The New Eugenics:
Cloning and
Beyond
By: Therese M. Lysaught, Ph.D.
"Know that the Lord is good. He made us and we are his – his people,
the sheep of his flock."
So began the Office of Readings the day I
sat down to write this article. This verse seemed ironically fitting to
reflect upon in considering human cloning.
At last year's U.N.
Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa, the "Contribution of the Holy
See" closed with the disturbing specter of the "risk of a new form of racism,"
one presented most compellingly by the prospect of human cloning. The
Contribution warned that techniques of "artificial procreation, the use of
‘superfluous embryos,' [and] so-called therapeutic cloning … could lead to the
creation of a ‘subcategory of human beings,' destined basically for the
convenience of certain others." This, they argue, would be "a new and terrible
form of slavery. Regrettably, it cannot be denied that the temptation of
eugenics is still latent, especially if powerful commercial interests exploit
it."
This is strong language—racism, slavery, eugenics. Is the Holy See
being alarmist? Is this language designed to condemn human cloning through
guilt by association? Or is this a prophetic warning based on the very public
actions, rhetoric, and pretensions of those within the scientific and
biotechnology community?
Cloning, SCNT, and the Legislative
Moment
Cloning is now often referred to as "somatic cell nuclear
transfer," abbreviated "SCNT." To clone, researchers must obtain an oocyte (a
woman's reproductive cell) and remove the nucleus (which contains most of the
genes, and directions for function). Imagine taking a chicken egg and somehow,
without destroying the egg, removing all of the yolk, leaving only the egg
white within the shell. Then, a cell (say, a skin cell) is taken from the body
of a different adult. Since it comes from the body it's referred to as a
"somatic" cell. The nucleus of this skin cell is removed and injected or
"transferred" into the enucleated oocyte. This is like injecting it into the
de-yolked chicken egg, only on a much, much smaller scale. Stimulated with an
electrical charge, the combined materials from the two different cells fuse.
The oocyte realizes that it now has a full complement of DNA (instead of the
half that it has on its own) and it begins to act as if it's been fertilized.
It begins to divide and grow as an embryo. At this point, two things might
happen. The embryo could be implanted into a woman's uterus and brought to
term. Or it could be used for research. Either way, one has cloned a
human.
Currently three pieces of legislation that will determine what,
if any, of the above is legal, are competing for votes in the U.S. Senate. One
bill calls for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. Should the Senate pass
it, cloning human embryos (for any reason) would become illegal in the U.S. In
classic ethical terms, proponents of this bill hold that no end for which
cloning might be used would justify this means of achieving that
end.
Others have introduced alternative legislation that tries to
distinguish between the purposes to which cloning is put. This legislation
would permit scientists to use SCNT to create human clones in their labs, to
use them for research and as a source of stem cells. This application of
cloning is referred to as "research" cloning or "therapeutic" cloning. But it
would ban implanting such an embryo in a womb (or carrying the embryo to
term), to prevent what some call "reproductive" cloning.
How could
cloning be "therapeutic" (since it certainly isn't therapeutic for the clone)?
Advocates claim that stem cells derived from embryos "left over" after in
vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures will not be as helpful as some claim,
because of the problem of tissue rejection. Therefore, if we are to realize
the promise of human embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) for the millions of
people who suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, ALS, spinal cord injury, and so
on, patients will need embryos that match their own individual tissues. In
other words, to create a therapy for a patient, the patient will first need to
be cloned.
Racism and Slavery
It is generally
considered bad form to invoke in ethical argument the historic specters of
slavery or the Nazis. But an increasing number of critics, both secular and
religious, have recognized a dangerous connection between human cloning and
these historic forms of injustice. Racism and similar forms of discrimination
entail the belief that particular groups of human beings are excluded from the
political and moral community on the basis of perceived differences. Physical
and other differences between humans are used as markers for exclusion.
Philosophical and ideological concepts are often overlaid onto these
differences to justify the resulting exclusion and exploitation.
Those
who oppose racism and discrimination (whether based on race, gender,
disability, class, etc.) are united in saying that the morally relevant
criterion is our shared humanity. As the founding documents of the U.S.
declare, "All humans [to correct for their exclusive language] are created
equal." All humans, in other words, are of equal, incalculable, moral worth.
