Human Cloning Hysteria Breaks Out Again

Ronald Bailey | April 23, 2009

Earlier this week, fertility specialist Paniyiotis Zavos claimed to have created 14 cloned human embryos, of which he implanted 11 in the wombs of four women. None of the alleged clones took. His efforts will apparently air as a documentary on the Discovery Channel. Zavos' stunt does not help people who want eventually to include safe human cloning in the armamentarium of fertility treatments. The Guardian provides some relevant comments from researchers:

"This whole affair shows a complete lack of responsibility," said Professor Azim Surani, Marshall-Walton professor of physiology and reproduction at the University of Cambridge.

"If true, Zavos has again failed to observe the universally accepted ban on human cloning, which was agreed because most of the resulting embryos from such animal experiments are abnormal. This is yet another episode designed to gain maximum publicity without performing rigorous animal experiments or presenting it for peer review in a scientific journal."

Professor Robert Winston, emeritus professor of fertility studies at Imperial College London, was blunter. "I do not know of any credible evidence that suggests Dr Zavos can clone a human being. This seems to be yet another one of his claims to get repeated publicity," he said.

Professor Wolf Reik, head of the epigenetics and chromatin programme at the Babraham Institute, Cambridge, said a successful clone would be no different from a naturally conceived identical twin. "But there are important ethical issues here that must be considered. For example, cloning a child who has died will create a genetically identical person; but it will not be the same child. This is most certainly not a way of bringing people back from the dead," he said.

In fact, no peer-reviewed report of the successful creation of a cloned human embryo has yet  been published in any scientific journal. Many object that human reproductive cloning is immoral. For example, President Barack Obama has declared, "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society." The United Nations has passed resolutions urging the adoption of an international convention banning reproductive cloning.

But it is not at all clear why safe reproductive cloning would be unethical. After all, such a clone would essentialy be a delayed twin.

The folks over at the Women's Bioethics Project (WBP) have published a thorough deconstruction of anti-cloning laws around the world. As the WBP report points out:

The United Nations general assembly approved a declaration to ban human cloning on March 8, 2005; 59 countries independently prohibit reproductive cloning; and 97 percent of countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (which accounts for 84 percent of the world’s GDP) ban reproductive cloning (Hayes 2008.) While the United States is one of the few developed countries, along with Russia, that has not enacted a nation-wide ban on the practice, 15 states already prohibit reproductive cloning (NCSL 2008) and bills to ban the practice have been introduced in both houses of Congress.

The WBP report also looks at how anti-cloners rely on the ethically fuzzy concept of "human dignity" to justify cloning bans. The WBP cites the analysis of University of Maryland law professor David Hyman:

Assessments of human dignity are quite subjective, with considerable variation temporally, chronologically, geographically, and culturally.  Social class, religion, wealth, and the degree of industrialization matter as well. There is also a considerable degree of individual variation. Consider whether human dignity is enhanced, diminished, or unaffected by blue laws, capital punishment, cloning, decriminalization of drug possession, gay marriage, genetically modified food, gun control, legalized prostitution, partial-birth abortion, physician-assisted suicide, prohibition of hate speech, school prayer, school vouchers, state lotteries, and three-strikes laws. Would Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Zell Miller, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and the Pope have the same answers to that question?

Even if people agree that human dignity is the appropriate standard for assessing policy initiatives, they are only likely to agree on what is dignified for matters at the extreme end of the policy distribution (e.g., incest, slavery, and cannibalism). On matters that fall closer to the mean (e.g., organ transplantation, cloning, affirmative action, tobacco regulation, church-state relationships, hate crimes, private gun ownership, and euthanasia), the preferences of individual citizens, groups, and nations vary tremendously.

These preference variations are exceedingly important, since actual behavior (including voting) maps neatly onto these expressed preferences. Given this diversity of preferences, and the inherent subjectivity of those preferences, it is unlikely that we, as a nation, will be able to settle on a single notion of human dignity, let alone be able to apply the resulting standard to a particular policy issue in a way that puts it permanently to rest.

The WBP analysis of cloning and human dignity concludes:

Before we support a worldwide ban on cloning, we need to carefully examine the ethical language used and be sure it reflects the common good. By adopting vague ethical language we are making ourselves vulnerable to manipulation by those with a broader policy agenda than just banning reproductive cloning.  We must watch carefully as human dignity is employed to ban human reproductive cloning, for it can unwittingly set the stage for banning other reproductive technologies such as IVF, genetic testing and genetic modification as well as therapeutic cloning.  

Sounds right to me. 

Comments

D.A. Ridgely|4.23.09 @ 12:43PM|#

"If true, Zavos has again failed to observe the universally accepted ban on human cloning."

Which I'd say kinda undercuts the notion of universal acceptance.

JP|4.23.09 @ 12:50PM|#

"But there are important ethical issues here that must be considered."

We let that whole intercourse thing get away from us, and now look where we are. All sorts of women running around getting pregnant without considering the important ethical issues!

