Human
cloning left the realm of science fiction and became cold
reality last month. A South Korean team of researchers led
by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk of Seoul National University announced
that he had successfully created 30 human cloned embryos and
developed them to the “blastocyst” stage. (Blastocyst
is the scientific name given to a human embryo that has developed
for about one week, at which point it becomes implantable
in a womb, or can be destroyed and harvested for embryonic
stem cells.)
 The
human cloning technique used by the South Korean team is known
as “somatic cell nuclear transfer” (SCNT), the
same procedure used to create Dolly the cloned sheep.
Here’s how it works:
- First,
the cloner removes the nucleus from a human egg.
- He
then takes a somatic cell, say a skin cell, from the DNA
donor and removes its nucleus. (All our cells are somatic
cells except for testes or ovaries, which are called germ
cells.)
- The
nucleus from the skin cell is then inserted into the egg.
- The
biotechnologist then applies an electrical charge to the
genetically modified egg.
- If
the cloning works, a new human embryo comes into being,
just as if an egg had been fertilized naturally.
The
end result of SCNT is the creation of human life.
Cloning advocates often claim that there are two types of
cloning, so-called “reproductive cloning,” and
“therapeutic cloning.” But this is a false distinction.
Performing SCNT is the act of cloning, indeed, the only act
of cloning. At that point, the issue isn’t what the
embryo is, but what is to be done with the nascent human life
that has come into existence.
One potential use for the cloned embryo is to implant it into
a womb, for gestation and eventual birth, which is often called
“reproductive cloning.” Most scientists and bioethicists
claim they oppose reproductive cloning because it wouldn’t
be safe. And indeed, almost all animal clones manufactured
to date have been defective. For example, Dolly developed
early arthritis and other ailments and had to be euthanized
after only six years of life.
But scientific opposition to reproductive cloning is actually
far less substantial than it appears. Many of these supposed
opponents would actually support reproductive cloning if it
could be done safely. Indeed, many scientists and bioethicists
have stated that cloning should merely be considered a form
of assisted reproduction. But reproductive cloning is supremely
dehumanizing since it would treat the creation of human life
as a matter of mere manufacture. Alarmingly, the very research
conducted in South Korea furthers this very outcome, since
the first step toward making reproductive cloning a reality
is learning how to reliably manufacture cloned human blastocysts.
Morally, therapeutic cloning is even more troubling. Advocates
of this approach want to create human life for the purpose
of destroying it and harvesting its body parts. This is a
tremendous insult to human dignity in that it treats human
life as a mere product, akin to penicillin mold, that can
be patented, processed, and sold in the marketplace.
Advocates of therapeutic cloning claim their harvesting would
be limited to extracting embryonic stem cells from cloned
embryos. But their real agenda appears even more radical.
New Jersey just passed a law that would permit a human clone
to be implanted in a womb and gestated through the ninth month,
only outlawing bringing the cloned baby to “the newborn
stage.” Or, to put it another way, New Jersey permits
human cloning, implantation, and gestation, while also mandating
eventual abortion. As far as I know, New Jersey’s statute
is the only mandatory abortion law that has been enacted outside
of China.
The only appropriate response to these moral outrages is to
outlaw all human cloning. Thus, 2004 may be the year that
Brave New World becomes an election issue. |
Click
for a Printer Friendly Version