The acknowledgement of human equality and dignity stands against utilitarian
calculations of the value and worth of an individual. To create a hierarchy of
value among humans based on physical differences or abilities, opponents of
racism maintain, is morally corrupt.
Or so we declare. As we know,
however, our actions and lives often belie our rhetoric. Racism is deeply
entrenched not only in the U.S. but globally. The dignity and equality of
human beings is an ideal – a claim we believe to be true and a practice we
strive to make real. For Catholics and others committed to consistency in
their ethics, any systematic assault against innocent human life further
devalues all human life.
The current rhetoric surrounding ESCR and
human cloning sadly fits the classic understanding of racism. Some
philosophers have even attempted to claim that human embryos ought not to be
understood as either human or alive. This intentional distortion of language
and common sense is as transparent as it is disturbing. It is the ultimate
dehumanization and discrimination, a tactic used primarily to justify violence
(think of how we dehumanize the enemy in times of hatred and war).
Most
advocates of ESCR and cloning, however, do not go quite that far. The National
Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), in its 1999 report Ethical Issues in
Human Stem Cell Research, noted a broad agreement that "human embryos
deserve respect as a form of human life." What they give here with one hand,
however, they take away with the other. After acknowledging that embryos are
indeed human life, they go on to recommend that "leftover" embryos can be
destroyed for research or in service to others. They hold open the possibility
of creating embryos solely for research or via cloning in the future. In
effect, NBAC not only sanctions the systematic destruction of human life but
defines a class of human beings it is morally acceptable to use for our own
purposes. Embryos are not the moral equivalent, NBAC agrees, of full-fledged
persons. They do not have the same value or worth because they lack certain
characteristics (rationality, self-consciousness, autonomy) or, as some argue,
because they look different from us. They are not, therefore, members of the
moral community (language eerily similar to that used in the Dred Scott
decision on slavery).
Cloning for research purposes takes this logic
one step further. Now it is not only "leftover" or "surplus" embryos that can
be traded, exploited and destroyed for human benefit. Now advocates are
lobbying hard to actually create a new class of human beings whose sole
reason for existence is to be exploited, and possibly owned, by
others.
Not only does this offend those who work diligently to defend
the sanctity and dignity of human life in all its forms. It likewise horrifies
secular commentators. Many who lobbied hard in favor of ESCR drew the line at
creating embryos for research (whether through cloning or IVF). Proposals to
clone embryos for research would cross that line, representing the first time
we would intentionally create human beings solely for use of their parts.
Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist and member of President Bush's
Council on Bioethics, supports ESCR and does not believe that embryos are
"persons." Nonetheless, as he notes:
There is a great distance between inviolability, on the one
hand, and mere "thingness" on the other. Many advocates of research cloning
see nothing but thingness. That view justifies the most ruthless
exploitation of the embryo. Embryos are created with the explicit intention
of eventual destruction. Deliberately creating embryos for eventual and
certain destruction means the launching of an entire industry of embryo
manufacture. It means the routinization, the commercialization, the
commodification of the human embryo.
This, he and many others
argue, goes too far.
From the Therapeutic Imperative to the
Therapeutic Bait-and-Switch
Advocates of ESCR and human cloning are
savvy marketers. They have learned from the past fifteen years of developments
in biotechnology—especially from the Human Genome Project and the field of
gene "therapy"—that the way to overcome public opposition to a highly
controversial new venture is to cast it in the language of therapy. The
language of therapy functions rhetorically as an argument in itself; no
further argument need be offered. No opposition will be broached. For who but
a moral barbarian could oppose a technique that may relieve the pain and
suffering or extend the life of someone who is ill, especially a sick
child?
This "therapeutic imperative" is problematic in a number of
ways. It forecloses public discourse. It trades on the compassion of the
American public, appealing emotively rather than rationally, manipulating
public opinion and policy. For Christians, while reducing suffering and
ameliorating life threatening diseases are important mandates, we must be
suspicious of rhetoric that turns health and healing into an idol, an end in
itself to which all else is sacrificed. It is also often deceptive. As many
prominent scientists have noted, any "therapeutic" application of ESCR is most
likely a long way off at best. Many prominent scientists admit that the
therapeutic promise of human embryonic stem cell research is overstated. This
is even truer with cloning, given the preliminary nature of the work, the low
efficiency rates and the high rates of genetic deformity in cloned
animals.
