David King Human Cloning

Genetic Engineering Previous - Next

Contents

Human Cloning - Without Our Consent

With the cloning of Dolly, the sheep, the technical barriers to human cloning have been surmounted. Human cloning will happen unless legal barriers are in place and funding denied. The overall thrust of cloning is to remove the unpredictability, of natural diversity and to put the control of human reproduktion in the hands of the technocrats.

By David King

Amidst the flood of words unleashed by the possibility of cloning human beings, the main practical impact of the cloning of Dolly the sheep on the commercial cloning and genetic engineering of farm animals, has barely been mentioned. The technique used to produce Dolly will radically ease the production of genetically engineered animals: until now, engineering farm animals has been an almost prohibitively accident-prone, inefficient (and hence expensive) operation. The new technology will make it possible to get the genetic engineering right in adult cells, a standard and much cheaper procedure, and then clone from an unlimited supply of engineered cells.

What no-one has noticed is that the same thing applies to humans: the Roslin technique will remove a major technical barrier to genetically engineering human beings, and will also circumvent current legal bans. Although such a possibility is currently subject to a moratorium, many scientists, as well as patients' organisations such as the Genetics Interest Group are assiduously propounding the medical benefits of such, euphemistically termed, 'germ line gene therapy'.

Of course, a medical application can always be argued for almost any piece of biological research, and Dolly is no exception. But the main use of farm animal cloning will be in production agriculture. The ethos of farm animal cloning is nicely summed up in an enthusiastic passage from one of the leading scientific experts on cloning. Referring to cows, he says:

'... they should command a premium at each step of the way because the feedlot operator would know 1) that this clonal line performs best on this ration, 2) that this clonal line will be ready for slaughter after X number of days in the feedlot, and 3) that the packing plant will pay a premium for these animals because they are assured of a known uniform product. In the end the consumer will benefit with a more uniform product.'

This give us a clue to what is really disturbing about the possibility of human cloning: the relentess search for uniformity, efficiency and control. This gives us a clue as to what is really disturbing about the possibility of human and animal cloning: the relentless search for uniformity, efficiency and control. Do we really want our farming to go further in the direction of industrial efficiency that has given us BSE and the animal welfare horrors of the factory farm? For the key thing about Dolly is that she is a product of industry, not of nature. (Thankfully, it is as yet only a cottage industry.) The replacement of sexual reproduction by asexual epitomises the industrial/scientific mind, which has always striven to replace natural diversity, with all its inconvenient inefficiency and refusal to conform, with uniformity.

We are now faced with the possibility of the application of the same industrial logic to our own
reproduction. As many people have been quick to point out, the likelihood of creation of flocks of human clones is a fairly remote possibility, at least in democratic societies. And the political transformation to a society in which the Brave New World scenario was possible would
be far more horrible than the attendant proliferation of clones.

But this is not the real issue. Much more likely, as with In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) and genetic
engineering, human cloning will be justified by individual medical/humanitarian 'needs', such as replacing a dead baby. What disturbs me most about such a prospect is the subjection of human reproduction, which is central to the human condition, to total direction and control. In cloning a human being, the doctor would take total control of his or her genetic essence. Such a person would really be a product of medical technology. The human input would be in the supply of raw material. And as a technological product, the paramount consideration would be a precisely specified outcome.

As Axel Kahn says in his commentary on cloning in Nature:

'Part of the individuality and dignity of a person probably lies in the uniqueness and the unpredictability surrounding his or her development. As a result, the uncertainty of the great lottery of heredity constitutes the principal protection for human beings against biological predetermination imposed by third parties, including parents. One of the blessings of the relationship between parents and their children is their ineviable difference, which results in parents loving their children for what they are, rather than endeavouring to make them what they want.'

In other words, an element of chance in our origins is essential to what it is to be human. There are some aspects of the human condition which should be allowed to escape control, however benign the intention.

Managing science
How did we get into this situation? The Dolly story exemplifies a central problem with the
management of science in our society, the lack of prior discussion of the goals of scientific research, except amongst tiny groups of scientists behind closed doors. In response to the general furore, the 'you can't stop science brigade' has had a field day, spouting on as if the supposed unstoppability of science was some kind of law of nature. This is, of course, idealist nonsense.

Science, like everything else, costs money. Scientists' pet projects are being turned down every day by the funding bodies. Why were the taxpayers, who paid for the research, never asked whether they wanted to have to deal with the possibility of human cloning? Instead, yet again, we have been presented with a fait accompli. There is an irony in scientists' arguments that 'moral panics' should not be allowed to stop the supposed medical benefits of cloning: if anyone had been consulted, public outrage would be much less likely. The worldwide concern at the possibility of human clones shows that we have to find a better way to manage science: otherwise we will always end up being led by the nose by scientists.

David King is the editor of Gen Ethics News where this article first appeared. Issue 16. PO Box 6313, London N16 0DY, England.

