Human Cloning
- Mar 14, 2006
When the public hears talk about cloning, many dismiss the concept as silly science fiction, something out of Hollywood or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. In the scientific community though, human cloning is very much a reality of the present. Animal research, including the cloning of Dolly, has established the techniques needed to replicate a living organism from a single cell. Several researchers have actually attempted human cloning, alluding heavy scrutiny by using terms such as somatic cell nuclear transfer and therapeutic cloning. Cloning is a very real issue in science and a very real dilemma for bioethics.
As Christians, we have the responsibility to be God’s ambassadors in our society and culture. We must be prepared to address current cultural topics, such as human cloning, from a solid biblical perspective. To do this, we must first gain an understanding of the science and terminology behind cloning and then look to God and His Word as the ultimate source of truth and guidance on this issue.
Technical Background
What is Cloning?
The term cloning refers to the asexual production of a human or other animal whose genetic material is nearly identical to that of an existing life, such as an embryo, fetus, or adult. Most scientists distinguish between two types of cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. In reproductive cloning, a cloned embryo is created and implanted with the intent of bringing the clone to term and birthing a genetically identical individual. In therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, the goal is not to produce a cloned human or animal, but rather to create cloned embryos for research purposes, such as harvesting embryonic stem cells. After creating the embryo, embryonic stem cells are extracted from the inner cell mass, thereby destroying the cloned embryo. What is the advantage of using cloned human embryos as a source for stem cells? Therapeutic cloning provides embryonic stem cells with DNA that matches a living patient. Because the cells are perfect genetic matches, they could theoretically be implanted for therapeutic purposes without the fear of rejection by the patient’s immune system.
How does Cloning Work?
Excluding egg and sperm cells, all of the cells in an adult body contain the full set of DNA, meaning that each cell has all of the genetic material required to create an exact clone. However, the genes in these cells have been programmed for a special function, with some genes turned on to produce the necessary proteins and other genes turned off. In order to create a clone from an adult cell, the DNA in the nucleus of the cell must be reprogrammed so that all of the DNA can be used for embryonic development and eventually for all of the various cellular specializations.
The most common technique for cloning is known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT). SCNT begins by extracting the nucleus and contained genetic material from a somatic, or body, cell of a person in need of cell-based therapy, for example, a person with heart disease or diabetes. The somatic cell nucleus is then implanted into a donor egg from which the nucleus has been removed. Following nuclear transfer, the donor egg reprograms the DNA of somatic cell nucleus for embryonic development. Finally, researchers stimulate the egg, with its new nuclear DNA, to initiate embryo development. The resulting embryo is a genetic clone of the patient who donated the somatic cell nucleus. The cloned embryo can either be implanted to create a fully developed human clone or used as a source of stem cells and tissues that are a perfect match for that patient in hopes of transplantation without immune rejection.
The second cloning technique, embryo splitting, closely resembles the natural process of creating identical twins. During the very early stages of embryonic development within about twelve days of fertilization, the embryo is split into two genetically identical embryos, which then develop into two identical embryos. According to the strict definition of cloning, the second embryo is actually a clone of the first. Although embryo splitting is simpler than SCNT, embryo splitting is actually much less common. With SCNT, researchers can observe the developed embryo or adult and predict the characteristics that result from the cloned DNA. In embryo splitting, on the other hand, the characteristics coded for by the original DNA are still unknown. Because the original embryo has not yet fully developed, researchers cannot select for specifically known genetic characteristics using this method. They can only copy a set of DNA with unknown outcomes. As with SCNT though, the resulting embryo clone can either continue to full development or be used as a source for embryonic stem cells.
History of Cloning: It’s more than science fiction
1952—Robert Briggs and Thomas King of the Institute for Cancer Research, now the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, developed the first major technique, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT)
1966—John Gurdon of Oxford University successfully creates an adult frog clone using a tadpole somatic cell, suggesting that cell specialization occurs based on changes in gene expression rather than a loss or change in genetic material. Knowing that they contain the full set of genetic material necessary to direct development, scientists could now use specialized cells from adults for cloning rather than being limited to embryonic cells.
