities and (c) regulation of human reproductive cloning (including by moratorium). The Working Group duly delivered a draft report to the IBC and joint IBC–IGBC meetings of October 2010. On options for regulation, it found that a more robust instrument on human reproductive cloning than existed currently was needed, such as an international convention or moratorium ( UNESCO, 2010b : 1 and 6). The reception from the IBC and IGBC was again mixed, as reported by the UNESCO website:

IBC members were unequivocal in expressing concern that the recent scientific developments have raised a need for a binding international legal instrument. However, feedback by Member States of IGBC was indicative that the political hurdles that have prevented the realization of such instrument in the past are still in place. [ sic ] ( UNESCO, 2016b )

As noted in the official record of the IBC-only meeting, members considered it “imperative” that binding international law to ban human reproductive cloning be put in place ( UNESCO, 2011d : 6). By contrast, within the joint IBC–IGBC meeting that followed, the US delegation was perplexed as to why the possibility of a convention was “back on the table”, after it had seemingly been rejected in the 2008–2009 Working Group’s final report. It advocated ongoing dialogue instead, alongside support for states developing national regulations on cloning. Germany and Brazil also backed the status quo, prompting one IBC member to ask why in 2010 they believed a convention to be premature, when in 2001, the year the idea was first put to the UN, they had thought one timely. Meanwhile, some developing countries stated their desire for a convention on cloning (but not necessarily a prohibitive one) (personal observations, Joint Session of the IBC and IGBC, October 2010). Given the diversity of views, it was left that the IGBC would “thoroughly examine the issue” at its next session (to be held in September the following year), after the IBC, via the Working Group, had finalized its report (UNESCO, 2016b).

The IBC held its next meeting in May–June 2011, at which the Working Group presented a draft “final statement” rather than a finalized version of the draft report of the previous year. This statement repeated the recommendations of the 2010 draft report, emphasizing that developing countries that do not have national regulations on human reproductive cloning are in particular need of a binding international convention or moratorium. In addition, it suggested that “technical manipulations of human embryo, either for research or therapeutic purposes” [ sic ] (that is, what is commonly known as therapeutic or research cloning) should carry on being regulated at domestic level, in accordance with social, historical and religious contexts ( UNESCO, 2011b : 3). The IBC chose not to adopt the statement because of the now “divergent positions” of its members on both the ethics and governance of cloning ( UNESCO, 2011c : 4). At the ethical level, some members were not convinced that the potential for detrimental genetic determinism was a strong enough argument against reproductive cloning, whilst at the political level, some felt the committee could make little progress while consensus among states remained elusive (personal observations, Eighteenth Session of the IBC, May–June 2011).

At the IGBC’s September 2011 meeting, the outgoing IBC Chair reported on his committee’s activities. With regard to the cloning debate, he explained that despite some members having wanted to go to a vote on whether to adopt the Working Group’s draft statement, he had opposed this, because the IBC had always operated by consensus in the past. He also expressed his belief that consensus on a ban will always be impossible to achieve, because at its core the issue is philosophical rather than scientific, concerning the status of the early embryo. IGBC delegations agreed for the most part, the United States, Austria and Denmark echoing IBC members in predicting that further efforts to reach an agreement on regulation would prove fruitless (personal observations, Seventh Session of the IGBC, September 2011). The official conclusions of the meeting noted the topic’s ongoing importance, but also the absence of any consensus among both states and IBC members. Hence the IGBC merely called on UNESCO “to continue to follow the developments in this field in order to anticipate emerging ethical challenges” ( UNESCO, 2011a: 3 ). Subsequently, the 2012–2013 IBC Work Programme consigned cloning to monitoring by a few IBC members, who were in turn to report any significant developments in the field to the committee and thereby the Director-General of UNESCO ( UNESCO, 2016f ).

After 4 years of work and discussion, then, UNESCO’s inability to come to a consensus on whether or not a convention to ban human reproductive cloning would be desirable meant that a decision against a convention was made by default. The Working Group’s draft final statement of 2011 had concluded, “The current non-binding international regulations cannot be considered sufficient in addressing the challenges posed by the contemporary scientific developments and to safeguard the interests of the developing countries that still lack specific regulations in this area” ( UNESCO, 2011b : 3). If this is the case, UNESCO’s failure to meet the need identified by its Working Group is problematic, as there is a governance gap.

2014–2015 developments

In its 2014–2015 Work Programme the IBC revisited the topic of human cloning as part of its wider efforts to update its earlier work on the human genome and human rights. The June 2015 draft report of the Working Group appointed to this task reiterated the need for a ban on human reproductive cloning. It also called for “a global forum of scientists and bioethicists, under the auspices of the United Nations” to investigate what the consequences of new genomic technologies might be and stated, “The United Nations should be responsible for making fundamental normative decisions. The precautionary principle should be respected, ensuring that substantial consensus of the scientific community on the safety of new technological applications be the premise for any further consideration” ( UNESCO, 2015b : 25–27).

The IGBC, on reviewing this draft report at its July 2015 meeting (Ninth Session), found the IBC’s recommendations to be “pertinent and timely” (UNESCO, 2015a: 2). This was in marked contrast to the comments by some of its members a few years before that a ban on human reproductive cloning would be “premature” ( UNESCO, 2009a : 7). Perhaps wary of ceding “territory”, the IGBC stressed that UNESCO was the appropriate forum for discussion of a ban. In the official conclusions of the meeting, it also invited the Secretariat of the Bioethics Programme to “collect and compile existing legal models, case studies and best practices” on cloning and other issues relating to the human genome addressed in the report ( UNESCO, 2015a : 2–3). The draft was revised in light of the IGBC’s comments and then discussed and revised again at the IBC’s 22 nd Session in October 2015. The final version— Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights —states that the UN should be responsible for fundamental normative decisions “through its several agencies and bodies and other possible procedures of consultation and evaluation” rather than a new global forum. It also asserts UNESCO’s position as a key player in the bioethics community, adding that, in terms of any revisions to existing declarations, “First of all, this is a task to perform for UNESCO, building on its well-established, pivotal role as a global forum for global bioethics” ( UNESCO, 2015c : 27–29).

The report addresses several issues that fall under the banner of the human genome and human rights, not just cloning. Nevertheless, cloning is prominent. The Executive Summary includes an “open list” of recommended actions for states and governments. The first item is: “Produce an international legally binding instrument to ban human cloning for reproductive purposes”. There are also recommendations for scientists and regulatory bodies, who are to “renounce the pursuit of spectacular experiments that do not comply with the respect of fundamental human rights” ( UNESCO, 2015c : 3–4). The main text expands on this, to state that such experiments should be discouraged (by not being allocated public funds, for instance) and in some cases prohibited, where there is no medical justification and a risk to safety. That this refers to cloning is made explicit, as follows: “Research on the possibility of cloning human beings for reproductive purposes remains the most illustrative example of what should remain banned all over the world” ( UNESCO, 2015c : 26). More generally, the report advocates a conservative approach to decision- and law-making that may be particularly relevant to human embryonic stem cell research, or “therapeutic cloning”. It encourages the adoption of legislation at international and national levels that is “as non-controversial as possible, especially with regard to the issues of modifying the human genome and producing and destroying human embryos”, to respect differing sensitivities and cultures ( UNESCO, 2015c : 3 and 6). Footnote 2 With regard to developing countries, the report acknowledges that they may not have major access to new genomic technologies in the near future, but recommends that LMIC (low and middle income country) governments develop national policies on genomics “within the context of their national economic and sociocultural uniqueness” ( UNESCO, 2015c : 29). The report also makes recommendations for “all actors of civil society”, including the media, educators and businesses. The former are to “avoid any sensationalism”, whilst the latter are not to chase profit by operating in countries with weak regulations ( UNESCO, 2015c : 3–4).

Hofferberth (2015 : 616) is critical of the assumption that “global problems are tractable and solutions feasible if actors will only come and work together to solve them”. As shown above, some members of the IBC and IGBC believed that the reason why they failed to reach consensus during the first 4 years of debate on human cloning (2008–2011) was the inherently irresolvable nature of the problem itself. But other controversial areas, such as business and human rights, have not proved immune to recent efforts towards policy and norm convergence ( Ruggie, 2014 : 6). Another possible explanation for the failure, then, is that the legal and organizational structures directing the deliberation did not lend themselves to consensual decision-making. In the early 2000s the UN General Assembly had found that the old model of state-based treaty negotiation did not work for human cloning, when it failed to agree on a convention and chose a non-binding declaration instead. UNESCO’s experience was similar, although it was not negotiations on treaty content that failed, but the preceding stage of deciding whether or not to attempt to draft a treaty. In raising the possibility of a convention in 2008, UNESCO was going against the emerging trend within global governance towards voluntary rather than binding regulation, combined with capacity building. Germany, for example, which was one of the states that originally espoused the idea of a human cloning convention at the UN in 2001, now looks for other, less rigid means by which the goals of a proposed treaty can be reached ( Pauwelyn et al., 2014 : 739). Within UNESCO, as in other intergovernmental organizations, it is states that make the final decisions, so even if in 2011 the IBC (made up of independent experts) had continued to insist on the desirability of a convention, it would only have had the power to recommend to member states that they take the idea forward.

Pauwelyn et al. (2014 : 734) advocate “thick stakeholder consensus” over the “thin state consent” that is the hallmark of the old hierarchical approach to governance. As a treaty could be based on back-room deals between undemocratic states and yet be recognized as international law, they argue that formality is no guarantee of legitimacy, if the latter is assessed in terms of inclusiveness and effectiveness rather than tradition. Rather, the process by which agreement is reached is crucial, as well as the outcome. Careful, open and expert deliberation can lead to high quality outputs, which may or may not be legally binding ( Pauwelyn et al., 2014 : 748–749). One way to achieve both process and output would be to loosen UNESCO’s understanding of “consensus”. By sticking to a rigid definition of consensus at its 2011 meeting, the IBC effectively gave each member a veto. Pauwelyn et al. (2014 : 754–755) contrast this type of arrangement with the “standards world” (that is, the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission), which sits outside the intergovernmental system. Here, where governance is seen to be nimbler and more flexible than in traditional governance settings, “consensus” means that “the views of all parties concerned must be taken into any account and an attempt must be made to reconcile conflicting arguments”, so that general agreement can be reached. This level of consensus might be a more realistic target for the IBC and IGBC, enabling them to move forward.

One problem the Bioethics Programme has faced consistently is lack of time for in-depth discussion. At the IBC meeting in May–June 2011, for instance, the public session devoted to cloning lasted little more than an hour (although the committee later continued its discussions in a private meeting). This was not unusual. At the IGBC’s September 2013 meeting (Eighth Session), which reviewed 20 years of the Bioethics Programme, one delegate stated that their government would stop funding their attendance at such meetings unless more time were given to dialogue and papers were sent out early enough for delegates to consult with the relevant ministries on what position they should take (personal observations, Eighteenth Session of the IBC, May–June 2011 and Eighth Session of the IGBC, September 2013 4 ). The Bioethics Programme has already started to implement such changes. More time was allocated to each discussion topic at the IBC and joint IBC–IGBC meetings of September 2014 than at previous sessions, an online forum for past and present IBC members has been established and concept notes to invite written comments from the IGBC on the IBC’s work ahead of meetings have been introduced ( UNESCO, 2015d : 2 and 17).

If deliberations were to emulate recent innovations in other intergovernmental fora, they might be improved further. After its disappointing Copenhagen round in 2009, the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has moved from formal treaty negotiations that encouraged bargaining and confrontation to workshops and roundtables designed to foster knowledge exchange. This has resulted in “positive competitive dynamics” among states wishing to be leaders in the field of climate change mitigation ( Rietig, 2014 : 372–374). Other stakeholders have also been given a stronger voice; the Paris conference of 2015 made space for NGOs, businesses and cities to share best practices. Furthermore, the Paris Agreement of December 2015 takes a bottom-up approach, in that it is based on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (pledged targets and actions) by individual states ( Busby, 2016 : 3, 4 and 7). Similarly, after the UN failed to adopt both a code of conduct and a set of norms on business and human rights after several years of trying, it piloted a different standard-setting method. Based on a series of site visits to firms and communities, extensive research and testing of key proposals through feasibility studies, pilot grievance mechanisms and scenario-based exercises, as well as multistakeholder consultations, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were endorsed by the Human Rights Council in 2011 and have since been adopted by several other bodies, including business associations. Ruggie (2014 : 5–6 and 10), who directed the consultation process, claims that producing the guiding principles through this “polycentric governance” enabled them to achieve the “thick” consensus advocated by Pauwelyn et al .

Ruggie (2014 : 10) argues that conceptual arguments must be supported by experiential ones if they are to persuade people of the need for change. The cloning debate is necessarily conceptual, as while questions over safety prevail there is no way to experience cloning to see whether fears (about autonomy and individuality, for example) are founded or unfounded. The closest proxies are animal cloning and twin studies. Yet sharing of national regulations and policies on cloning via workshops and roundtables and scenario-based exercises involving potential stakeholders would be feasible. Similar exercises (collating examples of legal frameworks, best practices and case studies) were suggested by the IGBC in their response to the IBC’s 2015 draft report on the human genome and human rights. Such activities could meet developing countries’ needs for something on which to base national cloning legislation, identified by all three IBC Working Groups (2008–2009, 2010–2011 and 2014–2015), by alternative means to a binding international convention, the latest recommendations of the IBC on this (and the IGBC’s endorsement of them) notwithstanding. Continuing to develop the Bioethics Programme’s deliberative format, away from short, formal discussions within committees towards more in-depth information exchange between a broader range of stakeholders, bottom-up pledges of action and development of best practice through feasibility studies, may not result in a decision to begin negotiating a treaty (or even a softer declaration), but could lead to a set of resources and commitments that might prove equally effective in promoting ethical behaviour on the part of states and other actors. An added benefit would be that this type of less legalistic, more flexible deliberative output could be more easily adapted and developed to take account of future scientific advances ( Pauwelyn et al., 2014 : 742–743). Even if UNESCO were to decide to follow the IBC’s 2015 recommendation to pursue the elaboration a further international legal instrument on human cloning, adopting these measures could result in a qualitatively stronger instrument than the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights , for example, as there would be less interest-based bargaining and more buy-in from stakeholders.

When intergovernmental organizations are unable to agree on a form of binding international law such as a convention, they sometimes settle for a declaration, which is less demanding of states. This occurred at the UN in 2005, when the General Assembly could not resolve its members’ differences on what the content and reach of a convention on human cloning should be. Declarations have been the preferred option for UNESCO’s Bioethics Programme in the past, as the drafting period is usually shorter than for a convention and the final product is more likely to inspire consensus, partly because it will be seen to be more flexible and less onerous than a binding piece of legislation ( Langlois, 2013 : 65–66). But this was not a viable path for UNESCO when it came to the regulation of human cloning, because an international declaration—the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning of 2005—already existed. The Bioethics Programme thus broke with previous practice and began to investigate the possibility of a convention on cloning in 2008. There was tension between IBC and IGBC members over whether a convention would be desirable, with the former (the independent experts) supporting a ban on human reproductive cloning and the latter (representing states) concerned that negotiations would simply revisit the disagreements of the UN General Assembly debates of a few years before. Ultimately, with consensus within and between the two committees proving elusive, the idea of a cloning convention dropped from their agendas in 2012.

The idea was taken up again in 2014, as part of the IBC’s work on the human genome. We can only speculate as to why the IGBC of 2015 was keener on a ban on human reproductive cloning than the IGBC of 2008–2011. The United States was no longer a member, but Germany and Brazil still were ( UNESCO, 2016c ). It could be that, since the first human therapeutic (or research) cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer took place in 2013 ( Tachibana et al., 2013 ), human reproductive cloning has moved from the realms of science fiction to real possibility in the eyes of policy-makers. Or the changes to the deliberative format at IBC and IGBC meetings introduced in 2014, such as pre-session concept notes and longer discussions, may have engendered greater consensus between the two committees. Yet, despite this consensus, there has been no move on the part of UNESCO to start to develop a treaty. In past standard-setting endeavours, an IBC Working Group has done the initial drafting, but the IBC Work Programme of 2016–2017 makes no mention of human cloning ( UNESCO, 2016d ).

For those states that have yet to formulate national regulations or policies on human cloning, the continued lack of clear guidance at international level may be particularly unhelpful. Thus better global governance in this area is needed. In its 2015 report on the human genome and human rights, the IBC fell somewhere between old and new forms of global governance. There was a strong call for an international binding instrument on human reproductive cloning, to be produced by states and governments, but there were also recommended actions and principles for a broad range of stakeholders, including national governments, scientists, the media, educators and corporations. The science and politics of human cloning have moved on since 2011, when states’ positions were seemingly intractable. Were the Bioethics Programme to mirror successful moves in other fora, such as the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Human Rights Council, towards knowledge sharing, scenario-based exercises and action pledges involving a wide range of stakeholders, a robust global governance framework for human cloning—whether a legally binding instrument or something more flexible—might be achievable.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Additional information

How to cite this article : Langlois A (2017) The global governance of human cloning: the case of UNESCO. Palgrave Communications . 3:17019 doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.19. Footnote 3 Footnote 4

See, for example, Macpherson CC (2007) Global bioethics: Did the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights miss the boat? Journal of Medical Ethics ; 33 (10): 588–590; Snead CO (2009) Bioethics and self-governance: The lessons of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy ; 34 (3): 204–222; Kirby M (2010) Health care and global justice. Singapore Academic of Law Journal ; 22 (special ed. 2): 785–800; Langlois A (2013) Negotiating Bioethics: The Governance of UNESCO’s Bioethics Programme . Routledge: Abingdon; Cameron NM de S (2014) Humans, rights, and twenty-first century technologies: The making of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Journal of Legal Medicine ; 35 (2): 235–272.

This cautious, conservative approach is in marked contrast to the advice John Harris, an ethicist, gave at the celebration event to mark the twentieth anniversary of UNESCO’s Bioethics Programme, held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris in September 2013. He stated, “There is the danger—and this is the note on which I wish to end—the danger presented by the precautionary principle itself, which I also believe is one of the biggest dangers facing society and humanity. People often believe that there is some moral imperative to be ultra-cautious in permitting new research, particularly in the general field of genetics. And this caution has also been very true of UNESCO’s approach. However, it is not unusual to find this so-called precautionary principle being invoked in circumstances in which it is far from clear in which direction, if any, caution lies. We cannot know in which direction caution lies without having some rational basis for establishing the scale of likely dangers from pursuing particular programmes of research and innovation and comparing those with the on-going costs of failing to pursue that research to a conclusion. … I hope UNESCO will avoid the terrible mistake it made in Article 11 of the declaration on the human genome of saying, without argument or evidence, without a scintilla of support, that human cloning was contrary to human dignity and must be outlawed. We’re going to have to rethink that. We’re going to need human cloning as one technique among many others. … We need to rethink our prejudices. We need to be slow to outlaw technology. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but we should also do so on the full consideration of the evidence and the argument and never simply because it would be cheap, easy and popular.” (Transcribed from the live webcast of the event, 5 September 2013. Available at: mms://stream.unesco.org/live/room_11_en.wmv . Last accessed 5 September 2013.)

After 2 years of withholding its dues, the United States lost its General Conference voting rights in 2013 ( UNESCO, 2013b ). It has not had a seat on the IGBC since 2011.

The author listened to the Eighth Session of the IGBC in September 2013 via live webcast. ( mms://stream.unesco.org/live/room_11_en.wmv . Last accessed 5 September 2013.)

