Frequently Asked Questions about Human
Cloning and the Council's Report:
"Human Cloning and
Human Dignity: An Ethical
Inquiry"
1. What is cloning? Cloning is a form of
reproduction in which offspring result not from the chance union of
egg and sperm (sexual reproduction) but from the deliberate
replication of the genetic makeup of another single individual
(asexual reproduction). Human cloning, therefore, is the asexual
production of a new human organism that is, at all stages of
development, genetically virtually identical to a currently existing
or previously existing human being. (Key terms are defined in Chapter
3 of the report.)
2. How is cloning related to somatic cell nuclear
transfer? Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the
technique by which cloning is accomplished. It involves introducing
the nuclear material of a human somatic cell (donor) into an oocyte
(egg cell) whose own nucleus has been removed or inactivated, and
then stimulating this new entity to begin dividing and growing,
yielding a cloned embryo. (Key terms are defined in Chapter
3 of the report, and a detailed description of SCNT is provided
in Chapter
4 of the report.)
3. For what purposes would anyone want to perform
human cloning? Human cloning might be undertaken for two
general purposes. One potential use would be to produce children who
would be genetically virtually identical to pre-existing
individuals. Another would be to produce cloned embryos for research
or therapy. For example, a scientist might wish to create a cloned
embryo which would then be taken apart to yield embryonic stem cells
that could potentially be used in biomedical research or therapies.
The Council has termed the first use “cloning-to-produce-children”
and the second “cloning-for-biomedical-research.” (The Council’s
choice of terms is discussed at length in Chapter
3 of the report.)
4. Why does human cloning matter? The
prospect of cloning-to-produce-children, which would be a radically
new form of procreation, raises deep concerns about identity and
individuality, the meaning of having children, the difference
between procreation and manufacture, and the relationship between
the generations. Cloning-for-biomedical-research also raises new
questions about the manipulation of some human beings for the
benefit of others, the freedom and value of biomedical inquiry, our
obligation to heal the sick (and its limits), and the respect and
protection owed to nascent human life. Moreover, the legislative
debates over human cloning raise questions about the relationship
between science and society, especially about whether society can or
should exercise ethical and prudential control over biomedical
technology and the conduct of biomedical research. Rarely has such a
seemingly small innovation raised such large questions.
5. Has anyone tried to perform human
cloning? Yes, though the extent to which attempts have
been successful at this stage is unclear. One American company and
one American university are known to have attempted to produce
cloned human embryos, but at least in early experiments were
unsuccessful. Reports from China and elsewhere suggest that serious
attempts have been made around the world. At this stage, it is
unclear if they have succeeded and to what extent. In addition,
researchers at Stanford University have announced their intention to
create cloned human embryos for research. Several groups around the
world also claim to have to have transferred cloned human embryos in
an effort to impregnate women, and at least one group claims such
pregnancies have resulted in several births. These claims as of
April 2003 have not been substantiated.
6. How many mammalian species have been cloned? With
what rates of success? Attempts have been made to clone
at least ten mammalian species, but at this point, published reports
suggest that seven species—sheep, cattle, goats, mice, pigs, cats,
and rabbits—have been successfully cloned. Rates of success have
been quite low: approximately 5 percent of attempts have resulted in
live births. Moreover, a substantial number of live-born cloned
mammals have shown severe abnormalities after birth. Some surviving
cloned cattle, however, do appear physiologically similar to their
uncloned counterparts, and at least one cloned sheep (Dolly) and
some cloned cows have given birth to offspring. (Scientific details
are provided in Chapter
4 of the report.)
7. How is research cloning related to embryonic stem
cell research? Cloning is related to stem cell research
in that both procedures deal with human embryos, and the human
embryos in both cases are destroyed when their stem cells are
extracted.
In cloning-for-biomedical research as well as in embryonic stem
cell research, scientists extract cells from embryos in order to use
those stem cells for research purposes.