Ska|4.23.09 @ 12:52PM|#

Call me when they can genetically enable me to shoot fire from my finger tips.

High Every Body|4.23.09 @ 12:56PM|#

The United Nations has passed resolutions urging the adoption of an international convention banning reproductive cloning.

Yea, that will take care of it. Are the strongly worded telegrams already formatted?

|4.23.09 @ 1:07PM|#

Republicans don't like human cloning.

Libertarians = Republicans

Libertarians are to blame for this.

QED

kinnath|4.23.09 @ 1:08PM|#

So is a clone born without a soul? Or must the DNA donar give up a portion of his or her soul? Which implies that the donor and all subsequent clones are only partially human.

Such a moral quandary.

|4.23.09 @ 1:09PM|#

"If true, Zavos has again failed to observe the universally accepted ban on human cloning, which was agreed because most of the resulting embryos from such animal experiments are abnormal."

Abnormal? Well I guess we'd better ban GOD from creating anymore human beings, because I see his "abnormal" creations every day---myself included.

Naga Sadow|4.23.09 @ 1:13PM|#

An army of Episiarch's . . . can you imagine it?

*shivers*

wingnutx|4.23.09 @ 1:14PM|#

Republicans don't like human cloning.

That must be why our current administration is so opposed to it.

Personally, I am all for it. I hope I live long enough to see the world turn into a William Gibson novel.

Syd|4.23.09 @ 1:14PM|#

Zavos's experiment shows that the technology is not ready, and, given the high risk of severe abnormality, a moratorium is still in order. (There's a big difference between a 1% chance and a 90% chance.) Whether cloning should be banned if the risks fall to say, 5% severe abnormality, is another matter.

Severe abnormality here being born with something like Spina bifida cystica, not being born with six fingers per hand; that would be kind of cool.

|4.23.09 @ 1:15PM|#

"So is a clone born without a soul? Or must the DNA donar give up a portion of his or her soul? Which implies that the donor and all subsequent clones are only partially human."

I see a new form of discrimination being born here.

|4.23.09 @ 1:17PM|#

Clone Ali Larter now. For the good of the species. I'm willing to wait 18 years for my copy.

wingnutx|4.23.09 @ 1:19PM|#

For god's sake don't clone Rutger Hauer again.

Syd|4.23.09 @ 1:20PM|#

You need three Ali Larters, one with superstrength, one for the alternate personality, and one with the freezing touch.

kinnath|4.23.09 @ 1:22PM|#

I anxiously await the day when we can each have a copy of Alice.

|4.23.09 @ 1:23PM|#

Nah, I'll just take the nice version. The other ones would probably murder me three seconds after I left my socks on the floor...

High Every Body|4.23.09 @ 1:24PM|#

That must be why our current administration is so opposed to it.

Part of that Rovian plot and all.

Tony-bot|4.23.09 @ 1:27PM|#

"That must be why our current administration is so opposed to it."

Hope! Change!

Jeff P|4.23.09 @ 1:27PM|#

If only there was some genre of literature that had spend over 50 years discussing the moral, legal, and social rammifications of cloning in excrutiating detail...

High Every Body|4.23.09 @ 1:29PM|#

DNA wants to be free!

robc, ruling please?

|4.23.09 @ 1:32PM|#

They cloned Rutger Hauer? Cool. I'd like one to employ for dealing harshly with Gene Simmons.

High Every Body|4.23.09 @ 1:34PM|#

They cloned Rutger Hauer? Cool. I'd like one to employ for dealing harshly with Gene Simmons.

One of my favorite Robert Guillaume movies EVAH!

|4.23.09 @ 1:34PM|#

Call me when they can genetically enable me to shoot fire from my finger tips.

Mohinder already figured how to do that...

You need three Ali Larters, one with superstrength, one for the alternate personality, and one with the freezing touch.

God damn it! Beaten.

An army of Episiarch's . . . can you imagine it?

There can be only one.

|4.23.09 @ 1:37PM|#

High Every Body,

I enjoyed that movie, especially the final dispatching of the bad guy. Who died in an equally unpleasant manner in Runaway.

|4.23.09 @ 1:40PM|#

Gene Simmons was never on Soap or Benson.

High Every Body|4.23.09 @ 1:42PM|#

Gene Simmons was never on Soap or Benson.

Have a point coming sometime soon or can I go out for a smoke?

Naga Sadow|4.23.09 @ 1:46PM|#

Epi,

Are you suggesting that SugarFree is even now creating clones that you are systematically beheading?

Naga Sadow, consultant of cool|4.23.09 @ 1:47PM|#

HEB,

That last comment actually made you cool. Not bad at all.

|4.23.09 @ 1:49PM|#

You need three Ali Larters, one with superstrength, one for the alternate personality, and one with the freezing touch.

God damn it! Beaten.

Getting beaten to Ali Larter is what robc would call a public good - your enjoyment of it in no way diminishes my own...

