is cloning ethical essay

The Ethics of Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Focus Areas
• Bioethics Resources

Report from a conference on state regulation of cloning and stem cell research.

"California Cloning: A Dialogue on State Regulation" was convened October 12, 2001, by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Its purpose was to bring together experts from the fields of science, religion, ethics, and law to discuss how the state of California should proceed in regulating human cloning and stem cell research.

A framework for discussing the issue was provided by Center Director of Biotechnology and Health Care Ethics Margaret McLean, who also serves on the California State Advisory Committee on Human Cloning. In 1997, the California legislature declared a "five year moratorium on cloning of an entire human being" and requested that "a panel of representatives from the fields of medicine, religion, biotechnology, genetics, law, bioethics and the general public" be established to evaluate the "medical, ethical and social implications" of human cloning (SB 1344). This 12-member Advisory Committee on Human Cloning convened five public meetings, each focusing on a particular aspect of human cloning: e.g., reproductive cloning, and cloning technology and stem cells. The committee is drafting a report to the legislature that is due on December 31, 2001. The report will discuss the science of cloning, and the ethical and legal considerations of applications of cloning technology. It will also set out recommendations to the legislature regarding regulation of human cloning. The legislature plans to take up this discussion after January. The moratorium expires the end of 2002.

What should the state do at that point? More than 80 invited guests came to SCU for "California Cloning" to engage in a dialogue on that question. These included scientists, theologians, businesspeople from the biotechnology industry, bioethicists, legal scholars, representatives of non-profits, and SCU faculty. Keynote Speaker Ursula Goodenough, professor of biology at Washington University and author of Genetics , set the issues in context with her talk, "A Religious Naturalist Thinks About Bioethics." Four panels addressed the specific scientific, religious, ethical, and legal implications of human reproductive cloning and stem cell research. This document gives a brief summary of the issues as they were raised by the four panels.

Science and Biotechnology Perspectives

Thomas Okarma, CEO of Geron Corp., launched this panel with an overview of regenerative medicine and distinguished between reproductive cloning and human embryonic stem cell research. He helped the audience understand the science behind the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research, with an explanation of the procedures for creating stem cell lines and the relationship of this field to telomere biology and genetics. No brief summary could do justice to the science. The reader is referred to the report of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/stemcell.pdf) for a good introduction.

Responding to Okarma, were J. William Langston, president of the Parkinson’s Institute, and Phyllis Gardner, associate professor of medicine and former dean for medical education at Stanford University. Both discussed the implications of the president’s recent restrictions on stem cell research for the non-profit sector. Langston compared the current regulatory environment to the Reagan era ban on fetal cell research, which he believed was a serious setback for Parkinson’s research. He also pointed out that stem cell research was only being proposed using the thousands of embryos that were already being created in the process of fertility treatments. These would ultimately be disposed of in any event, he said, arguing that it would be better to allow them to serve some function rather than be destroyed. President Bush has confined federally-funded research to the 64 existing stem cell lines, far too few in Langston’s view. In addition, Langston opposed bans on government funding for stem cell research because of the opportunities for public review afforded by the process of securing government grants.

Gardner talked about the differences between academic and commercial research, suggesting that both were important for the advancement of science and its application. Since most of the current stem cell lines are in the commercial sector and the president has banned the creation of new lines, she worried that universities would not continue to be centers of research in this important area. That, she argued, would cut out the more serendipitous and sometimes more altruistic approaches of academic research. Also, it might lead to more of the brain drain represented by the recent move of prominent UCSF stem cell researcher Roger Pedersen to Britain. Gardner expressed a hope that the United States would continue to be the "flagship" in stem cell research. Her concerns were echoed later by moderator Allen Hammond, SCU law professor, who urged the state, which has been at the forefront of stem cell research to consider the economic impact of banning such activity. All three panelists commended the decision of the state advisory committee to deal separately with the issues of human cloning and stem cell research.

Religious Perspectives

Two religion panelists, Suzanne Holland and Laurie Zoloth, are co editors of The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics and Public Policy (MIT Press, 2001). Holland, assistant professor of Religious and Social Ethics at the University of Puget Sound, began the panel with a discussion of Protestant ideas about the sin of pride and respect for persons and how these apply to human reproductive cloning. Given current safety concerns about cloning, she was in favor of a continuing ban. But ultimately, she argued, cloning should be regulated rather than banned outright. In fact, she suggested, the entire fertility industry requires more regulation. As a basis for such regulation, she proposed assessing the motivation of those who want to use the technology. Those whose motives arise from benevolence--for example, those who want to raise a child but have no other means of bearing a genetically related baby--should be allowed to undergo a cloning procedure. Those whose motives arise more from narcissistic considerations -- people who want immortality or novelty -- should be prohibited from using the technology. She proposed mandatory counseling and a waiting period as a means of assessing motivation.

Zoloth reached a different conclusion about reproductive cloning based on her reading of Jewish sources. She argued that the availability of such technology would make human life too easily commodified, putting the emphasis more on achieving a copy of the self than on the crucial parental act of creating "a stranger to whom you would give your life." She put the cloning issue in the context of a system where foster children cannot find homes and where universal health care is not available for babies who have already been born. While Zoloth reported that Jewish ethicists vary considerably in their views about reproductive cloning, there is fairly broad agreement that stem cell research is justified. Among the Jewish traditions she cited were:

The embryo does not have the status of a human person.

There is a commandment to heal.

Great latitude is permitted for learning.

The world is uncompleted and requires human participation to become whole.

Catholic bioethicist Albert Jonsen, one of the deans of the field, gave a historical perspective on the cloning debate, citing a paper by Joshua Lederburg in the 1960s, which challenged his colleagues to look at the implications of the then-remote possibility. He also traced the development of Catholic views on other new medical technologies. When organ transplantation was first introduced, it was opposed as a violation of the principal, "First, do no harm" and as a mutilation of the human body. Later, the issue was reconceived in terms of charity and concern for others. One of the key questions, Jonsen suggested, is What can we, as a society that promotes religious pluralism, do when we must make public policy on issues where religious traditions may disagree. He argued that beneath the particular teachings of each religion are certain broad themes they share, which might provide a framework for the debate. These include human finitude, human fallibility, human dignity, and compassion.

Ethics Perspectives

Lawrence Nelson, adjunct associate professor of philosophy at SCU, opened the ethics panel with a discussion of the moral status of the human embryo. Confining his remarks to viable, extracorporeal embryos (embryos created for fertility treatments that were never implanted), Nelson argued that these beings do have some moral status--albeit it weak--because they are alive and because they are valued to varying degrees by other moral agents. This status does entitle the embryo to some protection. In Nelson’s view, the gamete sources whose egg and sperm created these embryos have a unique connection to them and should have exclusive control over their disposition. If the gamete sources agree, Nelson believes the embryos can be used for research if they are treated respectfully. Some manifestations of respect might be:

They are used only if the goal of the research cannot be obtained by other methods.

The embryos have not reached gastrulation (prior to 14 to 18 days of development).

Those who use them avoid considering or treating them as property.

Their destruction is accompanied by some sense of loss or sorrow.

Philosophy Professor Barbara MacKinnon (University of San Francisco), editor of Human Cloning: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy , began by discussing the distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning and the slippery slope argument. She distinguished three different forms of this argument and showed that for each, pursuing stem cell research will not inevitably lead to human reproductive cloning. MacKinnon favored a continuing ban on the latter, citing safety concerns. Regarding therapeutic cloning and stem cell research, she criticized consequentialist views such as that anything can be done to reduce human suffering and that certain embryos would perish anyway. However, she noted that non-consequentialist concerns must also be addressed for therapeutic cloning, among them the question of the moral status of the early embryo. She also made a distinction between morality and the law, arguing that not everything that is immoral ought to be prohibited by law, and showed how this position relates to human cloning.

Paul Billings, co-founder of GeneSage, has been involved in crafting an international treaty to ban human reproductive cloning and germ-line genetic engineering. As arguments against human cloning he cited:

There is no right to have a genetically related child.

Cloning is not safe.

Cloning is not medically necessary.

Cloning could not be delivered in an equitable manner.

Billings also believes that the benefits of stem cell therapies have been "wildly oversold." Currently, he argues, there are no effective treatments coming from this research. He is also concerned about how developing abilities in nuclear transfer technology may have applications in germ-line genetic engineering that we do not want to encourage. As a result, he favors the current go-slow approach of banning the creation of new cell lines until some therapies have been proven effective. At the same time, he believes we must work to better the situation of the poor and marginalized so their access to all therapies is improved.

Legal Perspectives

Member of the State Advisory Committee on Human Cloning Henry "Hank" Greely addressed some of the difficulties in creating a workable regulatory system for human reproductive cloning. First he addressed safety, which, considering the 5 to 10 times greater likelihood of spontaneous abortion in cloned sheep, he argued clearly justifies regulation. The FDA has currently claimed jurisdiction over this technology, but Greely doubted whether the courts would uphold this claim. Given these facts, Greely saw three alternatives for the state of California:

Do nothing; let the federal government take care of it.

Create an FDA equivalent to regulate the safety of the process, an alternative he pointed out for which the state has no experience.

Continue the current ban on the grounds of safety until such time as the procedure is adjudged safe. Next Greely responded to suggestions that the state might regulate by distinguishing between prospective cloners on the basis of their motivation, for example, denying a request to clone a person to provide heart tissue for another person but okaying a request if cloning were the only opportunity a couple might have to conceive a child. Greely found the idea of the state deciding on such basis deeply troubling because it would necessitate "peering into someone’s soul" in a manner that government is not adept at doing.

The impact of regulation on universities was the focus of Debra Zumwalt’s presentation. As Stanford University general counsel, Zumwalt talked about the necessity of creating regulations that are clear and simple. Currently, federal regulations on stem cells are unclear, she argued, making it difficult for universities and other institutions to tell if they are in compliance. She believes that regulations should be based on science and good public policy rather than on politics. As a result, she favored overall policy being set by the legislature but details being worked out at the administrative level by regulatory agencies with expertise. Whatever regulations California develops should not be more restrictive than the federal regulations, she warned, or research would be driven out of the state. Like several other speakers, Zumwalt was concerned about federal regulations restricting stem cell research to existing cell lines. That, she feared, would drive all research into private hands. "We must continue to have a public knowledge base," she said. Also, she praised the inherent safeguards in academic research including peer review, ethics panels, and institutional review boards.

SCU Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good June Carbone looked at the role of California cloning decisions in contributing to the governance of biotechnology. California, she suggested, cannot address these issues alone, and thus might make the most useful contribution by helping to forge a new international moral consensus through public debate. Taking a lesson from U.S. response to recent terrorist attacks, she argued for international consensus based on the alliance of principle and self-interest. Such consensus would need to be enforced both by carrot and stick and should, she said, include a public-private partnership to deal with ethical issues. Applying these ideas to reproductive cloning, she suggested that we think about which alliances would be necessary to prevent or limit the practice. Preventing routine use might be accomplished by establishing a clear ethical and professional line prohibiting reproductive cloning. Preventing exceptional use (a determined person with sufficient money to find a willing doctor) might not be possible. As far as stem cell research is concerned, Carbone argued that the larger the investment in such research, the bigger the carrot--the more the funder would be able to regulate the process. That, she suggested, argues for a government role in the funding. If the professional community does not respect the ethical line drawn by politicians, and alternative funding is available from either public sources abroad or private sources at home, the U.S. political debate runs the risk of becoming irrelevant.

"California Cloning" was organized by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and co-sponsored by the Bannan Center for Jesuit Education and Christian Values; the Center for Science, Technology, and Society; the SCU School of Law; the High Tech Law Institute; the Howard Hughes Medical Institute Community of Science Scholars Initiative; and the law firm of Latham & Watkins.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• World J Plast Surg
• v.5(3); 2016 Sep

Cloning: A Review on Bioethics, Legal, Jurisprudence and Regenerative Issues in Iran

Seyedeh leila nabavizadeh.