The human embryos used in stem cell research are made in a
laboratory by combining sperm and eggs, frequently in an attempt to
compensate for infertility. A cloned human embryo does not result
from the random union of sperm and egg, but from a process called
somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus containing DNA
from a cell of one individual is put into an egg whose nucleus has
been removed. The resulting cloned embryo becomes genetically
virtually identical to the individual whose DNA was inserted into
the enucleated egg.
(Details are provided in Chapter
4 and 6
of the report.)
8. Why might anyone want to clone a
child? Cloning-to-produce-children might serve several
purposes. It might allow infertile couples or others to have
genetically related children; permit couples at risk of conceiving a
child with a genetic disease to avoid having an afflicted child;
allow the bearing of a child who could become an ideal transplant
donor for a particular patient in need; enable a parent to keep a
living connection with a dead or dying child or spouse; or even to
try to “replicate” individuals of great talent or beauty. These
purposes have been defended by appeals to the goods of freedom,
existence (as opposed to nonexistence), and well-being. (See Chapter
5 of the report.)
9. What are the arguments against cloning a
child? The Council holds that
cloning-to-produce-children would violate the principles of the
ethics of human research. Given the high rates of morbidity and
mortality in the cloning of other mammals,
cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe, and, as such,
attempts to produce a cloned child would be highly unethical. Even
conducting experiments in an effort to make
cloning-to-produce-children safer would itself be an unacceptable
violation of the norms of research ethics, so there seems to be no
ethical way to try to discover whether cloning-to-produce-children
can become safe, now or in the future. Beyond those safety issues,
the Council holds that cloning-to-produce-children would be a
radically new form of human procreation that leads to concerns
about: 1) problems of identity and individuality; 2) concerns
regarding manufacture; 3) the prospect of a new eugenics; 4)
troubled family relations; and 5) effects on the family. (These are
detailed in Chapter
5 of the report.)
10. Why might anyone want to
produce cloned embryos for biomedical research? Some
scientists believe that stem cells derived from cloned human
embryos, produced explicitly for such research, might prove uniquely
useful for studying many genetic diseases and devising novel
therapies. (See Chapters
4 and 6
of the report.)
11. Is cloning-for-biomedical-research the only way to
treat some diseases? No one knows. In fact, it is not
known if cloning-for-biomedical-research will help treat diseases at
all, but some researchers believe they have sound reasons for
expecting valuable knowledge from such research. Other avenues of
research on diseases are also being pursued, including adult stem
cell research and various alternative techniques for dealing with
immune rejection. Cloning-for-biomedical-research is one of many
potential routes to treatments and cures, but at this point
researchers have no way of knowing for sure which route will prove
most productive. (See Chapter
6 of the report.)
12. What are the arguments for and against cloning for
biomedical research? The primary argument for
proceeding with cloning-for-biomedical-research is that it might
lead to advances in medical knowledge and toward treatments and
cures. Those members of the Council who support
cloning-for-biomedical-research believe that it may offer uniquely
useful ways of investigating and possibly treating many chronic
debilitating diseases and disabilities, providing aid and relief to
millions who are suffering, and to their families and communities.
They also believe that the moral objections to this research—some of
which are taken quite seriously by some of these members—are
outweighed by the great good that may come from it.
The case against proceeding with the research does not deny the
possibility (albeit speculative) of medical progress from this work,
but rests on the belief of those members of the Council who oppose
the research that it is morally wrong to exploit and destroy
developing human life, even for good reasons, and that it is unwise
to open the door to the many undesirable consequences that are
likely to result from this research. These members point to concerns
about our obligations to nascent human life; the crossing of an
important moral boundary through the creation of human life
expressly and exclusively for the purpose of its use in research;
and possible further moral harms to our society.
(Both sets of arguments are presented in detail in Chapter
6 of the report.)
