Created in His Image: Ethical Concerns with Human Cloning
As Christians living in the 21st century, we face a number of issues for which Paul of Tarsus has no specific instruction. In the past few years, various biotechnologies have emerged from the realm of science fiction to everyday reality. This reality was pushed to the forefront when Ian Wilmut and the Roslin Institute announced that they had cloned the first large mammal (Dolly the sheep) in 1997.[1] That an adult sheep can be cloned is a remarkable advancement in the genetics field. When this event happened, I can remember Ian Malcolm’s line from Jurassic Park coming to mind: “Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should” [emphasis mine].
The questions surrounding this phenomenon quickly switched from if humans could be cloned to when it would be done and who would be the first to do it. Despite these realities, the moral question still remains. Is it or is it not morally justifiable to clone a human being? My purpose in this essay is to provide moral and ethical guidelines to answer that question. As Christians, we must build a foundation on clear biblical principles to justify any Christian response. Feelings, apart from reasoned justification and biblically-derived ethical norms, are never adequate to authenticate a moral position. Furthermore, the ends do not justify the means in this instance, or any other number of Christian ethical concerns.
Understanding Human Cloning
Biotechnologies are here to stay, and the moral dilemmas formed by these procedures will become increasingly problematic. Therefore, it is important we understand what capabilities humans have when it comes to cloning so that proper moral reflections can be applied. We will consider two general categories: “reproductive cloning” and “therapeutic cloning.” One important consideration to keep in mind before we explore these issues is to see the moral issues involved. While there may be differing motives or goals in pursuing “reproductive cloning” or “therapeutic cloning,” there is no real difference in what technical procedures actually take place. While the temptation is to allow the potential ends to justify the means, such reasoning defies the foundations of biblical ethics. Christians, ready to embrace medical advances, must be careful not to do so at the price of their own souls.
Reproductive Cloning
There are two different procedures with reproductive cloning.[2] The first is referred to as “embryo splitting.” This procedure involves the separation of an early human embryo into two or more parts. Each cell will have matching DNA because they are coming from the same source. Each will have the capability to mature into a late embryo, which will then mature into a child if implanted. This procedure has been successfully implemented in various animals (e.g., sheep, cows, mice, and monkeys). While no human twins have been born through this procedure, human embryos have been created and later ended using this method.
The second procedure in reproductive cloning is often described as “somatic cell nuclear replacement.”[3] This process involves removing genetic material from a female ovum and replacing it with the DNA taken out of an adult cell. Once the egg is reactivated with an electric pulse, the result is a human embryo. When transferred to a uterus, the embryo can then develop and grow into a genetic twin of the adult organism cloned. This procedure is banned in many countries around the world despite the scientific community’s pushes to clone children for reproductive purposes.[4]
The Christian must consider the sanctity of human life as morally essential in this issue. From this concern, many principles are at play when it comes to “reproductive cloning.” I will examine two.[5] One principle is the rejection of idolatry (Exod. 20:3). The creation of children in our own images by our own procedures for our own ends lends itself to nothing less than idolatry of self. The second principle is prohibition on murder (Exod. 20:13). In regard to the technology involved in cloning to produce children, a number of issues are present with the embryonic development. This is one of the reasons the National Bioethics Advisory Commission stated in 1997 that “the significant risks to the fetus and physical well being of a child created by somatic cell nuclear transplantation cloning outweigh arguably beneficial uses of the technique.”[6] While technological advances have helped eradicate some of these abnormalities, the excessive price still remains. Cloning can only occur through the sacrifice of human life on the altar of systematic trial and error.
Therapeutic Cloning
Cloning for biomedical research, or therapeutic cloning, is almost identical in form and technique to “reproductive cloning.”[7] The difference can be found in the goal of each procedure. Cloning for biomedical research seeks to produce a human embryo for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. These stems cells would then be used in the healing processes of various diseases and medical problems. In this procedure, the human embryo is created, but the child’s birth is never intended. The embryo is encouraged only up to a certain stage of development, and stem cells are then harvested and the embryo is destroyed.
Stem cells are coveted for their potential use in therapeutic medicine and treatment. The human body is composed of approximately 200 different cell types. Each cell contains the full human DNA strand, which includes all the genetic information needed for the composition of the human body. From conception, there is a window of time in which these cells have not yet differentiated into what kind of cell it will develop into (hair cells, red blood cells, liver cells, for example). Once development occurs, the cells will then develop into whatever organ of the body they will then form. The potential benefits are enormous. If stem cells could be harvested, caused to multiply, programmed, they could then be injected into an area of the body where they could replace dead cells and possibly repair proper functioning.[8]
The enthusiasm over such research leads one to ask the question: “If the potential benefits from cloning and stem cell research are so incredible, why would anyone not support it?”[9] This question deserves careful ethical evaluation.
