TEN MIS-CONCEPTIONS:
My purpose in outlining these mis-conceptions is to debunk some
existing myths surrounding human genetic manipulation in general and
germ line alteration and human cloning in particular. In so doing, I
focus only on potential technological harms within the broad context
of U.S. culture.
1.WOMEN'S DISEASES, ABILITIES, AND PERSONALITIES ARE GENETICALLY
DETERMINED AND THUS, SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS ARE GENETICALLY BASED.
"Genomania", the term coined by Ruth Hubbard, a biologist and
professor emeritus from Harvard University and board member of the
Council for Responsible Genetics,x refers to the
way in which biological determinism has entered into the public's
consciousness through the media.xi Our lives
are increasingly pervaded by a flow of biomedical knowledge showing
a connection between biology and identity and biology and disease.
We are witnessing the over-geneticization of people and life. Genes
alone do not determine a person's health, ability or personality. In
fact, the majority of diseases, abilities, and personalities are
influenced by multiple genetic and environmental factors.
Ultimately, we are complex social and biological beings.
2.THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT AND HUMAN GENOME SEQUENCE IS
"NEUTRAL". Interestingly, the question of whose genome is being
matched and whose sequences are we being compared to often gets
overlooked. The human genome sequence, which women are being
compared to, is referred to by scientists as "neutral" in that it is
a generic composite, developed mainly from existing cell lines of
healthy individuals of both sexes from different races and ethnic
groups.xii Based on past lessons, we know that
research on male subjects cannot always be accurately applied to
women. Thus, is there really such a thing as a "neutral" human
genome sequence, which disregards sex and other factors?
Additionally, women need to question the soundness of genetic
research costing three billion dollars, given the limited funding
for research and inadequate coverage of basic rights of women
including food, clothing and shelter. For example, this year
California received an F Report Card rating for its lack of access
to health coverage and health care with a record 20% of women
uninsured.xiii
3. GERM LINE ALTERATION AND HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING IS
RELATIVELY RISK FREE AND WHATEVER RISKS EXIST WILL BE WORKED OUT IN
A SHORT TIME. The pro-human reproductive cloning "spin team" is up
and running. In the media, pro-cloning scientists are emphasizing
what they know and are planning that one success will erase all
ethical and safety concerns. It is suggested, despite bans in most
of Europe and in four U.S. states, that human cloning is inevitable
and just a matter of time. Dr. Zavos, one of the team members who
will attempt human reproductive cloning said, "We have a great deal
of knowledge. We can grade embryos, we can do genetic screening, and
we can do quality control". Seemingly, as an after thought he added,
"it's not the easiest thing. The stability of the genetic
information is what's important. We are cloning a human being now;
we are not trying to create a Dolly. You don't want to create a
monster." xiv In a recent television interview, he
added, "we don't intend to step on dead bodies to get there." But
cloning babies is only a matter of time.xv
Women need to be greatly concerned when potential risks of human
reproductive cloning are downplayed or ignored. To create animal
clones, scientists frequently made hundreds of failed attempts to
develop viable embryos. Many, including medical professionals and
ethicists, have posed the possibility of cruel failures in human
cloning, where genetic abnormalities result in grotesque fetuses
unable to survive outside the womb and neonatal
mortality.xvi "All sorts of things can go wrong,"
said George Seidel, a cloning researcher at Colorado State
University. Cloned cattle and sheep are often born dangerously
large. A calf might normally weigh 100 pounds but a clone might
weigh 160 pounds. This excessive size prevents the calf from having
room to grow and wiggle resulting in all sorts of limb deformities.
"Sometimes the kidneys aren't right -they're just plain put together
wrong- or the heart is, or the lungs, or the immune system," he
added. "It can be a unique abnormality in each case. They can die
within a few days after birth, or sometimes they just can't make it
after you cut the umbilical cord." Nobody really knows
why.xvii Even Dr. Harry Griffith, assistant
director of the Roslin Institute, Scotland, which successfully
cloned Dolly, the sheep, said on BBC News Online, "It would be
wholly irresponsible to try to clone a human being, given the
present state of technology. The success rate with animal cloning is
about one to two percent in the published results, and I think lower
than that on average. I don't know anyone working in this area that
thinks the rates will easily be improved. There are many cases where
the cloned animals die late in pregnancy or soon after
birth".xviii Others have cited risks to women in
carrying clones. For example, several scientists said almost all of
the first 100 clones will abort spontaneously because genetic or
physical abnormalities, putting the health and lives of the
surrogate mothers at risk.xix
Scientists and doctors who support human genetic manipulation
argue that any woman undergoing these new techniques will be told
about all the risks in order to make an informed decision. Dr. Zavos
said, "Cloning has already been developed in animals. The genie is
out of the bottle. It's a matter of time when humans will apply it
to themselves, and we think this is best initiated by us... with
ethical guidelines and quality standards."xx But
can these same doctors, working at such high stakes for success and
fame, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), within private
hospitals and clinics motivated by profit, be entrusted to develop
informed consent protocols that are in the best interests of women?