Arsanjani MH (2006) Negotiating the UN Declaration on Human Cloning. The American Journal of International Law ; 100 (1): 164–179.

Google Scholar  

Bowring F (2004) Therapeutic and reproductive cloning: A critique. Social Science and Medicine ; 58 (2): 401–409.

Burley J and Harris J (1999) Human cloning and child welfare. Journal of Medical Ethics ; 25 (2): 108–113.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Busby J (2016) After Paris: Good enough climate governance. Current History ; 115 (777): 3–9.

Cameron NM de S (2014) Humans, rights, and twenty-first century technologies: The making of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Journal of Legal Medicine ; 35 (2): 235–272.

Cameron NM de S and Henderson AV (2007) Brave new world at the General assembly: The United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology ; 9 (1): 145–238.

Council of Europe. (1998) Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedi cine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings . Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France.

Council of Europe. (2016) Full List: chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 168, www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/168/signatures?p_auth=oUHGVCCM , accessed 16 August 2016.

European Commission. (2016) EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm , accessed 16 August 2016.

de Melo-Martín I (2002) On cloning human beings. Bioethics ; 16 (3): 246–265.

European Union. (2012) Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European union. Official Journal of the European Union ; 55 (326/02): 391–407.

Harris-Short S (2004) An ‘identity crisis’ in the international law of human rights? The challenge of reproductive cloning. International Journal of Children’s Rights ; 11 (4): 333–368.

Hofferberth M (2015) Mapping the meanings of global governance: A conceptual reconstruction of a floating signifier. Millennium: Journal of International Studies ; 43 (2): 598–617.

Isasi RM and Annas GJ (2006) To clone alone: The United Nations human cloning declaration. Development ; 49 (4): 60–67.

Isasi RM, Knoppers BM, Singer PA and Daar AS (2004) Legal and ethical approaches to stem cell and cloning research: A comparative analysis of policies in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics ; 32 (4): 626–640.

Kass LR (1998) The wisdom of repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of humans. Valparaiso University Law Review ; 32 (2): 679–705.

Langlois A (2013) Negotiating Bioethics: The Governance of UNESCO’s Bioethics Programme . Routledge: Abingdon, UK.

Lo B et al. (2010) Cloning mice and men: Prohibiting the use of iPS cells for human reproductive cloning. Cell Stem Cell ; 6 (1): 16–20.

Mameli M (2007) Reproductive cloning, genetic engineering and the autonomy of the child: The moral agent and the open future. Journal of Medical Ethics ; 33 (2): 87–93.

Morales NM (2009) Psychological aspects of human cloning and genetic manipulation: The identity and uniqueness of human beings. Reproductive BioMedicine Online ; 19 (s2): 43–50.

Pauwelyn J, Wessel RA and Wouters J (2014) When structures become shackles: Stagnation and dynamics in international lawmaking. European Journal of International Law ; 25 (3): 733–763.

Pegram T and Acuto M (2015) Introduction: Global governance in the interregnum. Millennium: Journal of International Studies ; 43 (2): 584–597.

Rietig K (2014) Reinforcement of multilevel governance dynamics: Creating momentum for increasing ambitions in international climate negotiations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics ; 14 (4): 371–389.

Robertson J (1998) Liberty, identity, and human cloning. Texas Law Review ; 76 (6): 1371–1456.

Ruggie JR (2014) Global governance and ‘new governance theory’: Lessons from business and human rights. Global Governance ; 20 (1): 5–17.

Schmidt H (2007) Whose dignity? Resolving ambiguities in the scope of ‘human dignity’ in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Journal of Medical Ethics ; 33 (10): 578–584.

Shapsay S (2012) Procreative liberty, enhancement and commodification in the human cloning debate. Health Care Analysis ; 20 (4): 356–366.

Tachibana M et al. (2013) Human embryonic stem cells derived by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Cell ; 153 (6): 1228–1238.

Tannert C (2006) Thou shalt not clone. EMBO reports ; 7 (3): 238–240.

ten Have H (2006) The activities of UNESCO in the area of ethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal ; 16 (4): 333–351.

The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2012) Human somatic cell nuclear transfer and cloning. Fertility and Sterility ; 98 (4): 804–807.

UNESCO. (1997) Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights . UNESCO: Paris, France.

UNESCO. (1998) Statutes of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC) . Pariss, France.

UNESCO. (2003) International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. UNESCO: Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2005a) Address by Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Director General of UNESCO . 12th Session of the IBC, 15–17 December 2005: Tokyo, Japan.

UNESCO. (2005b) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.

UNESCO. (2007) What is it? What does it do? About UNESCO, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3328&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html , accessed 22 June 2007.

UNESCO. (2008a) First Meeting of the Working Group of IBC and First Public Hearings on Human Cloning and International Governance . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2008b) Report of the Working Group of IBC on Human Cloning and International Governance . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2009a) Report of IBC on Human Cloning and International Governance . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2009b) Report of the Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC) . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2010a) Fifteenth Session of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO; Joint Session of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee: Report . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2010b) Report of the IBC Working Group on Human Cloning and International Governance . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2011a) Conclusions of the Seventh Session of IGBC . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2011b) Draft Final Statement of IBC on Human Cloning and International Governance . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2011c) Progress Report on the Work Carried Out by IBC in 2010-2011 and the Preliminary Work Programme of IBC for 2012-2013. Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2011d) Seventeenth Session of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC): Report . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2011e) UNESCO Director-General launches emergency fund at close of general conference, www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/unesco_director_general_launches_emergency_fund_at_close_of_general_conference/ , accessed 16 November 2012.

UNESCO. (2013a) 37th session of General Conference sets the compass for UNESCO from 2014 to 2021, www.unesco.org/new/en/general-conference-37th/single-view/news/37th_session_of_general_conference_sets_the_compass_for_unesco_from_2014_to_2021/ , accessed 8 February 2014.

UNESCO. (2013b) Irina Bokova regrets loss of US voting rights, www.unesco.org/new/en/education/resources/online-materials/single-view/news/irina_bokova_regrets_loss_of_us_voting_rights/ , accessed 22 February 2017.

UNESCO. (2013c) Revised Implementation Plan for Document 37 C/5 Based on the Expected Cash Flow Situation for 2014–2015 . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2015a) Conclusions of the Ninth Session of the IGBC . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2015b) Draft Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2015c) Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2015d) Twenty-first Session of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC) and Joint Session of the IBC and the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC): Final Report . Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2016a) 38 C/5 Approved Programme and Budget 2016-2017: Second Biennium of the 2014-2017 Quadrennium. Paris, France.

UNESCO. (2016b) Human cloning and international governance, www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/international-bioethics-committee/ibc-sessions/seventeenth-session-paris-2010/ , accessed 16 August 2016.

UNESCO. (2016c) Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC), www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/intergovernmental-bioethics-committee/ , accessed 16 August 2016.

UNESCO. (2016d) Preliminary Work Programme of the IBC for 2016-2017, www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/international-bioethics-committee/work-programme-for-2016-2017/ , accessed 28 July 2016.

UNESCO. (2016e) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-human-rights/ , accessed 16 August 2016.

UNESCO. (2016f) Work Programme for 2012–2013, www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/international-bioethics-committee/work-programme-for-2012-2013/ , accessed 16 August 2016.

United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies. (2007) Is Human Reproductive Cloning Inevitable: Future Options for UN Governance. UNU-IAS: Pacifico-Yokohama, Japan.

United Nations. (2005) United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning . United Nations: New York.

Weiss TG and Wilkinson R (2014) Global governance to the rescue: Saving International Relations? Global Governance ; 20 (1): 19–36.

Wilmut I (2014) The limits of cloning. New Perspectives ; 31 (1): 38–42.

Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ and Campbell KHS (1998) Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. In: Nussbaum MC and Sunstein CR (eds). Clones and Clones: Facts and Fantasies About Human Cloning . Norton: New York, pp 21–28.

World Health Organization. (1998) Fifty-first World Health Assembly Agenda Item 20: Ethical, Scientific and Social Implications of Cloning in Human Health . WHO: Geneva, Switzerland.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research for this article was funded by The Wellcome Trust (grant ref 096024).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Lincoln, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, UK

Adèle Langlois

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adèle Langlois .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Langlois, A. The global governance of human cloning: the case of UNESCO. Palgrave Commun 3 , 17019 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.19

Download citation

Received : 13 October 2016

Accepted : 23 February 2017

Published : 21 March 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.19

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Advances in pluripotent stem cells: history, mechanisms, technologies, and applications.

• Brian T. David
• Richard G. Fessler

Stem Cell Reviews and Reports (2020)

Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing

• Eric S. Lander
• Françoise Baylis
• Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker

Nature (2019)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity

Published December 5, 2001

The Wallstreet Journal

By Eric Cohen

Dr. Michael West, the lead scientist on the team that recently cloned the first human embryos, believes his mission in life is “to end suffering and death.” “For the sake of medicine,” he informs us, “we need to set our fears aside.” For the sake of health, in other words, we need to overcome our moral inhibitions against cloning and eugenics.

The human cloning announcement was not a shock. We have been “progressing” down this road for years, while averting our gaze from the destination. Now we have cloned human embryos. That means that women’s eggs were procured, their genetic material removed, the DNA from someone else inserted, and the resulting cloned embryos manufactured as genetic replicas of an existing person. In Dr. West’s experiments, the embryos died very quickly. But the hope is that someday these embryos will serve as a source of rejection-free stem cells that can help cure diseases.

For now, this is science fiction, or a rosy form of speculation. No one has ever been treated with “therapeutic cloning” or embryonic stem cells. There have been no human trials. But it is true that this research may work in the future (though the benefits would likely be decades away). In addition, beyond cloning, scientists have larger ambitions, including “tinkering” with DNA before it is placed in an egg, and adding designer genes that would make clones into “super clones,” stem cells into “super stem cells.”

Yet while Dr. West and his colleagues say that they have no interest in creating cloned humans — on the grounds that doing so is not yet safe — they do not seem too frightened by the prospect of laying the groundwork for those who would do just that. “We didn’t feel that the abuse of this technology, its potential abuses, should stop us from doing what we believe is the right thing in medicine,” Dr. West said.

The Senate, it seems, is also not very concerned. Majority Leader Tom Daschle wants to put off until spring a vote on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, which the House passed by 265-162 in July. And on Monday, the Senate chose not to consider a six-month moratorium on all human cloning. As Sen. Harry Reid has said, a moratorium for “six months or two months or two days would impede science.” And that, he believes, we cannot do.

It is understandable that many senators want to avoid a decision on this controversial issue, and no surprise that those driven by a desire to advance science and to heal the sick at any cost resist a ban. But as the ethicist Paul Ramsey wrote, “The good things that men do can be complete only by the things they refuse to do.” And cloning is one of those things we should refuse to do.

The debate is usually divided into two issues — reproductive cloning (creating cloned human beings) and therapeutic cloning (creating cloned human embryos for research and destruction). For now, there is near-universal consensus that we should shun the first. The idea of mother-daughter twins or genetically-identical “daddy juniors” stirs horror in us. Our moral sense revolts at the prospect, because so many of our cherished principles would be violated: the principle that children should not be designed in advance; that newborns should be truly new, without the burden of a genetic identity already lived; that a society where cloning is easy (requiring a few cells from anywhere in the body) means anyone could be cloned without knowledge or consent; and that replacing lost loved ones with “copies” is an insult to the ones lost, since it denies the uniqueness and sacredness of their existence. For these reasons, Americans agree that human cloning should never happen — not merely because the procedure is not yet “safe,” but because it is wrong.

Many research advocates say that they, too, are against “reproductive cloning.” But to protect their research, they seek to restrict only the implantation of cloned embryos, not the creation of cloned embryos for research. This is untenable: Once we begin stockpiling cloned embryos for research, it will be virtually impossible to control how they are used. We would be creating a class of embryos that, by law, must be destroyed. And the only remedy for wrongfully implanting cloned embryos would be forced abortions, something neither pro-lifers nor reproductive rights advocates would tolerate, nor should.

But the cloning debate is not simply the latest act in the moral divide over abortion. It is the “opening skirmish” — as Leon Kass, the president’s bioethics czar, describes it — in deciding whether we wish to “put human nature itself on the operating table, ready for alteration, enhancement, and wholesale redesign.” Lured by the seductive promise of medical science to “end” suffering and disease, we risk not seeing the dark side of the eugenic project.

Three horrors come to mind: First, the designing of our descendents, whether through cloning or germ-line engineering, is a form of generational despotism. Second, in trying to make human beings live indefinitely, our scientists have begun mixing our genes with those of cows, pigs, and jellyfish. And in trying to stamp out disease by any means necessary, we risk beginning the “compassionate” project of killing off the diseased themselves, something that has already begun with the selective abortion by parents of “undesirable” embryos.

Proponents of the biogenetic revolution will surely say that such warnings are nothing more than superstitions. Naive to the destructive power of man’s inventions, they will say that freedom means leaving scientists to experiment as they see fit. They will say that those who wish to stop the unchecked advance of biotechnology are themselves “genetic fundamentalists,” who see human beings as nothing more than their genetic make-ups. Banning human cloning, one advocate says, “would set a very dangerous precedent of bringing the police powers of the federal government into the laboratories.”

But the fact is that society accepts the need to regulate behavior for moral reasons — from drug use to nuclear weapons research to dumping waste. And those who say that human identity is “more than a person’s genetic make-up” are typically the ones who seek to crack man’s genetic code, so that they might “improve” humans in the image they see fit. In promising biological utopia, they justify breaching fundamental moral boundaries.

C. S. Lewis saw this possibility long ago in “The Abolition of Man.” As he put it, “Each new power won by man is a power over man as well.” In order to stop the dehumanization of man, and the creation of a post-human world of designer babies, man-animal chimeras, and “compassionate killing” of the disabled, we may have to forego some research. We may have to say no to certain experiments before they begin. The ban on human cloning is an ideal opportunity to reassert democratic control over science, and to reconnect technological advance with human dignity and responsibility.

Source Notes Copyright: 2001 The Wall Street Journal

How Lincoln Can Help Trump

Calamity, catastrophe, cataclysm, eppc files amicus briefs in supreme court supporting states’ right to limit insurance coverage for “gender transitions”.

EPPC Files Ninth Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of World Vision’s Right to Hire Employees Adhere to its Religious Beliefs

Eppc briefly.

Sign up to receive EPPC's biweekly e-newsletter of selected publications, news, and events.

Your support impacts the debate on critical issues of public policy.

Related Publications

Awol doctors at the catholic field hospital.

George Weigel

The Catholic Church today is a field hospital and some of the triage doctors, rather than curing the wounded, are insisting that the hospital no longer tell people that landmines will kill you.

Syndicated Column / March 1, 2023

The FDA’s Paxlovid Pandemonium

David Gortler

Like many other things the Biden White House implements, they force through a multitude of ideas, concepts and public health mandates which “seem” like they could work, but without the requisite conclusive scientifically obtained evidence that they will work.  

Brownstone Institute / February 27, 2023

Apocalypse Now

Francis X. Maier

In the vast stream of history, individuals rarely seem to matter. . .except in the eyes of God.

The Catholic Thing / February 16, 2023

Vocational Discernment and the Priestly Vocation Crisis

Stephen P. White

The universal call to holiness is just that; universal. Each one of us is called to holiness because each one…

The Catholic Thing / February 9, 2023

Stay Connected!

Are you enjoying this article? Share with a Friend!

Always see the latest from Eric Cohen and other EPPC Scholars. Sign up for EPPC Briefly!

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Russell A. Berman
• Robert Service
• Arun Majumdar
• H.R. McMaster
• Justin Grimmer
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

ATTACK OF THE CLONES: The Ethics of Human Cloning

Cloning—using biotechnology to create embryos with specific genetic information, identical to other embryos or even human adults—used to sound like science fiction. Today, however, the ability to successfully clone human embryos is a matter of when, not if. But should human cloning be allowed to go forward? Is cloning morally wrong, in and of itself? Should we make a distinction between cloning for medical research and cloning for procreation? If cloning is morally wrong, could we stop it even if we wanted to? And if cloning isn't or can't be banned, how should it be regulated?

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

• Open access
• Published: 29 July 2003

Human cloning laws, human dignity and the poverty of the policy making dialogue

• Timothy Caulfield 1 , 2 , 3  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  4 , Article number:  3 ( 2003 ) Cite this article

105k Accesses

10 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

The regulation of human cloning continues to be a significant national and international policy issue. Despite years of intense academic and public debate, there is little clarity as to the philosophical foundations for many of the emerging policy choices. The notion of "human dignity" is commonly used to justify cloning laws. The basis for this justification is that reproductive human cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity.

The author critiques one of the most commonly used ethical justifications for cloning laws – the idea that reproductive cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. He points out that there is, in fact, little consensus on point and that the counter arguments are rarely reflected in formal policy. Rarely do domestic or international instruments provide an operational definition of human dignity and there is rarely an explanation of how, exactly, dignity is infringed in the context reproductive cloning.

It is the author's position that the lack of thoughtful analysis of the role of human dignity hurts the broader public debate about reproductive cloning, trivializes the value of human dignity as a normative principle and makes it nearly impossible to critique the actual justifications behind many of the proposed policies.

Peer Review reports

Dolly, the most famous sheep in history, was euthanised on February 14 this year at the age of 6 after being diagnosed with an incurable lung disorder. [ 1 ] Dolly was a famous symbol of both the great possibilities of science and a focal point for public concerns about the social impact of biotechnology. Almost immediately after Dolly's birth, there were calls to introduce regulatory controls of the technology. Though most countries still do not have specific cloning laws [ 2 ], it continues to be a significant national and international policy issue. But despite years of intense academic and public debate, there remains little clarity as to the philosophical foundations for many of the emerging policy choices.

In this paper, I briefly explore one of the most commonly used ethical justifications for cloning laws, the idea that reproductive cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. As we will see, there is, in fact, little consensus on point. Unfortunately, the counter arguments are rarely reflected in formal policy. Few, if any, domestic or international instruments provide an operational definition of human dignity [ 3 , 4 ]and there is rarely an explanation of how, exactly, dignity is infringed in the context reproductive cloning.

Admittedly, I do not provide my own definition of human dignity. I will, however, endeavor to divine the likely definition of human dignity at play in the context of a given social concern. We will see that regardless of the definition that seems to be implied within the social concerns outlined below, there are legitimate counter arguments that weaken the claim that human reproductive cloning necessarily infringes human dignity. Many thoughtful scholars have already done an admirable job attempting to define human dignity and it place in the policy making process. [ 5 – 8 ] The goal of this paper is not to provide a comprehensive review of these possible definitions, and there are many, or to definitively answer the question of whether human reproductive cloning infringes human dignity. Rather, in this paper I argue that the lack of thoughtful policy analysis of the role of human dignity hurts the broader public debate about reproductive cloning, trivializes the potential value of human dignity as a normative principle and makes it nearly impossible to critique the actual justifications behind many of the proposed policies.

