A Deeper Look at Human Cloning
By Verdell Goulding

The means to use human cloning technology is now available at every high-tech in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic in the world. Last year, Panos Zavos, an American fertility doctor, announced his intention to produce the world's first human clone by 2002. Following through on similar declarations, an Italian fertility expert announced in May of this year that three women being kept at undisclosed locations have already been impregnated with human clones. One is in her third month of pregnancy.

While this may seem hard to believe, human cloning has indeed stepped out of the realm of science fiction and into everyday reality. Despite any disbelief or even distaste this may cause, it is important to dig beyond our initial response to a deeper examination of issues raised by the reality of human cloning. For instance, are there reasons beyond our initial distaste that should caution our exuberance to use this technology? Are there benefits that might justify overstepping any hesitations or ethical concerns we may have? What does the practice of this technology imply about how we value human life?

Scientists around the world are eager to get started. Some claim they already have. Those of us living in democratic countries need to think deeply before deciding what, if anything, we should do about it.

How Do We Create Human Clones?

Before looking deeper, it is first necessary to understand how human clones are produced. In the course of normal reproduction, we receive half our genetic code from our father (contained in the sperm cell) and the other half from our mother (contained in the egg cell). When the sperm and egg unite, the two halves join to form a unique genetic code which guides every aspect of our development (the colour of our eyes, the size of our nose, how tall we will grow, etc.). As we develop from this single fertilized cell, this unique code is copied into nearly every other cell in our body.

The scientific term for human cloning is Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) - but don't let the name scare you. Somatic cells simply refer to all body cells other than reproductive cells. Therefore, skin cells, blood cells, cells found in saliva, even cells taken from a single strand of hair, are all broadly referred to as somatic cells.

Human cloning is achieved by emptying a normal egg cell of its own genetic content and removing a complete copy of someone else's genetic code from one of their somatic cells. The genetic information taken from the somatic cell is then injected into the egg cell previously emptied of its original genetic content. This injected genetic material, because it is an exact copy of the genetic code of the person from whom it was taken, instructs the egg to develop into an exact genetic replica of that person.

A person created through this process is a human clone.

Types of Human Cloning

There are two types of human cloning. Reproductive cloning is what most people think of when referring to human cloning. This involves creating a human clone and allowing it to continue through the various stages of development. Theoretically, such a clone would be born and continue to develop and live as a separate individual, but with the exact genetic development of whomever donated a copy of their genetic code.

Therapeutic cloning is currently the most socially accepted form of human cloning. This refers to the creation of human clones in the very same way as in reproductive cloning, but for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells for research purposes. Obtaining these stem cells, however, always necessitates the destruction of the created human clone in the earliest stages of life. ( See sidebar on page 10 .)

Current Status

In Britain, recent legislation allows the practice of human cloning as long as all cloned embryos are destroyed by the 14th day of development. In the U.S., human cloning projects are not eligible to receive funding from the government, but can proceed (pending future legislation) if alternative sources of funding are obtained.

In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada's major federal funding agency for health research, has established guidelines prohibiting all forms of human cloning. However, they also emphasize an openness to human cloning in the future should the need (as determined by CIHR) arise. The recently introduced Bill C-56 on Assisted Human Reproduction (which deals with cloning) is largely based upon the flexible CIHR guidelines.

A Deeper Look at Reproductive Human Cloning

There are several factors underlying the push towards the social acceptance of reproductive human cloning. Its successful implementation would most certainly provide scientists with a god-like sense of satisfaction and accomplishment - not to mention a great deal of fame and notoriety - all of which provide considerable impetus within the scientific community.

But there is also a growing demand for reproductive cloning outside the scientific community. Several infertility doctors have already come forward claiming thousands of couples are requesting their assistance to make human clones. Such requests appear to come from infertile couples who do not want traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, homosexual couples who want to create a child in their own likeness, and grieving parents who want to create clones of recently deceased children.

Many opposed to human cloning emphasize safety concerns surrounding reproductive cloning. This is certainly a valid criticism, since, according to Informed Families magazine citing an ABC News report, 97% of all cloning attempts result in severe deformities or premature death, and all attempts significantly endanger the life of the pregnant mother. Others are opposed due to what ethicists call the "yuck" factor: a natural distaste for unnatural technologies.

However, as pointed out by Celeste McGovern, writing for Focus on the Family's IF magazine, this "yuck" factor may dissipate over time and safety issues may one day be resolved. Any deeper examination, then, needs to look beyond these issues.

For instance, what would reproductive cloning be used for? Would anyone be able to request the creation of a human clone and for any reason? Might it, for example, be used to practice positive eugenics? If we did not like a particular family trait (such as a big nose, a tendency to be overweight, or the likelihood of developing diabetes) could we visit a cloning bank and request a cloned child without these traits for us to raise?

