DSE II Sharma !

Deepshikha Sharma

Dr. Geetesh Nirban

Bioethics

11 November 2018

Cloning

Cloning, a biotechnological practice which creates a copy of some biological entity such

as a gene, a cell, or perhaps an entire organism, enraptures scientists, entertains the public, and

divides parliaments, due to the immense potential it contains, yet to be decrypted. The scandal

around this practice may be pinned down to the myths, entailing zombies, robots, armies, fabri-

cated to serve as content for science fiction, and also the act of scientist who oversold their re-

search and made fraudulent claims about their successful experiments. However, pioneers of sci-

ence, and “visionaries” very much encourage and patronise the practice, hoping for break-

throughs that would radically change the biomedical sciences. Stereotypical media portrayals

force people to look at the practice with a dubious eye, as the supporters try to clarify the misrep-

resentations. To explore the ethical dimension of cloning, one must look at the technicalities

while weighing both sides of the argument with an unbiased attitude to take a personal stand, as

to whether cloning is moral or not.

Among the three types of cloning, molecular cloning can be said to be the least problem-

atic due to its simplistic goal of replicating genes for the facilitation of further research. However,

there is much contention regarding the use of therapeutic/embryonic cloning as it isolates cells

from a cloned embryo, in virtue of it’s quality of plasticity to morph into any cell, destroying it.

Opponents reject embryonic cloning on the basis of the moral rights the embryo possesses as a
DSE II Sharma !2

person or a potential person while supporters counter it by giving anatomical arguments as to

why a developing embryo cannot be considered to be so. The most controversial of them all

would be reproductive cloning, where the cloned embryo is transferred to a uterus for gestation,

which could be further divided into animal, and human cloning respectively. While there is not

much variance regarding the cloning of animals - as it could it could save endangered species,

increase the efficiency of livestock farming, and provide compatible organs for transplant to hu-

mans, the last two being objectionable from the perspective of animal right ethicists endowing

personhood to other species - it leads one to presume that if successful, it may lead to the cloning

of humans.

Michael Tooley distinguishes between the two cases of human cloning: (i) a clone, de-

prived of the capacity to develop any sort of consciousness, with same genetic makeup as the

original individual to function as a organ bank with spare parts, incase accidents take place (ii)

production of a person. Organ harvesting of the former sort is strongly spoken against as it would

lead to the death of a person, which leads to the theoretical concept of personhood, and whether a

mindless clone can said to be one. To this, the contenders ask the supporters whether it would be

morally plausible to kill an adult who suffers grave brain damage, which is replied to positively

on grounds of the quality versus quantity argument, where quality of life has more gravity than

the quantity. Another protest against the former sort of cloning would the destruction of a poten-

tial person due to the fact that the clone can never develop a functioning brain which Tooley dis-

mantles elegantly. However, cloning is usually rejected against when there is a person concerned

rather than a mindless organ bank.

DSE II Sharma !3

The second case of cloning is strongly objected with Dan Brock giving two lines of ar-

gument regarding the rejection of cloning through a moral lens:

(i) the right to an open future: According to some ethicists who oppose human cloning, a

cloned child’s identity and individuality will be compromised given that she will be “saddled

with a genotype that has already lived”. Because of the expectations that the cloned child will

re-live the life of her genetic predecessor, the child would necessarily be deprived of

her right to an open future. Her free will and autonomy would be severely restricted by her

parents or the society that has certain expectations of her given her genetic lineage. This ar-

gument is unsuccessful in illustrating that there is something intrinsically morally wrong with

cloning. The subject of this objection is not cloning itself, but rather the erroneous attitude

that parents will have in regard to their cloned child. Moreover, many parents are, to varying

degrees of severity, already guilty of violating such a right with their naturally created chil-

dren by trying to instil values or teaching of a particular skill or sending the child to a specific

school. Also, at its core, this objection assumes the very controversial thesis that either a per-

son’s genes play an almost fatalistic role in her life decisions, or that individuals in society

will assume some robust version of genetic determinism to be true and will treat cloned chil-

dren according to that assumption, which is not true.