1 Legal Office, Vice Chancellor of Management Development Resource Planning, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;

Davood Mehrabani

2 Stem Cell and Transgenic Technology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;

Zabihallah Vahedi

3 College of Law, School of Art, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

Farzad Manafi

4 Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

In recent years, the cloning technology has remarkably developed in Iran, but unfortunately, the required legal framework has not been created to support and protect such developments yet. This legal gap may lead to abuse of scientific researches to obtain illegal benefits and to undermine the intellectual property rights of scientists and researchers. Thus to prevent such consequences, the attempts should be made to create an appropriate legal-ethical system and an approved comprehensive law. In this review we concluded that the right method is guiding and controlling the cloning technology and banning the technique is not always fruitful. Of course, it should be taken into accounts that all are possible if the religion orders human cloning in the view of jurisprudence and is considered as permission. In other words, although the religious order on human cloning can be an absolute permission based on the strong principle of permission, it is not unlikely that in the future, corruption is proved to be real for them, Jurists rule it as secondary sanctity and even as primary one. If it is proved, the phenomenon is considered as example of required affairs based on creation of ethical, social and medical disorders, religious and ethical rulings cannot be as permission for it, and it seems that it is a point that only one case can be a response to it and it needs nothing but time.

INTRODUCTION

The word “cloning” is referred as “making an identical copy” which has a Greek origin of “Asexual replication of an organism”. Cloning has been used in various fields of biology while the DNA molecule of cells with genetically identical structure is known as a clone. Honey bees propagate by cloning as the queen bee mates once during her life and the eggs propagate in the queen up to thousands of eggs that are further hatched into bees. 1 Although Joshua Lederberg advocated cloning and genetic engineering as a subject of speculation in 20th century, scientists and several authorities started to take the prospect seriously in the mid-1960s. 2 James D. Watson was the person who publicized the potential and the perils of cloning in 1971. 3 With the cloning of a sheep by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) called Dolly, the idea of cloning of human has become a hot debate subject. 4 Advanced Cell Technology in November 1998 by using SCNT created the first hybrid human clone. A nucleus was taken from a man’s leg cell and was introduced into a cow’s egg while its nucleus was removed. The hybrid cell was cultured, and developed into an embryo and after 12 days, the embryo was destroyed. 5

In 2004 and 2005, pluripotent, embryonic stem cells were successfully harvested from a cloned human blastocyst using SCNT and eleven different patent-specific stem cell lines were created as the first breakthrough in cloning of human. 6 In January 2008, the first five mature human embryos using SCNT were created while each embryo was created by taking a nucleus from a skin cell and inserting it into a human egg from which the nucleus was removed. The embryos could be developed only to the blastocyst stage, and were destroyed later. The “holy grail” that was useful for therapeutic or reproductive cloning was used to generate embryonic stem cell lines. 7 - 9

In 2011, the New York Stem Cell Foundation could generate embyronic stem cell lines, resulting in triploid cells, which were not useful for cloning. 10 - 12 In 2013, embryonic stem cells were created using SCNT. Four embryonic stem cell lines were derived human fetal somatic cells using oocytes from the same donor, ensuring that all mitochondrial DNA inherited was similar. 10 Advanced Cell Technology reported replication of Mitalipov’s results and showed the effectiveness by cloning adult cells using SCNT. 4 , 13 So cloning has attracted attention of physicians, medicolegal specialists, and other scientific circles as it has opened a new window to the human with its therapeutic advantages but with some concerns too. 14

The UNESCO declaration on human genome, the human rights of 1997 and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (Strasburg) proposed concerns with this scientific phenomenon and the experimentation on human. 15 After the emerge of human cloning, the legislature passed laws regarding requirements, structures, resources and the evolving capacities of civil rights and the future legal researches, resulting in irreparable consequences; especially, for concerns about human rights and criminal law in the third millennium. 16

In recent years, the cloning technology has remarkably developed Iran, but unfortunately, the required legal framework has not been created to support and protect such developments yet. This legal gap may lead to abuse of scientific researches to obtain illegal benefits and to undermine the intellectual property rights of scientists and researchers. Thus to prevent such consequences, the attempts should be made to create an appropriate legal-ethical system and an approved comprehensive law. 14

Law and ethics are basic and fundamental concepts in this area and according to 4 th principle of constitution law stating that all laws should be in the framework of Islamic regulations and as there is not any specific law related to human cloning in the country, we should refer to accredited judicial decree or ethics. On the other hand, based on principle 177, constitution law, it is an unchangeable principle and it has been constant after all reviews. Although in bioethical and jurisdictional point of view, the status of reproductive and therapeutic cloning is analyzable, and sanction is the legal status of the matter to be required and of great importance. 17

Therefore, legislators should take actions toward criminalization of the issue with respect to principle of legality of crime and punishment. One of the primary and certain principle of criminal law is the principle of legality of crimes and punishments; that is, briefly: first, no action is a crime unless it is already known and attributed as a crime by the legislator; second, no punishment is possible to be ruled unless it is already passed to be executed for the crime by the legislator. 17 The major objective of this review is the legal analysis of the subject. However, the related bioethical and jurisprudential aspects will be discussed.

APPLICATIONS OF CLONING

Work on cloning techniques has advanced our knowledge on  developmental biology , especially early human development. Basic understanding on  signal transduction  together with genetic manipulation within the early human embryo has the potential to respond to many developmental diseases and defects requiring aesthetic and regenerative medicine to enter the field. 18 Cells created by SCNT are beneficial in research of the causes of diseases, and as model systems for  drug discovery 19 , 20 Cells produced with SCNT could eventually be used in  cell transplantation, 21  or for  creation of organs  in transplantation, called  regenerative medicine . Stem cell therapy is cell transplantation in treatment or prevention of a disease or condition. 22  Bone marrow transplantation  is a widely used form of stem cell therapy. 23  The potential use of stem cell therapy in treatment of several diseases is underway. 24 , 25  Regenerative medicine would allow autologous transplantation of stem cells, and removes the risk of organ transplant rejection by the recipient. 26  For instance, in liver diseases, a new liver may be grown using the same genetic material and transplanted to remove the damaged liver. 27  Human pluripotent stem cells have been promised as a reliable source to generate human neurons, with the potential for regenerative medicine in brain and neural damages. 28

HISTORY OF CLONING

Cloning is the outcome of the hard works on use of genetic engineering in animal breeding, treatment of hereditary diseases in human and replicating organisms. 16 In 1901, transfer of nucleus of a salamander embryonic cell to a enucleated cell was successfully undertaken. During 1940-1950, scientists could clone embryos in mammals. In 1956, Spemann’s hypothesis was proved and in 1962, mature frog was produced by transferring nucleus of intestinal cells of tadpoles into the eggs while their nucleus were removed. 29

Sheep cloning from embryonic cells was performed in 1984. In 1994, bovine cloning was conducted from embryonic cells of another cow. In 1996, first cloned animal called Dolly was produced in Scotland using mature cells of mammary glands of a mature sheep. The importance of Dolly was for its production from differentiated cells of mammary glands while the previous cloned animals were produced from embryonic cells. The birth of Dolly led to undermining the impossibility of simulation by differentiated and specific cells. In the late 2000, scientists cloned 8 species of mammals. In 2003, the first cloned mule was produced by the American scientist. In 2005, the first cloning of a dog called Snoopy was carried out. In 2006, the Iranian scientists succeeded to clone a few sheep among the Middle East countries. 29

Bonyana was the first cloned calf in Iran. The birth of this calf was the outcome of a series of researches from 2003 to produce various livestock by IVF. Cloning and genetic engineering lead to the birth of Royana, the cloned sheep and Hanna, the cloned goat. 30 Tamina was the second cloned calf in Iran and it was cloned from the cell origin similar to Bonyana, the first cloned calf. This calf was born with the weight of 70 kg by Caesarian operation in Foka Animal Breeding Complex affiliated to Social Security Organization after the 280-day pregnancy period but after a few hours died due to an acute brucellosis, while Tamina also showed the signs and symptoms of some anatomic disorders at birth. 30

HUMAN CLONING

Reproductive Cloning

Reproductive cloning is the process where the asexual cells are transferred to an egg while its DNA has been removed and after the development of an embryo, it is placed into the recipient uterus. This process can result in production of a human while the cloned individual would totally be identical to the genetic donor. 15

Therapeutic Cloning

The therapeutic cloning also known as embryonic cloning is actually used to produce human embryos for research purposes. The objective of this type of cloning is not the production of a cloned human but the culture of cells is used in human researches and for treatment purposes in regenerative medicine. These cells are very important for biomechanics researchers because they can be used to produce any types of cells of human body. These cells are extracted from embryo after 4 days of cell division. The process of extraction ruins the embryo and this issue creates a lot of ethical concerns. The researchers hope to replace the cloned cells for the cells destroyed by diseases such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, etc. 31

Advantages of Cloning

The cloning technology may have positive and negative effects with advantages as well as disadvantages and even can be with fatal effects. The most important advantages of cloning can be (i) Replicating and propagating plants and animals, (ii) Recreating and replicating extinct or going to extinct animals, (iii) Propagating genes and saving newborns from hereditary diseases, (iv) Helping to discover treatment methods of infertility, (v) Dividing the developed embryo into several cloned embryos so that in case of probable incidents happening to one of them, the other clone can replace it, (vi) Using it to reproduce the ambulated limbs and replicating them to culture and replace the destroyed organs such as liver, heart. One of the advantages can be that the cloned limbs have full genetic adaptation with the recipient individual who is the donor of the stem cells, (vii) Helping to control population regarding shortages of male or female sex due to incidents such as war and earthquake, and (viii) Helping to reduce sorrows and pains of people suffering from the death and absence of their loved ones by cloning them. 32

Disadvantages of Cloning

Because this technology is new and its outcome is not public and common yet, the damages and losses are sometimes resulted as internal damages by nature of the operation and the process of cloning. Sometimes, there are external damages imposed on the cloned society or individual after the cloning operation. Internal damages may be (i) The cloned living organism may encounter genetic problems and complications in long term, (ii) The more the cloned people are in the society, the more their extinction probability will be; because there are about one million four hundred thousand nucleotides in the body of every human and this remarkable variety is the origin of human generation survival; while the decrease in the genetic variety of individuals in a society, which is the result of cloning– highly increase the probability of their death by a special virus or a pathogen, (iii) 99% of attempts to clone human may result in creation of monsters, (iv) Biological disorders such as cancer, (iv) Premature aging: Dolly, the sheep, aged soon after cloning and the cloned baby will age at birth; because if the genetic donor is fifty-year-old, the new born will be a fifty-year-old one, thus, it will be suffering from premature aging like Dolly. 32

External damages can be (i) Belief damages, (ii) Human moral damages, (iii) Cloning propounds a way to stop family establishment and perseverance against the related difficulties and it leads to satisfying sexual instinct and contenting oneself with cloning to have a child, (iv) Cloning is against divine nature. The nature of human and other living things is based on marriage tradition and the Holy Quran frequently emphasized on the creation of human based on the marriage tradition, but cloning is independent of either one of the couples. Besides, marriage has advantages and useful effects such as comfort, friendship, kindness and love in addition to reproduction and propagation of generation and such emotions ruins in cloning. 32

(v) Cloning can result into harmful side effects for the individual like other unnatural methods in medicine. The use of powder milk for breast milk, Caesarian operation for natural delivery, etc. has brought a lot of problems for the individuals and they are not recommended unless required. Cloning will have the same side effects and problems and because there is not a necessity for its operation, and bearing such health and social damages are not scientifically justifiable. A healthy body can affect mental health as proper nutrition does on physical health too. Therefore, regarding children nutrition, it can indirectly be useful to improve mental and spiritual health. It is very important to consider breast feeding for children because breast milk has lots of antibodies and it is easily digested by the newborn increasing the chance of her or his survival. In the verse 233 of Baqarah, Holy Quran, it is stated: mothers should feed their children two years. 32