Concerns About Human Dignity

Numerous arguments of varying persuasive force have been put forward as justifications for a ban on reproductive cloning. To cite just a few examples, some commentators have suggested that the visceral reaction that many in the public have had to the idea of human reproductive cloning is, from a policy perspective, significant enough to justify, on its own, a regulatory response. [ 9 ] Others have suggested reproductive cloning would have an adverse impact on the social definition of family: "Modernity's assault on the family would thus be complete with the development of cloning. Already stripped of its social function, the family would now be rendered biologically unnecessary, if not irrelevant".[ 10 ] And, of course, there are the clear health and safety issues that are far from being resolved.[ 11 ] Indeed, Dolly's death, while not definitively traceable to the cloning process, again highlighted the possible health risks associated with reproductive cloning. [ 12 ]

However, the broadest concern, and the concern that is often explicitly mentioned in relevant policy statements, is that human reproductive cloning, at some level, infringes notions of human dignity. One of the best known illustrations is UNESCO's Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights which recommends a ban on "practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning". [ 13 ] Similarly, in 1998, the World Health Organization reaffirmed that "cloning for the replication of human individuals is ethically unacceptable and contrary to human dignity and integrity".[ 14 ] The Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and its Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings states that: "the instrumentalization of human beings through the deliberate creation of genetically identical human beings is contrary to human dignity and thus constitutes a misuse of biology and medicine".[ 15 ]

Despite the existence of such policy statements, and despite almost universal public objection to the idea of reproduction cloning [ 16 ] there is, at least in the academic community, little agreement about the role of human dignity in this context. Indeed, it has been suggested that "aside from the moral debate on whether the embryo is a human being arguments about human dignity do not hold up well under rational reflection".[ 17 ]

Below I briefly consider some of the reasons commentators remain skeptical of the claim that reproductive cloning infringes human dignity. The goal is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of all the relevant critiques, but to simply highlight a few of the counter arguments and substantive considerations that remain largely absent from a consideration of human dignity in the context of formal policy development.

Autonomy and Uniqueness

At the heart of many of the human dignity arguments, often implicitly, is the idea that copying someone's genome is a morally problematic action. From the perspective of human dignity, the concern is founded on the assumption that a clone's autonomy will be compromised and that a person's genome is singularly important to human uniqueness.[ 18 ] For those who espouse this view, dignity is obviously closely related to autonomy (likely to some version of the classic Kantian view of dignity) and the ability to make autonomous choices. Moreover, dignity is connected to human "uniqueness," though it is rarely explained why this is so. As Donald Bruce argues: "Willfully to copy the human genetic identity seems to go beyond something inherent in human dignity and individuality". [ 19 ] Many policy statements, such as the few noted above, seem to adopt this view and specifically link genetic identity with the concept of human dignity. Other statements simply assert that "the production of identical human individuals" [ 20 ] or the creation of a "genetic 'copy"' [ 21 ] should be banned.

The ethos that underlies these positions is, of course, both scientifically inaccurate and philosophically problematic. Without resolving the point, let us assume that, somehow, uniqueness is central to an individual's dignity. We must ask, then, what role our genome has in our uniqueness and, more to the point, why copying it infringes human dignity. Our genome plays a key role in how we develop, but it is hardly determinative of who we are as individuals. Is an identical twin's dignity compromised because of the mere existence of a sibling with an identical genome? More importantly, our genes do not, on their own, bind our future life to a particular course. Absent other external factors (such as social or parental expectations), an individual's autonomy is not compromised solely because he/she does not have a unique genome. To believe otherwise is to adopt a deterministic view of the role of genes that is simply wrong. [ 22 , 23 ] There are very few human traits that are controlled solely by genetic factors, and this is particularly true of the infinitely complex characteristics that make us who we are as individuals. [ 24 ] A human clone would be wholly unique and, as such, it is difficult to maintain that even a "uniqueness" view of human dignity is dependant on having a unique genome.

From a policy perspective, it is worth noting that a variety of commentators have long questioned the deterministic argument that underlies the autonomy/uniqueness concern about reproductive cloning. For example, shortly after the birth of Dolly Sir John Polkinghorne noted that " [o]ne of the by-products of the furor about Dolly has been to remind thoughtful people of the poverty and implausibility of a genetic reductionist account of human nature". [ 25 ] George Wright takes this idea to an extreme length by suggesting that reproductive cloning would actually promote human dignity by proving the inaccuracy of genetic determinism. "Human cloning may well serve to highlight, to emphasize, and to set off with greater clarity, quite apart from anyone's intentions, the mysterious capacities that comprise and express our human dignity".[ 26 ]

Instrumentalism

For some, it is not the technical copying of a genome that gives rise to concerns about reproductive cloning, but the possibility that cloning will be used in a way that instrumentalizes the clone. Again, this issue is likely tied to the concern that reproductive cloning would infringe the basic Kantian tenet to treat every human being as an end, not as a means. [ 27 ] It is certainly possible that the use of reproductive cloning for the purpose of creating an individual for a particular life role could infringe the resultant clone's dignity. However, it is the pressure or social expectations (expectations that are necessarily informed by an inaccurate view of the role of genes) placed on the individual clone that challenge the clone's human dignity, not the process of reproductive cloning. As noted by Pattinson, the act of cloning could be implicated in an intention to "violate the rights of the clone in the future." He goes on to note, however, that in such circumstances, "it is not the cloning as such that violates the clone's rights, but the intention to make the clone worse off (relative to its alternatives) in the future". [ 28 ]

That said, some argue that the mere act of cloning instrumentalizes the clone, "because the clone is created for the primary benefit not of the individual but of some third party as a means to an end". [ 29 ] This argument is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it raises the interesting question of whether an act done prior to the birth of an individual can infringe the dignity of that individual. Even if an individual is created with instrumental intentions, if, after the birth of the individual, he/she is treated as an equal member of the community, as an autonomous individual and with respect, is the individual's dignity still being infringed?

Second, if one accepts that our genes do not determine our life course or who we are as individuals, it is unclear how the technical act of cloning is more problematic, in relation to instrumentalism, than having children through IVF or, for that matter, making children the natural way for the sole purpose of producing an heir, labour or a means of old age support. Of course, one could argue that, for the sake of consistency, these latter activities should also be banned. However, monitoring and assessing the motives of perspective parents would not, quite obviously, be a practical or appropriate state policy.

Finally, these kind of instrumentalist concerns assume that cloning would always be done for instrumentalist purposes, which may not be the case (e.g., individuals may simply wish to use cloning for the same reason people use IVF, for the purpose of having biologically related offspring). As noted by Steven Malby: "From the point of view of dignity, the desire to treat infertility clearly does not violate any of the parameters associated with an objective perspective of dignity". [ 30 ] At a minimum, it is hard to support the argument that all forms of reproductive cloning will inevitably infringe human dignity. "We should distinguish among the different forms, uses, and contexts of human cloning in assessing the relationship between cloning and human dignity".[ 31 ]

Replication

Closely tied to the concerns regarding instrumentalism and the copying of an individual's genome, are the claims that the asexual nature of the process is "unnatural," that cloning is "replication" and not "reproduction" and that, therefore, by implication, cloning degrades human dignity. Gilbert Meilaender notes that we "find asexual reproduction only in the lowest forms of life. ... Children conceived sexually are 'begotten, not made.' When a man and a woman beget a child, that child is formed out of what they are. What we beget is like ourselves, equal to us in dignity and not at our disposal". [ 32 ]

Though individuals may not feel comfortable with the process (just as many did not feel comfortable with cadaveric research, in vitro fertilization and sperm donation), there must be something about the "replication" process that infringes human dignity. It is unclear how, exactly, the asexual nature of the process, on its own, is problematic from the perspective of human dignity. Again, people may have nefarious motivations for using cloning – just as they may have questionable reasons for using IVF or having children the natural way – but aside from religious arguments regarding the moral status of the embryo and the significance of sexual union, there seems to be little to support the notion that "replication" infringes human dignity.

Meilaender's claim that being created by a sexual union that is beyond "reason or will" is central to our dignity seems to suggest that the thousands of children born as a result of reproductive technologies are, somehow, less worthy of dignity. [ 33 ] Surely the process used to produce an individual is completely irrelevant to the respect and dignity the individual deserves once born. In fact, if we lived in a society that allowed individuals created by cloning, or any other process, to be treated as less than human, reproductive cloning would be far from our most pressing policy concern.

Community Dignity

It has also been suggested that reproductive cloning may adversely impact "communal dignity" or "the dignity of humankind". [ 34 ] While a detailed discussion of this issues is beyond the scope of this paper, it should be remembered that not all agree that "communities" have dignity in the same way that individuals have dignity. Indeed, most traditional legal applications of human dignity emphasize not the community but the protection of individual rights, often in an effort to guard against state imposed incursion upon individual autonomy. [ 35 , 36 ] As summarized by Deirk Ullrich in relation to law in Canada and Germany: "human dignity is an indispensable compass in our continuing journey to promote and protect the rights and freedoms of the individual". [ 37 ] That said, there are those who take a more expansive, less Western centric, view of dignity, suggesting, for instance, that dignity is also relevant to the way in "which groups visualize and constitute themselves." [ 38 ] This type of reference to "communal dignity" can be found in documents such as the UNESCO Declaration: "no research or its applications concerning the human genome, in particular in the fields of biology, genetics and medicine, should prevail over the respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity of individuals or, where applicable, of groups of people" [ 39 ]

However, even if one accepts a community view of human dignity, we see that in the context of reproductive cloning much of the concerns remain closely associated with individual autonomy. For example, Malby poses the question thus: "Does dignity impose a responsibility to protect a key feature of humanity (our 'genetic heritage'), from which (to an undetermined extent) we acquire key capacities such as autonomy and the capacity for moral thought?".[ 40 ] But if one's genetic make up is not a key feature to our autonomy and moral thought, and few could genuinely claim that it is, then a central plank of this concern is lost.

The Policy Response

Early in the cloning debate, many of the above points were noted by well-known scholars from a wide range of philosophical perspectives. [ 41 – 43 ] Nevertheless, there are few policy making entities that have, at least on the surface, engaged the human dignity debate in any meaningful manner. [ 44 ]

In Canada, for example, the government has recommended a ban on all forms of human cloning. The Health Canada information document that accompanied the publication of the proposed law simply claims, without any explanation of how or why, that human cloning "would be banned because it treats human beings as though they were objects and does not respect the individuality of human beings". [ 45 ] A later report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health also recommends a ban on human cloning. The Committee noted that the recommendation is based on a number of core principles, including human dignity, but the Committee makes no attempt to relate the recommendation to the notion of human dignity. [ 46 ]

The two US reports, the 2002 US President's Council on Bioethics [ 47 ] and the 1997 Report of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission [ 48 ], do, at least, discuss the fallacy of genetic determinism. Nevertheless, they do not connect this analysis to the issue of human dignity and both conclude that reproductive cloning still creates problems in relation to individual autonomy. For example, the President's Council concludes that " [w]hat matters is the cloned individual's perception of the significance of the 'precedent life' and the way that perception cramps and limits a sense of self and independence". [ 49 ] Because this concern is based on the psychological harm associated with deterministic expectations, and not on the actual impact of cloning technology, they do little to support the argument that cloning, as a technology, infringes human dignity. In fact, as I have noted elsewhere, cloning laws that are not accompanied by thoughtful policy analysis may have the unintended effect of legitimizes perceptions of genetic determinism.[ 50 ]

Why Human Dignity?

If one were to take a skeptical view of the policy making process, it would not be hard to conclude that concern for human dignity is used as a justification for cloning laws precisely because the notion of human dignity is both so revered and so ill-defined. This fits well with the broad, generalized concerns that the public seems to have about reproductive cloning. As noted by Ronald Dworkin, the public isn't terribly worried about safety or research ethics, but have "some deeper, less articulate ground for that revulsion, even if they have not or perhaps cannot fully articulate that ground, but can express it only in heated and logically inappropriate language, like [a] bizarre reference to 'fundamental human rights..."' [ 51 ]

This view of public attitudes is supported by survey data. Risk and safety are not the issues driving public reaction. When asked, the public often lists morality and/or religion as the basis for their objection to human cloning. [ 52 ] As such, policy makers can safely use the concept of human dignity to reflect general unspecified condemnation. For a good percentage of the public, human reproductive cloning simply seems immoral and, for lack of a better philosophical argument, it is declared that it infringes human dignity. Dworkin puts it in less secular terms: "It is wrong, people say, particularly after more familiar objections have been found wanting, to play God". [ 53 ]

Another reason concerns for human dignity may be used so frequently as a justification for cloning bans is that they allow policy makers to avoid more socially controversial and politically charged rationales, such as those based on a particular religious perspective or abortion politics. It is far easier, at least politically, to say that a given law is based on concern for human dignity than on, for example, a Christian view of the moral status of the embryo – though there seems little doubt that religious perspectives have played an important role in the policy process. [ 54 ]

In addition, the use of human dignity allows policy makers to avoid the appearance that they are seeking to regulate morality. For many legal scholars, moral belief or repugnance "is not sufficient to outlaw conduct engaged in by consenting adults". [ 55 ]

Finally, I suspect that much of the debate remains scientifically ill-informed. Media images of reproductive cloning, which are everywhere, often portray clones as "carbon copies". [ 56 ] These representations undoubtedly impact the public's "intuitive" response to the technology and the public's desire to ban the technology.

In fact, I too have intuitive concerns regarding the appropriateness of human reproductive cloning. I believe that reproductive cloning will have little practical use, the health and safety concerns will likely endure for decades, and it may create some challenging genetic enhancement issues. There are, no doubt, sound reasons to consider the tight regulation of reproductive cloning.

Why, then, is the ad hoc use of the notion of human dignity in the context of reproductive cloning a problem? It hurts public debate. Though I am tremendously skeptical of the worth of intuitive reactions as a justification for a given law, particularly criminal prohibitions [ 57 ] if general cultural anxiety is one of the rationales for a proposed ban, then this should be explicitly stated. Policy makers should not dress up the argument as a concern for human dignity in order to create the perception of legitimacy. By doing so, transparency in policy making is obscured or even lost. As noted by Shaun Pattinson in his critique of the Canadian government's use of human dignity as a justification for a ban: "Once again we are left with the feeling that other arguments are in play but remain unsure as to what those arguments are". [ 58 ] But without knowing that these "other arguments" are, it is impossible to have an informed policy discussion.

If the concerns about cloning are based on the fear that we live in a world increasingly governed by inaccurate views of genetic determinism and, therefore, people may have inappropriate ideas of what cloning can do, [ 59 ] then this too should be stated. Indeed, it could be argued that we should be focussing our policy making energy not on the technology but on the possible causes of the deterministic sentiments that may motivate the desire to use reproductive cloning. Unfortunately, "genetic determinism" is a much more challenging and amorphous policy target as compared with human cloning technology.

In addition, using human dignity as a blanket argument against all forms of human cloning makes it much more difficult to reflect rationally on the true risks and benefits of the technology. Such claims can have powerful rhetorical force (no one is against the idea of human dignity!). [ 60 ] But, as noted by Beyleveld and Brownsword, "from any perspective that values rational debate about human genetics, it is an abuse of the concept of human dignity to operate it as a veto on any practice that is intuitively disliked".[ 61 ]

Finally, we are in danger of trivializing and degrading the potential normative value of human dignity. There seems little doubt that the rapid advances that are occurring in the field of science, and biotechnology in particular, will continue to create new social and regulatory challenges, many of which may also raise issues associated with notions of human dignity. The way we handle current science policy issues stands as a precedent for future analysis. The ad hoc application of human dignity in relation to human cloning will undoubtedly impact how it is applied to future technologies. We should strive to apply the principle in a logical and coherent fashion otherwise the notion of human dignity is in danger of being eroded to the point where it stands as nothing more than a symbol of amorphous cultural anxiety.

Author's Contributions

This paper is the original work of the author.

Vogel G: Dolly goes to greener pastures. Science. 2003, 299: 1163-

Google Scholar  

Bonnicksen A: Crafting a cloning policy: from Dolly to stem cells. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 2002

Schachter O: Human dignity as a normative concept. Am J Int Law. 1983, 77: 848-854.

Article   Google Scholar  

Malby S: Human dignity and human reproductive cloning. Heath and Human Rights. 2002, 6: 103-135.

Pullman D: Universalism, Particularism and the Ethics of Dignity. Christian Bioethics. 2001, 7: 333-358. 10.1076/chbi.7.3.333.6876.

Feldman D: Human Dignity as a Legal Value. Public Law. 1999, 682-702.

Gewirth A: Human Dignity as the Basis of Rights. In The Constitution of Rights: Human Dignity and American Values. Edited by: Meyer M, Parent W. 1992, London: Cornell University Press, 10-46.

Kass L: The wisdom of repugnance. The New Republic. June 2, 1997

Mohler RA: The brave new world of cloning: a Christian worldview perspective. In Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Edited by: Louisville: Westminster John Know Press. 1997, Cole-Turner R, 91-103.

Vogel G: Misguided chromosomes foil primate cloning. Science. 2003, 300: 225-10.1126/science.300.5617.225.

Giles G, Knight J: Dolly's death leaves researchers woolly on clone ageing issue. Nature. 2003, 421: 776-10.1038/421776a.

UNESCO: Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Paris. 1997

World Health Organization: Ethical, Scientific and Social Implications of Cloning in Human Health. Geneva. 1998

Council of Europe: Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings. Paris. 1998

Saad L: Cloning of humans is a turn off to most Americans. Gallup News Service. May 16, 2002

Shalev C: Human Cloning and Human Rights: A Commentary. Health and Human Rights. 2002, 6: 137-151.

Williamson R: Human reproductive cloning is unethical because it undermines autonomy: commentary on Savulescu. J Med Ethics. 1999, 25: 96-97.

Bruce D: A View from Edinburgh. In Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Edited by: Cole-Turner R. 1997, Louisville: Westminster John Know Press, X-Y.

Scientific Committee of the International Society of Bioethics (SIBI): Bioethics Declaration of Gijon. Gijon. 2000

HUGO Ethics Committee: Statement on Cloning. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics (EJAIB). 1999, 9: 70-

Rovane C: Genetics and personal identity. In A Companion to Genethics. Edited by: Burley J, Harris J. 2002, Maiden, Mass: Blackwell Publisher, 245-252.

Caulfield T: Cloning and Genetic Determinism: A Call for Consistency. Nat Biotech. 2001, 19: 403-10.1038/88047.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Genetics and Human Behavior: The Ethical Context. London. 2002

Polkinghorne J: Cloning and the Moral Imperative. In Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Edited by: Cole-Turner R. 1997, Louisville: Westminster John Know Press, 35-41.

Wright TG: Second Thoughts: How Human Cloning Can Promote Human Dignity. Valparaiso University Law Review. 2000, 35: 1-35.

Beyleveld D, Brownsword R: Human Dignity, Human Rights, and Human Genetics. The Modern Law Review. 1998, 61: 661-681. 10.1111/1468-2230.00172.

Pattinson S: Reproductive Cloning: Can Cloning Harm the Clone?. Med L Rev. 2002, 10: 295-307.

Meilaender G: A Case Against Cloning. In Beyond Cloning: Religion and the Remaking of Humanity. Edited by: Cole-Turner R. 2001, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 77-83.

Meilaender G: A Case Against Cloning. In Beyond Cloning: Religion and the Remaking of Humanity. Edited by: Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. 2001, Cole-Turner R, 77-83.

Kolnai A: Dignity. In Dignity, Character and Self-Respect. Edited by: Dillon RS. 1995, New York: Routledge, 53-75.

Ullrich D: Concurring Visions: Human Dignity in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany. Global Jurist Frontiers. 2003, 3: [ http://www.bepress.com/gj/frontiers/vol3/iss1/art1/ ]

Lewontin RC: The Confusion over Cloning. The New York Review of Books. 23 October 1997, [ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1046 ]

Harris J: Cloning and Human Dignity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 1998, 7: 163-167. 10.1017/S0963180198702087.

