Cloning
- Mar 13, 2006 -
History
In 1902, German embryologist, Hans Spemann, successfully split a two-celled salamander embryo. Each cell grew to be an adult salamander. From this experiment, Spemann concluded that early embryo cells contained all of the necessary genetic information to create new organisms1. Then in 1928, Spemann transferred the nucleus of a salamander embryo cell into an egg from which the nucleus had been removed. He then slipped a noose made of hair around the fertilized egg and tightened it until the entire nucleus was on one side and all of the cytoplasm was on the other. Once the nucleus side had divided to form a sixteen-cell embryo, he loosened the noose to allow the nucleus from one of the embryo cells to pass into the cytoplasm. Once this occurred, he tightened the noose completely and forced the new ball of cytoplasm and its new nucleus to break off from the sixteen-cell embryo. This new single cell grew into a normal salamander embryo. Spemann had created one of the first clones2. In 1938, he published a book entitled Embryonic Development and Induction in which he called for the “fantastical experiment” of cloning. He proposed the idea of cloning organisms by removing the nucleus of a differentiated cell and inserting it into an enucleated fertilized egg (an egg with its nucleus removed). He died, however, before he could accomplish this3.
In 1952, researchers Robert Briggs and Thomas King took the next significant step in the cloning process4. Using frog eggs because of their large size and the ease of manipulating them, the two men began a series of experiments that led to the cloning of several complete embryos and tadpoles5. Ten years later, John Gurdon was able to produce adult frogs from the cells of tadpole intestines. His success rate on these experiments was two percent6. In 1975, he was only partially successful in starting with cells from adult frogs7. But cloning began a rapid development soon after that.
In 1977, Karl Illmensee claimed to have cloned mice with only one parent. In 1984, Steen Willadsen developed a genetic copy of a lamb using early sheep embryo cells. In 1986, Willadsen began cloning cattle from differentiated cells. Another group of scientists obtained the same results using embryo cells. In 1996, Dolly, the first animal cloned using adult cells was born. The announcement of Dolly’s birth, however, came in 1997. In further recent developments, pigs, cats, and rhesus monkeys have also been cloned8.
Cloning: How It Works
An offspring, whether animal or human, normally receives half of its genetic material from the mother and half from the father. But in cloning, all of the genetic material is derived from one adult. The clone is an identical twin of the donor. A clone is made by emptying all of the genetic material from a mother’s egg and then taking material from an adult cell and placing it in the egg. Finally, an electric spark is applied that stimulates the egg to begin the division process. After a period of four to five days of cell division and growth, one of two things can happen to the egg. In reproductive cloning, the egg is implanted into the uterus of the mother-to-be where it continues to grow until birth9. The other option is called either therapeutic cloning or Somatic Nuclear Cell Transfer. When this option is chosen, the stem cells are extracted for research purposes with the result that the embryo is destroyed10. Bear in mind that the cloning process for both of these options is the same. It is “what’s done to the human life that has been created: research which destroys it (therapeutic cloning) or implantation in a womb (reproductive cloning)11.”
The Current Situation
Animal Cloning
Since the cloning of tadpoles by Briggs and King in 1952, animal cloning has developed rapidly, particularly after the birth of a sheep named Dolly in 1996. One week after the announcement of Dolly’s birth, scientists cloned rhesus monkeys from embryos. Since then, cows, mice, pigs, and cats have been cloned. Scientists in Australia are attempting to replicate all of the DNA of an extinct Tasmanian tiger, hoping one day soon to produce a live birth of the now extinct species12.
Animal cloning is not without problems. Many embryos are destroyed in the process. In Dolly’s case there were 277 cell fusions, out of which came 29 growing embryos and only one pregnancy and live birth13. Dolly has now been put to sleep after developing arthritis and a progressive lung disease, two maladies not uncommon in sheep. However, Dolly developed those problems years before the normal time frame14.
Japanese scientists discovered in 2002 that mice cloned from somatic cells had a significantly shorter life span than mice conceived through the normal birth process15. Another group of scientists from MIT found that cloned mice have “hundreds of abnormal genes, which explains why so many cloned animals die at or before birth and proves it would be irresponsible to clone a human being16.” Finally, one of two endangered wild cattle that had been cloned had to be put to death because it was born weighing twice as much as it should have17.
Human Cloning
In spite of bans on human cloning in several nations around the world and current legislation making its way through the U.S. legislature, Richard A. Swenson, a medical doctor and director of the Future Health Study Center in Menomonie, Wisconsin states that “human cloning is a certainty, most likely within the decade18.” In fact, CLONAID, a company formed in the Bahamas by the French cultic group known as the Raelian Movement, says that it has already implanted cloned embryos in a number of women in undisclosed locations, some of which they claim have resulted in live births19.
Arguments Against Opposing Views
Cloning advocates cite several potential benefits of the procedure. Among them are: “providing a ‘biologically related child’ for an infertile couple; permitting reproduction for single individuals or same-sex couples; avoiding the risk of genetic disease; securing a genetically identical source of organs or tissues perfectly suited for transplantation; ‘replacing’ a loved spouse or child who is dying or has died; obtaining a child with a genotype of one’s own choosing (including one’s own genotype); replicating individuals of great genius, talent, or beauty, or individuals possessing traits that are for other reasons attractive to the cloners; and creating sets of genetically identical humans who might have special advantages in highly cooperative ventures in both war and peace20.”
The cloning of plants and animals is not fraught with the same dangers as human cloning. In plant and animal cloning, the moral and ethical dilemmas that attend the cloning of a human are not present. What are the objections to therapeutic and reproductive human cloning?