1980—Embryo splitting, also known as artificial cloning, the second most common method of cloning, developed for livestock breeding.
1980 – 1996—Various research groups successfully clone frogs, mice, and cattle.
1996—Dolly, the famous cloned sheep is born. With the birth of Dolly, Ian Wilmut along with colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Scotland succeeded in creating the first clone of an adult mammal using adult somatic cells and SCNT. Out of nearly 300 attempts, only one ewe survived. In addition to shocking the world and propelling cloning into the public spotlight, Dolly proved that “a specialized body cell from an adult animal could be reprogrammed to direct the development of a new organism—that is, the cell could be restored to totipotency (the capability, under certain circumstances, of directing the development of a complete organism). The cell-starvation technique used by the scientists was based on the theory that cells that are not growing become easier to reprogram. The programming of a nucleus is an interactive process between the cytoplasm (the cellular substance surrounding the nucleus) and the genes in the nucleus. The cytoplasm sends to the nucleus signals that determine which genes are turned on or off and therefore which proteins—the end product of genes—are produced by the cell.”
1997—Ian Wilmut and colleagues clone two other sheep, Molly and Polly, but this time combine cloning with genetic engineering. The new transgenic sheep contained a human gene for factor IX, a blood-clotting protein that is often used to treat hemophilia. This discovering opened the door for using sheep’s milk as a therapeutic drug for human hemophiliacs
1998—Skepticism over Dolly cleared up when Univ. of Hawaii announced the creation of 50 mice clones using adult cells.
2000—PPL Therapeutics, Inc. cloned pigs from adult female pig body cells.
2001—PPL Therapeutics, Inc. proceeded to genetically engineering pig cloning so that the pigs contain a jellyfish gene. Following this announcement, the scientific community proposed the use of genetically engineered pigs as sources for organs that will not be rejected by the human immune system.
2001—Human Cloning Prohibition Act considered in congress.
2004—South Korean scientists achieved the first successful human somatic cell nuclear transfer, resulting in the first cloned human embryo created for the purpose of deriving a pluripotent human stem cell line. Using 242 oocytes from 16 women, the scientists were only able to generate 30 cloned blastocytes and 1 human embryonic stem cell line derived from the cloned blastocytes. Not only did this event spark the new set of debates about cloning, but it also proved that human cloning using somatic cells from living persons was indeed possible, despite previous failures in primates and humans. Although the techniques were not yet perfect and very inefficient, the study proved that human cloning was no longer science fiction1.
Practical Research Problems
Back in 1997, the birth of Dolly, the famous cloned sheep, propelled cloning into the public spotlight and convinced many advocates that human cloning might finally be within reach, possibly even within the next few years. However, despite this success, numerous problems still exist with the cloning process that inhibit safe and successful cloning. SCNT continues to exhibit extremely low success rates, with multiple attempts resulting in only a few viable embryos. For example, in the most recent major cloning breakthrough South Korean scientists announced that they had successfully cloned a human embryo from adult cells. However, the 242 donated eggs, an extremely large pool of eggs, yielded only 30 blastocyte-stage embryos and one single line of proliferating embryonic stem cells2. As evidenced by this breakthrough, even the leading cloning experts have little luck with cloning efficiency. One researcher commented that only the shear number of eggs enabled the scientists to be successful in human cloning, indicating that cloning is certainly not yet a science but rather a numbers game of overcoming cloning’s low odds of success3. If the previous pattern holds, continuing such attempts to clone a human being would mean that hundreds of embryos would either fail to develop or be destroyed due to serious complications. All these lives would be lost for the sake of cloning just a single human. This thought alone makes cloning human beings a morally egregious endeavor. The inefficiency of the process requires much too high a price to pay, specifically the loss of multiple created human lives, for this to be an acceptable, even fathomable, activity.