Steinbock B: Cloning Human Beings: Sorting Through the Ethical Issues. In Human Cloning: Science, Ethics and Public Policy. Edited by: MacKinnon B. 2000, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, X-Y.

Health Canada: Proposal for Legislation Governing Assisted Human Reproduction: An Overview. Ottawa. 2001

House of Commons Standing Committee on Health: Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families. Ottawa. 2001

President's Council on Bioethics: Human Cloning and Human Dignity. Washington. 2002

National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Cloning Human Beings. Rockville. 1997

Dworkin R: Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2000

Pew Research Center: Public Makes Distinctions on Genetic Research. April 9, 2002, [ http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=152 ]

Donley Young C: A Comparative Look at the US and British Approaches to Stem Cell Research. Albany Law Review. 2002, 65: 831-855.

Cowan J: Fear Factor: Is Jurassic Park Dictating Canada's Policy Towards Cloning?. Saturday Night. 16-17. 14 July 2001

Caulfield T, Knowles L, Meslin E: Law and Policy in the Era of Reproductive Genetics. J Med Ethics.

AFP: Clonaid Chief Offers to Clone Israeli, Palestinian Victims. 18 March 2003, [ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/18/1047749730611.html ]

Gibbins R: How in the World Can You Contest Equal Human Dignity?. National Journal of Constitutional Law. 2000, 12: 25-30.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/4/3/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Lori Sheremeta, Nola Ries, Angela Long, Jai Shah, Jason Robert, the peer reviewers and to Genome Prairie, the Stem Cell Network and the AHFMR for their funding support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Law, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Canada

Timothy Caulfield

Health Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Canada

Health Law Institute 4th Floor, Law Centre University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2H5, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Caulfield .

Additional information

Competing interests.

None declared.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Caulfield, T. Human cloning laws, human dignity and the poverty of the policy making dialogue. BMC Med Ethics 4 , 3 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-4-3

Download citation

Received : 24 April 2003

Accepted : 29 July 2003

Published : 29 July 2003

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-4-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Human Dignity
• Counter Argument
• Policy Making Process
• Genetic Determinism
• Human Cloning

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Help & FAQ

Human cloning should be legalized

Research output : Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter

Book abstract: A collection of essays presents diverse viewpoints on genetic engineering, examining its claims to improve food, farming, and the treatment of disease in humans, and analyzing how governments should respond to the new technology.

• genetic engineering
• medical ethics
• human cloning

Fingerprint

• Genetic Engineering Keyphrases 100%
• Disease Treatment Keyphrases 100%
• Human Cloning Keyphrases 100%
• Disease Medicine and Dentistry 100%

T1 - Human cloning should be legalized

AU - McLachlan, Hugh V.

N1 - <p>Published by Cengage Gale (2009), ISBN: 9780737743678. Edited by D.M. Haugen and S. Musser.</p>

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Book abstract: A collection of essays presents diverse viewpoints on genetic engineering, examining its claims to improve food, farming, and the treatment of disease in humans, and analyzing how governments should respond to the new technology.

AB - Book abstract: A collection of essays presents diverse viewpoints on genetic engineering, examining its claims to improve food, farming, and the treatment of disease in humans, and analyzing how governments should respond to the new technology.

KW - genetic engineering

KW - medical ethics

KW - human cloning

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780737743678

BT - Genetic Engineering

PB - Gale, Cengage Company

Should Human Cloning Be Banned?

Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

• U.S. Legal System
• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• U.S. Political System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• Ph.D., Religion and Society, Edith Cowan University
• M.A., Humanities, California State University - Dominguez Hills
• B.A., Liberal Arts, Excelsior College

Human cloning is illegal in some states, and institutions that receive U.S. federal funding are prohibited from experimenting with it, but there is no federal ban on human cloning in the United States. Should there be? Let's take a closer look.

What Is Cloning?

Cloning "refers to the development of offspring that are genetically identical to their parents." While cloning is often referred to as an unnatural process, it occurs quite often in nature. Identical twins are clones, for example, and asexual creatures reproduce by cloning. Artificial human cloning, however, is both very new and very complex.

Is Artificial Cloning Safe?

Not yet. It took 277 unsuccessful embryo implantations to produce Dolly the Sheep, and clones tend to age rapidly and experience other health problems. The science of cloning is not particularly advanced.

The Benefits of Cloning

Cloning can be used to:

• Produce embryonic stem cells in large quantities.
• Genetically alter animals to produce organs that can more easily be transplanted into humans.
• Allow individuals or couples to reproduce through means other than sexual reproduction.
• Grow replacement human organ tissue from scratch.

At this point, the live debate in the United States is over cloning of human embryos. Scientists generally agree that it would be irresponsible to clone a human being until cloning has been perfected, given that the cloned human would probably face serious, and ultimately terminal, health issues.

Would a Ban on Human Cloning Pass Constitutional Muster?

A ban on embryonic human cloning probably would, at least for now. The Founding Fathers didn't address the issue of human cloning, but it's possible to make an educated guess about how the Supreme Court might rule on cloning by looking at abortion law .

In abortion, there are two competing interests—the interests of the embryo or fetus, and the constitutional rights of the pregnant woman. The government has ruled that the government's interest in protecting embryonic and fetal life is legitimate at all stages but does not become "compelling"—i.e., sufficient to outweigh the woman's constitutional rights—until the point of viability, usually defined as 22 or 24 weeks In human cloning cases, there is no pregnant woman whose constitutional rights would be violated by a ban. Therefore, it is quite likely that the Supreme Court would rule that there is no constitutional reason why the government cannot advance its legitimate interest in protecting embryonic life by banning human cloning. This is independent of tissue-specific cloning. The government has no legitimate interest in protecting kidney or liver tissue.

Embryonic Cloning Can Be Banned—Should It Be Banned in the United States?

The political debate over human embryonic cloning centers on two techniques:

• Therapeutic cloning , or the cloning of embryos with the intention of destroying those embryos to harvest stem cells.
• Reproductive cloning , or the cloning of embryos for the purpose of implantation.

Nearly all politicians agree that reproductive cloning should be banned, but there is an ongoing debate over the legal status of therapeutic cloning. Conservatives in Congress would like to ban it; most liberals in Congress would not.

FDA and the Prohibition of Human Cloning

The FDA has asserted the authority to regulate human cloning, which means that no scientist can clone a human being without permission. But some policymakers say they're concerned that the FDA might one day stop asserting that authority, or even approve human cloning without consulting Congress.

• Ingraham v. Wright: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• US Neutrality Acts of the 1930s and the Lend-Lease Act
• Welsh v. United States (1970)
• Obergefell v. Hodges: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impacts
• Loving v. Virginia (1967)
• Court Case of Korematsu v. United States
• Reed v. Town of Gilbert: Can a Town Prohibit Certain Types of Signs?
• Mapp v. Ohio: A Milestone Ruling Against Illegally Obtained Evidence
• South Dakota v. Dole: The Case and Its Impact
• Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders
• The Death Penalty in the United States
• Marijuana in Supreme Court Cases
• Engel v. Vitale Abolished Public School Prayer
• Florida v. Bostick: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, Supreme Court Case
• Overview of Roth v. United States 1957 Supreme Court Decision

Why Human Cloning Must Be Banned Now

Since Scottish scientists succeeded in cloning the sheep known as Dolly, the prospect of human cloning has catapulted its way into the public consciousness. In early 2000, an Italian and a U.S. scientist announced their intention to clone human babies for infertile couples. The duo recently announced their plans to begin implanting cloned human embryos into women--a step they may have already taken by the time this article is published. On July 31, 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001" (H.R. 2505) by a bi-partisan margin of 265-162 with support from liberal, progressive, conservative, pro-life, and pro-abortion members. This bill, which Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and I wrote, is designed to ban human cloning for both "research" and "reproductive" purposes. Despite the fact that President Bush said he would sign this bill into law, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) prevented the bill from even being considered in the Senate. On Sunday, November 25, 2001, scientists at Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Massachusetts announced that they had created the first human embryo clones for the purpose of destructive research. It is now more important than ever to ban human cloning.

H.R. 2505 specifically bans "asexual reproduction" which is accomplished by "somatic cell nuclear transfer" technology, the technique that was used to produce Dolly. The bill does not ban scientifically and medically useful cloning practices such as the cloning of DNA fragments (molecular cloning), the duplication of tissue or cells in culture (cell cloning), or whole-organism or embryo cloning of non-human animals. Nor does the bill ban laboratory practices such as parthenogenesis or "twinning."

While most cloning advocates want to create cloned embryos for embryonic stem cell research (and oppose the creation of clones who would be implanted and carried to term), others are racing to produce the world's first cloned human baby. Indeed, scientists such as Panos Zavos and Severino Antinori stated in mid-2000 that they expected to begin implanting cloned human embryos into women within the next several months. They were enthusiastic about pursuing such a feat despite the serious genetic problems encountered in animal cloning, the known risks to the mother, and the great potential for serious birth defects. Ninety-five to ninety-seven percent of animal cloning attempts still end in failure, and the scientists who cloned Dolly failed 276 times before they succeeded in producing a single live-born clone of an adult sheep. Most scientific experts believe that attempts to clone humans will result in even higher failure rates. Scientists such as Ian Wilmut (who produced Dolly) and Rudolf Jaenisch (of MIT) have concluded that the most likely cause of abnormal development in cloned animals is faulty reprogramming of the genome. When the nucleus of a somatic cell is introduced into an enucleated egg, the DNA in the nucleus has to be "reprogrammed" in order for a human being to develop fully. If this reprogramming of the nuclear DNA does not go exactly right, abnormal gene expression of one or some of the more than 30,000 genes can result.

Fortunately, the majority of Congress is outspokenly opposed to human cloning for reproductive purposes. However, as evidenced in Senator Daschle's move to delay consideration of H.R. 2505, there is no such consensus when it comes to banning the cloning of embryos for research purposes. However, this type of human cloning is also grossly unethical for at least three reasons.

First, research cloning can only be justified by the utilitarian calculus that prizes the lives of the millions of people who could potentially be treated or cured as a result of the research over the lives of the embryos who would be destroyed in order for the research to proceed. However, it is never ethical to sacrifice one human life for the real or potential benefit of others.

Second, it is unethical to view a human being--regardless of its age--as a means to an end. Even supporters of embryonic stem cell research and other embryo research have long been opposed to the "special creation of embryos solely for the purpose of research." However, this is precisely what is involved in research cloning. To evade this criticism, proponents are now beginning to claim that human cloning for purposes of research does not create human embryos, but only "activated cells." Others are urging that the term "cloning" should not even be used to refer to this process. As one scientist from Johns Hopkins stated in his recent testimony before the Senate, research cloning should be called "nuclear transplantation," not "cloning." Many in the Senate have also sought to abandon the phrase "therapeutic cloning" (another popular term for research cloning) because it refers to cloning and could therefore conjure up opposition.

Third, research cloning will undoubtedly lead to a new exploitation of women. In order to manufacture enough cloned embryos to create a sufficient number of viable stem cell lines, scientists will need to obtain massive quantities of women's eggs. To do so, women must be injected with superovulatory drugs and undergo an invasive procedure. The Washington Post reported recently that the side effects of the injections are abdominal pain and nausea; in 3 to 5 percent of cases hyperstimulation of the ovaries occurs, causing severe abdominal pain, and on rare occasions surgery is required which may leave the patient infertile. Contrary to women who assume the risks associated with egg donation in order to undergo in vitro fertilization, women who take such risks for the purpose of research cloning would not be motivated by the desire to have a child, but, oftentimes, by the desire for financial gain. Indeed, Advanced Cell Technology paid $3,500 - $4,000 to each woman who donated eggs for their failed cloning experiments. It is likely that women of lower economic means will be exploited in this way.

In addition to the above ethical considerations, research cloning should be forbidden because it increases the likelihood of reproductive cloning. Preventing the implantation and subsequent birth of cloned embryos once they are available in the laboratory will prove to be impossible. The most effective way to ban reproductive cloning is to stop the process at the beginning, with the creation of cloned embryos. Since the overwhelming consensus is that reproductive cloning should be prohibited, steps must be taken to ban research cloning as well. It is nonsensical to believe that we can ban one without also banning the other.

Finally, research cloning is likely to fall woefully short of its alleged promise. The Washington Post business section recently quoted William Haseltine, chief executive of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., as saying (with regard to embryonic stem cell therapies) that "the timeline to commercialization is so long that I simply would not invest. You may notice that our company has not made such investments, and we have been offered the opportunity many times." Furthermore, a recent New Scientist editorial stated that "policy makers continue to enthuse about therapeutic cloning even though the majority of scientists no longer think it is possible or practical to treat patients with cells derived from cloned embryos. They have already moved on to investigating the alternatives." While embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce a single therapeutic modality that has proven to be clinically beneficial, the morally unproblematic alternative of adult stem cell research has already yielded several therapies that have been used to treat cartilage defects in children; restore vision to patients who were legally blind; relieve systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis; and cure severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Finally, given that most scientists have predicted that human clones would be plagued with undetectable but harmful genetic abnormalities, such abnormalities might also be present in the tissues or cells derived from cloned human embryos. There are no current or foreseeable methods available to assess whether the genome of a cloned embryo is free of such defects.

Human cloning is a benchmark for public policy, and the legislative decisions made regarding it will significantly impact the future of many areas of scientific research. The public is being told that research cloning is good because it will yield miraculous cures; however, even if scientists conclude that such cures will likely not result, research cloning will still be defended by those who wish to justify it on the basis of "scientific freedom." This appeal will also likely be heard in the coming debates over artificial intelligence, germ-line therapy, transgenics, etc. However, scientific freedom is not a fundamental right. If we fail to ban all forms of human cloning, society's continued ability to regulate or ban future scientific research will be seriously diminished in the name of autonomy and utilitarianism.

Human cloning for any purpose opens the door to a "Brave New World," and we must shut that door now.

Dave Weldon, "Why Human Cloning Must Be Banned Now,” Dignity 8, no. 1 (2002): 1, 4.

Should Human Cloning be Legalized

Related essays:, leave a comment cancel reply.

IN OPENING DEBATE ON HUMAN CLONING BAN, SOME SPEAKERS URGE OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION, OTHERS FAVOUR PARTIAL BAN TO ALLOW FOR MEDICAL ADVANCES