Because the technical procedures for cloning to produce children and cloning for biomedical research are almost identical in form, many of the same moral objections apply. The two principles we examined earlier–rejection of idolatry and prohibition on murder–still apply when evaluating cloning for biomedical research. The additional principle to consider is dualistic anthropology.[10] Scripture indicates that while all human beings have a soul, human beings are not only a soul (Gen. 2:7). The human person is dualistic in the sense that both body and soul are important elements of human dignity and are brought together into an anthropological oneness.[11] With this in mind, cloning for biomedical research challenges basic human dignity by underemphasizing and misunderstanding the immaterial element of humanness. If one assumes that the embryo has no soul, there is no restraint to treat it as anything more than “a simple group of cells” or “mere tissue.”
Ignoring the spiritual component is just one side of the coin. An overemphasis on certain types of physicality lends itself to creating “superior” clones while those of weak physical or mental characteristics would be either eradicated or allowed to disappear from the human gene pool. Abigail Rian Evans rightly notes, “[T]he desire to clone another person is predicated upon a perspective that reduces men and women to their biology and that views them as instruments to be used in fulfilling their progenitor’s purposes.”[12] The destruction of a human embryo in order to harvest stem cells, then, becomes morally problematic at best.
Final Considerations
Scientific and technological advancement is not good or acceptable simply because it occurs. The idea that a technology must be used simply because it can be used is very problematic. There is no doubting the possible benefits from both procedures are incredible to imagine.[13] But morally sensitive minds must realize there is a cost to be weighed. Ethicist Daniel Heimbach rightly notes, “Human cloning involves enormous dangers and these dangers involve risks so significant that human cloning can never be justified.”[14]
We cannot forget that God created human beings in His image.[15] By embracing cloning, we make ourselves our own idols. The use of technology to undertake the Creator’s role is a mark of the same kind of limitless pride that got humans thrown out of Eden. In terms of Christian ethics, can does not imply must, should, or even acce. The climax of human creativity and the depths of moral depravity overlap in one act: human cloning. As Christians living in this brave new world, we must uphold human dignity and the fact that we are made in the image of a loving Creator.
____________________
[1] Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 191.
[2] This is often referred to as procreative cloning as well.
[3] This is the process that Scottish researcher, Ian Wilmutt, used in 1997 to clone an adult sheep known as Dolly.
[4] Currently, thirteen American states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Virginia) have bans on reproductive cloning. Three states (Arizona, Maryland, and Missouri) prohibit use of public funds for reproductive cloning. See “Human Cloning Laws,” http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/human-cloning-laws.aspx.
[5] I am indebted to my Christian Ethics professor, Dr. Mark Liederbach, for revealing these principles in examining the procedures of human cloning.
[6] National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) “Cloning Human Beings” (Rockville, Md.: NBAC, June 1997), 65.
[7] In the summer of 2002, the President’s Council on Bioethics (PCB) published its report, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. This report included a discussion on creating accurate descriptive terminology when it comes to cloning. Instead of “therapeutic cloning”, the PCB adopted the phrase Cloning-for-biomedical-research. Like we said before, this new terminology often clouds the moral issues involved by de-emphasizing the actual scientific procedure that is taking place. Report can be read here: President’s Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. Executive Summary. http://www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/
[8] Presently, the risk with this type of technology is high and in the early stages. One complication that arises from this procedure is the creation of tumors. See The Science of Stem Cell Research by Ben Mitchell here: http://erlc.com/article/forum-on-stem-cell-research
[9] Similar to cloning for biomedical research is the debate on genetically engineered babies. A recent debate on this topic can be listened to here: http://www.npr.org/2013/02/15/172137776/should-we-prohibit-genetically-engineered-babies
[10] Taken from class notes Introduction to Christian Ethics with Dr. Mark Liederbach.
[11] It is important to stress the integration of both body and soul into an anthropological oneness here. This is different than the platonic idea of dualism, which acknowledges no integration of either element.
[12] Abigail Rian Evans, “Saying no to Human Cloning” Human Cloning: Religious Responses. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 27.
[13] The solution is not to do away with stem cell research, but instead to find other possible sources other than human embryos. In the case with Dolly, the adult sheep, cloned back in 1997, there were 276 failed attempts before she was produced. That is a high risk to play with human life. Assuming these hurdles can be overcome, there are still some other problems involved within the process.
[14] Daniel R. Heimbach “Cloning Humans: Dangerous, Unjustifiable, and Genuinely Immoral” Valparaiso University Law Review (Spring, 1998), 32:2, 658.
[15] Oliver O’Donovan reminds us, the Nicene Creed affirms that Jesus Christ, the only Son of the Father was, from eternity, “begotten not made.” See Oliver O’Donovan, Begotten or Made? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).
Recent Comments