Previous - Next

Contents

Genetic Engineering	Previous - Next Contents
	Human Cloning - Without Our Consent With the cloning of Dolly, the sheep, the technical barriers to human cloning have been surmounted. Human cloning will happen unless legal barriers are in place and funding denied. The overall thrust of cloning is to remove the unpredictability, of natural diversity and to put the control of human reproduktion in the hands of the technocrats.
By David King
	Amidst the flood of words unleashed by the possibility of cloning human beings, the main practical impact of the cloning of Dolly the sheep on the commercial cloning and genetic engineering of farm animals, has barely been mentioned. The technique used to produce Dolly will radically ease the production of genetically engineered animals: until now, engineering farm animals has been an almost prohibitively accident-prone, inefficient (and hence expensive) operation. The new technology will make it possible to get the genetic engineering right in adult cells, a standard and much cheaper procedure, and then clone from an unlimited supply of engineered cells. What no-one has noticed is that the same thing applies to humans: the Roslin technique will remove a major technical barrier to genetically engineering human beings, and will also circumvent current legal bans. Although such a possibility is currently subject to a moratorium, many scientists, as well as patients' organisations such as the Genetics Interest Group are assiduously propounding the medical benefits of such, euphemistically termed, 'germ line gene therapy'. Of course, a medical application can always be argued for almost any piece of biological research, and Dolly is no exception. But the main use of farm animal cloning will be in production agriculture. The ethos of farm animal cloning is nicely summed up in an enthusiastic passage from one of the leading scientific experts on cloning. Referring to cows, he says: '... they should command a premium at each step of the way because the feedlot operator would know 1) that this clonal line performs best on this ration, 2) that this clonal line will be ready for slaughter after X number of days in the feedlot, and 3) that the packing plant will pay a premium for these animals because they are assured of a known uniform product. In the end the consumer will benefit with a more uniform product.'
This give us a clue to what is really disturbing about the possibility of human cloning: the relentess search for uniformity, efficiency and control.	This gives us a clue as to what is really disturbing about the possibility of human and animal cloning: the relentless search for uniformity, efficiency and control. Do we really want our farming to go further in the direction of industrial efficiency that has given us BSE and the animal welfare horrors of the factory farm? For the key thing about Dolly is that she is a product of industry, not of nature. (Thankfully, it is as yet only a cottage industry.) The replacement of sexual reproduction by asexual epitomises the industrial/scientific mind, which has always striven to replace natural diversity, with all its inconvenient inefficiency and refusal to conform, with uniformity. We are now faced with the possibility of the application of the same industrial logic to our own reproduction. As many people have been quick to point out, the likelihood of creation of flocks of human clones is a fairly remote possibility, at least in democratic societies. And the political transformation to a society in which the Brave New World scenario was possible would be far more horrible than the attendant proliferation of clones.
	But this is not the real issue. Much more likely, as with In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) and genetic engineering, human cloning will be justified by individual medical/humanitarian 'needs', such as replacing a dead baby. What disturbs me most about such a prospect is the subjection of human reproduction, which is central to the human condition, to total direction and control. In cloning a human being, the doctor would take total control of his or her genetic essence. Such a person would really be a product of medical technology. The human input would be in the supply of raw material. And as a technological product, the paramount consideration would be a precisely specified outcome. As Axel Kahn says in his commentary on cloning in Nature: 'Part of the individuality and dignity of a person probably lies in the uniqueness and the unpredictability surrounding his or her development. As a result, the uncertainty of the great lottery of heredity constitutes the principal protection for human beings against biological predetermination imposed by third parties, including parents. One of the blessings of the relationship between parents and their children is their ineviable difference, which results in parents loving their children for what they are, rather than endeavouring to make them what they want.' In other words, an element of chance in our origins is essential to what it is to be human. There are some aspects of the human condition which should be allowed to escape control, however benign the intention. Managing science How did we get into this situation? The Dolly story exemplifies a central problem with the management of science in our society, the lack of prior discussion of the goals of scientific research, except amongst tiny groups of scientists behind closed doors. In response to the general furore, the 'you can't stop science brigade' has had a field day, spouting on as if the supposed unstoppability of science was some kind of law of nature. This is, of course, idealist nonsense.

	Science, like everything else, costs money. Scientists' pet projects are being turned down every day by the funding bodies. Why were the taxpayers, who paid for the research, never asked whether they wanted to have to deal with the possibility of human cloning? Instead, yet again, we have been presented with a fait accompli. There is an irony in scientists' arguments that 'moral panics' should not be allowed to stop the supposed medical benefits of cloning: if anyone had been consulted, public outrage would be much less likely. The worldwide concern at the possibility of human clones shows that we have to find a better way to manage science: otherwise we will always end up being led by the nose by scientists.
	*David King is the editor of Gen Ethics* News where this article first appeared. Issue 16. PO Box 6313, London N16 0DY, England.**