Ad Hoc Committee on International Convention against Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings 3 rd Meeting (AM) IN OPENING DEBATE ON HUMAN CLONING BAN, SOME SPEAKERS URGE OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION, OTHERS FAVOUR PARTIAL BAN TO ALLOW FOR MEDICAL ADVANCES Like all other serious threats to human dignity -- such as torture, racial discrimination and terrorism -- the reproductive cloning of human beings required a binding universal norm to prevent it, the new United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings heard this morning, as it opened its first-ever general debate on the question. The representative of Germany, speaking also on behalf of France, warned that human cloning experiments would have far-reaching effects on the preservation of human dignity.  It was critical to come to terms with that challenge, swiftly and without delay.  The legal and moral power of a binding global norm would prevent dishonest competition among researchers in the field.  Both delegations sought the conclusion of a treaty before the end of 2003.  This is the first session of the Committee, established by the General Assembly last December in response to a request by France and Germany to evolve a convention banning human cloning.  In a day-long discussion yesterday, scientific and bioethical experts laid out the science and identified the key areas of the debate.  Today, 21 speakers expressed serious concern over the rapid pace of developments in the field, with many calling for a human rights-based approach to negotiating a convention.  The line appeared to demarcate those seeking a total ban from those favouring a partial one to allow for medical advances in the prevention and treatment of disease. The Permanent Observer for the Holy See urged a worldwide and comprehensive ban on human cloning.  Its position was based on a biological analysis of the cloning process and anthropological, social, ethical and legal reflection on the negative implications on the life, dignity and rights of the human being.  In particular, the conceptual distinction between reproductive and therapeutic, or experimental, human cloning was devoid of any ethical and legal basis. Any decision to ban human cloning should follow a painstaking and balanced analysis that followed a strict scientific assessment of the genetic and social implications, the delegate of the Russian Federation insisted.  His own country had recently adopted a temporary five-year ban on human cloning, prohibiting the import and export of human cloned embryos.  That was aimed at preserving Russia's national identity and "nipping in the bud" the commercialization and criminalization of human beings.  The ban did not extend to the use of cloning for stem-cell and other medical research, however. The representative of Liechtenstein suggested that attempts to clone human beings would likely take place this year.  Yet, only very few States had adopted legislation prohibiting it.  An international convention would accelerate that national process and lend it moral weight.  While the Committee could not legislate the moral status of human embryos, failure to conclude a treaty would relegate the human cloning ban to national governments, where the outcome would be uncertain, uncoordinated and too slow to counter that urgent threat. The World Health Organization (WHO) had addressed the cloning issue in various forums and had adopted texts declaring that its use for reproductive purposes was ethically unacceptable and harmful to the dignity of the human being. At the same time, the WHO had endorsed the view that such a ban should not lead to an indiscriminate prohibition on all cloning procedures and research; scientific research involving stem cells, including from embryonic tissue, could yield new treatments for disease.  A full and open debate would yield conclusions about the utility, safety and desirability of stem-cell research.  Statements were also made by the representatives of Japan, Malaysia, China, United States, France, Brazil, Sweden (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Republic of Korea, Croatia, Uganda, Israel, Spain, Portugal and Costa Rica.  Representatives of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the European Commission also spoke. The Committee will meet again at a date and time to be announced. Background The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on an International Convention against the Reproductive Cloning of Human Beings met this morning to hold a general debate on the ethics and science of human cloning.  The first-ever session of the Ad Hoc Committee, due to conclude on Friday, 1 March, has as its purpose the elaboration of a negotiating strategy for a possible convention.  (For additional background, see Press Release SOC/4599 of 25 February.) Statements YOSHIYUKI MOTOMURA ( Japan ) said that reproductive cloning of human beings must never be pursued.  In November 2000, the Japanese Diet enacted “The Law Concerning Regulations Relating to Human Cloning Techniques and Other Similar Techniques”, which went into force in June 2001.  The law made reproductive human cloning a punishable offence, and provided guidelines strictly regulating the creation of human embryos utilizing cloning.  For the time being, the guidelines did not permit the creation of human embryos through cloning.  In elaborating the law and the guidelines, the Government had carefully considered and thoroughly discussed every issue relevant to human cloning.  He emphasized that the prohibition must be limited to practices directly related to the reproductive cloning of human beings, for three reasons.  First, as reflected in its own law, Japan prohibited reproductive human cloning because it ran counter to the principle of respect for human dignity, because asexual reproduction could lead to confusion in the social order, and because the low probability of success endangered human life, as well as the integrity of the human body.  Second, it should be noted that biotechnology was contributing to major advances in medical treatment, he said.  The creation through cloning techniques of embryos for therapeutic purposes did not seem to involve the serious problems to which he had referred.  Therefore, while human dignity and human rights must be protected, it would be a mistake to close the door to future scientific and technological progress which could save lives. Third and most important, he continued, it was imperative that international measures be established against reproductive human cloning immediately, before any attempts at that practice were made. Time was of the essence.  While he recognized the importance of discussing ethical issues in international forums, he believed there were more appropriate occasions on which to do so. HASMY AGAM ( Malaysia ) said that while he appreciated the potential for medical revolution accompanying the advent of technology in the area of reproductive cloning of human beings, he agreed with France and Germany that reproductive cloning of human beings posed unknown and serious problems to the human race.  Potential abuse of technology related to reproductive cloning of human beings not only raised moral, religious and ethical concerns, but also posed risks such as developmental and bodily abnormalities to humans.  In addition, medical technology related to reproductive human cloning was at present too risky for consideration.  The convening of the Committee would enable the development of an internationally binding instrument to address the issues relating to reproductive human cloning, while serving as an effective and feasible deterrent to overzealous researchers.  He hoped that the draft convention would also address specific concerns of multi-cultural and multi-religious countries, such as his own, in terms of its acceptance and adaptations to suit local values.  The pace at which the technology was progressing and the need to anticipate developments beyond those envisaged at the time the convention was to be adopted must be borne in mind.  While Malaysia did not have laws relating to reproductive cloning of human beings, it intended to legislate its prohibition, taking into consideration cultural, ethical, religious and social concerns.  While Malaysia agreed that the proposed initiative should focus on provisions regulating reproductive cloning of human beings, it had not, at the current stage, taken a position on the issue of therapeutic cloning.  CHEN XU ( China ) said that with the rapid development of biotechnology, cloning was receiving increasing attention, especially as cloned calves and pigs came out one after the other -- leading to the possibility that human beings could be cloned.  There was an imperative need, therefore, to work out legal rules, and he appreciated the efforts made by France and Germany in that regard.  He, too, supported the formulation of an early convention banning human cloning.  The rapid growth in the field had opened up broad prospects for improving human health.  On the other hand, human cloning would lead to serious ethic, social, religious and legal problems.  Guided by international legislation, the positive impact of such technological progress could be enjoyed and a negative impact could be avoided. He said that human cloning would threaten human dignity, and he firmly opposed it.  He had also rejected any experiments in human cloning.  Meanwhile, a distinction should be made between therapeutic and reproductive cloning.  Embryonic stem-cell research for the purpose of treating and preventing disease should be encouraged, but bioethics and universal norms should guide that process so that it developed in an orderly fashion and was strictly supervised.  His Government and the scientific community were following the progress of cloning technology and staying informed of the ethical concerns.  Preparations were being considered at the governmental level for relevant rules on cloning, and academic institutions were also evolving guidelines on stem-cell research.  Domestic and international legislation would ensure the orderly management and development of cloning technology. The ultimate purpose of scientific and technological development was to bring benefits to mankind, he said.  Some practices that might harm human dignity must not be allowed, but those that could benefit mankind should not be banned.  Furthermore, domestic legislation in various countries should treat therapeutic cloning differently.  Whatever their choices in that regard, domestic policies should be respected, as should the various philosophical, cultural and religious circumstances that had led to the legislation.  While preparing the convention, the Committee should listen carefully to the overall appraisals of scientists and bioethicists on the positive impact of cloning technology on mankind, in order to make an informed decision. CAROLYN L. WILLSON ( United States ) said that human cloning was an enormously troubling development in biotechnology.  It was unethical in itself and dangerous as a precedent.  The possible creation of a human being through cloning raised many ethical concerns.  It constituted unethical experimentation on a child-to-be, subjecting him or her to enormous risks of bodily and developmental abnormalities.  It threatened human individuality, deliberately saddling the clone with the genetic makeup of a person who had already lived.  It risked making women's bodies a commodity, with women being paid to undergo risky drug treatment so they would produce the many eggs needed for cloning.  It was also a giant step towards a society in which life was created for convenience, human beings were grown for spare body parts, and children were engineered to fit eugenic specifications. She said that a proposal had been made to ban only so-called "reproductive" cloning by prohibiting the transfer of a cloned embryo into a woman in hopes of creating a human baby.  That approach was unsound.  While upon initial consideration a ban on reproductive cloning might seem easily attainable and desirable, the issue was very complex and should be addressed comprehensively.  A ban that prohibited only "reproductive" cloning but ignored "therapeutic" or "experimental" cloning would essentially authorize the creation and destruction of human embryos explicitly and solely for research and experimentation.  It would turn nascent life into a natural resource to be mined and exploited.  That prospect was repugnant to many people, including those who did not believe that the embryo was a person. She said that an effective ban on "reproductive" cloning required that all human cloning be banned.  Under a partial ban that permitted the creation of cloned embryos for research, human embryos would be widely cloned in laboratories and assisted-reproduction facilities.  Once cloned embryos were available, it would be virtually impossible to control what was done with them.  Stockpiles of embryonic clones could be produced, bought and sold without anyone knowing it.  Implantation of cloned embryos would take place out of sight, and even elaborate and intrusive regulations and policing could not detect or prevent the initiation of a "clonal pregnancy".  Once begun, an illicit "clonal pregnancy" would be virtually impossible to detect.  The United States supported a global and comprehensive ban on human cloning through somatic cell nuclear transfer, regardless of the purpose for which the human clone was produced.  CHRISTIAN MUCH ( Germany ), speaking also on behalf of France, said that yesterday's expert discussion had made it clear that the Committee was dealing with one of the most challenging issues of the day.  It involved tremendous scientific complexities and touched upon fundamental ethical questions.  New developments in genetic engineering posed some of the greatest challenges that humanity would ever face.  Although many applications held promise in preventing and curing disease, others could have consequences beyond the worst nightmares.  The technology of most immediate concern was reproductive cloning of human beings.  The consequences of such experiments on the preservation of human dignity would be far-reaching.  It was critical to come to terms with that challenge swiftly and without any delay. He said that although he supported the initiative by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the need to elaborate universal norms on bioethics, the French/German initiative followed a more focused approach, aiming at a universal ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes.  Only a focused approach would lead to an international agreement to face the challenge that lay ahead.  Binding universal norms were an effective tool to combat serious threats to human dignity, such as torture, racial discrimination and terrorism.  Reproductive cloning of human beings posed a threat to human dignity.  Only an international binding global norm, with its legal and moral power, was the appropriate answer.  That would prevent dishonest competition among researchers and research institutions in the field. At this first meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, he said, France and Germany were seeking to initiate a discussion leading to decisions on the appropriate form and content of an international legal regulation.  They had already submitted a list of legal issues that might be addressed in the convention.  The purpose of that exercise should be to identify, in a generic way, issues that the convention might wish to address, on the understanding that the precise wording would be taken up in future negotiations.  He also proposed a review of the Secretariat document containing a list of existing international norms.  In summary, he wished to lay the foundations now for productive work that would lead to the adoption of a negotiating mandate, and ultimately to negotiations on a convention, to be concluded before the end of 2003. JEAN-LUC FLORENT ( France ) expressed support for the statement made by Germany.  The duty of collective responsibility was based on a number of factors.  Reproductive cloning clearly called into question the idea of sexual reproduction.  A child born of sexual and human procreation was the result of the regeneration of two genetic histories.  Therefore, the characteristics of that child were unpredictable.  Unlike sexual procreation, asexual reproduction paved the way for predetermining the characteristics of the child.  It made it possible to create human beings for purposes beyond their control.  That was an unacceptable denial of human dignity.  The international community must reaffirm the principle by which the birth of a child was the result only of sexual reproduction.  It was now time to firmly condemn the challenge posed by some in favour of reproductive cloning. PEDRO DALCERO ( Brazil ) said that the French/German initiative had been timely and mirrored the widespread debate in the genetics field.  The Committee’s deliberations would most certainly lead to a better understanding of the scientific and moral issues posed by recent research on cloning.  Of equal importance was the outcome of the Committee's work, which would stimulate the development of specific national legislation.  In 1995, Brazil had adopted legislation on human embryos and, in view of the most recent breakthroughs in the field, its Congress was examining a national code of bioethics.  Institutional developments had included the establishment of the National Commission on Research Ethics, a peer-review mechanism on scientific experiments involving human beings, and of the Technical Commission on Biosafety, which advised the Government on public policy issues in that field. He said that the farthest-reaching potential gains from cloning were in the human health field.  His country had done considerable research on adult stem cells, thereby acquiring extensive experience in that field.  As a result, its laboratories had the technical capabilities of working with human embryonic stem cells.  The issues posed complex technical challenges, however, which science was only beginning to address.  On the other hand, the enormous potential gains in terms of human health had been matched by a possible ethical fallout.  In light of that and the growing public debate, a judicious and balanced outcome that truly served the public's interests should be ensured.  He looked forward to hearing how other countries were dealing with the challenge of translating those complex issues. Overall, he continued, human cloning was morally unacceptable, but no convention could be a watertight guarantee against its abuse.  The international community must send a clear message that such behaviour was intolerable and would be repressed.  Ultimately, the best way to foil that was to foster scientific freedom.  While stem-cell research offered scientific possibilities, it was unclear whether that would be a satisfactory alternative to human embryonic cloning.  The ethical concerns of all should be satisfied, but scientific research and knowledge should not be suppressed.  Another reason to restrict the scope of any convention on human cloning hinged on whether it would be considered by the Committee to be a human rights instrument.  If that was the case, the convention would enjoy constitutional status under Brazilian law.  HARRIET WALLBERG-HENRIKSSON ( Sweden ), speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries -- Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden -- said the issue of reproductive cloning of human beings must be dealt with as a matter of priority.  Enlarged discussions on other, even though related, issues would not only risk delaying the work of the Committee, but might also make the Committee lose sight of its goal.  To achieve a global consensus on an international convention, a pragmatic approach was necessary, and it was essential to focus now on prohibiting the reproductive cloning of human beings.  She said that reproductive cloning of human beings was prohibited by the respective national laws of the Nordic countries.  There was also a common understanding in Nordic societies that that should be the case.  All the Nordic countries had signed the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, as well as the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Prohibition of Cloning of Human Beings.  Given the urgency and importance of the matter, the Nordic countries considered it a great responsibility for all to comply with the Committee’s mandate to prohibit reproductive cloning of human beings.  KIM YOUNG-MOK ( Republic of Korea ) said the remarkable progress of life sciences was like a gift from Prometheus.  That fire, if properly controlled, had the potential to provide mankind with an invaluable and almost inexhaustible source of health and welfare.  On the other hand, if left unbridled, that fire could have detrimental effects, burning out the very essence of human dignity.  In 1997, he said, a Korean research group had succeeded in cloning a cow by using the same technology that was used in the creation of Dolly -- namely, somatic cell nuclear transfer.  In 2000 and 2001, other research groups successfully established stem-cell lines from surplus embryos that were originally made for the purpose of in vitro fertilization.  With increasing scientific and technological advances in the field of life sciences, public awareness of cloning and its ethical and social implications had gradually grown, leading to heated debates within and among civic groups, religious circles, researchers and the industry concerned.  He added that government legislation was under way to address the concerns relating to genetic testing, privacy regarding genetic information, gene therapy, as well as the issue of reproductive cloning of human beings and the scope of permissible research on embryos.  DUBRAVKA SIMONOVIC ( Croatia ) said that media coverage of Dolly had offered insight into the social impact of science and technology, public fears about the possible misuses of the power of science and ethical concerns about biotechnology applications.  For that reason, legal consideration of the purpose of the convention against reproductive cloning should also include consideration of ethical and social issues connected with banning human cloning and protecting the human being.  Examples of a timely response to such challenges had been the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being, as well as its Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings.  She said that the Additional Protocol had been the first binding international treaty on human cloning, and it banned the practice of creating a human being genetically identical to another, whether living or dead.  As a national response to the challenges of biotechnology, her Government had signed the Council of Europe's Convention, as well as the Additional Protocol.  Last year, it had established a National Bioethics Committee with the task of monitoring ethical and legal issues in connection with the development and application of biomedical science on human beings.  It would also recommend new laws for adoption in such areas as the human genome, protection of the human embryo and cloning.  Both the Convention and UNESCO's Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights were placing reproductive human cloning in the human rights framework.  The Committee should adopt the same approach. ROSSETTE NYIRINKINDI ( Uganda ) said that following yesterday’s presentations, she was left with the impression that reproductive cloning was an anathema to humanity and to the perpetuation of humanity as it was intended to be.  She was also disturbed by the fact that embryos used in embryonic stem-cell research were in effect killed.  She also understood that, even though they were not as viable as embryos, adult stem cells had been instrumental in therapeutic cloning.  Her country could not condone the usurping of God’s sovereignty over creation, she said.  Human cloning for reproductive purposes also posed a chilling challenge to the fabric of family life, childhood and the entire society, given the psychosocial implications that were highlighted by the scientists.  For every Dolly or C.C., there had been hundreds of failed attempts, miscarriages, birth defects, and newborn deaths of uncertain cause in their wake.  The deformed were destroyed.  It was reasonable to expect that human cloning experiments would also have their own failure rates.  Would the human beings conceived from similar failures also be destroyed on the basis of their imperfections or inadequacies? Human cloning, she said, reduced mankind to the status of a laboratory rat to be experimented and improved on.  Despite what the experts said, it might also lead to genetic manipulation of humans for “purified future generations”.  It was important to produce a convention that was broad and inclusive, to encompass not only the legal but moral, scientific and social dimensions.  It should set a minimum standard of bioethics with rigorous regulations, and mechanisms to govern the research and actual cloning of embryos as a whole.  SERGEI SHESTAKOV ( Russian Federation ) said he was concerned about the ongoing research focusing on reproductive human cloning.  The issue involved a number of legal, political, social and technological factors.  The correct approach required a strict scientific assessment of the genetic and social implications of the process, as well as the consideration of the views of philosophers, sociologists, clergy and others.  Any decision to ban human cloning should follow a painstaking and balanced analysis.  The Committee's work was timely.  He supported the work of a broad spectrum of authoritative international organizations in the field, and attached great significance to consolidating efforts in combating human reproductive cloning. He said his country was actively researching a legal framework for genetic engineering and biotechnology.  On 20 December 2001, the State Duma had adopted a first draft federal law on a temporary ban on human cloning. The draft legislation established a legal barrier to creating a human being through cloning, and sought to maintain the underpinning of Russian society, the family.  That ban did not extend to the use of cloning for stem-cell and other research, thereby making it possible to conduct future research in that field.  The draft called for a ban on the import and export of human cloned embryos, and was aimed at preserving Russia's national identity and "nipping in the bud" the commercialization and criminalization of human beings.  It would also make liable those who violated those norms.  A temporary five-year ban on human cloning would enable his country to make a balanced decision on the question, he went on.  That was enough time to acquire new knowledge and undertake a risk assessment of the genetic implications of cloning.  The main purpose of the bill was to eliminate work on uncontrolled human cloning, while not depriving scientists of developing new processes, essential for human and veterinary medicine.  He favoured a comprehensive approach to crafting the convention, taking into account new scientific data, technologies, and bioethical standards.  Any mandate for talks on a convention must provide for the consideration of all aspects of the problem.  The convention itself should contain elements enabling scientific research in the field of developing and regulating human cloning, as well as the prospects for stem-cell research.  TAL BECKER ( Israel ) said that his country was one of the first countries to adopt legislation imposing a general moratorium on genetic intervention for the purpose of human cloning, including the creation of a person by use of reproductive cells that had undergone germ-line gene therapy.  That moratorium was in force for an initial period of five years, during which the moral, legal, social and scientific aspects of the issue, and their implications for human dignity, were to be examined by an advisory committee. The cautious approach adopted in Israeli legislation reflected an understanding that the world was only at the beginning of examining the far-reaching implications of scientific developments in genetic engineering and related fields, he said.  To some extent, Israeli law on human cloning derived its inspiration from Jewish sources.  The imperative in Jewish tradition of healing and of saving human life suggested that scientific techniques which could cure serious diseases, ease suffering and improve the human condition should generally be embraced, though not without reservations.  The possible benefits to scientific and medical research must always be weighed against the likely detrimental effects of such techniques. The first step, he said, should be an honest and realistic assessment of the dangers, both scientific and ethical, and the possible benefits of scientific and medical research in the field of reproductive human cloning.  It was also necessary to consider the different ways in which cloning could be prohibited, monitored and adequately regulated through national and international regulation.  The Committee might wish to consider an international convention which imposed a moratorium on reproductive cloning, to be reviewed periodically and to be closely and carefully monitored, as opposed to one which imposed a sweeping and permanent ban. RENATO R. MARTINO, Observer for the Holy See, supported a global and comprehensive ban on human cloning, no matter what techniques were used and what aims were pursued.  His position was based on biological analysis of the cloning process, as well as anthropological, social, ethical and legal reflection on the negative implications that human cloning had on the life, dignity and rights of the human being.  Based on the biological and anthropological status of the human embryo and on the fundamental moral and civil rule against killing an innocent even to bring about a good for society, the Holy See regarded the conceptual distinction between reproductive and therapeutic (or experimental) human cloning as devoid of any ethical and legal ground. He said the proposed ban on cloning was not intended to prohibit the use of cloning techniques to:  obtain a number of biological entities (molecules, cells and tissues) other than human embryos; generate plants; and produce non-human embryos and non-chimaeric (human-animal) embryos.  Every process involving human cloning was in itself a reproductive process, in that it generated a human being at the very beginning of his or her development.  He supported research on stem cells of post-natal origin, since that approach was a sound, promising and ethical way to achieve tissue transplantation and cell therapy. JONATHAN HUSTON ( Liechtenstein ) said that a convention banning human cloning would give concrete expression to an international consensus.  The need to clearly communicate that consensus was great:  there was an increasing likelihood that attempts to clone human beings would be undertaken even in the present year, and only a very small number of States had thus far adopted legislation prohibiting it.  The elaboration of a convention would streamline and accelerate the process of prohibiting reproductive cloning on the national level and it would lend added moral weight to the process.  In Liechtenstein, for example, there was currently a legal vacuum in the area of cloning.  A global convention would greatly help to fill it. He said that, given the urgency of the Committee's task, it was vital the mandate for negotiating a convention remain focused.  It should be kept in mind, however, that the Committee could not legislate the moral status of human embryos, nor could it engage in a balancing test between the rights of parents, the rights of born and unborn children, and the interests of society.  There were intense policy and legal debates that were fought at the national level; very few States had reached consensus on those issues even within their own borders.  The international community could not hope to do so.  At the same time, however, failure at the international level would relegate the ban on human cloning to national governments, where the outcome would be uncertain, uncoordinated and too slow to counter the urgent threat. A convention focused solely on reproductive cloning could not permit cloning for other purposes, he continued.  There was no international convention against abortion, but that had not meant that abortion was permitted or authorized at the level of individual States.  Unlike in the case of human cloning, most States had legislation on abortion.  In Liechtenstein, abortion was criminalized in all but a narrow set of circumstances, thereby acknowledging the moral standing of embryos.  Its national debate on therapeutic cloning would likely also lead to a restrictive regime nationally.  Despite its national views on the subject, however, it would not force that perspective on other States, and it did not want to endanger the success of a future convention.  He would be open to the inclusion of a review process in the convention, allowing for a reconsideration of human cloning issues, after deeper medical understanding and more mature ethical debate. ANTONIO CAMPOS ( Spain ) said it was necessary to reach agreement on a universal prohibition on the reproductive cloning of human beings, to cover both reproductive and therapeutic purposes.  The reproductive cloning of human beings by nuclear transfer raised serious issues of both a technical and ethical nature.  Therapeutic cloning raised additional problems, including experiments that would end in the destruction of embryos.  It also created identical clones of sick human beings, which could then be transplanted.  That implied the creation of humans for reasons other than existence.  Cloning that used human embryos and by which embryos were destroyed was contrary to human dignity.  Embryos in all stages of development deserved a minimum of respect that ruled out their destruction for utilitarian purposes.  The use and destruction of embryos for research purposes meant the objectification of human embryos.  His Government considered all human cloning, including therapeutic, as contrary to human dignity, and had criminalized it as an offence in its criminal code.  Limiting a United Nations convention to reproductive cloning meant losing an historic opportunity.  The United Nations should not follow that approach.  While he supported the French/German proposal, a more complete and effective convention was needed.  If the scope was limited to reproductive cloning, it would mean that the United Nations condoned human cloning for other purposes. Mr. VILHENA DE CARVALHO ( Portugal ) said his country had undertaken an explicit international commitment against human cloning by its ratification of the Additional Protocol to the relevant Council of Europe Convention.  He also fully supported the French/German initiative, as well as the adoption of the General Assembly resolution on the subject last December.  The issue was an urgent one, requiring the consensus of the international community as a whole.  Everyone was aware of the social and scientific risks of the non-existence of a global stand on the issue.  There could be no delay in finding a result acceptable to all.  Clearly, there was not yet common ground with respect to a sufficiently stable scientific response.  So, the focus should be on the main goal of establishing a binding international instrument that would ban any attempt to clone human beings for reproductive purposes.  CARLOS FERNANDO DÍAZ PANIAGUA ( Costa Rica ) said his country supported a ban on human cloning insofar as it included all types of biotechnical research that violated human dignity.  The main question before the Committee had been well stated by one of the experts yesterday:  were human beings merely a group of cells or something more vulnerable?  Costa Rica's constitutional court felt that human life began at the moment of conception and, therefore, that every embryo should enjoy the full range of human rights instruments.  Last year, the court accepted technically assisted fertility treatments for infertile couples, with the proviso of satisfying the notion that such assistance was compatible with the protection of human life.  The ethnical criteria that inspired human rights treaties should prevail. ORIO IKEBE, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that nearly 10 years ago UNESCO had established a Bioethics Committee to examine the ethical and legal issues raised by the life sciences and to recommend appropriate action.  The General Conference of UNESCO had also established an Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee, which in 1995 and 1996 had examined issues related to human cloning.  Article 11 of the Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights stated that practices that were contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, were not permitted.  The Intergovernmental Committee, at its second session in May 2001, had reaffirmed that human reproductive cloning was contrary to human dignity and had encouraged Member States to take appropriate measures to prohibit human reproductive cloning. The question was also examined in a recent round table held in Paris in October 2001, with ministers of science from more than 100 delegations, she continued, whose Final Communiqué reaffirmed that human reproductive cloning was a practice contrary to human dignity.  She was pleased to see that the principle of Article 11 was now being discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee with a view to the elaboration of a possible convention against human reproductive cloning.  The UNESCO would be prepared to carry out scientific and technical studies in that regard to assist the Committee in its work. NICOLE BIROS, World Health Organization (WHO), said she supported the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and the eventual drafting of the convention. For 50 years, the WHO had set technical and ethical standards in virtually all areas of health.  Standard-setting had been one major way in which the WHO had acted as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.  By providing countries with such standards, it had supported their efforts to assess and apply health standards and technology.  The WHO also relied on the active participation of its six regional offices, through which diverse social, cultural and economic environments were reflected. She said that the WHO had addressed the issue of cloning in various forums, and it had adopted resolutions declaring that the use of cloning for reproductive purposes was ethically unacceptable and harmful to the dignity of the human being. At the same time, the WHO had endorsed the view that such a ban should not lead to an indiscriminate ban on all cloning procedures and research.  It had recognized the need to respect freedom of scientific advances and ensure access to their applications.  Her organization would continue to monitor the situation and, where appropriate, develop guidelines for human cloning for health and non-reproductive purposes.  For example, scientific research involving stem cells, including from embryonic tissue, could yield new treatments for disease.  A full and open debate was needed, leading to conclusions on the utility, safety and desirability of stem-cell research.  BARBARA RHODE, European Commission, drew attention to several documents before the Committee, including the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.  National regulations concerning ethical values varied within the European Union countries.  From the beginning, the Commission had welcomed the French/German initiative to elaborate a convention banning the reproductive cloning of human beings.  She hoped to add such a United Nations convention to the European Commission’s regulations soon.  The European Parliament had worked for a year on a report on human genetics.  However, the attempt failed since too many topics were covered at the same time.  A viable approach could only be to concentrate on basic shared principles.  The control of such regulations was also important. * *** *