This, I argue, is a serious conflict of interest. We have examples
from the past illustrating abuses and the need for additional
mechanisms to protect women and women's health. Women who underwent
in-vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques, often to overcome male
infertility problems, read and signed informed consent forms but
some women later learned that information about possible risks was
withheld; specifically, some women were not informed about a
Stanford University study with results linking multiple failed
attempts at IVF to an increased risk of ovarian
cancer.xxi When I asked several doctors why this
information was not reported to infertile couples, they said the
results were not statistically significant. I wondered out loud why
women should not be allowed to read the study to determine that
themselves. Last year I, along with a woman who donated her eggs on
three separate occasions, was interviewed on KPFA Radio about the
social and ethical issues of egg donation. Her doctors, whom she
trusted, repeatedly told this woman that the hormones she was given
to stimulate egg production had no known health risks. Since there
is evidence about potential risks, this is irresponsible
information. Women are rarely provided with, what the National
Women's Health Network (The Network) refers to as, evidence-based,
independent information to empower women to make fully informed
decisions. For example, how many organizations do you know, such as
The Network, that act as an independent voice for women's health by
accepting no money from companies that sell pharmaceuticals, medical
devices, dietary supplements, alcohol, tobacco, or health insurance?
We need to ensure that women will not only have informed consent
forms but will have access to evidence-based, independent
information.
In addition to physical risks, women face serious social,
psychological, moral, and legal risks. They will be burdened with
the moral status of their embryos and responsibilities for future
generations. If human reproductive cloning is allowed, social
relationships between people will become very complex and we will
need additional guidelines about how to act towards one another. A
cloned child will ask, "What is my relationship to you?" and will
want to know, "Are you my mother, sister, or
twin?"xxii What will happen if a woman refuses to
use these new genetic tests and her baby is not considered "normal"
by some external standard or committee? Furthermore, who sets the
standards and decides what is "normal"? Many in the disability
community are rightfully concerned about these issues and others
including, how embryo decision-making occurs at the pre-implantation
stage.xxiii What will happen if and when a woman
makes a different decision than her doctor wants? What will happen
if a woman and her partner (male or female) cannot agree on similar
qualities for their baby? Will these women face criminal charges or
wrongful birth suits? In a societal context where women have been
criminally charged for failing to agree to a caesarian or charged
with ingesting drugs that endanger their newborn, these women might
well face criminal charges or wrongful birth suits. Such a scenario
is not paranoia but rather, raises some serious concerns about both
the short and long term consequences of new human genetic
manipulations including human reproductive cloning. Overall, we are
in danger of losing our humanity.
4. THE COMMERIALIZATION OF REPRODUCTION IS NOT A PROBLEM AND WILL
NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT WOMEN
According to a recent newspaper report, Mark Eibert, a cloning
advocate and attorney, said he received requests daily from people
asking whether or not they can participate in clinical trials of
reproductive cloning. Of those, he estimates that 90 percent are
infertile, 1 percent are gay or lesbian, and the rest are worried
about genetic diseases.xxiv What isn't revealed is
just as important as what is. Who will be the first subjects of
these new experiments? What selection criteria will doctors use to
decide? Will it be wealthy women, mainly Caucasian, who can afford
to pay the estimated $50,000 fee? Or poor women, especially women of
color, who are too often subjects of human experimentation trials?
Within the United States and abroad, I could imagine a scenario in
which both would be possible. Within the United States, despite
recent evidence that black women suffer 1.5 times more from
infertility problems than white women, white women
disproportionately use expensive technologies to bear children,
while black women disproportionately undergo surgical procedures
that prevent them from being able to bear children.xxv
What will this mean for all women as we face new human
genetic manipulation techniques on the horizon?
5. GERM LINE ALTERATIONS AND HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING WILL SAVE
A DYING CHILD, REPLACE A DEAD CHILD AND REDUCE HUMAN SUFFERING. I do
not think there is any disagreement that we would all want to save a
dying child or reduce human suffering. The question is, can germ
line alteration really save a dying child and cure diseases? In U.S.
mainstream society where most people are terrified of death and
dying, we strive for quick fixes. Unfortunately, there are no quick
fixes to many diseases and to death. Scientists and doctors held out
the same hopes for somatic therapy, which has been largely
unsuccessful, and sometimes quite dangerous. Last year's untimely
death of a young man undergoing somatic therapy raised many concerns
about the process and forced a critical re-examination of the health
risks of somatic therapy. We know even less about germ line
alteration.
The first time I heard Marcy Darnovskyxxvi
speak at sociologist Diane Beeson's homexxvii she
told the story of how a female bioethicist, testifying as an expert
witness at a California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning, argued
that one reason reproductive cloning should be allowed is to replace
the loss of a child. What an insult to human dignity -as though a
child who dies can so easily be replaced! Among some grieving
parents there is a misperception that a cloned child will be the
exact replica of a child that died.xxviii Since
each child is unique and can never be replaced, this sets up a
dangerous precedent. George Annas, a biomedical ethicist and lawyer,
has said, "perhaps [the] most compelling [reason to clone a human]
is cloning a dying child if this is what grieving parents want. But
this should not be permitted. Not only does this encourage the
parents to produce a child in the image of another, it also
encourages us all to view children as interchangeable commodities.
The death of a child thus need no longer be a singular human
tragedy, but rather an opportunity to try to duplicate the no longer
priceless deceased child." xxix And yet as I write
this, the scientific director for the Raelian religion based in
Canada, which believes that humans are clones of extraterrestrial
scientists and that human cloning is the key to eternal life, said
the group has begin to work on the clone of a 10 month old baby girl
who died earlier this year.xxx
Additionally, in a transglobal world, we also need to be
extremely cautious about eliminating specific genes or diseases when
we do not know the full implications of what this means. As a
medical anthropologist, I have learned there are many complex
relationships between disease and health; for example, in Africa,
sickle cell anemia offers protection against malaria. Sometimes we
may believe we are doing good but may actually be doing harm.
CONTINUE
READING ---->