(vi) Development of cloning and existence of the cloned people in the society can lead to complications arising from the failure to recognize and distinguish; such as failure to recognize students, distinguish criminal from innocent, or recognize wife and husband among similar people and it is obvious that such complications result in anarchy and legal difficulties, and (vii) Cloning human with exceptional physical strength or intelligence and benefiting from them in aggression and oppression of others can be another harmful effect that can provide the background for modern slavery and exploitation of human. 32

Bioethical Issues in Cloning

Bioethics as one of the new branches of “applied normative ethics” is a new field of research which reviews and analyzes challenges caused by using innovations and technologies in bioscience and biomedicine, and also regulates the does and does not in this area in the interdisciplinary space systematically. 33 Considering bioethics in cloning, it refers to different ethical issues especially from religious and secular points of views even human therapeutic and reproductive cloning are not presented commercially, but animals are currently cloned and the technique is used in livestock production. In therapeutic cloning, generate tissue generation takes place to treat patients who cannot obtain transplants, 34 resulting to avoidance of the need for immunosuppressive drugs, 35  and to stave off aging effects. 36  In reproductive cloning, parents who cannot procreate are advised to have access to the cloning technology. 35

The protest against therapeutic cloning is just on the use of embyronic stem cells, which is related to the abortion debate. 35 Regarding reproductive cloning, there are concerns that cloning is not yet highly developed to confirm the safety of the technology, and could be prone to abuse and concerns about how cloned individuals could integrate with the society. 37 - 40 In 2015, about 70 countries declared banning of human cloning. 41

Principles on Elimination of Damages in Cloning

The first principle states that nobody has the right to damage others and has no moral justification. Elimination of damage; especially, next to the principle of equality and non-discrimination will have more importance regarding ethical and human right interpretations. Considering human cloning, it is believed that the only type of cloning that may eliminate these harmful effects can be therapeutic cloning. In other words, the principle of elimination of harm states that the researches on cloning should not harm other humans and or cloned individual. Although cloning may have advantages to human generation such as prevention from genetic disorders and diseases, it may also result in reproduction of humans with specific capabilities and cause the abuse of the cloned individuals by others and its producers as tools. In this way, the cloned individual may suffer from unwanted harms while he basically plays no roles in accepting or refusing the harms. 42

Principles of Usefulness of Cloning

This principle is considered as the second fundamental principle in the bioethics and it is stated that the hidden assignments in this principle prevent imposing harms and losses on others and it is close to conservative views of legal documents and moves toward promotion of goodness; but therapeutic cloning is not opposed in this area. In fact, it can be said that this principle is along with principle of elimination of harm. In other words, the researches should not harm the cloned individual and other people but work on his and other’s favor. Of course, the answer to what advantages the cloning can have for the cloned individual is not clear because the human existence differs from doubtful identity and relative is not considered as special advantage for the individual. If the difference is due to a specific capability, it seems that the specific capability is reproduced more for the benefits of others than the cloned individual himself. 42

Human End-in-Itself in Cloning

Based on this principle which is stated as the third principle, all humans end in themselves and they have a dignity as a human. Thus, we are not authorized to disregard individuals to the level of devices and even animals to satisfy our research objectives in the area of biotechnology. 14 Based on Kant’s formula of end-in-itself, any actions that cause to use humanity as a mere means not as end-in-itself, are forbidden and immoral. There are various interpretations of humanity end-in-itself: not to do anything about a human without his knowledge; respect his freedom, will and independency; help his happiness; and respect others’ humanity. Thus, based on Kant’s formula of end-in-itself, any cloning operations which disrespect the humanity of humans as a mere means for other purposes are forbidden. 29

Therefore, the cloning is forbidden to reproduce and replicate a large group of the cloned humans for the purposes of war or in peace time, such as: hard and overwhelming works, reproduction of useful humans for the society such as the genius of science, politics, and military, and to reproduce children of desired genotypes, and to replace newly-dead spouse, children or relative. In such cloning, humanity of the reproduced humans is not the purpose, but the developing of the society and the meeting of demands of other humans. It seems that the cloning to reproduce a child for infertile couple and the therapeutic cloning (providing that the beginning of humanity and human dignity is not considered from the time of fertilization and conception) to reproduce transplanted organs, is authorized because humanity is not a mere means. 29

In therapeutic cloning, because the current technology is used for welfare, treatment and generally, for serving human and humanity, it is human who is the purpose and it does not conflict with Kant’s formula of humanity fundamentals; (Of course, if we do not consider the embryo as a human), because we solve the problem of some of humans and use some others as a mere means (because all humans do not need this technology). It can be stated that all humans are not used as a mere means, but it should be taken into accounts that Kant’s purpose of not dealing with human as a mere means is quantitative and qualitative. He emphasized on the fact that humanity is not quantitative and should not be acted as a tool. In addition, he forbid the use of human as a tool even by the person himself. 43

The respect to human dignity is in a manner that it is highly considered in the international rules and declarations; for example, in the introduction and some of the articles of International Declaration on Human Genetic Data, 2003, observing the human dignity is a must and also the first article of International Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, 11 November 1997, the human genome is considered as part of human heritage and it declares that human genome is the principle of fundamental unity of all members of the human family and the need for recognition of their inherent dignity and distinction and the article 11 of the declaration knows the human reproductive cloning in contrary to human dignity. 44

Principles of Reciprocity in Cloning

Generally, this principle states that “Act others as you desire to be acted”. Kant’s formula of the universal law regards the same notion. In fact, the formula of human end-in-itself together with this principle can improve normative system of Kant’s ethics. The principle corroborates ban of experiments on human cloning supposing that the clone is considered as human, but it is not believed that other types of cloning is in contrary with this principle. Of course, it is noteworthy that the principle encounters a basic challenge in the area of cloning; because basically, the possibility of reciprocity between the cloned individual and the researcher who reproduces it, is negated; that is, they both are not on equal terms providing reciprocity for both, but the cloned individual unintentionally becomes the objective of the research and the outcome is his different presence in the world of existence. 42

Violating the Principle of Informed Consent in Cloning

One of the main principles of bioethics is the principle of consent. The individual’s consent is one of the issues of cloning operation. The issue considers the consent of the cloned product; that is, whether the cloned individual is satisfied with the cloning operation and permits the unnatural creation method? Obviously, the answer to the question is unknown because the clone does not exist at the time of cloning operation and he cannot state anything on the matter and after birth, the operation is completed and finished. Perhaps, some say that in the natural process, the newborn does not play any role in his birth and creation. In reply, it should be asked how the issues related to the many physical damages and hidden and unknown mental risks in the method of abnormal birth of the cloned child compared with the method of natural birth can be justified? 45

Therefore, pursuant to ethical principles and potential risks of cloning operations, further contemplations are needed on the technology and it should be avoided at least until its hidden aspects are clearly revealed. In regard to consent of the cloned child, the consent and permission of the donor of oocyte, the pregnant mother and even the donor of the somatic cell are also considered and it is an issue which can be harassed and abused. 45

With a review on the mentioned principles, we conclude that the researches on reproductive cloning should include the following six features: (i) Be advantageous to society and impossible for any other methods, (ii) Previously operated on animals, (iii) Operated in a manner that all types of unnecessary physical and mental pains are prevented, (iv) If death or deficiency of the clone is probable, the operation is prevented, (v) Actions taken to protect the individual against damages, deficiency or death, and (vi) The experiments should be stopped if the responsible researcher believes at any phase of the research, continuation of the researches may result in damage, deficiency or death of the tested individual. 42

Bioethical Analysis of Therapeutic Cloning

The subject is more complicated about the therapeutic cloning. By using this technology, it is possible to obtain tissues immunologically compatible with the recipient and it is considered as a definitive treatment for diseases such as Huntington’s, Parkinson’s, Multiple Sclerosis, Myocardial Infarction, etc. Millions of patients around the world benefit from such researches but on the other hand, making such researches requires reproduction and then destruction of the developing embryo. Is it possible to reproduce a human embryo for one’s purpose, but it should be remembered that such embryos are the initial point of life of all human being. It is not right to cut the string of life of the cell collection at the beginning of life for the purpose of medical research. 46

Anyway, assessing the advantages and disadvantages of this technology is complicating and difficult because on one hand, it is a promise of the great probable advantage to the humanity and on the other hand, it causes several moral doubts and concerns at the level of society. What adds more complications to this subject is that: first, it is not certain that scientists achieve what they claim. Second, there might be other alternatives with the same advantages and without the mentioned ethical issues. Such alternatives have already been proposed such as using adult stem cells. The most concerns made by the opposition about litigation of therapeutic cloning are on two axes. 46

The first issue is the destruction of the initial embryos which is considered as disrespect of the newly-reproduced human and the initial point of human life. Second, there is the fear that if the reproductive cloning is banned and the therapeutic cloning becomes free, whereas the initial procedures and techniques of both of the methods are similar, the freedom is abused in this regard and the embryos are developed for the purpose of human cloning. This concern is so serious that the American government strongly criticized to United Nations in a declaration on putting therapeutic cloning out of control and knew it a way to operate reproductive cloning. 46

Because the research institutes which clone the human embryo are able to use it for any purpose; for example, transferring the human embryo to a hired uterus and reproducing it to a human fetus. In spite of all respect for the new life in the frame of human embryo, supporters of therapeutic cloning believe that human dignity and legal status of the six-day embryo is never equal to a mature human and therefore, the moral problems arising from damage of the embryo are fewer than what the opponents claim. They consider an average value for human embryos and believe that using the human embryo at the first stage of development is not objected if cloning is operated in the precise legal framework. 46

Some others believe that embryo is a string of cells and it is worth as much as other cells in a body; thus, doing researches on ancestral cell and therapeutic cloning are the same as other cellular and molecular biology researches and they do not have any types of moral problems. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that the purpose of reproduction of embryos is not “their destruction” but it is to serve life of humans and progress of medical science. To prevent from long-term culture of embryo and future abuse from it, the experiments will be done on embryos of less than 14-day-old. At this stage, organs are not differentiated yet. Supporters agree with the laws which put therapeutic cloning operation in the certain framework and by controlling the process of cloning operation prevent from any abuse and violation from the related regulations. They believe that the benefits of therapeutic cloning are so many that the technology cannot be ignored due to ethical problems. 46

Jurisprudential Analysis of Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning

This subject is important because reproductive and therapeutic cloning is considered a new technology and is different and various related aspects should be recognized and studied and put into the legal content. 17

JURISPRUDENTIAL ANALYSIS OF REPRODUCTIVE CLONING

Jurisprudence of Sunni Scholars

They discussed cloning with reasons such as interfering in God’s will, corruption on earth, changing tradition, variety, creation and breaking Muslims’ believes, and they expressed their comments by issuing Fatwa, resolutions and declaration. In idea of the religious intellects consider the sanctity of the matter to be so obvious that the opportunity for criticism and discussion of the followers in this area is closed. Some of Sunni scholars exceptionally authorize it in some cases such as treatment of infertility, providing that the technology is guaranteed to be harmless. To keep sanctity of human cloning, some declare the doubtful speech that the cloning process changes the creation process by God and it is an act of evil and forbidden. This challenge is stated by some of the Sunni scholars. They refer to some of the verses and cited comments to emphasize on sanctity of changing creation. Accordingly, change of creation is the temptation of Devil and Devil also tempts to corruption, prostitution and sins; thus, changes in creation is prohibited. 47

Shia Jurists

Generally, the views of Shia scholars on human cloning can be classified in four categories of (i)