In addition to being inefficient and unsuccessful, even when cloning produces an embryo, the embryo almost always exhibits significant developmental and genetic problems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, Rudolph Jaenisch, explains that, of the clones that do survive past very early embryonic stages, “most of those will die in utero. Those are the lucky ones. Many of those that survive will have abnormalities4.” In fact, over 90% of implanted embryos never reach birth. Over 15% of those that do reach term experience a serious birth defect, compared with only 3% in naturally-conceived humans5. Although most of these failures occur in the very early stages of embryonic development, unusual failures occur at all stages and continue after birth6. For example, cloned mice have been shown to develop obesity. Clones are often unusually large at birth, causing problems for the both the clone and the surrogate mother7. In addition, despite numerous efforts, only two primates have been cloned using embryonic cells and all attempts to clone primates, dogs, cats, and humans from adult cells have been completely unsuccessful5. Finally, Dolly, the cloned sheep that seemed to represent the unlimited capabilities of cloning techniques, actually developed arthritis in 2002. Although arthritis is not unheard of in sheep, Dolly developed the problem at a very young age and in toe joints that are rarely affected. This anomaly suggests that a genetic defect were most likely responsible. According to the New York Times, “The news [of Dolly’s arthritis] was a setback for those who argue that cloning can become an effective—and lucrative—medical technology, but boosted the case of ethicists and animal rights campaigners who say genetic intervention is irresponsible and dangerous.” After learning of this setback, even Ian Wilmut, the researcher who cloned Dolly, admitted that “present cloning procedures are rather inefficient…. We know from previous research that only a small proportion of embryos that we produce develop to become live offspring. Sadly, it seems one of the other outcomes from this will be that some of the cloned animals will prove to be more vulnerable to some diseases8.”
Based upon these facts, the National Academy of science concluded, “The National Academy of Science asserts, “Human reproductive cloning should not now be practiced. It is dangerous and likely to fail9.” Several biological factors, including epigenetic changes in the DNA, genetic mutations, telomere shortening, and difficulty with reprogramming, among many others, may be responsible for the failure of cloning:
- Epigenetic changes—Epigenetic changes refer to the chemical and molecular changes that affect gene expression without directly altering the nucleotide sequences of the DNA. Throughout development, the DNA in somatic cells undergoes numerous epigenetic changes, including changes in the shape and structure of chromosomes, transcriptional repression, X-chromosome inactivation, genomic imprinting, and DNA methylation. Although all of the DNA is still present, epigenetic changes greatly affect the gene expression, specialization, and ability of the DNA to successfully direct development into a normal embryo. These changes often explain why the somatic cell DNA used in SCNT fails to successfully direct normal embryonic development, leading to death or severe defects in the cloned animal. In mammals, the most common epigenetic changes affecting cloning are DNA methylation, the addition of methyl groups in the promoter region of genes that either inhibit or encourage expression, and genomic imprinting, changes in the paternal or maternal copy of a gene such that only one is expressed. In order for cloning to be successful DNA methylation must be reversed and genomic imprinting must be preserved or replaced10, 5.
- Mutations—Over a lifetime, DNA accumulates mutations and other genetic damages. In an adult body in which most of the somatic cells function only in a specialized area, the mutations may go overlooked if the mutation affects a gene whose product is necessary for a function outside of the cell’s area of specialization. For example, a liver cell may function perfectly normally with a critical mutation in a gene necessary for skeletal muscle function. However, if this cell is used as a donor for SCNT, the damaged gene could prevent successful cloning. Just a single mutation in a small region of DNA could completely thwart a somatic cell from directing complete normal development. Clearly, the accumulation of genetic mutations presents a problem for using adult somatic cells for cloning. Because the probability of mutations increases with each cellular division, adult somatic cells have a higher occurrence of mutations than the gamete cells traditionally responsible for imparting DNA to new embryos. Therefore, the chance of creating a fully developed, normal embryo is much higher with natural means than with man-made cloning techniques, as would be expected. Additionally, if cloning was carried out over several generations, the genetic imperfections could be passed and continue to multiply as the genetic material became “older” with each cloning event.