It is this therapeutic imperative that gives rise to concerns
about the slippery slope. Witness the shift in momentum from ESCR to cloning.
As long as "therapy" and simple utilitarianism drive the discussion, it
becomes impossible to argue against any further step that claims to address
human illness and disability. Cloning advocates and eugenic futurists already
anticipate human-animal hybrids, intentionally mutated human bodies developed
for use only as parts, the development (intentionally or by economic default)
of subclasses of human beings to serve as slaves for the rest. Shortly after
Dolly's birth, some speculated about the possibility of a disturbing prospect:
creating headless human clones, grown in artificial wombs. Lee Silver,
molecular biologist at Princeton and cloning advocate, was quoted as finding
"nothing wrong" with doing this.
I cite these examples not to be
alarmist but because cloning advocates trumpet them as noble and inevitable
outcomes. Historically, reproductive and genetic techniques developed in
animals have, for the most part, eventually been used in humans. Already,
researchers say they have fused human DNA with ova from cows and rabbits, to
circumvent the problem that cloning requires lots of hard-to-come-by human
ova.
In addition, we face what one might call the problem of the
"therapeutic bait-and-switch." Once public support has been won and techniques
have been developed, new technologies tend to become detached from their
therapeutic moorings and be made available for decidedly non-therapeutic
purposes. One need only think of the "Microsort" sperm-sorting technology,
originally developed to aid persons bearing X-linked chromosomal disorders but
immediately offered to those who wanted to "balance" the genders of their
children. Or the potential to use gene "therapy" to treat baldness, a
possibility that was heralded in 1999 as a fortuitous outcome of research. Or
Botox—the botulism toxin that was originally developed to treat spasmodic
conditions of the eyes, but off-label has become the treatment of choice among
the cosmetic surgery set, comprising twenty percent of all cosmetic surgery
interventions done in the U.S. annually.
Should "therapeutic cloning"
move forward, how would we guarantee that embryos were created and destroyed
only in service of the great and noble good of therapy? What "off-label uses"
would be developed in the private sector? The history of government regulation
hardly instills confidence here.
Of course, the most significant
"off-label" use of research cloning would be reproductive cloning. These
efforts are already afoot. Researchers in the U.S., Italy and China all claim
to have made progress toward producing the first cloned human
infant.
Although almost everyone agrees that reproductive cloning
should be banned, such a ban would be nearly impossible to enforce once we
allow cloning of human embryos for research. These researchers, and many
fertility specialists, accept the argument that cloning is simply another form
of assisted reproduction. The Human Cloning Foundation argues that to ban
cloning would violate the human and constitutional right to reproduce in the
manner of one's own choosing, without undue government interference. Along
with the quasi-religious pro-cloning group Clonaid and scientist Richard Seed,
this foundation also sees cloning as a route to immortality.
Commodification and
Exploitation
Commercial interests have under girded both eugenics
and slavery. They are major factors in the lobby behind ESCR and cloning as
well. As cultural critic Cornel West has said in another context: "the market
ethos that permeates almost every sphere of society … makes it very difficult
to hold on to non-market values. … It makes it difficult for us to take, not
only commitment and caring and sacrificing, but ultimately human life
seriously… Profits become much more important than human
life."
According to Patent Watch, a patent on human reproductive
cloning and any "products" created by that process, theoretically including
embryos, fetuses and children, was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office in April 2001, and three additional patents on human cloning are
pending. Such patents signal the penultimate form of discrimination –
ownership of and profit from one group of humans by another. These render
dubious any claims that researchers understand embryos as a form of human life
worthy of respect. The rhetoric is the language of therapy, but the reality is
that of hope for a financial windfall.
Finally, apart from the embryos
themselves, it will be the bodies of women that bear the greatest burden in
the use of these techniques because ova are needed for the research. The
practice of cloning would further the trend of thinking of our bodies in
market terms—since the gametes required would be bought and sold, the embryos
thus created would be "owned," and the products issuing from them could be
sold. We must also ask: who are the women who will undergo what is necessary
to sell their gametes, to make embryos solely for research? Euphemistically
referred to as egg "donors" these women will be paid. The process, however, is
quite burdensome and carries medical risks. Who will be the women
target-marketed by researchers who need ova? In what communities will we find
the advertisements "Egg Donors. Excellent Compensation"? If history is any
indicator, one can reasonably bet that it will be the bodies of poor women of
color—in the U.S. and abroad—who will bear the burden of repeated cycles of
hormone shots, surgical egg retrieval, and the unknown risks that attend high
doses of fertility hormones.