The total permit for human cloning: Some of jurists and scholars allow the cloning due to lack of specific documents and clear evidence on the sanctity of cloning and according to the principle of permissibility. For example, Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani considered human cloning not to be problematic if is limited to reconstruction of tissue damages. Also, Ayatollah Moosavi Ardabili believes that there is no strict reason for sanctity of human cloning and this operation is permissible if is limited to reconstruction of tissue damages. 17

(ii) Limited permission on human cloning: Based on available documents and according to the first principle in this case, some authorities have allowed human cloning but they believe that if it is widely operated, it would be problematic; such as, recognizing the cloned individuals from one another, therefore, they give authorization by case and they do not allow it at large scale. According to reports by Professor Hassan Javaheri, there is no problem on cloning happening in nature, but it is not legal to be undertaken at large scale. (iii) Secondary sanctity of human cloning: Some of the Shia Jurists believe that human cloning is not a problem in nature based on their arguments, but operating it in laboratories may lead to inevitable corruption such as intervention in natural system. 17

Therefore, to prevent from such corruption, the human cloning is considered as the secondary prohibition. Ayatollahs Seyed Kazem Haery, Sheikh Javad Tabrizi, Seyed Sadegh Shirazi, Yoosef Sanei and Naser Makarem Shirazi supported this statement. Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi responded to an exception in this issue: “Based on religious rules, it is not naturally forbidden but with respect to its probable side effects that may lead to disorders in the human society and they are obvious for experts, its operation will would be problematic. 17

Ayatollah Yoosef Sanei also stated that normalizing and legalizing the cloning in a manner that it is considered the same as having children by marriage, is absolutely not compatible with Islamic regulations and jurisprudence and it results in corruptions which must necessarily be avoided legally, socially, ethically and developmentally. He has declared that the prevention and punishment of its perpetrators and attempters is a must and a rational and religious assumption for all humans especially, legal and executive authorities and propagators. However, he allowed human cloning in rare cases and necessities when it is beneficial for human health and also the use of its scientific aspects; such as the cloning of organs for treatment purpose. 17

(iv) Ultimate prohibition of human cloning: The owners of this attitude basically prohibit human cloning as a sanction action and consider it as the ultimately illegitimate. According to changes in creation and based on the principle of non-possession of body for human and therefore, the danger and necessity of permissibility in this regard showed the ultimate prohibition of human cloning. Despite the four categories and disagreements, most of the jurists banned human cloning. In other words, although according to the principle of presumption of innocence, initially, most of the Islamic intellects ruled on its natural permissibility and those who agreed and prescribed the cloning mentioned some of the applications and functions of this technology.

But ultimately, a large number of the Muslim jurists considered it as the secondary prohibition despite its primary and natural permissibility. Considering the consequences of such abuse, potential and actual corruptions and due to the necessity of life protection and respect to human dignity and the reputation of “the principle of no harm”, they emphasized on the necessity of prohibition of prescribing the process until clearance of all aspects of the issue and safety against probable risks and enough assurance in this regard. 17

Jurisprudential Analysis of Therapeutic Cloning

The significance of jurisprudential analysis of therapeutic cloning is due to the unique features of the technique which play a crucial and exclusive role in treatment of incurable and deadly diseases. Despite such a wonderful role, whose aspects reveal development of scientific researches everyday, it is required that the jurisprudence has comment on the mentioned problem, the problem which is referred as the loss of ethical dignity and human right on the embryo. When embryo is developed, three actions can be undertaken including, (i) To allow to be destroyed, (ii) To place it in uterus where it develops into a human similar to the donor of the cell in terms of growth, and (iii) T use it to obtain stem cells. 48

The operation is the third stage of therapeutic cloning which is described later. It should be known that which one of the three stages of therapeutic cloning is permitted and which is not? Naturally, if only one of the stages is considered prohibited, it is not possible to give fatwa of permission for therapeutic cloning which includes all the stages. The permission of therapeutic cloning is subject to permissibility of all the stages. Now to review the three stages: The first stage is the use of the cell from human body which is automatically not objected. If there is a problem, it is in the next stages which are not related to this stage. 48

In the second stage, the cell is processed and developed for the next stage when the cell is at 6 or 7-day of age. In this process, three actions should be done: (i) Enucleation of cell, (ii) Placing it into the enucleated oocyte, and (iii) Simulating the oocyte by chemical or electrical current to start cell division. This type of manipulation in this stage is not prohibitive itself. The only problem is that it might be banned as the point of prohibition. Of course, this initial point is the time when we know that if the operation begins and due to loss of control, the opportunity of abuse in the situation is available and the development of human embryo becomes inevitable. 48

If human cloning, either as primary or secondary, is a prohibited operation, the operation as the starting point of prohibition will be prevented. But, the third stage is the extraction of the hidden cell mass in the embryo for culturing and obtaining stem cells. This problem caused a serious disagreement in Christianity and Islam in this stage. The problem is the extraction of cell mass which results in disappearing and killing of the fetus and its potential to become a human. To rule out therapeutic cloning, it should be reviewed in three aspects of (i) To review the judgment as “fetal homicide”, (ii) To review the judgment as “sanctity for destruction of the embryo regarding the development in the murder case in the view of the judge and not regarding the customary murder”, and (iii) To review the judgment as “a mere prohibition of embryo destruction”, not prohibited regarding the murder. 48

Naturally, there is a difference between the three categories. The category of sanctity for murder is more severe than the sanctity for the second and third categories. In the third one, the most important rule can be performed easier and more; that is, based on this theory, it can be said that although embryo destruction is banned, whenever a human is suffering from a severe illness and sometimes leading to death, with respect to the more importance of the human life, the embryo is allowed to be destroyed to obtain the stem cell to treat the patient. 48

Legal Analysis of Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning in Iran

As cloning is not still very common and is in the stage of development and has not been tested after birth, the countries with cloning technology do not have a complete and codified law for it. Human cloning may legally cause problems, including the reproduced individual that will be completely similar to the genetic donor, even his fingerprints, and it is exclusive for everybody and considered as the major factor to arrest the offender. So the genetic owner can commit a crime and escape from law, and allocate his action to the cloned individual or vice versa. Thus, the rights and freedom of both of them will be withdrawn. 31

In addition, the real culprit will not be identified and the rights of the accused person will be ignored. The cloned human does not have a father (because it is not from the male sperm) and a mother (because it is not by composition of gamete) and a sister and a brother and a relative, and it is grown in the uterus which is not of his mother but the surrogate mother. In brief, he is an individual with no relativity. If a virgin woman has a child by cloning of her sexual cell, is her pregnancy legitimate or not? And is the born baby her clone or sister or daughter? Who does the cloned individual inherits? If somebody kills the cloned individual, what are the rules for compensation or retribution? And who is responsible for alimony and custodianship of the cloned individual? There are some other legal problems too. 31 It should be taken into accounts that any anti-science law cause the scientists and researchers to emigrate to other territories and societies with less strict laws. One of the tens of reasons for brain drain is lack of right and proper laws to protect scientists and intellects. 49

At the time of writing the review, it is unlikely that individuals or centers in the country, process the idea of the human cloning and perhaps, they have made arrangements and taken into action in this field. This idea and the probability of its occurrence have revealed the lawful Iranian responsibility more than before and showed the necessity of taking immediate action to fill this legal gap. 17 On the other hand, now when the researches in the field of cloning have started, it is not possible to revert to or ban or ignore them instead, the right action is to direct the researches on cloning and pass the required rules of law for this field. 42

It seems that the prospects of every country about therapeutic cloning are dependent on the worth of human embryo in the legal system. The truth is that even in the countries where abortion is considered as the criminal act and punishable, and exceptionally, the mother’s life is in danger or the fetus is malformed or even the embryo is a result of adultery rape, abortion is predicted. Undoubtedly, therapeutic cloning which is the final solution for the treatment and health of human leads to the destruction of embryo and cannot be placed among any of the aforementioned exceptions because the cloned embryo is merely destroyed for other’s health and not its existence endangers other’s life. Certainly, in the countries where the value of embryonic and fetal is not considered equal to life or even health of the human and due to different reasons, abortion is not legally banned, the therapeutic cloning encounter less challenges. 15

To clarify the criminal liabilities of physicians and law of human cases in genetic experiments and new therapeutic methods such as cloning, the Iranian criminal laws should be studied. Unfortunately, the law of Iran has not changed along with developments and progresses in medical sciences, and Iran is one of the countries where law has not passed about cloning. The only available regulations in our country codified by consultative committees are affiliated to the research institutes include two documents and despite that they are called by laws, the executive bylaws of ethical principles in researches of medical sciences and ethical guides of researches on gametes and embryos, they lack legal standards and sanction and as their titles suggest, they should be called ethics doctrine. Thus, only those cases of Islamic penal code approved in 2013 and law on method of donating embryos to infertile couples approved in 2003 are to be responsive to new challenges. 17

Therefore, if an individual or individuals engage in human cloning, in terms of the legal fundamentals and legal principles, it is not legally possible to prosecute them because with respect to constitution law principle of “legality of offenses and penalties”, it is not possible to consider an act as a crime without a legal element and no punishment is considered for it and the action or leaving of the action can be considered as a crime that a law is passed for it and the action and leaving of the action is considered as a crime by the law and the related punishment is determined. 45

Some might argue that based on principle 167 constitution law states that the judge is bound to endeavor to find the ruling on every case in the law and if not found, according to Islamic sources or fatwa, would issue the ruling. They cannot refuse handling of the case and issuing the ruling under the pretext of silence or deficiency or brevity or conflict of laws. The rule of law can be derived if required, a legal action can be taken into account. In reply to such cases, it should be said that on one hand, the principle mostly includes the civil cases and if its content is accepted in criminal issues, case issues not phenomenon to this extent, would be with effective outcome. The prospects of scholars and views of Islamic jurists and different fatwas and often conflicting responses with uncertainty in dealing with various issues of this technology, are additional reasons to the inadequacy of the response. 45

Although mostly after the emergence of the phenomena and the related challenges, legislators take actions to pass and approve laws with respect to requirements and structure and sources and development capacities of civil rights and future legal researches, if the time gap lengthens between the phenomena and provision of the necessary related law, it causes corruption and irreparable consequences; especially, on the critical and vital issues which have created great concerns about human rights and criminal laws for the human of the third millennium. 17

If person or persons practice human cloning, what legal acts are there to deal with them? Are there any rules considered in the related laws to take legal actions against the operators and users of the technology? If yes, to what extent are they expressive and comprehensive and if not, what should be done against the practice and the perpetrators? If any person or persons practice human cloning, what legal actions are there against them? Some of the practical policies which should be done include public education, description of probable risks and disadvantages of human cloning and placing religious and ethical scholars next to researchers of cloning. 17

Therefore, we can conclude that the right method is guiding and controlling the cloning technology and banning the technique is not always fruitful. Of course, it should be taken into accounts that all are possible if the religion orders human cloning in the view of jurisprudence and is considered as permission. In other words, although the religious order on human cloning can be an absolute permission based on the strong principle of permission, it is not unlikely that in the future, corruption is proved to be real for them, Jurists rule it as secondary sanctity and even as primary one. If it is proved, the phenomenon is considered as example of required affairs based on creation of ethical, social and medical disorders. Religious and ethical rulings cannot be permission for it, and it seems that it is a point that only one case can be a response to it and it needs nothing but time.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Dolly the sheep, the first mammal cloned from a somatic (body) cell, came into the world innocent as a lamb. However, soon after the announcement of her birth in February 1997 (Wilmut et al., 1997) she caused panic and controversy. An important, and for many people troubling question arose: if the cloning of sheep is possible, will scientists soon start cloning humans as well; and if they did, would this be wrong or unwise?