Facebook Twitter Email Print LinkedIn

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Cloning — Discussion on Whether Human Cloning Should Be Legal

Discussion on Whether Human Cloning Should Be Legal

• Categories: Cloning

About this sample

Words: 2146 |

11 min read

Published: Oct 2, 2020

Words: 2146 | Pages: 5 | 11 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 759 words

1 pages / 1435 words

2 pages / 729 words

2 pages / 979 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Cloning

Animal cloning, a scientific technique that involves creating genetically identical copies of animals, has been a subject of fascination, debate, and innovation since its inception. This complex and ethically charged topic has [...]

Human cloning is one of the most revolutionary yet controversial topics in the world of genetic research. To clone, or create an organism with an exact genetic copy as that of an existing organism’s, not only provokes a plethora [...]

Cloning is the process of creating genetically identical individuals which include both natural (e.g. bacteria via asexual reproduction or identical twins) and artificial forms Great Britain is the only country that cloning [...]

The Human Genome Project was a sequence of research that was meant to identify the genetic makeup of humans that lasted from 1990-2003. This was organized by the US Department of Energy, and National Institute of Health but [...]

The medical field has been known for its importance in society and the stresses associated with it. The Doctor of Medicine program is a post-graduate course that consists of 3 years of classroom education and 1 year of clinical [...]

If the ability to cure a deadly and deliberating disease like diabetes is within a scientist’s grasps, should it be taken? What if this involves offering or copying genetic DNA to accomplish this task? Individuals within the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
• v.112(29); 2015 Jul 21

Cloning humans? Biological, ethical, and social considerations

Author contributions: F.J.A. wrote the paper.

There are, in mankind, two kinds of heredity: biological and cultural. Cultural inheritance makes possible for humans what no other organism can accomplish: the cumulative transmission of experience from generation to generation. In turn, cultural inheritance leads to cultural evolution, the prevailing mode of human adaptation. For the last few millennia, humans have been adapting the environments to their genes more often than their genes to the environments. Nevertheless, natural selection persists in modern humans, both as differential mortality and as differential fertility, although its intensity may decrease in the future. More than 2,000 human diseases and abnormalities have a genetic causation. Health care and the increasing feasibility of genetic therapy will, although slowly, augment the future incidence of hereditary ailments. Germ-line gene therapy could halt this increase, but at present, it is not technically feasible. The proposal to enhance the human genetic endowment by genetic cloning of eminent individuals is not warranted. Genomes can be cloned; individuals cannot. In the future, therapeutic cloning will bring enhanced possibilities for organ transplantation, nerve cells and tissue healing, and other health benefits.

Chimpanzees are the closest relatives of Homo sapiens , our species. There is a precise correspondence bone by bone between the skeletons of a chimpanzee and a human. Humans bear young like apes and other mammals. Humans have organs and limbs similar to birds, reptiles, and amphibians; these similarities reflect the common evolutionary origin of vertebrates. However, it does not take much reflection to notice the distinct uniqueness of our species. Conspicuous anatomical differences between humans and apes include bipedal gait and an enlarged brain. Much more conspicuous than the anatomical differences are the distinct behaviors and institutions. Humans have symbolic language, elaborate social and political institutions, codes of law, literature and art, ethics, and religion; humans build roads and cities, travel by motorcars, ships, and airplanes, and communicate by means of telephones, computers, and televisions.

Human Origins

The hominin lineage diverged from the chimpanzee lineage 6–7 Ma, and it evolved exclusively in the African continent until the emergence of Homo erectus , somewhat before 1.8 Ma. Shortly after its emergence in tropical or subtropical Africa, H. erectus spread to other continents. Fossil remains of H. erectus (sensu lato) are known from Africa, Indonesia (Java), China, the Middle East, and Europe. H. erectus fossils from Java have been dated at 1.81 ± 0.04 and 1.66 ± 0.04 Ma and from Georgia at 1.6–1.8 Ma ( 1 ). Anatomically distinctive H. erectus fossils have been found in Spain, deposited before 780,000 y ago, the oldest in southern Europe ( 2 ).

The transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens occurred around 400,000 y ago, although this date is not well determined owing to uncertainty as to whether some fossils are erectus or archaic forms of sapiens. H. erectus persisted for some time in Asia, until 250,000 y ago in China and perhaps until 100,000 ago in Java, and thus was contemporary with early members of its descendant species, H. sapiens. Fossil remains of Neandertal hominids ( Homo neanderthalensis ), with brains as large as those of H. sapiens , appeared in Europe earlier than 200,000 y ago and persisted until 30,000 or 40,000 y ago ( 3 , 4 ).

There is controversy about the origin of modern humans. Some anthropologists argue that the transition from H. erectus to archaic H. sapiens and later to anatomically modern humans occurred consonantly in various parts of the Old World. Proponents of this “multiregional model” emphasize fossil evidence showing regional continuity in the transition from H. erectus to archaic and then modern H. sapiens . Most anthropologists argue instead that modern humans first arose in Africa somewhat before 100,000 y ago and from there spread throughout the world, eventually replacing elsewhere the preexisting populations of H. erectus , H. neanderthalensis, and archaic H. sapiens . The African origin of modern humans is supported by a wealth of recent genetic evidence and is therefore favored by many evolutionists ( 2 , 4 ).

We know about these matters in three ways: by comparing living primates, including humans, with each other; by discovery and investigation of fossil remains of primates that lived in the past; and by comparing their DNA, proteins, and other molecules. DNA and proteins give us the best information about how closely related we are to each of the primates and those to each other. However, to know how the human lineage changed in anatomy and behavior over time as our ancestors became more and more human-like, we have to study fossils and the tools they used and made, as well as other remnants of their activities ( 2 , 5 ).

Humans live in groups that are socially organized and so do other primates. However, other primate societies do not approach the complexity of human social organization. A distinctive human social trait is culture, which may be understood as the set of nonstrictly biological human activities and creations. Culture includes social and political institutions, ways of doing things, religious and ethical traditions, language, common sense and scientific knowledge, art and literature, technology, and in general all of the creations of the human mind. The advent of culture has brought with it cultural evolution, a superorganic mode of evolution superimposed on the organic mode, that has become the dominant mode of human evolution. Cultural evolution has come about because of cultural inheritance, a distinctively human mode of achieving adaptation to the environment ( 2 , 6 , 7 ).

There are in mankind two kinds of heredity: the biological and the cultural. Biological inheritance in humans is very much like that in any other sexually reproducing organism; it is based on the transmission of genetic information encoded in DNA from one generation to the next by means of the sex cells. Cultural inheritance, on the other hand, is based on transmission of information by a teaching-learning process, which is in principle independent of biological parentage. Culture is transmitted by instruction and learning, by example and imitation, through books, newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures, through works of art, and through any other means of communication. Culture is acquired by every person from parents, relatives, and neighbors and from the whole human environment. Acquired cultural traits may be beneficial but also toxic; for example, racial prejudice or religious bigotry.

Biological heredity is Mendelian or vertical; it is transmitted from parents to their children, and only inherited traits can be transmitted to the progeny. (New mutations are insignificant in the present context.) Cultural heredity is Lamarckian: acquired characters can be transmitted to the progeny. However, cultural heredity goes beyond Lamarckian heredity, because it is horizontal and oblique and not only vertical. Traits can be acquired from and transmitted to other members of the same generation, whether or not they are relatives, and also from and to all other individuals with whom a person has contact, whether they are from the same or from any previous or ensuing generation.

Cultural inheritance makes possible for people what no other organism can accomplish—the cumulative transmission of experience from generation to generation. Animals can learn from experience, but they do not transmit their experiences or their discoveries (at least not to any large extent) to the following generations. Animals have individual memory, but they do not have a “social memory.” Humans, on the other hand, have developed a culture because they can transmit cumulatively their experiences from generation to generation.

Cultural inheritance makes possible cultural evolution, a new mode of adaptation to the environment that is not available to nonhuman organisms. Organisms in general adapt to the environment by means of natural selection, by changing over generations their genetic constitution to suit the demands of the environment. However, humans, and humans alone, can also adapt by changing the environment to suit the needs of their genes. (Animals build nests and modify their environment also in other ways, but the manipulation of the environment by any nonhuman species is trivial compared with mankind's manipulation.) For the last few millennia, humans have been adapting the environments to their genes more often than their genes to the environments.

To extend its geographical habitat, or to survive in a changing environment, a population of organisms must become adapted, through slow accumulation of genetic variants sorted out by natural selection, to the new climatic conditions, different sources of food, different competitors, and so on. The discovery of fire and the use of shelter and clothing allowed humans to spread from the warm tropical and subtropical regions of the Old World to the whole Earth, except for the frozen wastes of Antarctica, without the anatomical development of fur or hair. Humans did not wait for genetic mutants promoting wing development; they have conquered the air in a somewhat more efficient and versatile way by building flying machines. People travel the rivers and the seas without gills or fins. The exploration of outer space has started without waiting for mutations providing humans with the ability to breathe with low oxygen pressures or to function in the absence of gravity; astronauts carry their own oxygen and specially equipped pressure suits. From their obscure beginnings in Africa, humans have become the most widespread and abundant species of mammal on earth. It was the appearance of culture as a superorganic form of adaptation that made mankind the most successful animal species.

Cultural adaptation has prevailed in mankind over biological adaptation because it is a more effective mode of adaptation; it is more rapid and it can be directed. A favorable genetic mutation newly arisen in an individual can be transmitted to a sizeable part of the human species only through innumerable generations. However, a new scientific discovery or technical achievement can be transmitted to the whole of mankind, potentially at least, in less than one generation. Witness the rapid spread of personal computers, iPhones, and the Internet. Moreover, whenever a need arises, culture can directly pursue the appropriate changes to meet the challenge. On the contrary, biological adaptation depends on the accidental availability of a favorable mutation, or of a combination of several mutations, at the time and place where the need arises ( 2 , 6 , 7 ).

Biological Evolution in Modern Humans

There is no scientific basis to the claim sometimes made that the biological evolution of mankind has stopped, or nearly so, at least in technologically advanced countries. It is asserted that the progress of medicine, hygiene, and nutrition have largely eliminated death before middle age; that is, most people live beyond reproductive age, after which death is inconsequential for natural selection. That mankind continues to evolve biologically can be shown because the necessary and sufficient conditions for biological evolution persist. These conditions are genetic variability and differential reproduction. There is a wealth of genetic variation in mankind. With the trivial exception of identical twins, developed from a single fertilized egg, no two people who live now, lived in the past, or will live in the future, are likely to be genetically identical. Much of this variation is relevant to natural selection ( 5 , 8 , 9 ).

Natural selection is simply differential reproduction of alternative genetic variants. Natural selection will occur in mankind if the carriers of some genotypes are likely to leave more descendants than the carriers of other genotypes. Natural selection consists of two main components: differential mortality and differential fertility; both persist in modern mankind, although the intensity of selection due to postnatal mortality has been somewhat attenuated.

Death may occur between conception and birth (prenatal) or after birth (postnatal). The proportion of prenatal deaths is not well known. Death during the early weeks of embryonic development may go totally undetected. However, it is known that no less than 20% of all ascertained human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion during the first 2 mo of pregnancy. Such deaths are often due to deleterious genetic constitutions, and thus they have a selective effect in the population. The intensity of this form of selection has not changed substantially in modern mankind, although it has been slightly reduced with respect to a few genes such as those involved in Rh blood group incompatibility.

Postnatal mortality has been considerably reduced in recent times in technologically advanced countries. For example, in the United States, somewhat less than 50% of those born in 1840 survived to age 45, whereas the average life expectancy for people born in the United States in 1960 is 78 y ( Table 1 ) ( 8 , 10 ). In some regions of the world, postnatal mortality remains quite high, although there it has also generally decreased in recent decades. Mortality before the end of reproductive age, particularly where it has been considerably reduced, is largely associated with genetic defects, and thus it has a favorable selective effect in human populations. Several thousand genetic variants are known that cause diseases and malformations in humans; such variants are kept at low frequencies due to natural selection.

Percent of Americans born between 1840 and 1960 surviving to ages 15 and 45

Reprinted from ref. 8 .

It might seem at first that selection due to differential fertility has been considerably reduced in industrial countries as a consequence of the reduction in the average number of children per family that has taken place. However, this is not so. The intensity of fertility selection depends not on the mean number of children per family, but on the variance in the number of children per family. It is clear why this should be so. Assume that all people of reproductive age marry and that all have exactly the same number of children. In this case, there would not be fertility selection whether couples all had very few or all had very many children. Assume, on the other hand, that the mean number of children per family is low, but some families have no children at all or very few, whereas others have many. In this case, there would be considerable opportunity for selection—the genotypes of parents producing many children would increase in frequency at the expense of those having few or none. Studies of human populations have shown that the opportunity for natural selection often increases as the mean number of children decreases. An extensive study published years ago showed that the index of opportunity for selection due to fertility was four times larger among United States women born in the 20th century, with an average of less than three children per woman, than among women in the Gold Coast of Africa or in rural Quebec, who had three times or more children on average ( Table 2 ) ( 8 , 11 ). There is no evidence that natural selection due to fertility has decreased in modern human populations.

Mean number of children per family and index of opportunity for fertility selection I f , in various human populations

I f is calculated as the variance divided by the square of the mean number of children. The opportunity for selection usually increases as the mean number of children decreases. Reprinted from ref. 8 .

Natural selection may decrease in intensity in the future, but it will not disappear altogether. As long as there is genetic variation and the carriers of some genotypes are more likely to reproduce than others, natural selection will continue operating in human populations. Cultural changes, such as the development of agriculture, migration from the country to the cities, environmental pollution, and many others, create new selective pressures. The pressures of city life are partly responsible for the high incidence of mental disorders in certain human societies. The point to bear in mind is that human environments are changing faster than ever owing precisely to the accelerating rate of cultural change, and environmental changes create new selective pressures, thus fueling biological evolution.

Natural selection is the process of differential reproduction of alternative genetic variants. In terms of single genes, variation occurs when two or more alleles are present in the population at a given gene locus. How much genetic variation exists in the current human population? The answer is “quite a lot,” as will be presently shown, but natural selection will take place only if the alleles of a particular gene have different effects on fitness; that is, if alternative alleles differentially impact the probability of survival and reproduction.

The two genomes that we inherit from each parent are estimated to differ at about one or two nucleotides per thousand. The human genome consists of somewhat more than 3 billion nucleotides ( 12 ). Thus, about 3–6 million nucleotides are different between the two genomes of each human individual, which is a lot of genetic polymorphism. Moreover, the process of mutation introduces new variation in any population every generation. The rate of mutation in the human genome is estimated to be about 10 −8 , which is one nucleotide mutation for every hundred million nucleotides, or about 30 new mutations per genome per generation. Thus, every human has about 60 new mutations (30 in each genome) that were not present in the parents. If we consider the total human population, that is 60 mutations per person multiplied by 7 billion people, which is about 420 billion new mutations per generation that are added to the preexisting 3–6 million polymorphic nucleotides per individual.

That is a lot of mutations, even if many are redundant. Moreover, we must remember that the polymorphisms that count for natural selection are those that impact the probability of survival and reproduction of their carriers. Otherwise, the variant nucleotides may increase or decrease in frequency by chance, a process that evolutionists call “genetic drift,” but will not be impacted by natural selection ( 2 , 12 , 13 ).