- Telomere shortening—Each time a cell divides, the telomere, or chromosome end, shorten in length. Cell life and subsequent cellular divisions require a minimum telomere length. After between 40 and 60 cellular divisions, telomeres tend to be too short to divide and the cells enter cellular senescence, a stage related to aging and cell death. When scientists use adult somatic cells with aged telomeres to create a clone, the cloned animal starts life with shorter telomeres, potentially explaining the faster aging and shorter lifespan of cloned animals5.
- Difficulties with nuclear reprogramming—Natural reprogramming in a fertilized egg occurs over an extended period of time. In cloning, the time for reprogramming is severely shortened, potentially leading to incomplete programming and cloning failure5.
Clearly, cloning is neither as safe nor as effective as scientist initially thought. One cannot help but ask if this might indicate that God never intended the creation of life in such an unnatural, artificial manner. With this question in mind, let us now turn to some of the ethical questions that cloning raises.
Ethical Issues
Strictly from a scientific perspective, cloning is a dangerous and unpredictable practice. However, one cannot build an argument against cloning based solely upon the current state of technology because the state of science changes almost hourly. To make a final decision about human cloning, we must consider the ethical implications of this practice. In other words, if human cloning became a medically safe procedure, would there still be ethical reason to object to human cloning?
Several compelling ethical objections exist that make human cloning a very problematic practice. First and foremost, the practice of cloning experiments with human life and inflicts medical danger upon the cloned subject without offering any benefits or informed consent for the subject. As discussed earlier, cloning is by no means safe for the cloned progeny. If human cloning continues the trend set by animal cloning, the clones are at great risk for debilitating and even life-threatening abnormalities. In addition to physical risks, cloning unduly imposes several troubling psychological burdens. In most cases, the clone is expected to live up to or replace the genetic original or to fulfill the desires or needs of another person. Whether fulfilled or unfulfilled, such expectations greatly limit personal freedom, personal autonomy, and individuality. A human life was never intended for another’s fulfillment. Generating life for this purpose degrades human life to a tool or a means to an end, rather than granting life value as a meaningful end in and of itself.
Many scientists counter this argument by asserting that the potential harms, and even the possible benefits, of cloning remain unknown. Therefore, rather than disregarding cloning because of the potential risks, why not experiment with the process and find out? Blinded by the curiosity so intrinsic to scientific pursuit, they have forgotten that they are experimenting with human life. These “objects” and “tools” on the bench top are not random combinations of chemicals and cells; they are human lives. Human life, cloned or not, demands respect and sanctity and recklessly experimenting on life violated that sanctity. Life deserves to be protected, not manipulated and experimented upon without consent, no matter how good the intentions or the end may be.
Ethical codes almost universally declare the sanctity of human life and the inherent need to respect life. For example, the Belmont Report, an internationally respected document on medical research ethics and patient protection composed in response to the atrocities of the Tuskegee Study, lists respect for persons as a “basic ethical principle…among those generally accepted in our cultural tradition.” Even the clichéd medical mantra, “First, do no harm,” avows that human life is far too valuable and sacred to be placed in harms way by reckless experimentation, such as cloning. Cloning violates respect for persons by denying informed consent and denying them the right to a unique identity and individuality. It also violates the sanctity and value of life by knowingly imposing both physical and psychological harm upon the clone for the sake of science.