For most people, Dolly was really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. She represented a first undesirable and dangerous step to applying reproductive cloning in humans, something that many agreed should never be done. Only a small minority thought it was permissible, or even morally obligatory to conduct further research into human reproductive cloning. Some had no strong objections to it, but did not see any reason to promote it either.

Dolly is now stuffed and set up for display in the National Museum of Scotland. Many countries or jurisdictions have legally banned human cloning or are in the process of doing so. In some countries, including France and Singapore, reproductive cloning of humans is a criminal offence. In 2005, UNESCO adopted a ‘Declaration on Human Cloning’, which calls for a universal ban on human cloning (for an examination of the human cloning debate at UNESCO since 2008, see Langlois, 2017). The debate on human reproductive cloning seems to have drawn to a close. However, since reproductive cloning of mammals has become routine in several countries, there is reason to believe that at some point in the future, humans will be cloned too. Moreover, even if reproductive cloning will not be possible in the near future, cloning for research and therapeutic purposes is likely to be.

This entry describes the most important areas of disagreement regarding the ethics of cloning. I will focus on human cloning (as opposed to animal cloning), since human cloning has been the focus of the cloning debate.

1. What is Cloning?

2.1 creating and killing embryos for stem cells, 2.2 the need for oocytes, 2.3 social justice considerations, 2.4 a slippery slope to reproductive cloning, 3.1 safety and efficiency, 3.2 harm to the individual conceived through cloning, 3.3 harm to others, 3.4 human dignity, 4. religious perspectives, other internet resources, related entries.

Strictly speaking, cloning is the creation of a genetic copy of a sequence of DNA or of the entire genome of an organism. In the latter sense, cloning occurs naturally in the birth of identical twins and other multiples. But cloning can also be done artificially in the laboratory via embryo twinning or splitting: an early embryo is split in vitro so that both parts, when transferred to a uterus, can develop into individual organisms genetically identical to each other. In the cloning debate, however, the term ‘cloning’ typically refers to a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT involves transferring the nucleus of a somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus and thus most of the DNA has been removed. (The mitochondrial DNA in the cytoplasm is still present). The manipulated oocyte is then treated with an electric current in order to stimulate cell division, resulting in the formation of an embryo. The embryo is (virtually) genetically identical to, and thus a clone of the somatic cell donor.

Dolly was the first mammal to be brought into the world using SCNT. Ian Wilmut and his team at the Roslin Institute in Scotland replaced the nucleus from an oocyte taken from a Blackface ewe with the nucleus of a cell from the mammary gland of a six-year old Finn Dorset sheep (these sheep have a white face). They transferred the resulting embryo into the uterus of a surrogate ewe and approximately five months later Dolly was born. Dolly had a white face: she was genetically identical to the Finn Dorset ewe from which the somatic cell had been obtained.

Dolly, however, was not 100% genetically identical to the donor animal. Genetic material comes from two sources: the nucleus and the mitochondria of a cell. Mitochondria are organelles that serve as power sources to the cell. They contain short segments of DNA. In Dolly’s case, her nuclear DNA was the same as the donor animal; other of her genetic materials came from the mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the enucleated oocyte. For the clone and the donor animal to be exact genetic copies, the oocyte too would have to come from the donor animal (or from the same maternal line – mitochondria are passed on by oocytes).

Dolly’s birth was a real breakthrough, for it proved that something that had been considered biologically impossible could indeed be done. Before Dolly, scientists thought that cell differentiation was irreversible: they believed that, once a cell has differentiated into a specialized body cell, such as a skin or liver cell, the process cannot be reversed. What Dolly demonstrated was that it is possible to take a differentiated cell, turn back its biological clock, and make the cell behave as though it was a recently fertilized egg.

Nuclear transfer can also be done using a donor cell from an embryo instead of from an organism after birth. Cloning mammals using embryonic cells has been successful since the mid-1980s (for a history of cloning, see Wilmut et al. 2001). Another technique to produce genetically identical offspring or clones is embryo twinning or embryo splitting, in which an early embryo is split in vitro so that both parts, when implanted in the uterus, can develop into individual organisms genetically identical to each other. This process occurs naturally with identical twins.

However, what many people find disturbing is the idea of creating a genetic duplicate of an existing person, or a person who has existed. That is why the potential application of SCNT in humans set off a storm of controversy. Another way to produce a genetic duplicate from an existing person is by cryopreserving one of two genetically identical embryos created in vitro for several years or decades before using it to generate a pregnancy. Lastly, reproductive cloning of humans could, in theory, also be achieved by combining the induced pluripotent stem cell technique with tetraploid complementation. Several research teams have succeeded in cloning mice this way (see, for example, Boland et al. 2009). The technique involves injecting mouse iPS cells in tetraploid embryos, i.e. embryos with twice the normal number of chromosomes that cannot result in live offspring. The resulting mouse pups are derived solely from the iPS cells, which means that the tetraploid embryos only acted as a substitute trophectoderm, which forms the placenta and other nourishing membranes but which does not contribute to the ‘embryo proper’.

Dolly is a case of reproductive cloning, the aim of which is to create offspring. Reproductive cloning is to be distinguished from cloning for therapy and research, sometimes also referred to as ‘therapeutic cloning’. Both reproductive cloning and cloning for research and therapy involve SCNT, but their aims, as well as most of the ethical concerns they raise, differ. I will first discuss cloning for research and therapy and will then proceed to outline the ethical debate surrounding reproductive cloning.

2. Cloning for Research and Therapy

Cloning for research and therapy involves the creation of an embryo via SCNT, but instead of transferring the cloned embryo to the uterus in order to generate a pregnancy, it is used to obtain pluripotent stem cells. It is thus not the intention to use the embryo for reproductive purposes. Embryonic stem cells offer powerful tools for developing therapies for currently incurable diseases and conditions, for important biomedical research, and for drug discovery and toxicity testing (Cervera & Stojkovic 2007). For example, one therapeutic approach is to induce embryonic stem cells to differentiate into cardiomyocytes (heart muscle cells) to repair or replace damaged heart tissue, into insulin-producing cells to treat diabetes, or into neurons and their supporting tissues to repair spinal cord injuries.

A potential problem with embryonic stem cells is that they will normally not be genetically identical to the patient. Embryonic stem cells are typically derived from embryos donated for research after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Because these stem cells would have a genetic identity different from that of the recipient – the patient – they may, when used in therapy, be rejected by her immune system. Immunorejection can occur when the recipient’s body does not recognize the transplanted cells, tissues or organs as its own and as a defense mechanism attempts to destroy the graft. Another type of immunorejection involves a condition called graft-versus-host disease, in which immune cells contaminating the graft recognize the new host – the patient – as foreign and attack the host’s tissues and organs. Both types of immunorejection can result in loss of the graft or death of the patient. It is one of the most serious problems faced in transplant surgery.

Cloning for research and therapy could potentially offer a solution to this problem. An embryo produced via SNCT using the patient’s somatic cell as a donor cell would be virtually genetically identical to the patient. Stem cells obtained from that embryo would thus also be genetically identical to the patient, as would be their derivatives, and would be less likely to be rejected after transplantation. Though therapies using embryonic stem cells from SCNT embryos are not yet on the horizon for humans, scientists have provided proof of concept for these therapies in the mouse.

Embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos would also have significant advantages for biomedical research, and for drug discovery and toxicity testing. Embryonic stem cells genetically identical to the patient could provide valuable in vitro models to study disease, especially where animal models are not available, where the research cannot be done in patients themselves because it would be too invasive, or where there are too few patients to work with (as in the case of rare genetic diseases). Researchers could, for example, create large numbers of embryonic stem cells genetically identical to the patient and then experiment on these in order to understand the particular features of the disease in that person. The embryonic stem cells and their derivatives could also be used to test potential treatments. They could, for example, be used to test candidate drug therapies to predict their likely toxicity. This would avoid dangerous exposure of patients to sometimes highly experimental drugs.

Cloning for research and therapy is, however, still in its infancy stages. In 2011, a team of scientists from the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laboratory was the first to have succeeded in creating two embryonic stem cell lines from human embryos produced through SCNT (Noggle et al. 2011). Three years earlier, a small San Diego biotechnological company created human embryos (at the blastocyst stage) via SCNT but did not succeed in deriving embryonic stem cells from these cells (French et al. 2008). Cloning for research and therapy is thus not likely to bear fruit in the short term though progress is made (Tachibana et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2020). Apart from unsolved technical difficulties, much more basic research in embryonic stem cell research is needed. The term ‘therapeutic cloning’ has been criticized precisely for this reason. It suggests that therapy using embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos is already reality. In the phase before clinical trials, critics say, it is only reasonable to refer to research on nuclear transfer as ‘research cloning’ or ‘cloning for biomedical research’ (PCBE, 2002).

Cloning for research and therapy holds great potential for future research and therapeutic applications, but it also raises various ethical concerns.

Much of the debate about the ethics of cloning for research and therapy turns on a basic disagreement about how we should treat early human embryos. As it is currently done, the isolation of embryonic stem cells involves the destruction of embryos at the blastocyst stage (day five after fertilization, when the embryo consists of 125–225 cells). But cloning for research and therapy not only involves the destruction of embryos, it also involves the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of stem cell derivation. Views on whether and when it is permissible to create embryos solely to obtain stem cells differ profoundly.

Some believe that an embryo, from the moment of conception, has the same moral status, that is, the same set of basic moral rights, claims or interests as an ordinary adult human being. This view is sometimes expressed by saying that the early embryo is a person. On this view, creating and killing embryos for stem cells is a serious moral wrong. It is impermissible, even if it could save many lives (Deckers 2007). Others believe that the early embryo is merely a cluster of cells or human tissue lacking any moral status. A common view among those who hold this position is that, given its promising potential, embryonic stem cell and cloning research is a moral imperative (Devolder & Savulescu 2006). Many defend a view somewhere in between these opposing positions. They believe, for example, that the early embryo should be treated with respect because it has an intermediate moral status: a moral status lower than that of a person but higher than that of an ordinary body cell. A popular view amongst those who hold this position is that using embryos for research might sometimes be justified. Respect can be demonstrated, it is typically argued, by using embryos only for very important research that cannot be done using less controversial means, and by acknowledging the use of embryos for research with a sense of regret or loss (Robertson 1995; Steinbock 2001). One common view among those who hold the intermediate moral status view is that the use of discarded IVF embryos to obtain stem cells is compatible with the respect we owe to the embryo, whereas the creation and use of cloned embryos is not. An argument underlying this view is that, unlike IVF embryos, cloned embryos are created for instrumental use only; they are created and treated as a mere means, which some regard as incompatible with respectful treatment of the embryo (NBAC 1999). Others (both proponents and opponents of embryo research) have denied that there is a significant moral difference between using discarded IVF embryos and cloned embryos as a source of stem cells. They have argued that if killing embryos for research is wrong, it is wrong regardless of the embryo’s origin (Doerflinger 1999; Fitzpatrick 2003; Devolder 2005, 2015). Douglas and Savulescu (2009) have argued that it is permissible to destroy ‘unwanted’ embryos in research, that is, embryos that no one wishes to use for reproductive purposes. Since both discarded IVF embryos and cloned embryos created for the purpose of stem cell derivation are unwanted embryos in that sense, it is, on their view, permissible to use both types of embryos for research.

A less common view holds that obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos poses fewer ethical problems than obtaining stem cells from discarded IVF embryos. Hansen (2002) has advanced this view, arguing that embryos resulting from SCNT do not have the same moral status we normally accord to other embryos: he calls the combination of a somatic nucleus and an enucleated egg a “transnuclear egg”, which, he says, is a mere “artifact” with no “natural purpose” or potential “to evolve into an embryo and eventually a human being,” and therefore falls outside the category of human beings. McHugh (2004) and Kiessling (2001) advance a similar argument. On their view, obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos is less morally problematic because embryos resulting from SCNT cannot (yet) develop further, and are thus better thought of as tissue culture, whereas IVF represents instrumental support for human reproduction. Since creating offspring is not the goal, they argue, it is misleading to use the term ‘embryo’ or ‘zygote’ to refer to the product of SCNT. They suggest to instead use the terms ‘clonote’ (Mc Hugh) and ‘ovasome’ (Kiessling).