Genetic Disorders

More than 2,000 human diseases and abnormalities that have a genetic causation have been identified in the human population. Genetic disorders may be dominant, recessive, multifactorial, or chromosomal. Dominant disorders are caused by the presence of a single copy of the defective allele, so that the disorder is expressed in heterozygous individuals: those having one normal and one defective allele. In recessive disorders, the defective allele must be present in both alleles, that is, it is inherited from each parent to be expressed. Multifactorial disorders are caused by interaction among several gene loci; chromosomal disorders are due to the presence or absence of a full chromosome or a fragment of a chromosome ( 14 , 15 ).

Examples of dominant disorders are some forms of retinoblastoma and other kinds of blindness, achondroplastic dwarfism, and Marfan syndrome (which is thought to have affected President Lincoln). Examples of recessive disorders are cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, and sickle cell anemia (caused by an allele that in heterozygous condition protects against malaria). Examples of multifactorial diseases are spina bifida and cleft palate. Among the most common chromosomal disorders are Down syndrome, caused by the presence of an extra chromosome 21, and various kinds due to the absence of one sex chromosome or the presence of an extra one, beyond the normal condition of XX for women and XY for men. Examples are Turner’s syndrome (XO) and Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY) ( 16 ).

The incidence of genetic disorders expressed in the living human population is estimated to be no less than 2.56%, impacting about 180 million people. Natural selection reduces the incidence of the genes causing disease, more effectively in the case of dominant disorders, where all carriers of the gene will express the disease, than for recessive disorders, which are expressed only in homozygous individuals. Consider, for example, phenylketonuria (PKU), a lethal disease if untreated, due to homozygosis for a recessive gene, which has an incidence of 1 in 10,000 newborns or 0.01%. PKU is due to an inability to metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine with devastating mental and physical effects. A very elaborate diet free of phenylalanine allows the patient to survive and reproduce if started early in life. The frequency of the PKU allele is about 1%, so that in heterozygous conditions it is present in more than 100 million people, but only the 0.01% of people who are homozygous express the disease and are subject to natural selection. The reduction of genetic disorders due to natural selection is balanced with their increase due to the incidence of new mutations.

Let’s consider another example. Hereditary retinoblastoma is a disease attributed to a dominant mutation of the gene coding for the retinoblastoma protein, RB1, but it is actually due to a deletion in chromosome 13. The unfortunate child with this condition develops a tumorous growth during infancy that, without treatment, starts in one eye and often extends to the other eye and then to the brain, causing death before puberty. Surgical treatment now makes it possible to save the life of the child if the condition is detected sufficiently early, although often one or both eyes may be lost. The treated person can live a more or less normal life, marry, and procreate. However, because the genetic determination is dominant (a gene deletion), one half of the progeny will, on the average, be born with the same genetic condition and will have to be treated. Before modern medicine, every mutation for retinoblastoma arising in the human population was eliminated from the population in the same generation owing to the death of its carrier. With surgical treatment, the mutant condition can be preserved, and new mutations arising each generation are added to those arisen in the past (refs. 17 and 18 ; www.abedia.com/wiley/index.html ).

The proportion of individuals affected by any one serious hereditary infirmity is relatively small, but there are more than 2,000 known serious physical infirmities determined by genes. When all these hereditary ailments are considered together, the proportion of persons born who will suffer from a serious handicap during their lifetimes owing to their heredity is more than 2% of the total population, as pointed out above (refs. 15 , 16 , and 19 ; www.abedia.com/wiley/index.html ).

The problem becomes more serious when mental defects are taken into consideration. More than 2% of the population is affected by schizophrenia or a related condition known as schizoid disease, ailments that may be in some cases determined by a single mutant gene. Another 3% or so of the population suffer from mild mental retardation (IQ less than 70). More than 100 million people in the world suffer from mental impairments due in good part to the genetic endowment they inherited from their parents.

Natural selection also acts on a multitude of genes that do not cause disease. Genes impact skin pigmentation, hair color and configuration, height, muscle strength and body shape, and many other anatomical polymorphisms that are apparent, as well as many that are not externally obvious, such as variations in the blood groups, in the immune system, and in the heart, liver, kidney, pancreas, and other organs. It is not always known how natural selection impacts these traits, but surely it does and does it differently in different parts of the world or at different times, as a consequence of the development of new vaccines, drugs, and medical treatments, and also as a consequence of changes in lifestyle, such as the reduction of the number of smokers or the increase in the rate of obesity in a particular country.

Genetic Therapy

Where is human evolution going? Biological evolution is directed by natural selection, which is not a benevolent force guiding evolution toward sure success. Natural selection brings about genetic changes that often appear purposeful because they are dictated by the requirements of the environment. The end result may, nevertheless, be extinction—more than 99.9% of all species that ever existed have become extinct. Natural selection has no purpose; humans alone have purposes and they alone may introduce them into their evolution. No species before mankind could select its evolutionary destiny; mankind possesses techniques to do so, and more powerful techniques for directed genetic change are becoming available. Because we are self-aware, we cannot refrain from asking what lies ahead, and because we are ethical beings, we must choose between alternative courses of action, some of which may appear as good and others as bad.

The argument has been advanced that the biological endowment of mankind is rapidly deteriorating owing precisely to the improving conditions of life and to the increasing power of modern medicine. The detailed arguments that support this contention involve some mathematical exercises, but their essence can be simply presented. Genetic changes (i.e., point or chromosome mutations) arise spontaneously in humans and in other living species. The great majority of newly arising mutations are either neutral or harmful to their carriers; only a very small fraction are likely to be beneficial. In a human population under the so-called “natural” conditions, that is, without the intervention of modern medicine and technology, the newly arising harmful mutations are eliminated from the population more or less rapidly depending on how harmful they are. The more harmful the effect of a mutation, the more rapidly it will be eliminated from the population by the process of natural selection. However, owing to medical intervention and, more recently, because of the possibility of genetic therapy, the elimination of some harmful mutations from the population is no longer taking place as rapidly and effectively as it did in the past.

Molecular biology has introduced in modern medicine a new way to cure diseases, namely genetic therapy, direct intervention in the genetic makeup of an individual. Gene therapy can be somatic or germ line. Germ-line genetic therapy would seek to correct a genetic defect, not only in the organs or tissues impacted, but also in the germ line, so that the person treated would not transmit the genetic impairment to the descendants. As of now, no interventions of germ-line therapy are seriously sought by scientists, physicians, or pharmaceutical companies.

The possibility of gene therapy was first anticipated in 1972 ( 20 ). The possible objectives are to correct the DNA of a defective gene or to insert a new gene that would allow the proper function of the gene or DNA to take place. In the case of a harmful gene, the objective would be to disrupt the gene that is not functioning properly.

The eminent biologist E. O. Wilson (2014) has stated, many would think somewhat hyperbolically, that the issue of how much to use genetic engineering to direct our own evolution, is “the greatest moral dilemma since God stayed the hand of Abraham” ( 21 ).

The first successful interventions of gene therapy concerned patients suffering from severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), first performed in a 4-y-old girl at the National Institutes of Health in 1990 ( 22 ), soon followed by successful trials in other countries ( 23 ). Treatments were halted temporarily from 2000 to 2002 in Paris, when 2 of about 12 treated children developed a leukemia-like condition, which was indeed attributed to the gene therapy treatment. Since 2004, successful clinical trials for SCID have been performed in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Germany ( 24 , 25 ).

Gene therapy treatments are still considered experimental. Successful clinical trials have been performed in patients suffering from adrenoleukodystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and hemophilia ( 26 , 27 ). Initially, the prevailing gene therapy methods involved recombinant viruses, but nonviral methods (transfection molecules) have become increasingly successful. Since 2013, US pharmaceutical companies have invested more than $600 million in gene therapy ( 28 ). However, in addition to the huge economic costs, technical hurdles remain. Frequent negative effects include immune response against an extraneous object introduced into human tissues, leukemia, tumors, and other disorders provoked by vector viruses. Moreover, the genetic therapy corrections are often short lived, which calls for multiple rounds of treatment, thereby increasing costs and other handicaps. In addition, many of the most common genetic disorders are multifactorial and are thus beyond current gene therapy treatment. Examples are diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, arthritis, and Alzheimer’s disease, which at the present state of knowledge and technology are not suitable for gene therapy.

If a genetic defect is corrected in the affected cells, tissues, or organs, but not in the germ line, the ova or sperm produced by the individual will transmit the defect to the progeny. A deleterious gene that might have been reduced in frequency or eliminated from the population, owing to the death or reduced fertility of the carrier, will now persist in the population and be added to its load of hereditary diseases. A consequence of genetic therapy is that the more hereditary diseases and defects are cured today, the more of them will be there to be cured in the succeeding generations. This consequence follows not only from gene therapy but also from typical medical treatments.

The Nobel laureate geneticist H. J. Muller eloquently voiced this concern about the cure, whether through genetic therapy or traditional medical treatment, of genetic ailments. “The more sick people we now cure and allow them to reproduce, the more there will be to cure in the future.” The fate toward which mankind is drifting is painted by Muller in somber colors. “The amount of genetically caused impairment suffered by the average individual…must by that time have grown….[P]eople’s time and energy…would be devoted chiefly to the effort to live carefully, to spare and to prop up their own feebleness, to soothe their inner disharmonies and, in general, to doctor themselves as effectively as possible. For everyone would be an invalid, with his own special familial twists….” (ref. 29 ; Fig. 1 ).

The bionic human, on the cover of Science : an image that could represent how H. J. Muller anticipates the human condition, a few centuries hence, showing the accumulation of physical handicaps as a consequence of the medical cure of hereditary diseases. Image by Cameron Slayden and Nathalie Cary; reprinted with permission from AAAS.

It must be pointed out that the population genetic consequences of curing hereditary diseases are not as immediate (“a few centuries hence”) as Muller anticipates. Consider, as a first example, we look at the recessive hereditary condition of PKU. The estimated frequency of the gene is q = 0.01; the expected number of humans born with PKU is q 2 = 0.0001, 1 for every 10,000 births. If all PKU individuals are cured all over the world and all of them leave as many descendants, on the average, as other humans, the frequency of the PKU allele will double after 1/q = 1/0.01 = 100 generations. If we assume 25 y per generation, we conclude that after 2,500 y, the frequency of the PKU allele will be q = 0.02, and q 2 = 0.0004, so that 4 of every 10,000 persons, rather than only 1, will be born with PKU.

In the case of dominant lethal diseases, the incidence is determined by the mutation frequency of the normal to the disease allele, which is typically of the order of m = 10 −6 –10 −8 , or between one in a million and one in one hundred million. Assuming the highest rate of m = 10 −6 , the incidence of the disease after 100 generations will become 1 for every 10,000 births. It would therefore seem likely that much earlier than 2,500 y, humans are likely to find ways of correcting hereditary ailments in the germ line, thereby stopping their transmission.

It must be pointed out that, although the proportion of individuals affected by any one serious hereditary infirmity is relatively small, there are many such hereditary ailments, which on the aggregate make the problem very serious. The problem becomes more serious when mental defects are taken into consideration. As pointed out above, more than 100 million people in the world suffer from mental impairments due in good part to the genetic endowment they inherited from their parents.

Human cloning may refer to “therapeutic cloning,” particularly the cloning of embryonic cells to obtain organs for transplantation or for treating injured nerve cells and other health purposes. Human cloning more typically refers to “reproductive cloning,” the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to obtain eggs that could develop into adult individuals.

Human cloning has occasionally been suggested as a way to improve the genetic endowment of mankind, by cloning individuals of great achievement, for example, in sports, music, the arts, science, literature, politics, and the like, or of acknowledged virtue. These suggestions seemingly have never been taken seriously. However, some individuals have expressed a wish, however unrealistic, to be cloned, and some physicians have on occasion advertised that they were ready to carry out the cloning ( 30 ). The obstacles and drawbacks are many and insuperable, at least at the present state of knowledge.

Biologists use the term cloning with variable meanings, although all uses imply obtaining copies more or less precise of a biological entity. Three common uses refer to cloning genes, cloning cells, and cloning individuals. Cloning an individual, particularly in the case of a multicellular organism, such as a plant or an animal, is not strictly possible. The genes of an individual, the genome, can be cloned, but the individual itself cannot be cloned, as it will be made clear below.

Cloning genes or, more generally, cloning DNA segments is routinely done in many genetics and pharmaceutical laboratories throughout the world ( 12 , 31 ). Technologies for cloning cells in the laboratory are seven decades old and are used for reproducing a particular type of cell, for example a skin or a liver cell, in order to investigate its characteristics.

Individual human cloning occurs naturally in the case of identical twins, when two individuals develop from a single fertilized egg. These twins are called identical, precisely because they are genetically identical to each other.

The sheep Dolly, cloned in July 1996, was the first mammal artificially cloned using an adult cell as the source of the genotype. Frogs and other amphibians were obtained by artificial cloning as early as 50 y earlier ( 32 ).

Cloning an animal by SCNT proceeds as follows. First, the genetic information in the egg of a female is removed or neutralized. Somatic (i.e., body) cells are taken from the individual selected to be cloned, and the cell nucleus (where the genetic information is stored) of one cell is transferred with a micropipette into the host oocyte. The egg, so “fertilized,” is stimulated to start embryonic development ( 33 ).

Can a human individual be cloned? The correct answer is, strictly speaking, no. What is cloned are the genes, not the individual; the genotype, not the phenotype. The technical obstacles are immense even for cloning a human’s genotype.

Ian Wilmut, the British scientist who directed the cloning project, succeeded with Dolly only after 270 trials. The rate of success for cloning mammals has notably increased over the years without ever reaching 100%. The animals presently cloned include mice, rats, goats, sheep, cows, pigs, horses, and other mammals. The great majority of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion ( 34 ). Moreover, as Wilmut noted, in many cases, the death of the fetus occurs close to term, with devastating economic, health, and emotional consequences in the case of humans ( 35 ).

In mammals, in general, the animals produced by cloning suffer from serious health handicaps, among others, gross obesity, early death, distorted limbs, and dysfunctional immune systems and organs, including liver and kidneys, and other mishaps. Even Dolly had to be euthanized early in 2003, after only 6 y of life, because her health was rapidly decaying, including progressive lung disease and arthritis ( 35 , 36 ).

The low rate of cloning success may improve in the future. It may be that the organ and other failures of those that reach birth will be corrected by technical advances. Human cloning would still face ethical objections from a majority of concerned people, as well as opposition from diverse religions. Moreover, there remains the limiting consideration asserted earlier: it might be possible to clone a person’s genes, but the individual cannot be cloned. The character, personality, and the features other than anatomical and physiological that make up the individual are not precisely determined by the genotype.

The Genotype and the Individual

The genetic makeup of an individual is its genotype. The phenotype refers to what the individual is, which includes not only the individual’s external appearance or anatomy, but also its physiology, as well as behavioral predispositions and attributes, encompassing intellectual abilities, moral values, aesthetic preferences, religious values, and, in general, all other behavioral characteristics or features, acquired by experience, imitation, learning, or in any other way throughout the individual’s life, from conception to death. The phenotype results from complex networks of interactions between the genes and the environment.

A person’s environmental influences begin, importantly, in the mother’s womb and continue after birth, through childhood, adolescence, and the whole life. Impacting behavioral experiences are associated with family, friends, schooling, social and political life, readings, aesthetic and religious experiences, and every event in the person’s life, whether conscious or not. The genotype of a person has an unlimited number, virtually infinite, of possibilities to be realized, which has been called the genotype’s “norm of reaction,” only one of which will be the case in a particular individual ( 37 ). If an adult person is cloned, the disparate life circumstances experienced many years later would surely result in a very different individual, even if anatomically the individual would resemble the genome’s donor at a similar age.

An illustration of environmental effects on the phenotype, and of interactions between the genotype and the environment, is shown in Fig. 2 ( 38 ). Three plants of the cinquefoil, Potentilla glandulosa , were collected in California—one on the coast at about 100 ft above sea level (Stanford), the second at about 4,600 ft (Mather), and the third in the Alpine zone of the Sierra Nevada at about 10,000 ft above sea level (Timberline). From each plant, three cuttings were obtained in each of several replicated experiments, which were planted in three experimental gardens at different altitudes, the same gardens from which the plants were collected. The division of one plant ensured that all three cuttings planted at different altitudes had the same genotype; that is, they were genetic clones from one another. ( P. glandulosa , like many other plants, can be reproduced by cuttings, which are genetically identical.)

Interacting effects of the genotype and the environment on the phenotype of the cinquefoil Pontentilla glandulosa . Cuttings of plants collected at different altitudes were planted in three different experimental gardens. Plants in the same row are genetically identical because they have been grown from cuttings of a single plant; plants in the same column are genetically different but have been grown in the same experimental garden. Reprinted with permission from ref. 13 .

Comparison of the plants in any row shows how a given genotype gives rise to different phenotypes in different environments. Genetically identical plants (for example, those in the bottom row) may prosper or not, even die, depending on the environmental conditions. Plants from different altitudes are known to be genetically different. Hence, comparison of the plants in any column shows that in a given environment, different genotypes result in different phenotypes. An important inference derived from this experiment is that there is no single genotype that is best in all environments.

The interaction between the genotype and the environment is similarly significant, or even more so, in the case of animals. In one experiment, two strains of rats were selected over many generations; one strain for brightness at finding their way through a maze and the other for dullness ( Fig. 3 ; ref. 39 ). Selection was done in the bright strain by using the brightest rats of each generation to breed the following generation, and in the dull strain by breeding the dullest rats of every generation. After many generations of selection, the descendant bright rats made only about 120 errors running through the maze, whereas dull rats averaged 165 errors. That is a 40% difference. However, the differences between the strains disappeared when rats of both strains were raised in an unfavorable environment of severe deprivation, where both strains averaged 170 errors. The differences also nearly disappeared when the rats were raised with abundant food and other favorable conditions. In this optimal environment, the dull rats reduced their average number of errors from 165 to 120. As with the cinquefoil plants, we see ( i ) that a given genotype gives rise to different phenotypes in different environments and ( ii ) that the differences in phenotype between two genotypes change from one environment to another—the genotype that is best in one environment may not be best in another.

Results of an experiment with two strains of rats: one selected for brightness and the other for dullness. After many generations of selection, when raised in the same environment in which the selection was practiced (normal), bright rats made about 45 fewer errors than dull rats in the maze used for the tests. However, when the rats were raised in an impoverished (restricted) environment, bright and dull rats made the same number of errors. When raised in an abundant (stimulating) environment, the two strains performed nearly equally well. Reprinted with permission from ref. 13 .

Cloning Humans?

In the second half of the 20th century, as dramatic advances were taking place in genetic knowledge, as well as in the genetic technology often referred to as “genetic engineering,” some utopian proposals were advanced, at least as suggestions that should be explored and considered as possibilities, once the technologies had sufficiently progressed. Some proposals suggested that persons of great intellectual or artistic achievement or of great virtue be cloned. If this was accomplished in large numbers, the genetic constitution of mankind would, it was argued, considerably improve.