Beyond these concerns, cloning opens the door for eugenics, the practice of improving the genetic makeup of the human race by controlling reproduction. Cloning technology allows us to carefully select the genetic makeup of cloned progeny. By creating cloned persons with nearly “perfect” genetic make-ups, we raise the question, are those with natural genomes and “inferior” genes less valuable and somehow an inferior group of persons? With the possibility of creating genetically “superior” progeny, would we then discard naturally birthed progeny with one bad gene, two bad genes, or a serious genetic defect, all along justifying to ourselves that these persons are somehow less worthy of life or of less value? History warns us of the consequences of making such judgments. In the first half of the twentieth century, the Nazi ideal of “improving” and “purifying” the race led to a view of Jews as a genetically inferior race, justifying the subsequent genocide of over five million Jews. During the conquest of the Nazi regime, well-known physicians and respected researchers forced numerous prisoners into medical research experiments, inflicting pain and suffering without a second thought because the subjects were valueless and substandard. Based simply upon history, improving our genetic makeup often comes at the cost of abusing the lives of those considered inferior. Cloning threatens a similar outcome. Every clone created costs the lives of hundreds of embryos in the failed attempts leading up to one single success. In this way, the quest to advance science and enhance our ability to control the human genome comes at the cost of life, as the Nazi quest for a better race came at the cost of lives. History alone argues a strong case against entertaining eugenic ideals.
Finally, cloning bears a haunting resemblance to a manufacturing line, in which genomes are carefully designed and human lives are fabricated on demand. As Dr. William P. Cheshire, Associate Professor of Neurology at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, points out, this type of setup better suits “the making of replaceable appliances than unique human beings12.” Such a process objectifies human life, completely disregarding human dignity and the sanctity of human life. Again, history raises a red flag. This is not the first time that America has attempted to objectify life. Before the civil war, many Americans wrongly viewed African-Americans as property to be bought and sold. As a result, millions were enslaved, abused, and even killed. Looking back, we mourn over this great injustice and blemish in our country’s history. Yet, we fail to see the same marred reasoning behind cloning. Cloning discounts a new group of vulnerable citizens, unborn embryos. This time around, we must give life the respect it deserves and reject even the possibility of yet again reducing life to a mere commodity.
For these very reasons, a large majority of the public, both inside and outside of the scientific community, agrees that cloning is wrong. According to a 2001 poll by ABC News, nearly nine out of every ten Americans surveyed opposed human reproductive cloning, while six out of ten opposed cloning for other purposes13.
Although most scientists, physicians, and members of the public do agree that reproductive cloning should be banned, many researchers want therapeutic cloning to be exempted from this ban. However, distinguishing between reproductive and therapeutic cloning is actually quite deceptive. In reality, cloning for any purpose is by definition reproductive. Both reproductive and so-called therapeutic cloning create a duplicate of a living person. Whether or not this copy is allowed to develop into an adult or only into an unborn baby does not change the fact that a reproductive act has occurred. In addition, the term “therapeutic” is quite a misnomer. Therapeutic cloning is actually not therapeutic at all, especially not for the cloned embryo whose life is taken in the process. Also, to date, no therapy has been derived from such research11. Prior to the cloning debate, the term “therapeutic” cloning did not even exist. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research invented the term in an attempt to disguise the ethical implications of the research and justify it to a weary public, thereby escaping a comprehensive ban that would prohibit cloning for any purpose.
Therapeutic cloning also adds several additional layers of ethical complexity. First of all, therapeutic cloning requires the destruction of the cloned embryo for embryonic stem cells. To justify this unconscionable practice, therapeutic cloning advocates argue that, in the early stages of development, an embryo is simply a ball of cells rather than a human life. Many argue that an embryo, or pre-embryo as it is sometimes termed, does not possess life until the appearance of the primitive streak, a characteristic that marks the maturation of the nervous system12, 5. In doing so, scientists attempt to define personhood and humanity. They define human life based upon a list of qualities and capacities and dub these the necessary ingredients of being human. This seems quite dangerous. Where do we draw the line? If we can somewhat arbitrarily deny members of our species the rights inherent to human beings based solely on the degree of functionality or capacity, who is to say that the list of necessary qualities will not grow larger and begin to exclude other vulnerable members, such as the disabled or the elderly? Ironically, those who are most likely to benefit from stem cell research might be denied human value based upon this functional definition of human life. As a group of scientists at Mayo Clinic pointed out, this argument is clearly flawed and cannot be carried out without disregarding long-standing principles of equality and human dignity: “We consider such a gradualist view of life to be an inadequate account of the value of human life. To suppose that human life consists only in functional capacities is to mistake the detection of life for its existence.…One must first be a human being to develop and possess human capacities.…A gradualist view can also run counter to the widely accepted belief that diminished or less developed capacity may obligate increases care or protection. Some of the very people who would gain from the alleged benefits of research cloning are themselves in a state of functional decline due to degenerative disease. If one accepts the gradualist criterion that moral worth depends on one’s stage of development or function, then, by the same logic, individuals who are ill or disabled (e.g., those with Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, or spinal cord injury) would have an uncertain claim to full human worth because of their loss of function. From the gradualist perspective, the widely held belief in human equality grounded in a common basis for dignity vanishes12.” Therefore, this argument threatens basic moral principles and, therefore, should not be used to justify the practice of therapeutic cloning.
