There was loads of chatter about this on news sites and blogs worldwide.  But we have been here before – kooks to con artists claiming that they have cloned a human being only to be revealed as charlatans.  But Zavos is trying it for real, as far as we can tell, albeit unsuccessfully, so far.

At the moment there appears an overwhelming public abhorrence to human reproductive cloning.  But one thing that has been shown in nearly all cloning stories is that there appears to be a good supply of people willing to have themselves or, in the case of one couple, their deceased child cloned.

So is there anything wrong with cloning a human being.  We do it with animals on a regular basis, why not humans as well?

Society has accepted IVF and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis  which allows us to create and select out embryos free of genetic diseases/disorders. In some countries you can select the sex of your child and potentially in the future other appealing characteristics. Some proponents argue reproductive cloning it is just an extension of these assisted reproductive techniques.

We accept identical twins, which are effectively clones. 

OK, I personally don’t think we should or need to clone humans , but who am I to dictate what a person can or can’t do assuming they aren’t harming anyone else and they are consenting adults who have been fully informed about the process. 

So what are the issues?

Based on comments in news stories, editorials and blog postings some of the rejection of human cloning is because of the technical difficulties in creating a healthy clone.  At the moment, even in animals, it can take the creation of hundreds of embryos to get one clone born healthy. The others die at various stages or soon after birth because of deformities.

But what if we could perfect the technique and ensure that the chances of producing a healthy human clone were as good as or better than trying to produce a child by natural means?

Would this make cloning acceptable?  Why or why not?

Leaving aside the extreme arguments against cloning such as the possibility of creating an army of cloned super warriors or Hitlers, there are loads of religious, cultural and social reasons why people consider cloning wrong.  These include

Destruction of human dignity, loss of individuality

The Universal Declaration on Human Genome and Human Rights (UNESCO 1997) is one of a number of documents that state that reproductive cloning is contrary to human dignity. This is based on a number of considerations.  For example, cloning risks turning human beings into manufactured objects and that it could further the attitude that people exist to serve purposes set by other people.

Psychological trauma/harm to the clone.

Knowing you are a clone, a genetic copy of another person could cause psychological harm.  How would you feel knowing that you were a clone of your dead brother or sister?

What if someone cloned you without your permission?

For further details see the links below

Given the technical issues of cloning will doubtless be overcome, though probably not for decades, human reproductive cloning, I suggest, is inevitable.  Someone somewhere will do it and there will be a queue of people lining up for their service.

But just because we can (or will) perfect human cloning, should we do it?

If we do, what restrictions do we put on it, if any?  Who should or should not be allowed access to reproductive cloning technology?  Should everyone be allowed access, that is, equity of access?

Resources

www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au

WHO

http://www.who.int/ethics/topics/cloning/en/

Human Genome Project

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml

What defines human enhancement

Humans already spend small fortunes on cosmetic surgery such as breast enhancements, facelifts, nose jobs, growth hormones…and so on. Reading a book or eating vegetables might be considered enhancement of the mind. But that is not what we are talking about here.

Nano and biotechnologies are on the verge of far more radical and permanent changes that boost our functioning beyond what the human species is naturally capable of. Many of these advances will come through the development of nano materials and electronics, and through our ability to manipulate the genome and its protein products.

Examples:

*Increasing lifespan, for instance, by programming the immune systems to combat ailments such as cancer, heart disease, dementia, or normal physical decline

*Neural implants to enhance intelligence, concentration, control emotions, or simply to be constantly hardwired to the Internet

*Bionic limbs for greater strength or vision

Ethical questions, issues to consider

There are many but the following five loose categories are given in a recent series of journal article – see references below:

*Freedom and autonomy (our right to choose)

*Health and safety

*Fairness and equity

*Societal disruption

*Human dignity

Therapy V Enhancement

I present these only for readers to keep in mind when pondering this issue, and based on these categories here are some questions/issues to kickstart your pondering.

First, some seek to distinguish between therapy and enhancement. For example, gene therapy used to enhance muscle growth in muscular dystrophy sufferers can bring those people a quality of life that resembles normality – if they can perfect gene therapy as a treatment. But for an athlete or other “normal” individual to use the technology to increase their strength and provide an advantage on the sporting arena or elsewhere is enhancement. But when does therapy become enhancement and is this even an issue?

Others have argued that the differences between therapy and enhancement are more of a continuum rather and that defining something as a therapy or enhancement is unhelpful.  My personal thought is that maybe it is better to judge the use of the technology rather than whether it is a therapy or enhancement.

And if these technologies become real and are used…?

If you look at the ethical principle, ‘fairness and equity’, who will have access to these technologies? What of a potential societal gap between the enhanced and un-enhanced?

What could it mean for our ‘humanness’. That is, will we need to redefine what it means to be human? Are we genetically hardwired (as some research suggests – see NanoEthics journal reference below) to be forever unsatisfied with who we are? Is part of being human having that desire to constantly better our circumstances? If considered abhorrent, is the only solution then to eliminate the genes involved in this discontent – which would ironically mean enhancing ourselves to do so?

How should we, if at all, regulate to control what enhancements are permissible.

What sort of big picture effects (beneficial and detrimental) could this have on society –careers/employment, economics (if we start living longer), communications and social (how we communicate and socialize), security and privacy?

Some brain fodder

Live blogging from a human enhancement conference

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/hughes20090328/

Some other people’s ponderings: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2993

A whole bunch of stuff here

http://www.emergingethics.com/

For those of you with access.

NanoEthics: Ethics for Emerging Technologies that converge on the nanoscale, December 2008, Vol 2, Number 3: 251-264 (If you would like copies of the series of papers from this journal on human enhancement contact TechNyou – www.technyou.edu.au )