Paul|4.23.09 @ 1:50PM|#

Before we support a worldwide ban on cloning, we need to carefully examine the ethical language used and be sure it reflects the common good.

But isn't the exact opposite used for the justification for an early ban?

"Before we allow cloning to move forward, shouldn't we carefully examine the possible dangers and issues before the public good, and then only carefully allow that cloning which serves those ethical ends? I mean, better to be safe than sorry."

|4.23.09 @ 1:56PM|#

Episiarch,

Ah, but did Robert Guillaume ever say, "The next time you fuck me, kiss me first!" on Soap or Benson? He did on Wanted: Dead or Alive.

kinnath|4.23.09 @ 1:59PM|#

"Before we allow cloning to move forward, shouldn't we carefully examine the possible dangers and issues before the public good, and then only carefully allow that cloning which serves those ethical ends? I mean, better to be safe than sorry."

How exactly can artificial "twinning" produce a public harm?

|4.23.09 @ 2:01PM|#

How exactly can artificial "twinning" produce a public harm?

Ever heard of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen?

kinnath|4.23.09 @ 2:07PM|#

Ever heard of Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen?

You can blame god or random chance, but no evil scientist was involved in that calamity.

wingnutx|4.23.09 @ 2:15PM|#

You can blame god or random chance, but no evil scientist was involved in that calamity.

It had to have been evil science that turned them into nazi singing sensations.

BeesInTheBrain|4.23.09 @ 2:16PM|#

Ummmm Mary Kate and Ashley are fraternal twins.

|4.23.09 @ 2:17PM|#

fraternal twins

Way to ruin the joke, killjoy.

|4.23.09 @ 2:20PM|#

I've just learned that Mary Kate and Ashley are clones of Rutger Hauer with the Y chromosome removed.

|4.23.09 @ 2:23PM|#

Republicans don't like human cloning.

Libertarians = Republicans

Libertarians are to blame for this.


Did someone spoof Tony or is the brainwashing starting to wear off?

kinnath|4.23.09 @ 2:23PM|#

I've just learned that Mary Kate and Ashley are clones of Rutger Hauer with the extra Y chromosome removed.

wingnutx|4.23.09 @ 2:24PM|#

That's the chromosome that embiggens people.

Ravac|4.23.09 @ 2:24PM|#

They can make as many Rutger Hauers as they like. Only 6 year lifespan tho'. And they tend to come back and kill you.

|4.23.09 @ 2:31PM|#

kinnath,

Hey, me too!

Ravac,

That's android Rutger Hauers. People frequently confuse his clones and his androids.

High Every Body|4.23.09 @ 2:33PM|#

Android Rutger Hauer is a lot cooler than Commander Data, or Ash from Aliens even.

Ravac|4.23.09 @ 2:41PM|#

Pro Lib,

I didn't have time for a Voight-Kampf test dammit. Hauer was stalking the bionic woman, who was actually Rambo in drag, while Ferris baby-sat Cat Woman.

|4.23.09 @ 2:48PM|#

There's nothing cooler than Rutger Hauer. Especially when he's evil. He's like a pre-Techno Techno Viking.

Man-o|4.23.09 @ 2:56PM|#

Cloning seems like a bad idea to me, evolutionally speaking.

wingnutx|4.23.09 @ 2:57PM|#

There's a video store in Mesa, AZ that has an entire section devoted to Rutger Hauer movies.

kinnath|4.23.09 @ 3:07PM|#

Cloning seems like a bad idea to me, evolutionally speaking.

Why

High Every Body|4.23.09 @ 3:10PM|#

There's a video store in Mesa, AZ that has an entire section devoted to Rutger Hauer movies.

I found this interweb thingie that does the same thing. It is all over the world.

Man-o|4.23.09 @ 4:19PM|#

I am better than my father, and my son is better than me.

Bringing back the past, or worse, not creating the future, seems devolutionary.

wayne|4.23.09 @ 4:25PM|#

I am better than my father, and my son is better than me.

I knew your father. Your father was a friend of mine. You're not better than your father.

Jack Colby|4.23.09 @ 5:26PM|#

So according to Obama, you can murder an infant that has survived an abortion, but to bring a human life into existence via reproductive cloning is beyond the pale.

WASP|4.25.09 @ 4:07AM|#

"But it is not at all clear why safe reproductive cloning would be unethical."

The important word here is safe. The problem is that right now we don't have anything even remotely safe. I support the clones' right to life, which is why I oppose all cloning: it's bound to be fatal to the vast majority of them.

If you can come up with a form of cloning that actually works and doesn't produce life-threatening mutations and birth defects in the clone on virtually every attempt, then go for broke on your project with my blessing. There are probably more productive ways you could be spending your money, but as long as it's your money, that's your problem and not mine.

If you do manage to bring a clone to term, I'll also be proud to say he is as human as anyone else and entitled to all the same rights. I'm a Protestant, but I'm sure the Catholics will also recognize the existence of the clone's soul and welcome him into their cathedral if he decides he wants to worship there.