This argument fails from a biological standpoint as well. Biologically, a human embryo is a living human organism and part of the human species12. An embryo, even in its earliest stages, contains the full set of genetic information necessary for human life, only requiring a proper environment and nutrition to continue development into a newborn baby. These two needs are no different from the needs of an adult human12. In addition, the cells of an embryo are continually replicating their DNA and dividing, moving the embryo closer and closer to the specialization that will enable the embryo to reach full functional capacity12. Although the early unborn child represents a different stage of development, no logical criterion exists for excluding the embryo from our species or denying it the protection due human life.
If, as argued here, an embryo is indeed a viable human being with all the rights thereof, therapeutic cloning is no more than a process of creating life to destroy it. Although cloned embryos provide a convenient and ample source for stem cells and a great tool for developmental research, no end can justify an immoral means, particularly when that means requires destroying an innocent human life in its nascent stage. Just like reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning reduces life to a tool to meet the needs of others, to a raw material for manufacturing solutions to medical problems. After pondering these thoughts, the European Convention on Biomedicine and Human Rights, the only international treaty on bioethics, concluded, “The creation of human embryos specifically for research that will destroy them is unconscionable.” Life is more valuable than that and deserves society’s utmost regard and protection.
As evidenced in this discussion, human cloning raises several ethical problems that cannot be dismissed. Before forming a final verdict though, we must consult God’s Word for wisdom and guidance.
Biblical Perspectives
Although the Bible never directly addresses cloning, God’s Word presents several principles to guide our convictions concerning human cloning. First of all, God alone is sovereign over life and its creation. Psalm 100:3 exhorts, “Know that the Lord is God. It is He who made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, the sheep of His pasture.” Here, David encourages us to remember God’s role as Creator, while also reminding us that we do not create ourselves. We are to submit to God’s sovereignty in this and all areas of our lives, recognizing that the ultimate wisdom and power of creation belong to Him. Cloning attempts to reverse these roles. By lauding cloning as a great achievement by man, we circumvent God’s divine plan and forget that “the Lord is God” and the only one capable of creating that which is good (Gen. 1).
Ecclesiastes 11:5 provides insight into this divine plan for creation: “As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.” As humans, our viewpoint and understanding are so limited. God’s omniscience far better equips Him to be the Creator and controller of life. With His boundless wisdom and knowledge, God creates life in His image and calls it good (Gen. 1:26-27, 31). As evidenced by the continual failure of man’s attempts to replicate God’s creation through cloning though, our limited knowledge inhibits our ability to match these creative abilities. Rather than duplicating or improving upon life, our frailty introduces abnormalities to what was a “very good” creation (Gen. 1:31).
The Old Testament figure Job exemplifies submission to God as sovereign and fully trusts in God’s wisdom and goodness. After losing his family, his wealthy, and his health, Job proclaims, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised (Job 1:21).” Throughout the book of Job, Job’s faith in God never wavers. Rather than resenting his mounting losses or being jealous of God’s power, Job praises the Lord for His sovereignty over life and death. In the debate on cloning, we too must respect God’s power and sovereignty over life. Although the power of creation and the power to replicate human life may be intriguing and even tempting, we must remember that only the Lord is worthy of such power.