And who will bear the burden if the
research bears fruit, and there is suddenly a "need" for a production-level
number of embryos to supply tissues for patients? Feminists who
support
ESCR and "abortion rights" have come out against cloning for
research purposes, in part because it will require thousands, if not millions,
of human eggs. At a minimum, to create one clone requires one oocyte. But,
given the enormous failure rate and the high percentage of deformities among
clones, dozens if not hundreds of oocytes will be required to produce one
successful cell line. To meet the therapeutic "promise" of cloning could
require hundreds of millions of eggs. As African American women under slavery
were exploited for their reproductive potential to fuel the economic machinery
of the U.S., we again find the potential for grave reproductive exploitation
of women of color and poverty, for the benefit of wealthy Americans.
The Sheep of His Flock
In the end,
the prospect of human cloning urges us to remember that we are neither our own
creators nor our own destiny. Nor are we to be the makers, owners, or destiny
of others. Hubris may lead some to make "sheep" of others through cloning, to
create a subcategory of humans—exploited, enslaved, and destroyed for the
convenience and profit of a few. But Christians will remember that the
differences that are part of the wonder of creation do not erase our essential
equality before God. We are all the sheep of His flock. How we treat the
least, most vulnerable, most voiceless among us is a measure not of their
humanity but of our own. For what we do to them, we do unto Him.
Dr.
Lysaught is an associate professor, Department of Religious Studies,
University of Dayton.
Copyright © 2002, United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. Illustration by
Dolores Daly Flessner. 0250
Resources
Teaching Documents
Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human
Embryonic Stem Cells. Pontifical Academy for Life, 2000. Reprinted in The
Pope Speaks, March- April, 2001. Call 800-348-2440 or visit
www.osvbooks.com.
Donum Vitae (Instruction on Respect for Human Life
in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation). Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, 1987. USCCB: Call 800-235-8722 or visit http://www.usccb.org/publishing/index.htm.
The
Gospel of Life. Pope John Paul II, 1995. USCCB: Call 800-235-8722 or visit
http://www.usccb.org/publishing/index.htm.
Books
Brannigan, Michael C. (ed.)
Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2001.
Evans, Debra, Without Moral Limits: Women, Reproduction, and
Medical Technology. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2000. Call 800-635-7993
or visit www.gnpcb.org.
Gormally, Luke (ed.) Issues for a Catholic
Bioethic. London: The Linacre Center, 1999. Visit
www.linacre.org.
Kilner, John F. et al. (eds.) Cutting- Edge
Bioethics: A Christian Exploration of Technologies and Trends. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002. Call 800-253-7521 or visit
www.eerdmans.com.
Kristol, William and Cohen, Eric (eds.) The
Future Is Now: America Confronts the New Genetics. Lanham, Md.: Rowman
& Littlefield Publ., 2002. Call 800-462-6420 or visit
www.rowmanlittlefield.com.
Lester, Lane P. and Hefley, James C.
Human Cloning: Playing God or Scientific Progress? Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Fleming H. Revell, 1998. Call 800-877-2665 or visit
www.bakerbooks.com.
May, William E. Catholic Bioethics and the Gift
of Human Life. Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor Books, 2000. Call
800-348-2440 or visit www.osvbooks.com.
Neuhaus, Richard J. (ed.)
Guaranteeing the Good Life: Medicine and the Return of Eugenics. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1990. Call 800-253-7521 or visit
www.eerdmans.com.
Smith, Wesley J. Culture of Death. San
Francisco: Encounter Books, 2001. Call 800-786-3839 or visit
www.encounterbooks.com.
Internet
www.cloninginformation.org
(Americans to Ban Cloning coalition)
www.ncbcenter.org (Nat'l Catholic
Bioethics Center)
www.nrlc.org (Nat'l Right to Life
Committee)
www.stemcellresearch.org (Coalition of Americans for
Research Ethics)
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/index.htm
(U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities)
__________________________
Secretariat for
Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3211
4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202)
541-3070