Cloning for research and therapy requires a large number of high-quality donor oocytes. Ethical issues arise regarding how these oocytes could be obtained. Oocyte donation involves various risks and discomforts (for a review of the risks, see Committee on Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research , 2007). Among the most pressing ethical issues raised by participating in such donation is what model of informed consent should be applied. Unlike women who are considering IVF, non-medical oocyte donors are not clinical patients. They do not stand to derive any reproductive or medical benefit themselves from the donation (though Kalfoglou & Gittelsohn, 2000, argue that they may derive a psychological benefit). Magnus and Cho (2005) have argued that donating women should not be classified as research subjects since, unlike in other research, the risks to the donor do not lie in the research itself but in the procurement of the materials required for the research. They suggest that a new category named ‘research donors’ be created for those who expose themselves to substantial risk only for the benefit of others (in this case unidentifiable people in the future) and where the risk is incurred not in the actual research but in the procurement of the materials for the research. Informed consent for altruistic organ donation by living donors to strangers has also been suggested as a model, since, in both cases, the benefits will be for strangers and not for the donor. Critics of this latter suggestion have pointed out, however, that there is a disanalogy between these two types of donation. The general ethical rule reflected in regulations concerning altruistic donation, namely that there must be a high chance of a good outcome for the patient, is violated in the case of oocyte donation for cloning research (George 2007).

Given the risks to the donor, the absence of direct medical benefit for the donor, and the uncertain potential of cloning research, it is not surprising that the number of altruistic oocyte donations for such research is very low. Financial incentives might be needed to increase the supply of oocytes for cloning research. In some countries, including the US, selling and buying oocytes is legal. Some object to these practices because they consider oocytes as integral to the body and think they should be kept out of the market: on their view, the value of the human body and its parts should not be expressed in terms of money or other fungible goods. Some also worry that, through commercialization of oocytes, women themselves may become objects of instrumental use (Alpers &Lo 1995). Many agree, however, that a concern for commodification does not justify a complete ban on payment of oocyte donors and that justice requires that they be financially compensated for the inconvenience, burden, and medical risk they endure, as is standard for other research subjects (Steinbock 2004; Mertes &Pennings 2007). A related concern is the effect of financial or other offers of compensation on the voluntariness of oocyte donation. Women, especially economically disadvantaged women from developing countries, might be unduly induced or even coerced into selling their oocytes (Dickinson 2002). Baylis and McLeod (2007) have highlighted how difficult it is concomitantly to avoid both undue inducement and exploitation: a price that is too low risks exploitation; a price that avoids exploitation risks undue inducement.

Concerns about exploitation are not limited to concerns about payment, as became clear in the ‘Hwang scandal’ (for a review, see Saunders & Savulescu 2008). In 2004, Woo-Suk-Hwang, a leading Korean stem cell scientist, claimed to be the first to clone human embryos using SCNT and to extract stem cells from these embryos. In addition to finding that Hwang had fabricated many of his research results, Korea’s National Bioethics Committee also found that Hwang had pressured junior members of his lab to donate oocytes for his cloning experiments.

Some authors have argued that a regulated market in oocytes could minimize ethical concerns raised by the commercialization of oocytes and could be consistent with respect for women (Resnik 2001; Gruen 2007). Researchers are also investigating the use of alternative sources of oocytes, including animal oocytes, fetal oocytes, oocytes from adult ovaries obtained post mortem or during operation, and stem cell-derived oocytes. Scientists have already succeeded in creating human oocytes from embryonic stem cells (Ma et al. 2017; Saitou & Miyauchi 2016). Finally, another option is ‘egg-sharing’ where couples who are undergoing IVF for reproductive purposes have the option to donate one or two of their oocytes in return for a reduced fee for their fertility treatment. The advantage of this system is that it avoids exposing women to extra risks – these women were undergoing IVF in any case (Roberts & Throsby 2008).

Personalized cloning therapies are likely to be labor intensive and expensive. This has raised social justice concerns. Perhaps cloning therapies will only be a realistic option for the very rich? Some have replied to this concern by pointing out that Cloning therapies may become cheaper, less labor intensive and more widely accessible after time. Moreover, cloning may cure diseases and not only treat symptoms. Regardless of the economic cost, it remains true of course that the cloning procedure is time consuming, rendering it inappropriate for certain clinical applications where urgent intervention is required (e.g., myocardial infarction, acute liver failure or traumatic or infectious spinal cord damage). If cloning for therapy became available, its application would thus likely be restricted to chronic conditions. Wilmut (1997), who cloned Dolly, has suggested that cloning treatments could be targeted to maximize benefit: an older person with heart disease could be treated with stem cells that are not a genetic match, take drugs to suppress her immune system for the rest of her life, and live with the side-effects; a younger person might benefit from stem cells from cloned embryos that match exactly. Devolder and Savulescu (2006) have argued that objections about economic cost are most forceful against ‘cloning for self-transplantation’ than, for example, against cloning for developing cellular models of human disease. The latter will enable research into human diseases and may result in affordable therapies and cures for a variety of common diseases, such as cancer and heart disease, which afflict people all over the world. Finally, some have pointed out that it is not clear whether cloning research is necessarily more labor intensive than experiments on cells and tissues now done in animals.

Some are skeptical about the claimed benefits of cloning for research and therapy. They stress that for many diseases in which cloned embryonic stem cells might offer a therapy, there are alternative treatments and/or preventive measures in development, including gene therapy, pharmacogenomical solutions and treatments based on nanotechnology. It is often claimed that other types of stem cells such as adult stem cells and stem cells from the umbilical cord blood might enable us to achieve the same aims as cloning. Especially induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have raised the hope that cloning research is superfluous (Rao & Condic 2008). iPSCs are created through genetic manipulation of a body cell. iPSCs are similar to embryonic stem cells, and in particular to embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos. However, iPSC research could provide tissue- and patient-specific cells without relying on the need for human oocytes or the creation and destruction of embryos. iPSC research could thus avoid the ethical issues raised by cloning. This promise notwithstanding, scientists have warned that it would be premature to stop cloning research as iPSCs are not identical to embryonic stem cells (Pera & Trounson 2013). Cloning research may teach us things that iPSC research cannot teach us. Moreover, iPSC research has been said to fail to completely avoid the issue of embryo destruction (Brown 2009, Devolder 2015).

Slippery slope arguments express the worry that permitting a certain practice may place us on a slippery slope to a dangerous or otherwise unacceptable outcome. Several commentators have argued that accepting or allowing cloning research is the first step that would place us on a slippery slope to reproductive cloning. As Leon Kass (1998, 702) has put it: “once the genies put the cloned embryos into the bottles, who can strictly control where they go?”

Others are more skeptical about slippery slope arguments against cloning and think that effective legislation can prevent us from sliding down the slope (Savulescu 1999; Devolder & Savulescu 2006). If reproductive cloning is unacceptable, these critics say, it is reasonable to prohibit this specific technology rather than to ban non-reproductive applications of cloning. The UK and Belgium, for example, allow cloning research but prohibit the transfer of cloned embryos to the uterus.

Apart from the question of how slippery the slope might be, another question raised by such arguments concerns the feared development –reproductive cloning– and whether it is really ethically objectionable. Profound disagreement exists about the answer to this question.

3. Human Reproductive Cloning

The central argument in favor of reproductive cloning is expansion of opportunities for reproduction. Reproductive cloning could offer a new means for prospective parents to satisfy their reproductive goals or desires. Infertile individuals or couples could have a child that is genetically related to them. In addition, individuals, same sex couples, or couples who cannot together produce an embryo would no longer need donor gametes to reproduce if cloning were available (some might still need donor eggs for the cloning procedure, but these would be enucleated so that only the mitochondrial DNA remains). It would then be possible to avoid that one’s child shares half of her nuclear DNA with a gamete donor.

Using cloning to help infertile people to have a genetically related child, or a child that is only genetically related to them, has been defended on the grounds of human wellbeing, personal autonomy, and the satisfaction of the natural inclination to produce offspring (Häyry 2003; Strong 2008). Offering individuals or couples the possibility to reproduce using cloning technology has been said to be consistent with the right to reproductive freedom, which, according to some, implies the right to choose what kind of children we will have (Brock 1998, 145).

According to some, the main benefit of reproductive cloning is that it would enable prospective parents to control what genome their children will be endowed with (Fletcher 1988, Harris 1997, 2004; Pence 1998, 101–6; Tooley 1998). Cloning would enable parents to have a child with a genome identical to that of a person with good health and/or other desirable characteristics.

Another possible use of reproductive cloning is to create a child that is a tissue match for a sick sibling. The stem cells from the umbilical cord blood or from the bone marrow of the cloned child could be used to treat the diseased sibling. Such ‘saviour siblings’, have already been created through sexual reproduction or, more efficiently, through a combination of IVF, preimplantation genetic diagnosis and HLA testing.

Many people, however, have expressed concerns about human reproductive cloning. For some, these concerns are sufficient to reject human cloning. For others, these concerns should be weighed against reasons for reproductive cloning.

What follows is an outline of some of the main areas of concern and disagreement about human reproductive cloning.

Despite the successful creation of viable offspring via SCNT in various mammalian species, researchers still have limited understanding of how the technique works on the subcellular and molecular level. Although the overall efficiency and safety of reproductive cloning in mammals has significantly increased over the past fifteen years, it is not yet a safe process (Whitworth & Prather 2010). For example, the rate of abortions, stillbirths and developmental abnormalities remains high. Another source of concern is the risk of premature ageing because of shortened telomeres. Telomeres are repetitive DNA sequences at the tip of chromosomes that get shorter as an animal gets older. When the telomeres of a cell get so short that they disappear, the cell dies. The concern is that cloned animals may inherit the shortened telomeres from their older progenitor, with possibly premature aging and a shortened lifespan as a result.

For many, the fact that reproductive cloning is unsafe provides a sufficient reason not to pursue it. It has been argued that it would simply be wrong to impose such significant health risks on humans. The strongest version of this argument states that it would be wrong now to produce a child using SCNT because it would constitute a case of wrongful procreation. Some adopt a consent-based objection and condemn cloning because the person conceived cannot consent to being exposed to significant risks involved in the procedure (Kass 1998; PCBE 2002). Against this, it has been argued that even if reproductive cloning is unsafe, it may still be permissible if there are no safer means to bring that very same child into existence so long as the child is expected to have a life worth living (Strong 2005).

With the actual rate of advancement in cloning, one cannot exclude a future in which the safety and efficiency of SCNT will be comparable or superior to that of IVF or even sexual reproduction. A remaining question is, then, whether those who condemn cloning because of its experimental nature should continue to condemn it morally and legally. Some authors have reasoned that if, in the future, cloning becomes safer than sexual reproduction, we should even make it our reproductive method of choice (Fletcher 1988; Harris 2004, Ch. 4).

3.2.1 A Threat to Autonomy

Some fear that cloning threatens the identity and individuality of the clone, thus reducing her autonomy (Ramsey 1966; Kitcher 1997; Annas 1998; Kass 1998). This may be bad in itself, or bad because it might reduce the clone’s wellbeing. It may also be bad because it will severely restrict the array of life plans open to the clone, thus violating her ‘right to an open future’ (a concept developed in Feinberg 1980). In its report ‘Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry’, the US President’s Council on Bioethics (2002) wrote that being genetically unique is “an emblem of independence and individuality” and allows us to go forward “with a relatively indeterminate future in front of us” (Ch. 5, Section c). Such concerns have formed the basis of strong opposition to cloning.