God’s sovereignty alone provides a solid argument against cloning research. However, so-called therapeutic cloning introduces an additional violation. By killing an embryo for its stem cells, therapeutic cloning destroys a life deeply valued by God. Although the scientific community often dismisses young embryos as mere masses of cells, God places a high value on life at all stages, even from conception. Numerous passages in the Bible confirm this assertion. For example, in Psalm 139:13-16, the psalmist David paints a picture of the human embryo and his or her relationship to the Creator. Speaking to God, David proclaims, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;…My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be10.” As the Psalm reveals, God carefully watches over the embryo, recognizing the existence of a life from the very moment when the embryo is “made in the secret place.” By ordaining each day of the embryo’s future, God recognizes life in the embryo and unquestionably intends that the embryo be allowed to fully develop into a human being and live out the ordainment. Why would God Himself construct and plan the future of a life that does not yet exist and will never come to pass?
According to Isaiah 49:1-5 and Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah and Jeremiah, two Old Testament prophets were both called before their birth. Their calling indicates that God views each of them as a unique human life long before they left the womb. Not only that, but God also valued them and designed them with careful intent.
God also makes a specific command concerning the protection of the unborn life in Exodus 21:22-25. Verse 23 states the punishment for killing a child within the womb should be “life for life10.” By this statement alone, God indicates His view of the unborn child as a life to be protected by society and government on the same level as more developed life. Cloning violates this commandment each time an embryo is lost in a failed cloning attempt and each time an embryo dies during stem cell harvesting.
These passages, among numerous others, provide solid evidence that the embryo possesses life and that God Himself has previously ordained the days of that life. By the law of God and the law of the nation, taking this innocent human life is wrong (Exod. 20:13, Prov. 6:16-19, etc.). If God Himself has enough respect for life, even the life of an embryo, to grant it purpose and meaning, how can we justify the destruction of human life, no matter what the ends? Cloning and its advocates far too quickly dismiss life as a tool for scientific advancement and medical therapies.
For the Christian, the conclusion is simple: we must step back and allow God to be the omniscient Creator and allow ourselves to be His valued creation. We must respect human life, at all stages, for God Himself values human life above all of His other creations. In light of this, we must dismiss human cloning as an immoral and unacceptable practice. Instead, we should seek alternatives that God approves and will bless.
Alternatives to Cloning
Adult Stem Cells
One of main arguments for cloning, specifically therapeutic cloning, is the promise of embryonic stem cells. Advocates insist that research on these cells will someday result in therapies and cures for some of our most devastating diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and diabetes. However, adult stem cells offer very similar potential, while avoiding the immoral practice of terminating embryonic life. At the outset, adult stem cells appeared to fall short of their embryonic counterparts, seeming to demonstrate a much lower level of plasticity. Based upon early research, adult stem cells were only capable of differentiating into cells of the origin tissue. However, recent studies have shown that many forms of adult stems actually have much higher plasticity and are capable of differentiating into multiple types of cells. The following research provides abundant evidence for the capability and effectiveness of adult stem cells. In contrast to embryonic stem cells, much research has been done on adult stem cells, in which they have continually proven themselves again and again to have great promise and potential.
