|
||||||||||||||||||||
The
Ethics of Cloning
J.B.P. |
||||||||||||||||||||
The Ethics of Cloning |
||||||||||||||||||||
At one time or another, most of us have taken a cutting from a geranium and rooted it. A simple act; no second thoughts. Few of us consider that this age-old act of rooting flowers is cloning, pure and simple. While cloning plants doesnt create even a faint ripple on the waters of our collective conscience, discussion of human cloning has given rise to a moral tsunami. Cloning has been around for eons; in fact, its much older than sexual reproduction. Simple organisms like bacteria and even more complex ones like shrimp clone themselves as a matter of course. Opinions about cloning higher organisms span the horizon. Supporters and detractors line up along sometimes unconventional lines, defying preconceived notions of what to expect and from whom. Respected scientists and religious leaders anchor both ends of the spectrum. Debate and discourse spring up everywhere from the dinner table to the Senate floor. Many people feel off balance as they try to reconcile news of scientific advancements with long-held values and life-anchoring beliefs. The cloning process itself is neutral, but defining its use or misuse raises questions with no easy answers.
The nations best minds are grappling with the ethics of cloning both for medical applications and for human reproduction. Its hard to be neutral, especially on the topic of reproductive cloning. Most Americans dont want their kids to be clones but opinions split down the middle when it comes to cloning for biomedical research. A May 2002 Gallup poll found that 52 percent of those surveyed think its okay to clone adult human cells for medical research. Even scientists like Steve Stice who studies how human stem cells and cloning research can benefit medicine and agriculture oppose cloning to produce humans. Cloning people, Stice said, is morally repugnant to me. In its January report on reproductive cloning the National Academy of Sciences called for additional consideration of ethical and social questions. In July, the Presidents Council on Bioethics weighed in with its report, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. Labeling human cloning as extremely unsafe and highly unethical, they wrote, The Council is in full agreement that cloning-to-produce-children is not only unsafe but also morally unacceptable, and ought not to be attempted. The waters get even murkier when ethical questions abut legal and political boundaries. Whos right? And who gets to decide whos right? Last year the U.S. House of Representatives passed a strict ban on human cloning; the U.S. Senate continues the debate and has not yet voted. Religious opinions vary among denominations and within major religions. Rabbi Gerald L. Zelizer writes in The Befuddled Stork that carefully controlled cloning assists, rather than undermines, the Almighty. Christian ethics professor Gilbert Meilaender, a member of the Presidents Council on Bioethics, writes in the appendix of the councils report, I believe that a ban on all forms of human cloning would be the optimal policy for this Council to recommend and for our society to adopt. Some observers predict the debate will fade in time, much like the 1970s test tube baby controversy. Just ask anyone under the age of 30, Who is Louise Brown? Access the Presidents Council on Bioethics at www.bioethics.gov J.B.P. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Reflections on Cloning | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Research
Communications, Office of the VP for Research, UGA
For comments or for information please e-mail the editor: jbp@ovpr.uga.edu To contact the webmaster please email: ovprweb@uga.edu
|
||||||||||||||||||||