The concern that cloning threatens the clone’s identity and individuality has been criticized for relying on the mistaken belief that who and what we become is entirely determined by our genes. Such genetic determinism is clearly false. Though genes influence our personal development, so does the complex and irreproducible context in which our lives take place. We know this, among others, from studying monozygotic twins. Notwithstanding the fact that such twins are genetically identical to each other and, therefore, sometimes look very similar and often share many character traits, habits and preferences, they are different individuals, with different identities (Segal 2000). Thus, it is argued, having a genetic duplicate does not threaten one’s individuality, or one’s distinct identity.

Brock (2002) has pointed out that one could nevertheless argue that even though individuals created through cloning would be unique individuals with a distinct identity, they might not experience it that way. What is threatened by cloning then is not the individual’s identity or individuality, but her sense of identity and individuality, and this may reduce her autonomy. So even if a clone has a unique identity, she may experience more difficulties in establishing her identity than if she had not been a clone.

But here too critics have relied on the comparison with monozygotic twins. Harris (1997, 2004) and Tooley (1998), for example, have pointed out that each twin not only has a distinct identity, but generally also views him or herself as having a distinct identity, as do their relatives and friends. Moreover, so they argue, an individual created through cloning would likely be of a different age than her progenitor. There may even be several generations between them. A clone would thus in essence be a ‘delayed’ twin. Presumably this would make it even easier for the clone to view herself as distinct from the progenitor than if she had been genetically identical to someone her same age.

However, the reference to twins as a model to think about reproductive cloning has been criticized, for example, because it fails to reflect important aspects of the parent-child relationship that would incur if the child were a clone of one of the rearing parents (Jonas 1974; Levick 2004). Because of the dominance of the progenitor, the risk of reduced autonomy and confused identity may be greater in such a situation than in the case of ordinary twins. Moreover, just because the clone would be a delayed twin, she may have the feeling that her life has already been lived or that she is predetermined to do the same things as her progenitor (Levy & Lotz 2005). This problem may be exacerbated by others constantly comparing her life with that of the progenitor, and having problematic expectations based on these comparisons. The clone may feel under constant pressure to live up to these expectations (Kass 1998; Levick 2004, 101; Sandel 2007, 57–62), or may have the feeling she leads ‘a life in the shadow’ of the progenitor (Holm 1998; PCBE 2002, Ch.5). This may especially be the case if the clone was created as a ‘replacement’ for a deceased child. (Some private companies already offer to clone dead pets to create replacements pets.) The fear is that the ‘ghost of the dead child’ will get more attention and devotion than the replacement child. Parents may expect the clone to be like the lost child, or some idealized image of it, which could hamper the development of her identity and adversely affect her self-esteem (Levick 2004, 111–132). Finally, another reason why the clone’s autonomy may be reduced is because she would be involuntarily informed about her genetic predispositions. A clone who knows that her genetic parent developed a severe single gene disease at the age of forty will realise it is very likely that she will undergo the same fate. Unlike individuals who choose to have themselves genetically tested, clones who know their genetic parent’s medical history will be involuntarily informed.

These concerns have been challenged on several grounds. Some believe that it is plausible that, through adequate information, we could largely correct mistaken beliefs about the link between genetic and personal identity, and thus reduce the risk of problematic expectations toward the clone (Harris 1997, 2004; Tooley 1998, 84–5; Brock 1998, Pence 1998). Brock (1998) and Buchanan et al. (2000, 198) have argued that even if people persist in these mistaken beliefs and their attitudes or actions lead to cloned individuals believing they do not have an open future, this does not imply that the clone’s right to ignorance about one’s personal future or to an open future has actually been violated. Pence (1998, 138) has argued that having high expectations, even if based on false beliefs, is not necessarily a bad thing. Parents with high expectations often give their children the best chances to lead a happy and successful life. Brock (2002, 316) has argued that parents now also constantly restrict the array of available life plans open to their children, for example, by selecting their school or by raising them according to certain values. Though this may somewhat restrict the child’s autonomy, there will always be enough decisions to take for the child to be autonomous, and to realize this. According to Brock, it is not clear why this should be different in the case of cloning. He also points out that there may be advantages to being a ‘delayed twin’ (154). For example, one may acquire knowledge about the progenitor’s medical history and use this knowledge to live longer, or to increase one’s autonomy. One could, for example, use the information to reduce the risk of getting the disease or condition, or to at least postpone its onset, by behavioral changes, an appropriate diet and/or preventive medication. This would not be possible, however, if the disease is untreatable (for example, Huntington’s Disease). Harris (2004, Ch.1) has stressed that information about one’s genetic predispositions for certain diseases would also allow one to take better informed reproductive decisions. Cloning would allow us to give our child a ‘tried and tested’ genome, not one created by the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction and the random combination of chromosomes.

3.2.2 The clone will be treated as a means

Cloning arouses people’s imagination about the clone, but also about those who will choose to have a child through cloning. Often dubious motives are ascribed to them: they would want a child that is ‘just like so-and-so’ causing people to view children as objects or as commodities like a new car or a new house (Putnam 1997, 7–8). They would want an attractive child (a clone of Scarlett Johansson) or a child with tennis talent (a clone of Victoria Azarenka) purely to show off. Dictators would want armies of clones to achieve their political goals. People would clone themselves out of vanity. Parents would clone their existing child so that the clone can serve as an organ bank for that child, or would clone their deceased child to have a replacement child. The conclusion is then that cloning is wrong because the clone will be used as a mere means to others’ ends. These critiques have also been expressed with regard to other forms of assisted reproduction; but some worry that individuals created through cloning may be more likely to be viewed as commodities because their total genetic blueprint would be chosen – they would be “fully made and not begotten” (Ramsey 1966; Kass 1998; PCBE 2002, 107).

Strong (2008) has argued that these concerns are based on a fallacious inference. It is one thing to desire genetically related children, and something else to believe that one owns one’s children or that one considers one’s children as objects, he writes. Other commentators, however, have pointed out that even if parents themselves do not commodify their children, cloning might still have an impact on society as a whole, thereby increasing the tendency of others to do so (Levy & Lotz 2005; Sandel 2007). A related concern expressed by Levick (2004, 184–5) is that allowing cloning might result in a society where ‘production on demand’ clones are sold for adoption to people who are seeking to have children with special abilities – a clearer case of treating children as objects.

But suppose some people create a clone for instrumental reasons, for example, as a stem cell donor for a sick sibling. Does this imply that the clone will be treated merely as a means? Critics of this argument have pointed out that parents have children for all kinds of instrumental reasons, including the benefit for the husband-wife relationship, continuity of the family name, and the economic and psychological benefits children provide when their parents become old (Harris 2004, 41–2, Pence 1998). This is generally not considered problematic as long as the child is also valued in its own right. What is most important in a parent-child relationship is the love and care inherent in that relationship. They stress the fact that we judge people on their attitudes toward children, rather than on their motives for having them. They also deny that there is a strong link between one’s intention or motive to have a child, and the way one will treat the child.

3.2.3 Societal Prejudice and Respect for Clones

Another concern is that clones may be the victims of unjustified discrimination and will not be respected as persons (Deech 1999; Levick 2004, 185–187). Savulescu (2005, Other Internet Resources) has referred to such negative attitudes towards clones as ‘clonism’: a new form of discrimination against a group of humans who are different in a non-morally significant way. But does a fear for ‘clonism’ constitute a good reason for rejecting cloning? Savulescu and others have argued that, if it is, then we must conclude that racist attitudes and discriminatory behavior towards people with a certain ethnicity provides a good reason for people with that ethnicity not to procreate. This, according to these critics, is a morally objectionable way to solve the problem of racism. Instead of limiting people’s procreative liberty we should combat existing prejudices and discrimination. Likewise, it is argued, instead of prohibiting cloning out of concern for clonism, we should combat possible prejudices and discrimination against clones (see also Pence 1998, 46; Harris 2004, 92–93). Macintosh (2005, 119–21) has warned that by expressing certain concerns about cloning one may actually reinforce certain prejudices and misguided stereotypes about clones. For example, saying that a clone would not have a personal identity prejudges the clone as inferior or fraudulent (the idea that originals are more valuable than their copies) or even less than human (as individuality is seen as an essential characteristic of human nature).

3.2.4 Complex Family Relationships

Some worry that cloning will threaten traditional family structures; a fear that has come up in debates about gay people adopting children, IVF and other assisted reproduction techniques. But in cloning the situation would be more complex as it may blur generational boundaries (McGee 2000) and the clone would likely be confused about her kinship ties (Kass 1998; O’Neil 2002, 67–68). For example, a woman who has a child conceived through cloning would actually be the twin of her child and the woman’s mother would, genetically, be its mother, not grandmother. Some have argued against these concerns, replying that a cloned child would not necessarily be more confused about her family ties than other children. Many have four nurturing parents because of a divorce, never knew their genetic parents, have nurturing parents that are not their genetic parents, or think that their nurturing father is also their genetic father when in fact he is not. While these complex family relationships can be troubling for some children, they are not insurmountable, critics say. Harris (2004, 77–78) argues that there are many aspects about the situation one is born and raised in that may be troublesome. As with all children, the most important thing is the relation with people who nurture and educate them, and children usually know very well who these people are. There is no reason to believe that with cloning, this will be any different. Onora O’Neil (2002, 67–8) argues that such responses are misplaced. While she acknowledges that there are already children now with confused family relationships, she argues that it is very different when prospective parents seek such potentially confused relationships for their children from the start.

Other concerns related to cloning focus on the potential harmful effects of cloning for others. Sometimes these concerns are related to those about the wellbeing of the clone. For example, McGee’s concern about confused family relationships not only bears on the clone but also on society as a whole. However, since I have already mentioned this concern, I will, in the remainder of this entry, focus on other arguments

3.3.1 Adoption and the Importance of Genetic Links

It is often claimed that the strongest reason for why reproductive cloning should be permissible, if safe, is that it will allow infertile people to have a genetically related child. This position relies on the view that having genetically related children is morally significant and valuable. This is a controversial view. For example, Levy and Lotz (2005) and Rulli (2016) have denied the importance of a genetic link between parents and their children. Moreover, they have argued that claiming that this link is important will give rise to bad consequences, such as reduced adoption rates (and, in Rulli’s case, a failure to fulfil one’s duty to adopt) and diminished resources for improving the life prospects of the disadvantaged, including those waiting to be adopted. Levick (2004, 185) and Ahlberg and Brighouse (2011) have also advanced this view. Since, according to these authors, these undesirable consequences would be magnified if we allowed human cloning, we have good reason to prohibit it. In response, Strong (2008) has argued that this effect is uncertain, and that there are other, probably more effective, ways to help such children or to prevent them from ending up in such a situation. Moreover, if cloning is banned, infertile couples may make use of donor embryos or gametes rather than adoption. Rob Sparrow (2006) has pointed out another potential problem for those who defend reproductive cloning for the reason that it will overcome infertility by providing a genetically related child. According to Sparrow, cloning just doesn’t provide the right sort of genetic relation to make those who use the technology the parents of the child.So, in order to justify reproductive cloning one then has to emphasise the importance of the intention with which the parents bring the cloned child into the world, rather than the genetic relationship with the child. And this emphasis works to undermine the justification for reproductive cloning in the first place.