13. Is there any connection between the two uses of
human cloning? Both potential uses
(cloning-to-produce-children and cloning-for-biomedical-research)
begin in the same way with the act of cloning (by somatic cell
nuclear transfer) that produces a cloned human embryo. They are
therefore connected by technique and separated by intent. Any
attempt to limit or regulate one would almost inevitably touch upon
the other.
14. What does U.S. law now say about human cloning (state
and federal)? There is currently (as of April 2003), no
federal law on cloning, though the issue is being hotly debated in
Congress. Because there is so much activity on the state level in
this area, we are posting links to websites that track these data on
a regular basis. The President's Council on Bioethics makes no
claims as to their accuracy and our posting these links should not
be construed as an endorsement of their
contents.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/Genetics/03clone.htm
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/statelaw.htm
15. What do other countries do about human
cloning? Many countries have passed laws regarding one
or both uses of human cloning. Approaches vary widely from country
to country, with some banning both uses of cloning (for instance,
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Norway), while others
have prohibited cloning-to-produce-children while allowing and in
some cases regulating cloning-for-biomedical-research (for instance,
the United Kingdom). Several nations have also begun work in the
United Nations toward an international treaty banning one or both
forms of human cloning.
16. What are the Council’s policy recommendations on
human cloning? A minority of the Council (seven
members) recommended a ban on cloning-to-produce-children, with
federal regulation of the use of cloned embryos for biomedical
research. Such a policy, they argue, would permanently ban
cloning-to-produce-children, which nearly all Americans oppose, and
would allow potentially important biomedical research to continue,
thus offering hope to many who are suffering. These members believe
that a regulatory system would be sufficient to protect against
abuses and to prevent the implantation of cloned embryos to initiate
a pregnancy. Above all, they believe that society should support and
affirm the responsible effort to find treatments and cures for those
who need them.
A majority of the Council (ten members) recommended a ban on
cloning-to-produce-children combined with a four-year moratorium on
cloning-for-biomedical-research, and also called for a federal
review of current and projected practices of human embryo research,
pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, genetic modification of human
embryos and gametes, and related matters.
Such a policy, they argue, would most effectively ban
cloning-to-produce-children, which nearly all Americans oppose, and
would provide time for further democratic deliberation about
cloning-for-biomedical research, a subject about which the nation is
divided and where there remains great uncertainty.
A moratorium would allow time for moral persuasion; for further
animal experiments and progress on alternative avenues of research
(including adult stem cells, and other approaches to the immune
rejection problem); and for development of possible future
regulations by those who do not wish to see the moratorium made
permanent.
It would show respect for the views of the large number of
Americans who have serious ethical problems with this research, and
it would promote a fuller and better-informed public debate. The
moratorium, they argue, would also enable society to consider this
activity in the larger context of research and technology in the
areas of developmental biology, embryo research, and genetics.
Finally, a moratorium, rather than a lasting ban, signals a high
regard for the value of biomedical research and an enduring concern
for patients and families whose suffering such research may help
alleviate. These members believe that on this important subject
American society should take the time to make a judgment that is
well-informed, respectful of strongly held views, and representative
of the priorities and principles of the American people. They
believe this proposal offers the best available way to a wise and
prudent policy
(Both recommendations, and supporting arguments, are presented at
length in Chapter
8 of the report.)
17. Are disagreements over cloning basically a clash
of religion and science? Disagreements over the ethical
and policy positions regarding human cloning do not seem to fall
along lines of science and religion. The Council’s own deliberations
are an example of this. Eight of the Council’s eighteen members have
degrees in medicine or biomedical science. Four of these supported
the majority proposal, while the other four supported the minority.
Meanwhile, members with strong religious convictions can be found on
both sides as well. Unusual left-right coalitions have also been
seen on both sides of the cloning debate in Congress. Differing
assessments of the moral significance of the facts at hand have
shaped the differing opinions of the members.
18. Where does President George W. Bush stand on
human cloning? President Bush has expressed strong
opposition to all human cloning, whether for biomedical research or
for producing children. For more information about his views, visit
the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
|