In 2002, a human clone was born. Her name is Eve. Clonaid, the company that produced her, claims Eve was “perfectly healthy” (1), which by itself is a notable incidence in science. Whether this achievement translates into an ethical validity is a different story. Ethical validity depends primarily on safety of the clone himself and secondarily on surrounding debates of efficacy of cloning techniques like somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is the preferred technique of cloning today. In SCNT, a nucleus of a body cell is implanted into an enucleated egg cell, making – ideally – a genetically identical replica of the nuclear donor. Unfortunately, SCNT is highly inefficient– 94% of trials are failures, eventually discarded (2). For the few successes the cloning field has had, many failures resulted (3).
Some abortionists have stated that SCNT failures are akin to abortions, placing current techniques for human cloning in high ethical debate (4). This approach, however, is invalid without further research in SCNT primarily because scientists are too uncertain about causes of failures. It is possible that failures “might reflect fundamental biological differences that render them…impossible to clone” (3). If it was impossible to clone with the original cells, SCNT failure cannot be considered a type of unintentional abortion. Before decisions on ethicality of SCNT efficiency are made, reasons for SCNT failure must be investigated and assessed.
The health of clones is the priority, not the techniques behind cloning. Large offspring syndrome is a condition that directly affects the health of clones. Reproductive cloning tends to produce larger than normal offspring, which contributes to significant “organ defects” (5). Unlike many other concerns, large offspring syndrome endangers the clone himself, not just the process making a successful clone. According to the Declaration of Helsinki, a medical research ethics conference proceeding, “it is the duty of the doctor to remain the protector of life and health” of research subjects (6) – if health of clones is not ensured, cloning research cannot proceed.
Given that clone well-being is comparable to that of a normally born individual, human cloning can be ethically valid despite abortionist arguments. Once health of the clone is guaranteed, debates concerning the ethics of SCNT efficiency can be entertained. Though SCNT has a low efficiency currently, it is likely it will improve with more research. In inverse, if health of clones is not ensured, cloning research cannot proceed to humans. It seems luck alone kept Eve safe (1).
Sources:
1. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/30/human.cloning/
2. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcibr052068
3. http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n11/full/nrg1205.html
4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076920/ns/health-special_reports
5. http://ror.reproduction-online.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/155
1 comment:
I do not really believe that techniques behind cloning are what will either make or break the case of comparability to abortion. Ethically, I think it has to do with, basically, what is actually happening.
My position on this issue is a little confused. Of course, this is a very complicated issue and I do not think it is valid to say it either is or is not akin to abortion. Here's why:
Abortionists hold the belief that life starts at conception, and that abortion deprives a human being of the right to life. Regardless of what circumstances bring a woman or a couple to the decision process, the view still holds that abortion is essentially murder. This is all based on conception WITHIN the human body, and not without.
That being said, what people don't seem to address is the right to life for clones. Much of this talk seems to suggest that they do not have this right, which is to entail that they are not necessarily "human". Since current procedural techniques are, for the large majority, failing, many of these clones expire. This, although in contrast to my first point, is the similarity to abortion. Furthermore, the Declaration of Helsinki states the health of the patient is the first priority of the physician. If this is the case, then doctors would use a little more caution before attempting these procedures with such an abysmally low success percentage. Unless of course we are to believe that the clone is not a human, and therefore not a patient.
I just think this is all a little bit too destructive and hasty, but I'm no scientist.
Post a Comment