~The next lecture in
the course is about
cloning. The public perception of cloning has been irrevocably shaped by (bad) science-fiction films such as
The 6th Day and
Attack of the Clones. As a result, many people (and lawmakers) have distorted views on what cloning is and isn't. As an added complication, cloning technology is still in its infancy, and the ability to create human clones is not yet available (despite over-hyped "breakthroughs" every few years that turn out to be
hoaxes or fakes).
So what exactly is meant by "cloning"? The science of cloning can be said to have begun with the successful cloning of
Dolly, a sheep, who was created by taking a cell from an adult sheep and fusing it with an unfertilized egg of an ewe in 1996. Her creation was hailed as both a major scientific breakthrough and a serious ethical concern, because it was assumed by many that it wouldn't be too long until humans were being cloned. As I mentioned above, the distorted public view of cloning led many to fear that we'd be copying ourselves and having our own
doppelgängers running amok. This is an example of the "
slippery slope" logical fallacy: that the cloning of animals (even a single animal cloned purely as an experiment) will somehow automatically lead to the cloning of humans.
So human cloning is seen as "bad" by most. Why? Part of it is an argument against hubris: that by cloning people, we are somehow "playing god" and meddling with Things Man Was Not Meant To Meddle With. People also seem repelled by the individual hubris of people so vain that they might want to create copies of themselves simply to "live on" in them, more so than with the genetic mixing in "normal" children. Finally, and most importantly in my view, are the as-yet-unknown risks to a cloned child. 277 cell fusions were required to produce Dolly, but only 29 viable cloned embryos were created, and only one survived to birth. Even with genetic and technological advances over the past 14 years, the ethical consequences of creating so many miscarriages are simply too ugly for most respectable (and publicly-funded) research laboratories to seriously consider, and serious future health risks to the child are quite possible. I imagine most people don't like the idea of creating a clone child simply as an experiment, to see what (if any) health problems it develops as a basis for future, healthy clones.
Fortunately, widespread cloning isn't likely to happen even if the technology is safe and available. People are hardly lining up to be cloned, and cloning is a frequent target of biomedical ethics laws and
international conventions. Part of this is because cloning is such an easy target: unlike the divisive issue of abortion, since "everybody" sees cloning as bad, it's easy for a politician to score ethical points by denouncing cloning and vowing to ban it. It also helps that doing so is effectively banning something that doesn't actually exist yet, which makes it all the easier to ban. I wonder how many politicians actually know what cloning is and what we are (and aren't actually) capable of.
So at present, the ethical issues of cloning humans are something of a moot point. But of course, those sci-fi movies continue to rear their ugly heads. Sure, we upstanding, moral citizens might oppose cloning, but what about totalitarian nations eager to create
clone-armies of their best soldiers? Crazed dictators and kings with god-complexes who want to
rule eternally though a clone lineage? A nightmarish
corpocracy where companies create, own, use, and sell clones as merchandise? The potential misuses of cloning technology are endless, but are also presently more than a bit fanciful.
If human cloning does actually occur in the near future, it is likely to be the result of an unethical (and
condemned) experiment by volunteers who are in it for fame and money. The first cloned child is likely to be something of an oddity, and may become moderately famous. But society is fickle, and there are no prizes for second place in science, so I doubt there will be a sudden wave of clones. However, a far more sinister scenario, taking place a bit later, is for wealthy, morally-bankrupt people (perhaps the aforementioned dictators) to clone themselves using surrogate mothers, not to perpetuate their lineage but to
ensure a perfect match for organ donations. Clones created for such a dark purpose are likely to spend their miserable lives locked away, pampered but isolated, only to be used and disposed of as needed. Outlandish? I wouldn't put it past someone like
Kim Jong Il or
unscrupulous billionaires.
Still, I don't see this as becoming a major problem in society at large, at least not for a long time. And even if the unfortunate scenarios I've outlined do take place, they are likely to be rare and hidden away by their perpetrators, like all despicable crimes. I think most people can accept that a clone is not the same as the person they are cloned from; they are an independent human with their own mind and differences created by their life experiences. A healthy democracy would not treat clones as slaves, property, or second-class citizens, but as normal people, no different from the way we treat identical twins or people with genetically-inherited handicaps.
To summarize:
the possibility of cloning raises serious ethical and medical challenges, but cloning isn't likely to be problematic in the near future.