If all it would take is a covertly obtained hair sample, might this be used to clone someone without their permission? If so, should this be considered an invasion of their privacy? Is there any way to even prevent this from happening if reproductive cloning is commonly practiced? Is it a stretch of imagination or a harsh new reality to envision a black market of high-profile celebrity clones created in this manner?

Safety issues certainly have their place, but perhaps we need to think more before allowing the "yuck" factor to dissipate, for it seems to be an intuitive response to many legitimate underlying concerns.

A Deeper Look at Therapeutic Human Cloning

When most people think about human cloning, they think of reproductive cloning. However, therapeutic cloning is currently at the heart of the human cloning debate, and its advocates are the ones leading the charge towards the ethical acceptance of human cloning technology.

The practice of therapeutic cloning would provide important additional specimens for human stem cell research. As such research might eventually provide the means of curing debilitating conditions (possibly even allowing paraplegics to walk again), proponents insist a complete ban on human cloning is unethical. It is argued such a ban may doom millions to continued suffering with potentially curable conditions.

The key ethical question regarding this form of human cloning, however, is what would its practice imply about how we value human life? Most people believe humans have a unique intrinsic value compared to other forms of life. To the extent this technology may be used to potentially alleviate human suffering, its practice would reinforce our concept of an intrinsic human value.

However, the only way to truly accept therapeutic cloning is to completely disregard our concept of intrinsic human value. First of all, the only way to get around this concept of intrinsic value in order to "ethically" destroy human life is to embrace faulty reasoning. Advocates of therapeutic cloning claim human life is qualitatively less valuable before Day 15 of development because before this point there is no evidence of brain development. However, as pointed out in a previous article (see "The Ethical Dilemma of Stem Cell Research," Jan/Feb issue of LifeCanada News), the gradual and continuous nature of human development and early cell division makes it impossible to pinpoint any exact moment of abrupt change in human value. Furthermore, even if this were possible, what law dictates this is the event that marks the watershed of human value?

Secondly, also consider CIHR's openness to permitting human cloning at a future time. In effect, they are saying early human life is currently of sufficient value to warrant a complete ban on human cloning. However, should the perceived need increase, then a relative devaluation of life should occur to permit human cloning in the future. Therefore, the flexibility of CIHR guidelines reflect a valuation of human life relative to external circumstances. An intrinsic value, by definition, requires a value that does not change regardless of external circumstances.

Thirdly, contradictions that result from such a relative method of evaluating early human life also reveal a disregard for intrinsic human value. Consider, for example, that when life is valued relative to a woman's need to have an abortion it is ethical to terminate a life at any point before birth. Yet when life is valued relative to the potential benefits of therapeutic cloning and stem cell research, cloning advocates claim life can only be ethically destroyed before the 15th day of development.

These two valuations directly contradict each other and if life has any intrinsic value, then at least one of them must be wrong. So if human cloning advocates are correct, then they are condemning abortion as unethical. If pro-choice advocates are correct, then the termination of life in the course of scientific research could be considered ethical until about the ninth month of development.

If life has no intrinsic value, if its value is truly dependent on changing external circumstances, then human cloning presents no ethical problem. However, human cloning advocates have failed to demonstrate that early human life lacks this intrinsic value most of us attribute to human life. In failing this, their charge towards the practice of human cloning (regardless of its possible benefits) reinforces a relative valuation of human life.

Whenever life is valued in this manner, the only thing constraining the devaluation of life in any person at any stage of development are the social values of the time. A quick look at our history reveals that depending on the social values of each generation to protect human value is risky at best. The only way to truly protect the full value of human life is to establish and adhere to an intrinsic value that does not change according to external circumstances.

Unfortunately for human cloning advocates, the continuity of life from fertilization to natural death does not allow the relative devaluation of one fragment of the human spectrum without also endangering the remainder of that same spectrum in a similar manner. Even the needs of others, as great as they may be, can not justify the subjective devaluation of human life at any stage. If it does, then all humanity is robbed of any true inherent worth as the life of every person and at every stage of development becomes susceptible to subjective devaluation. If this is how we choose to value human life, then its perceived value will always be tossed about from one generation to the next on changing waves of public opinion.

Today such waves are allowing the devaluation of a fetus only seconds from being born, and countless embryos in the first two weeks of life. If life has no intrinsic value, tomorrow similar waves may roll over an aging grandparent or a sick uncle.

The harsh reality is, the day after that they may come crashing down over me.

Verdell Goulding is a part-time freelance writer, currently living in Toronto, where he also works full-time in the field of medical science research.