Such utopian proposals are grossly misguided. It should be apparent that, as stated above, it is not possible to clone a human individual. Seeking to multiply great benefactors of humankind, such as persons of great intelligence or character, we might obtain the likes of Stalin, Hitler, or Bin Laden. As the Nobel Laureate geneticist George W. Beadle asserted many years ago: “Few of us would have advocated preferential multiplication of Hitler’s genes. Yet who can say that in a different cultural context Hitler might not have been one of the truly great leaders of men, or that Einstein might not have been a political villain” ( 8 ). There is no reason whatsoever to expect that the genomes of individuals with excellent attributes would, when cloned, produce individuals similarly endowed with virtue or intelligence. Identical genomes yield, in different environments, individuals who may be quite different. Environments cannot be reproduced, particularly several decades apart, which would be the case when the genotype of the persons selected because of their eminent achievement might be cloned.

Are there circumstances that would justify cloning a person, because he or she wants it? One might think of a couple unable to have children, or a man or woman who does not want to marry, or of two lesbian lovers who want to have a child with the genotype of one in an ovum of the other, or of other special cases that might come to mind ( 40 ). It must be, first, pointed out that the cloning technology has not yet been developed to an extent that would make possible to produce a healthy human individual by cloning. Second, and most important, the individual produced by cloning would be a very different person from the one whose genotype is cloned, as belabored above.

Ethical, social, and religious values will come into play when seeking to decide whether a person might be allowed to be cloned. Most people are likely to disapprove. Indeed, many countries have prohibited human cloning. In 2004, the issue of cloning was raised in several countries where legislatures were also considering whether research on embryonic stem cells should be supported or allowed. The Canadian Parliament on March 12, 2004 passed legislation permitting research with stem cells from embryos under specific conditions, but human cloning was banned, and the sale of sperm and payments to egg donors and surrogate mothers were prohibited. The French Parliament on July 9, 2004 adopted a new bioethics law that allows embryonic stem cell research but considers human cloning a “crime against the human species.” Reproductive cloning experiments would be punishable by up to 20 y in prison. Japan’s Cabinet Council for Science and Technology Policy voted on July 23, 2004 to adopt policy recommendations that would permit the limited cloning of human embryos for scientific research but not the cloning of individuals. On January 14, 2001, the British government amended the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990 by allowing embryo research on stem cells and allowing therapeutic cloning. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 2008 explicitly prohibited reproductive cloning but allowed experimental stem cell research for treating diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease ( 41 , 42 ). On February 3, 2014, the House of Commons voted to legalize a gene therapy technique known as mitochondrial replacement, or three-person in vitro fertilization, in which mitochondria from a donor’s egg cell contribute to a couple’s embryo ( 43 ). In the United States, there are currently no federal laws that ban cloning completely ( 42 ). Thirteen states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Virginia) ban reproductive cloning, and three states (Arizona, Maryland, and Missouri) prohibit use of public funds for research on reproductive cloning ( 44 ).

Therapeutic Cloning

Cloning of embryonic cells (stem cells) could have important health applications in organ transplantation, treating injured nerve cells, and otherwise. In addition to SCNT, the method discussed above for cloning individuals, another technique is available, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), although SCNT has proven to be much more effective and less costly. The objective is to obtain pluripotent stem cells that have the potential to differentiate in any of the three germ layers characteristic of humans and other animals: endoderm (lungs and interior lining of stomach and gastrointestinal tract), ectoderm (nervous systems and epidermal tissues), and mesoderm (muscle, blood, bone, and urogenital tissues). Stem cells, with more limited possibilities than pluripotent cells, can also be used for specific therapeutic purposes ( 45 ).

Stem cell therapy consists of cloning embryonic cells to obtain pluripotent or other stem cells that can be used in regenerative medicine, to treat or prevent all sorts of diseases, and for the transplantation of organs. At present, bone marrow transplantation is a widely used form of stem cell therapy; stem blood cells are used in the treatment of sickle cell anemia, a lethal disease when untreated, which is very common in places where malaria is rife because heterozygous individuals are protected against infection by Plasmodium falciparum , the agent of malignant malaria. One of the most promising applications of therapeutic cloning is the growth of organs for transplantation, using stem cells that have the genome of the organ recipient. Two major hurdles would be overcome. One is the possibility of immune rejection; the other is the availability of organs from suitable donors. Another regenerative medical application that might be anticipated is the therapeutic growth of nerve cells. There are hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout the world paralyzed from the neck down and confined for life to a wheelchair as a consequence of damage to the spinal cord below the neck, often as a consequence of a car accident or a fall, that interrupts the transmission of nerve activity from the brain to the rest of the body and vice versa. A small growth of nerve cells sufficient to heal the wound in the spinal cord would have enormous health consequences for the wounded persons and for society.

At present, the one gene therapy modification of the embryo that can be practiced is mitochondrial replacement (MR), legalized in the United Kingdom by the House of Commons on February 3, 2014 ( 43 ), as mentioned earlier. Mutations in the mitochondrial DNA of about 1 in 6,500 individuals account for a variety of severe and often fatal conditions, including blindness, muscular weakness, and heart failure ( 46 ). With MR, the embryo possesses nuclear DNA from the mother and father, as well as mtDNA from a donor female who has healthy mtDNA. However, MR remains technically challenging, with a low rate of success. One complicating issue is that mtDNA replacement is not 100% successful; disease-causing mutant mtDNA persists in the developing embryo and may account for eventual diseases due to heteroplasmy, at least in some tissues. A second issue of concern is that mtDNA disorders often appear late in life. It remains unknown whether the benefits of MR as currently practiced may persist in advanced age.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

This paper results from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of Sciences, “In the Light of Evolution IX: Clonal Reproduction: Alternatives to Sex,” held January 9–10, 2015, at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering in Irvine, CA. The complete program and video recordings of most presentations are available on the NAS website at www.nasonline.org/ILE_IX_Clonal_Reproduction .

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Life

Argumentative Essay On Should Human Cloning Be Legal

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Life , Pregnancy , Health , Family , Childhood , Abortion , Children , Medicine

Words: 2750

Published: 11/11/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

Human cloning is the creation of identical human being in the laboratory. It is an artificial process and is conducted with stem cell research and biotechnology. Reproductive cloning would give rise to human clones. Animal cloning is practiced from past few years and with the birth of Dolly, the sheep cloning has become the prime research area of many scientists. The reproductive cloning is dealing with many controversial issues and is banned in several countries including United States. The discussion on should human cloning be legalized or banned is a discussion issue among the bio-research communities and there are many views in favor and in against of it. Every coin has two sides, similarly human cloning has some potential benefits and disadvantages for entire human race. The decision of legalizing the human cloning is a crucial one and the critical evaluation of the disadvantages would demonstrate the shortcomings of human cloning.

I: Human Cloning should not be legalized

Human cloning should not be legalized and the same can be supported through psychological reasons, physiological reasons, ethical reasons, environmental reasons, social reasons, physical reasons and legal issues which shall be faced by the entire human race if the cloning is legalized. As evident, few scientists are eager to initiate experiment of human cloning and once legalized, human cloning would go full fledged into testing leading to killing of dozens of embryo daily.

If human cloning is legalized and practiced regularly, soon the hospitals will be full of babies with genetic birth defects. The babies will be dependent on respirators as their lungs and heart will be deformed or malfunctioning. Brain damage would be a common occurrence in babies and the ability to suckle will not be present in babies and they would require to be fed with feeding tubes. If not these, then infants will have severe physical deformity. The infants who will have normal physical appearance may suffer from autism, epilepsy or other genetic abnormality. As per Gerald Schatten, vice chairman of gynecology, obstetrics and reproductive sciences at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine “All of the data on animal cloning demonstrates exceptionally high rates of fetal loss, abortion (and) neonatal deaths, and many cloned animals have devastating birth defects," when scientists work with animals for cloning and as a result of experiment, if the animal infant is abnormal scientists euthanize the infant, however the supporters of human cloning has to explain their willingness to follow the same method for human infants born as a resultant of cloning experiment.

Moreover, the scientists who are favoring human cloning, their readiness for the same is questionable. The strong argument against the human cloning is that the reprogramming which is required for successful creation of embryo is still under research. For animal cloning, scientists insert the adult cell DNA into dozens of eggs and give electricity shocks to initiate the cell division mandatory for embryo creation. Out of all the eggs made to go through this process, at the most only 2 per cent gives rise to an embryo and out of them only 10 to 15 per cent are normal. Hence, as evident, the ratio of successful and healthy live infant is minuscule. Moreover, cloning can make the human gene pool defective and produce irreversible negative effects on the genetic make-up of cells.

The environmentalists are also opposing human cloning as the genetic engineering has already demonstrated some major side-effects on the evolution and sustenance of some animal species like the impact of genetic modification of BT corn on monarch butterfly. Similarly the side effects of human cloning on human race should also be simulated in detail, not only for short term but also for the hundreds of years to come.

It is obvious that the human cloning will definitely have an impact on human race and it could be negative as well. It can also be foreseen that once scientists acquire the skill to clone successfully, the value of life and ecosystem would deteriorate quickly and the need to preserve the animal species and humans would be eliminated. This would disturb the ecosystem and cloning, by no means provides the assurance of sustenance of ecosystem and survival of diverse species.

Ethically, the clones who will be produced would be an individual with independent thinking and feelings; however, it contrasts with the purpose of producing the clones. The clones would be bought into existence so that they can donate their organs or replace a lost person, hence merely to serve a need. This process would not respect the emotions of clone and the concerned parents or relatives will not regard the clone as a living individual. There would be utter confusion and on moral grounds, the clones would only be created to fulfill the need which would be contrary to be created for love.

Human cloning would also enable the humans to predetermine the traits they prefer in the offspring and this would lead to degeneration of family life and individuality of offspring. The traits which shall not be selected for long will become extinct and prevalent in today’s world; the offspring would also be accorded qualities as per the theme of day. This may sound to be an exaggerated version of the social issues raised by cloning, however this could prove to be true as well. Children from cloning would evolve and acquire traits as per parents preference and would become what their parents envisage them to be, in a way becoming the robots with no individual desire and goals of life. This would lead to a chain of desires which shall be forced on succeeding generation by the preceding generation.

The ban on human cloning also has a religious perspective. It is being believed by many that human life is a divine creation and all the humans are to be born in natural way and not created through some scientific process. Once the life is started to be generated in laboratories, the value which is being attached to life by humans and law and order would diminish. Taking one’s life would no longer considered be a crime and the criminal might escape the law by merely paying for the clone creation.

Part II: Human Cloning should be legalized

Human cloning is a phenomenon which has the power to change the destiny of every single human being living. The feeling of comfort spreads all over when there is possibility of several organ donors and no human shall die again from kidney failure. Cancer, the most dreaded disease which is still considered as untreatable becomes curable because there are many people around on whom the experiments can be conducted to search for the cure of cancer. These people who become the object of experiments are the clones of humans who are created to serve the requirement of being a donor or a test object. Human cloning would give scientists the full realm to free entire human race of all diseases and weaknesses, to unravel the mystery of DNA and other cellular mechanisms due to availability of ample objects for experimentation. This procedure would enhance the quality of life of humans. Human cloning is expected to pave way for many major medical breakthroughs. The embryos which will be used as testing object will be a living specimen and would have been created for testing and experimentation purpose only. It is not unethical to use live embryos for testing purpose as it would not involve the degeneration of human life. The value of human life remains same always and in order to enhance the quality of life and to cure people from deadly crippling diseases, these embryos would be used. The emotional attachment to these lives and the ban on human cloning on the ground of unethical killing of human lives is unjustified and just a hurdle in the development for the betterment of human life [ CITATION Far10 \l 1033 ]. Also, the people who consider human cloning unethical and wrong on moral grounds should also express same views on abortions and termination of pregnancy. Human cloning is an extension of stem cell research and is totally committed to be carried on under the realms of ethics.

Human cloning would also assist people who are victim of medical tragedies like an individual requiring a kidney to survive, physical abnormality which requires a breakthrough treatment and many more[ CITATION Amy99 \l 1033 ]. All these health condition can be treated through the advancement by human cloning. It would serve to make life better of humans. The valuable information which would be obtained from the cell pool of such specimens would provide immense benefits to humans to fight against the deadly diseases. Also, when human cloning is an answer to the incurable diseases, why should the governments ban it on the pretext of it being unsafe and unethical. Infertility issues can also be treated with human cloning and human cloning would emerge as blessing for childless parents as they can have children from cloning[ CITATION Dan \l 1033 ]. In vitro fertilization is not always successful and human cloning has brighter chances of creating children. In vitro fertilization is also a way of creating child in laboratory and still, not many people are objecting to it. The embryo created by human cloning would be with the consent of parents and would be done only when the technology is so advanced that the infant produced is free of abnormalities. Also, with the help of technology, the abnormality in developing embryo can be detected and the development of those embryos can be hindered, this would ensure that babies are not born with abnormalities and only the perfect babies are born.

With the development of human cloning, the side effects of human cloning on environment would also disappear as the human clones cannot be assumed to have any side effect on the ecosystem. On the contrary, the advancement in cloning technology would enable humans to revive the species on the verge of extinction and would re-establish the balance of ecosystem. The value of human life can never diminish as even the clone of the person would not be identical to the person in thought process and application of mind. Due to this, the clone can’t serve as a replacement and has to be regarded as a separate individual.

Also, our developed society is prepared to address the issues raised by the clones and to protect their rights. Though clones are to be created on the need purpose, it would entirely be the decision of clone to serve that purpose or not. The clones would also have the life and liberty equal to humans and they would not be servile to humans. Every life is divine and even the cloned human would also be god’s creation as it would be a resultant of reproduction only. In spite of option of cloning available, it is believed that the natural process of reproduction and birth of children would prevail and cloning would be considered as an option in required critical cases only. Hence, it is no way a threat to human existence and we ought to take it as a scientific process committed to improve the quality of human life.

The strongest argument given in favor of human cloning is that the infertile couple can have the child through human cloning. This does not justifies the human cloning as there are already several ways through which an infertile couple can have child. The existing methods have proven to be a success and also, this statement is not a grave situation for which human cloning can be justified to be legalized. Cloning of a lost child of parents would only prove to be an emotional trauma for parents as the child, though being identical physically to their child, would be a different individual altogether. The parents would have to adjust to the new requirements of their cloned child and this could lead to an emotional mess.

There are diseases which are far more severe that being infertile like cancer and Down’s syndrome and though stated that human cloning would be able to give breakthrough solutions to cure these diseases, the same has not been proven yet by any research. Presently, the cures of these diseases are also being investigated and human cloning may not be an immediate success [ CITATION GJA98 \l 1033 ]. The embryos which are targeted to be used as object of test are also living and possess the capability to develop in a perfect baby, given an opportunity. This would be similar to using a human baby for test purpose. When the killing of human baby for test purpose is considered unethical, the killing of human clone baby would also be unethical. The reason of the cloned baby and embryo being in abundance does not make the testing on embryos ethical [ CITATION LAn98 \l 1033 ].

The babies developed through cloning technique when identified with fatal abnormalities would be discarded or euthanized like animal babies and the parents would not have any objection to this and also, the law would permit for this does not seems to be a feasible and agreeable statement. The babies with fatal abnormalities when born would be with their parents and would cause much more emotional pain than of being childless and infertile.

The environmentalists are correct in their opinion that human cloning would disturb the ecosystem as the population would increase comprising of clones also which would be produced for every possible reason and either government has to intervene to regulate the process of creation of human cloning or else it would be exploited so much that every single individual would have one clone. For example, human clone is created for kidney and kidneys from human clone would be easily available. Keeping aside the natural reasons of kidney failure, kidney failure due to liquor consumption is almost 40 per cent. Consider the human nature, once a person is aware that the kidney is easily replaceable, the value attached to kidney deteriorates and the liquor consumption would increase. Hence, easy availability of organs and easy replacement of person would diminish the value attached to human life.

The rights of the human clones created are also a concern as they would be created on a need basis and their fate post realization of need from them is not clear. Either once created, they would be treated as donor of every singly organ which can be utilized by humans or they will be forced to live without that organ throughout their life or they will be euthanized once they serve the need. All the three options stated above are completely unethical and dreadful. It would be hard for governments to establish a balance between rights of clone and their purpose of creation. Saving them from donating the organs or acting as replacement or being a object for experiments would defeat the purpose of human cloning and letting them be used as only the experimentation object would be inhuman and unethical [ CITATION PAB99 \l 1033 ]

Human cloning though is a gateway to immense opportunities for betterment of humans; it also poses some challenges for human race. The solution of these challenges is required to be addressed before human cloning can be legalized. It would be really difficult to form a consensus on the future of human consensus. The objections to human cloning are not related to religious beliefs but are of ethical issues and the risks which it poses. Human cloning should not be legalized till the solution for such risks are finalized to an extent and the society is able to adapt to such changes.

Andrews, L. (1998). Is There aRight to Clone? Constitutional Challenges to Bans on Human Cloning. Harv JL Tech . Annas, G. (1998). Why We Should Ban Human Cloning. Medical Journal , 5-122. Baird, P. (1999). Cloning of Animals and Humans: What Should the Policy Response Be? Perspect Biological Medical Journal , 94-174. Brock, D. W. Cloning Human Begins. Brown University. Farah. (2010, October 25). Cloning - A Step Towards Immortality. Medical Journal . Logston, A. (1999). The Ethics of Human Cloning.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2602

This paper is created by writer with

ID 276909138

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Justifying essays, audi essays, exhibiting essays, belkin essays, wedel essays, national institute of diabetes essays, ukrainian people essays, suitors of penelope essays, nightly news essays, service module essays, new king james version essays, methylmercury essays, american nightmare essays, pharmacy education essays, midaq alley essays, proper manners essays, x games essays, customer essays, art games and technology research course work sample, what type of record is better essay sample, missouri model of juvenile justice case study, good example of research paper on how early childhood education affects school learning and performance, essay on the future of the music industry and my contribution on it, free research paper on combating compassion fatigue, customer delight course work samples, crime essays examples, free essay on organized crime and white collar crime, good essay about jeremy bentham and john stuart mills theory of utilitarian moral values, family and consumer science statements critical thinkings example, girl with a pearl earring feature article argumentative essay samples, example of my relationship with my cell phone essay, example of thought paper 4 essay, modern mobile technology essay, good essay about financial analysis on google, example of disney brave story essay, good argumentative essay about what you eat is your business, placenta article reviews, motivator article reviews, proxy article reviews, emergency room article reviews, patriarchy article reviews, balanced diet article reviews, juror article reviews.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Health Cloning

Pros and Cons of Human Cloning, Why it Should Never Be Legalized

Bibliography.

• Bonsor, K., & Conger, C. (2001, April 2). How Human Cloning Will Work. Retrieved from https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/human-cloning1.htm
• Normile, Dennis (24 January 2018). 'These monkey twins are the first primate clones made by the method that developed Dolly'. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aa1066. Retrieved 24 January 2018.
• Whigham, N. (2018). NewsComAu. Retrieved 17 January, 2019, from https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/chinese-scientists-behind-cloned-monkey-breakthrough-are-just-getting-started/news-story/0df66adf44ceb6c6a6bf38d046bc7a03
• Davis, N. (2018). The Guardian. Retrieved 17 January, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/24/zhong-zhong-and-hua-hua-first-primates-born-using-dolly-the-sheep-cloning-method
• Animalresearchinfo. (2019). Ariinfo. Retrieved 17 January, 2019, from http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/timeline/cloning-dolly-the-sheep/
• Lombardo, C. (2019). Greengarageblogorg. Retrieved 17 January, 2019, from https://greengarageblog.org/16-important-pros-and-cons-of-cloning-humans
• Watson, James. 'Moving Toward a Clonal Man: Is This What We Want?' The Atlantic Monthly (1971).

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Digestive System
• Down Syndrome
• Teen Suicide

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.