In therapeutic cloning, stem cells are extracted from embryos for the treatment of disease. The embryo is destroyed in the process. Since life begins at conception, the destruction of the embryo is taking a human life. Even many secularists object to therapeutic (or research) cloning because of the destruction of the embryo. Many also object to the potential creation of an entire industry of manufacturing embryos for the purpose of “dismemberment for research21.”
With regard to reproductive cloning, the President’s Council on Bioethics, chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, has stated that the cloning of humans is characterized by three problems: (1) problems of safety, (2) a special problem of consent, and (3) problems of exploitation of women and the just distribution of risk22.
In discussing the problems of safety, the council points out that there are risks to the child. As stated earlier in the case of Dolly, many implanted clones suffered fatal abnormalities. Others suffered non-fatal abnormalities, “including substantially increased birth-size, liver and brain defects, and lung, kidney, and cardiovascular problems23.” There are also risks to the egg donor and birth mother. These include both physical problems associated with hormonal treatments required for the retrieval of eggs and the psychological problems experienced by potential birth mothers who lose a late-term child due to spontaneous abortion due to cloning24.
Concerning the problems of consent, a cloned child-to-be has no opportunity to give or deny its consent to the process. But aside from that, there are other potential risks to a child that would be different than his or her peers because of the way they came into being25.
With regard to the problems of exploitation and distribution risk, cloning may lead to women being exploited by the increased demand for eggs to be used for cloning. And if financial incentives were offered, poor women might be especially susceptible to exploitation, thereby limiting their choice to make (or not make) egg donations26. Economically disadvantaged women, or even teenage girls who have reached puberty, might allow their moral judgment to give way to financial gain.
These potential problems led the council to conclude: “In light of the risks and other unethical concerns raised by this form of human experimentation, we therefore conclude that cloning-to-produce-children should not be attempted27.”
Additionally, Dr. David Gushee, Graves Associate Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, says that there is the real possibility that children brought into this world through cloning might lose their identity and individuality because they would be a copy of an original. There is also the possibility that children who are clones would add to the trend to commercialize the production of children—that they might be viewed as just one more commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace28.
Biblical Response
Life is the express creation of God—made in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). When God made Adam, He breathed the breath of life into him and he became a living being (Genesis 2:7). God then told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and increase in number (Genesis 1:28). Dr. Richard Land, President and CEO of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission states, “The central truth that emerges from these Bible verses is that human life is sacred, thus distinct in nature and design from all other life; and the differences are of kind, not degree29.”
The Scriptures clearly state that life begins at conception (Psalm 139:13-16; Job 31:15). That child, even in its earliest form inherits a God-given right to life. And each life, whether in the womb or already born, has its own distinct purpose in God’s plan (Jeremiah 1:5). “Since God has chosen to invest His own glory in creatures made in His own image, then the inviolability and independent integrity of that life must be protected even, nay especially, in its embryonic development. The assault upon the unborn is nothing less than an attack upon the Creator of life itself30.”
Therefore, any experiment or procedure that has the potential to destroy a life, or to cause either fatal or non-fatal deformities, should not be attempted. No life—in whatever state of development—should ever be sacrificed on the altar of human need nor be caused to suffer because of the desire to go beyond the bounds set by God. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should.
1 “Conceiving a Clone,” http://www.abc.lv/thinkquest/tq-entries/24355/data/details/1902a.html
2 “Conceiving a Clone,” http://www.abc.lv/thinkquest/tq-entries/24355/data/details/1928.html
3 “Conceiving a Clone,” http://www.abc.lv/thinkquest/tq-entries/24355/data/details/1938.html
4 Raymond G. Bohlin, “The Possibilities and Ethics of Human Cloning,” in Genetic Engineering, edited by Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), p. 262.
5 “Conceiving a Clone,” http://www.abc.lv/thinkquest/tq-entries/24355/data/details/1952.html
6 “A History of Cloning,” http://www.boston.com
7 Raymond G. Bohlin, “The Possibilities and Ethics of Human Cloning,” in Genetic Engineering, edited by Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), p. 262.
8 “History of Cloning,” http://www.reproductivecloning.net
9 “How Cloning Works,” http://www.usatoday.com , February 6, 2003
10 “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (Therapeutic Cloning),” http://www.aamc.org
11 “Close the Door On Cloning, http://www.nationalreview.com , January 14, 2002
12 “Cloning to Revive Extinct Species,” http://www.cnn.com , May 28, 2002
13 Raymond G. Bohlin, “The Possibilities and Ethics of Human Cloning,” in Genetic Engineering, edited by Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), p. 268.
14 “Cloning Pioneer Dolly Put to Death,” http://www.msnbc.com , February 14, 2003
15 “Shorter Life Span for Cloned Mice,” http://jama.ama-assn.org , March 13, 2002
16 “Study: Clones Have Abnormal Genes,” http://www.msnbc.com , September 11, 2002
17 “Cloning Produces Endangered Banteng Calves,” http://www.washingtontimes.com , April 9, 2003
18 Richard A. Swenson, “Facing the Future,” in Cutting Edge Bioethics edited by John F. Kilner, C. Christopher hook, and Diann B. Uustal (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), p. 171
19 “Success Update At Clonaid,” http://www.clonaid.com
20 “Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry,” http://bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/fullreport.html , July 10, 2002
21 “Research Cloning? No,” http://www.washingtonpost.com , May 10, 2002
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 “Why Cloning Must Be Banned,” http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost , February 8, 2003
29 Dr. Richard Land, “Is Life a Right?” (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), pamphlet available from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
30 Timothy George, “Southern Baptist Heritage of life” pamphlet published by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, 1993, p. 18.