The most studied type of adult stem cells are hematopoietic stem cells, adult stem cells derived from the bone marrow and circulating blood that naturally replenish blood cells. Hematopoietic stem cells have been proven capable of differentiating into cardiac muscle cells, skeletal muscle cells, liver cells, neural progenitor cells, and embryonic brain cells, showing that this type of adult stem cells is actually highly pluripotent and has great potential for replacing and repairing several different types of damaged tissues. One of the most convincing evidences for the use of adult stem cells in therapeutic transplantation came in 2001 in the journal Nature14. Following cardiac infarct (heart attack), researchers implanted bone marrow stem cells into the muscle near the dead tissue. After only nine days, new myocardium, including proliferating myocytes, occupied 68% of infarcted area. This paper offers promise for the use of adult stem cells to restore function to infarcted hearts and alleviating the effects of coronary artery disease14. Similarly, according to research from the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, bone marrow stem cells will differentiate into healthy liver cells and help repair a damaged liver when exposed to the damaged liver tissue. When implanted into mice with liver injuries, the stem cells helped restore liver function in two to seven days15. Finally, a paper in the journal of Experimental Cell Research commented on the ability of hematopoietic stem cells to specialize into brain tissue. “The ability of hematopoietic tissue-derived adult stem cells to transdifferentiate into neural progenitor cells offers an interesting alternative to central nervous system (CNS)- or embryonic-derived stem cells as a viable source for cellular therapies applied to brain regeneration. Umbilical cord blood (CB) due to its primitive nature and its unproblematic collection appears as a promising candidate for multipotent stem cell harvest16.” Overall, these papers, among others, attest to the great potential of adult stem cells, despite the skepticism pervading much of scientific community.
Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are already being used successfully in everyday medical applications. Bone marrow derived stem cells are used in cancer and auto-immune disease treatments. Following chemotherapy or radiation treatments, physicians often administer bone marrow stem cell transplants to replace the patient’s bone marrow. In contrast, embryonic stem cells are not currently used in medicine and the research is still in a much earlier stage.
Based upon this research alone, adult stem cells are an excellent alternative to embryonic stem cells from therapeutic cloning, allowing us to avoid the unethical, immoral practice of destroying unborn human life without compromising medical advancements.
Ultimately, our best alternative in all areas of life is to respect God’s sovereignty over life and His plan for our lives. Each time we look into the eyes of a newborn child, we can praise Him that we, His creation, are fearfully and wonderfully made out His deep love and infinite creative wisdom.
1 Vogel, Gretchen. “Misguided Chromosomes Foil Primate Cloning.” Science 300 (April 11, 2003): 225-227.
2 Hwang et al. “Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyte.” Science 303 (2004): 1669-1674.
3 Weiss, Rick. “South Korean Scientists Describe Cloning.” Washington Post February 13, 2004: A13.
4 Manier, Jeremy. “Potential Perils Born in Cloning.” Chicago Tribune March 4, 2001.
5 California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning 2002 Report on Human Cloning http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/11/MNcloningtext.DTL .
6 Wilmut, Ian. “Are There Any Normal Cloned Mammals.” Nature Medicine 8 (2002): 215-216.
7 Tamashiro et al. “Postnatal Growth and Behavioral Development of Mice Cloned from Adult Cumulus Cells.” Biology of Reproduction 63 (1999): 328-334.
8 Reuters. “Cloned Sheep Dolly develops Arthritis.” New York Times January 4, 2002.
9 Meckler, Laura, Associated Press Writer. “Panel: Cloning Humans is Unsafe.” Associated Press January 18, 2002.
10 National Cancer Institute “Epigenetics in Cancer Prevention: Early Detection and Risk Assessment.” http://www3.cancer.gov/prevention/epigenetics/summary.html .
11 C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D., Senior Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Professor at Trinity International University, and bioethics consultant for The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of The Southern Baptist Convention.
12 Cheshire et al. “Stem Cell Research: Why Medicine Should Reject Human Cloning.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 78 (2003): 1010-1018.
13 “Majority Opposes Cloning.” ABC News August 16, 2001. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/poll010816_cloning.html .
14 Orlic et al. “Bone Marrow Cells Regenerate Infarcted Myocardium.” Nature 410 (2001): 701-705.
15 Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center. “Stem cells can convert to liver tissue, help restore damaged organ.” Nature Cell Biology June 1, 2004.
16 McGuckin Cp et al. “Umbilical cord Blood Stem Cells Expand Hematopoietic and Neuroglial Progenitors In Vitro.” Experimental Cell Research 295 (2004): 350-359.