O N WEDNESDAY, April 10, President Bush strongly encouraged the Senate to adopt a blanket ban on human cloning. This request has been opposed by many disability advocates, research scientists and some senators. President Bush's proposed ban on cloning is measured, reasoned and philosophically consistent. The Senate should approve this request immediately.
Cloning involves the creation of an embryo that is genetically identical to a donor cell. An enterprising scientist removes the genetic material from a donated egg cell, essentially gutting the egg, and replaces that material with a donor's genetic characteristics. This kind of reproduction is asexual rather than sexual. It does not involve Barry White or Grand Marnier. Nonetheless, once a scientist initiates cell duplication, an embryo begins to form.
Taken to its logical developmental end, those cells could form a person. Apparently, nobody wants that. Thus, a ban on "reproductive" cloning - cloning that would produce a walking, talking human being - is supported by most current walking, talking human beings.
|
Controversy, however, centers on "therapeutic" methods of cloning. This kind of cloning would allow for the creation of numerous, microscopic embryos in a laboratory, for the express purpose of researching treatments for diseases.
Proponents of therapeutic cloning point to the possibility of eliminating or limiting the rejection of transplanted tissues. In essence, cells that match a donor would not be rejected by that donor's immune system. Fully realized, such treatments could benefit persons with diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's Disease and the like.
The utility of these treatments has not been conclusively proven or demonstrated. Some promise exists, however. Otherwise, the scientific community would not aggressively advocate allowing therapeutic cloning to continue.
The problem, ultimately, is that cloning involves embryos and decisions about their existence. Unless one holds that human beings are simply the result of the most successful collective cellular bargaining in the history of the universe, human lives are considered to be unique, distinct and, to some degree, precious. Those who make the distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning seem to suggest this, as they do not want fully grown people to emerge from the hands of a scientist.
Therapeutic cloning requires that embryos be created for the express purpose of destroying them. The embryos, in effect, are created for wholly utilitarian reasons - to benefit an individual or group of individuals. In such a case, the potential lives that emerge from the petri dish are a commodity. Such a prospect should be disturbing to all those who advocate respect for human life at all stages.
Those that draw a line between creating a whole person from cloning and creating 10 or 20 cell embryos from cloning have not laid out a good reason as to why one kind is inherently wrong but the other has inherent positive promise. For those who hold a traditional pro-life position, this issue does not require much more consideration.
Greater deliberation is required, however, for those who support stem cell research. I have supported such research and am diabetic. I obviously could benefit from therapeutic cloning. Distinguishing between stem cell research and cloning is possible, if the focus is on the source of the embryo tissue. President Bush and a host of bipartisan political leaders support stem cell research on embryos that would be destroyed, regardless of governmental involvement. The obvious examples are "left-over" embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. In these cases, the embryos were not created solely for their scientific utility. Taking advantage of cells that otherwise would be destroyed is a far reach from creating and destroying cells in the same research laboratory.
Forty Nobel Laureates have signed a letter in opposition to this ban, stating that it would have a chilling effect on research. Careful draftsmanship may prevent this possible limitation on legitimate research. By limiting the ban specifically to creating embryos for their destruction, only that kind of procedure will be restricted.
A ban on cloning undoubtedly will limit some kinds of scientific pursuits. It may even limit or delay the discovery of some cures. Such is what happens when societal ethics interfere with an amoral pursuit of knowledge.
One function of political leaders is to reflect society's moral views on issues. In this case, President Bush has done the right thing to establish that human life is a unique and precious entity. The Senate should support his proposal.
(Seth Wood's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
BRUNMAN: Stop ghosting us, Governor Youngkin
By Wylie Brunman | December 8, 2024For the sake of students — and the Governor — his state administration should rethink its stance on this meeting and its approach to interacting with students more broadly.