(ii) the right to a unique genetic identity: Because cloning entails recreating an existing

person’s genetic code, some argue that cloning would, necessarily, entail a violation of the

cloned child’s right to a distinctive genetic identity. This objection functions on the presump-

tion that it’s one’s DNA is what endows each human being with uniqueness and dignity.

However, the existence of identical multiples, who are, in essence, clones of nature, serve as

the strongest evidence against this claim. No one claims that identical multiples’ right to a

unique genetic identity was compromised simply in virtue of their creation, which calls into
DSE II Sharma !4

question whether such a right exists in the first place. Proponents of this objection ignore the

very important role that nurture has in shaping a person’s identity. A cloned child would be

gestated in a different uterine environment. She would be born into either the same family,

but with a different dynamic, as her genetic predecessor, or be born into a different family

altogether. She would also likely be raised in a much different society as what forms or

shapes each person’s individual identity is an intricate interaction of genetics and nurture.

Another objection against cloning is grounded on the fact that it oversteps the boundaries

of humans’ role in scientific research and development by “playing God” by interfering with nat-

ural progression of life, and participating in something highly “unnatural”. However, humans

constantly interfere with nature in ways that are not morally criticized. Almost all instances of

medical advancements in the past 100 years from antibiotics to pacemakers interfere with nature

in the sense that they prevent otherwise harmful or fatal afflictions from taking their toll on a hu-

man body. A classic case of “Biologism Fallacy” I.e.“the fallacious effort to wring a moral man-

date out of raw biological facts”, can be observed here as unnatural is equated with immoral,

which is not so as unnaturally is not the condition of immorality. In this case, wearing clothes in

unnatural and hence, immoral.

A common misconception about clones being “designer” babies is another objection

where cloning would exacerbate existing inequalities of caste and class by introducing a new cri-

teria of discrimination i.e. biological, and would commodify the children who would be viewed

as objects by parents. Cloning is simply the replication of a pre-existing genetic code and does

not involve modifying or enhancing the DNA. One should note that genesis via sexual reproduc-

tion is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being born to a set of loving parents and
DSE II Sharma !5

in a nurturing environment, and hence the cloned child, a product of deliberate choice, is definite-

ly going to be cherished as a naturally conceived one.

One of the most predominate themes underlying arguments for reproductive cloning is an

appeal to procreative liberty. Because cloning may provide the only way for some individuals to

have a child that is genetically their own, a ban on cloning interferes with their reproductive au-

tonomy. Infertile couples, homosexual couples, would greatly benefit from the procedure.

Cloning would allow for a more expedient means of creating a savior sibling - a child that is de-

liberately conceived so that she could provide a means to save an older sibling from illness or

death - since the alternatives are more involved and more time consuming, while being an appro-

priate match due to identical genomes. However, creating a child solely for the purposes of pro-

viding life-saving aid for another child violates Immanuel Kant’s second principle formulation of

the categorical imperative as Kant proscribes treating persons as a mere means, rather than as

ends in themselves. However, Tooley suggests that it is highly unlikely that parents would aban-

don or not care for the child after getting the required resource, and would love this child as

much as they would love an unplanned one.

Dolly, the first mammal cloned from a somatic (body) cell, came into the world innocent

as a lamb. However, for most people, Dolly was really a wolf in sheep’s clothing as she repre-

sented a first undesirable and dangerous step to applying reproductive cloning in humans, some-

thing that many agreed should never be done. 21 years since then, and people still have similar

approach towards cloning, which hinders with the growth of a promising scientific enterprise.

Michael Tooley, interestingly, points out that while human cloning should be morally acceptable,

it should not be down at the present. Statistics, which show a lot of risks and a high chance of
DSE II Sharma !6

failure, proving that “producing persons via cloning would not be a rational endeavour”. Howev-

er, therapeutic cloning and molecular cloning are productive practices benefiting the society es-

pecially in the biomedical field. Perhaps in the future, with much research and experimentation,

human cloning could be a reality since, cloning, as demonstrated by the arguments above, is

morally acceptable.