3.3.2 Genetic Diversity

Another concern is that because cloning is an asexual way of reproducing it would decrease genetic variation among offspring and, in the long run, might even constitute a threat to the human race. The gene pool may narrow sufficiently to threaten humanity’s resistance to disease (AMA 1999, 6). In response, it has been argued that if cloning becomes possible, the number of people who will choose it as their mode of reproduction will very likely be too low to constitute a threat to genetic diversity. It would be unlikely to be higher than the rate of natural twinning, which, occurring at a rate of 3.5/1000 children, does not seriously impact on genetic diversity. Further, even if millions of people would create children through cloning, the same genomes will not be cloned over and over: each person would have a genetic copy of his or her genome, which means the result will still be a high diversity of genomes. Others argue that, even if genetic diversity were not diminished by cloning, a society that supports reproductive cloning might be taken to express the view that variety is not important. Conveying such a message, these authors say, could have harmful consequences for society.

3.3.3 Eugenics

Some see the increase in control of what kind of genome we want to pass on to our children as a positive development. A major concern, however, is that this shift ‘from chance to choice’ will lead to problematic eugenic practices.

One version of this concern states that cloning would, from the outset, constitute a problematic form of eugenics. However, critics have argued that this is implausible: the best explanations of what was wrong with immoral cases of eugenics, such as the Nazi eugenic programs, are that they involved coercion and were motivated by objectionable moral beliefs or false non-moral beliefs. This would not necessarily be the case were cloning to be implemented now (Agar 2004; Buchanan 2007). Unlike the coercive and state-directed eugenics of the past, new ‘liberal eugenics’ defends values such as autonomy, reproductive freedom, beneficence, empathy and the avoidance of harm (Agar, 2004). Enthusiasts of so-called ‘liberal eugenics’ are interested in helping individuals to prevent or diminish the suffering and increase the well-being of their children by endowing them with certain genes.

Another version of the eugenics concern points out the risk of a slippery slope: the claim is that cloning will lead to objectionable forms of eugenics—for example, coercive eugenics—in the future. After all, historical cases of immoral eugenics often developed from earlier well intentioned and less problematic practices (for a history of eugenics as well as an analysis of philosophical and political issues raised by eugenics, see Kevles 1985 and Paul 1995). According to Sandel (2007, Ch.5), for example, ‘liberal eugenics’ might imply more state compulsion than first appears: just as governments can force children to go to school, they could require people to use genetics to have ‘better’ children.

A related concern expressed by Sandel (2007, 52–7) is that cloning, and enhancement technologies in general, may result in a society in which parents will not accept their child for what it is, reinforcing an already existing trend of heavily managed, high-pressure child-rearing or ‘hyper-parenting’. Asch and Wasserman (2005, 202) have expressed a similar concern; arguing that having more control over what features a child has can pose an “affront to an ideal of unconditioned devotion”. Another concern, most often expressed by disability rights advocates, is that if cloning is used to have ‘better’ children, it may create a more intolerant climate towards those with a disability or a serious disease, and that such practices can express negative judgments about people with disabilities. This argument has also been advanced in the debate about selective abortion, prenatal testing, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Disagreement exists about whether these effects are likely. For example, Buchanan et al. (2002, 278) have argued that one can devalue disability while valuing existing disabled people and that trying to help parents who want to avoid having a disabled child does not imply that society should make no efforts to increase accessibility for existing people with disabilities.

UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997) was the first international instrument to condemn human reproductive cloning as a practice against human dignity. Article 11 of this Declaration states: “ Practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted… ” This position is shared by the World Health Organization, the European Parliament and several other international instruments. Critics have pointed out that the reference to human dignity is problematic as it is rarely specified how human dignity is to be understood, whose dignity is at stake, and how dignity is relevant to the ethics of cloning (Harris 2004, Ch.2, Birnbacher 2005, McDougall 2008,). Some commentators state that it is the copying of a genome which violates human dignity (Kass 1998); others have pointed out that this interpretation could be experienced as an offence to genetically identical twins, and that we typically do not regard twins as a threat to human dignity (although some societies in the past did), nor do we prevent twins from coming into existence. On the contrary, IVF, which involves an increased ‘risk’ of having twins, is a widely accepted fertility treatment.

Human dignity is most often related to Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, namely the idea that we should never use a person merely as a means to an end. I have, however, already discussed this concern in section 4.2.2.

No unified religious perspective on human cloning exists; indeed, there are a diversity of opinions within each individual religious tradition. For an overview of the evaluation of cloning by the main religious groups see, for example, Cole-Turner (1997) and Walters (2004). For a specifically Jewish perspective on cloning, see, for example, Lipschutz (1999), for an Islamic perspective, Sadeghi (2007) and for a Catholic perspective, Doerflinger (1999).

• Agar, N., 2004, Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Ahlberg, J. and Brighouse, H., 2011, “An argument against cloning,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 40(4): 539–566.
• Alpers, A. and Lo, B., 1995, “Commodification and commercialization in human embryo research,” Stanford Law & Policy Review , 6(2): 39–46.
• American Medical Association, AMA, (1999), Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs , American Medical Association.
• Annas, G., 1998, “The prospect of human cloning: an opportunity for national and international cooperation,” in Human Cloning: Biomedical Ethical Reviews , J. Humber and R. Almeder (eds.), New Jersey: Humana Press.
• Asch, A. and Wasserman, D., 2005, “Where is the sin in synecdoche,” in Quality of life and human difference: genetic testing, health care , and disability , D. Wasserman, R.S. Wachbroit, and J.E. Bickenbach (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Baylis, F., and C. McLeod, 2007, “The stem cell debate continues: the buying and selling of eggs for research,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 33(12): 726–731.
• Birnbacher, D., 2005, “Human cloning and human dignity,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online (Supplement), 10: 50–55.
• Boland, M.J., Hazen, J.L., Nazor, K.L., Rodriguez, A.R., Gifford, W., Martin, G., Kupriyanov, S., and Baldwin, K.K., 2009, “Adult mice generated from induced pluripotent stem cells,” Nature , 461(7260): 91–94.
• Brock, D.W., 1998, “Cloning human beings: an assessment of the ethical issues pro and con,” in Facts and Fantasies about Human Cloning , M.C. Nussbaum and C.R. Sunstein (eds.), New York: Norton: 141–164.
• –––, 2002, “Human Cloning and Our Sense of Self, ” Science , 269: 314–316.
• Brown, M.T., 2009, “Moral complicity in induced pluripotent stem cell research,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 19(1): 1–22.
• Buchanan, A., Brock, D.W., Daniels, N., Wikler, D., 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics & Justice , New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
• Buchanan, A., 2007, “Institutions, beliefs and ethics: eugenics as a case study,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 15(1): 22–45.
• Cervera, R.P. and Stojkovic, M., 2007, “Human embryonic stem cell derivation and nuclear transfer: impact on regenerative therapeutics and drug discovery,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics , 82(3): 310–315.
• Cole-Turner, R. (ed.), 1997, Human Cloning: Religious Responses , Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
• Committee on Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research, 2007, Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research: Workshop Report , Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.
• Deckers, J., 2007, “Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 33(2): 102–6.
• Deech, R., 1999, “Human Cloning and public policy,” In The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights , J. Burley (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: Chapter 4.
• Devolder, K., 2005, “Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 31(6): 366–370.
• –––, 2015, The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Devolder, K. and Savulescu, J., 2006, “The moral imperative to conduct cloning and stem cell research,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 15(1): 7–21.
• Dickinson, D., 2002, “Commodification of human tissue: implications for feminist and development ethics,” Developing World Bioethics , 2(1): 55–63.
• Doerflinger, R.M., 1999, “The ethics of funding embryonic stem cell research: A Catholic viewpoint,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 9(2): 137–150.
• Douglas, T. and Savulescu, J., 2009, “Destroying unwanted embryos in research,” EMBO Reports , 10(4): 307–312.
• Feinberg, J., 1980, “A Child’s Right to an open future,” in Whose Child? Parental Rights, Parental Authority and State Power , W. Aiken (ed.), Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield: 124–153.
• FitzPatrick, W., 2003, “Surplus embryos, nonreproductive cloning, and the intend/foresee distinction,” Hastings Center Report , 33(3): 29–36.
• Fletcher, J.F., 1988, The Ethics of Genetic Control: Ending Reproductive Roulette , New York: Prometheus.
• French, A.J. et al ., 2008, “Development of human cloned blastocysts following somatic cell nuclear transfer with adult fibroblasts,” Stem Cells , 26(2): 485–93.
• George, K., 2007, “What about the women? Ethical and policy aspects of egg supply for cloning research,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online , 15(2): 127–133.
• Gruen, L., 2007, “Oocytes for sale?,” Metaphilosophy , 38(2–3): 285–308.
• Hansen, J.E., 2002, “Embryonic stem cell production through therapeutic cloning has fewer ethical problems than stem cell harvest from surplus IVF embryos,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 28(2): 86–8.
• Harris, J., 1997, “Goodbye Dolly: The ethics of human cloning,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 23(6): 353–360.
• –––, 2004, On Cloning , London: Routledge.
• Häyry, M., 2003, “Philosophical arguments for and against human reproductive cloning,” Bioethics , 17(5–6): 447–459.
• Holm, S., 1998, “A life in the shadow: one reason why we should not clone humans,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 7: 160–162.
• Jonas, H., 1974, Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Kalfoglou, A.L., Gittelsohn, J.A., 2000, “A qualitative follow-up study of women’s experiences with oocyte donation,” Human Reproduction , 15(4): 798–805.
• Kass, L.R., 1998, “The wisdom of repugnance: why we should ban the cloning of humans,” Valparaiso University Law Rev iew 32(2): 679–705.
• Kevles, D.J., 1995, [1985], In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; first edition, 1985.
• Kiessling, A.A., 2001, “In the stem-cell debate, new concepts need new words,” Nature , 413(6855): 453.
• Kitcher, P., 1997, “Whose self is it, anyway?,” Sciences (New York) , 37(5): 58–62.
• Langlois, A., 2017. “The global governance of human cloning: the case of UNESCO,” Palgrave Communications , 3: 17019. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.19
• Levick, S.E., 2004, Clone Being: Exploring the Psychological and Social Dimensions , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
• Levy, N. and Lotz, M., 2005, “Reproductive cloning and a (kind of) genetic fallacy,” Bioethics , 19: 232–250.
• Lipschutz, J.H., 1999, “To clone or not to clone–a Jewish perspective,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 25(2): 105–7.
• Ma, H., O’Neil, R.C., Gutierrez, N.M., Hariharan, M., Zhang, Z.Z., He, Y., Cinnioglu, C., Kayali, R., Kang, E., Lee, Y., et al., 2017, “Functional Human Oocytes Generated by Transfer of Polar Body Genomes,” Cell Stem Cell , 20: 112–119.
• Macintosh, K.L., 2005, Illegal Beings. Human Clones and the Law , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Magnus, D. and Cho, M.K., 2005, “Issues in oocyte donation for stem cell research,” Science , 308: 1747–8.
• McDougall, R., 2008, “A resource-based version of the argument that cloning is an affront to human dignity,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 34(4): 259–261.
• McHugh, P.R., 2004, “Zygote and ’clonote‘ – the ethical use of embryonic stem cells,” New England Journal of Medicine , 351(3): 209–11.
• McGee G. (ed.), 2000, The Human Cloning Debate , 2nd edition, Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Books.
• Mertes, H. and Pennings, G., 2007, “Oocyte donation in stem cell research,” Human Reproduction , 22(3): 629–634.
• National Bioethics Advisory Commission, NBAC, (1999), Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research , Rockville, MD: NBAC.
• Noggle, S., Fung, H.L., Gore, A., Martinez, H., Satriani, K.C., et al., 2011, “Human oocytes reprogram somatic cells to a pluripotent state,” Nature , 478(7367): 70–5.
• O’Neil, O., 2002, Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics (Gifford Lectures 2001) , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Paul, D., 1995, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to Present , Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
• Pence, G., 1998, Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning? , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Pera, M. and Trounson, A., 2013, “Cloning debate: Stem-cell researchers must stay engaged,” Nature , 498: 159–161.
• President’s Council on Bioethics [PCBE], 2002, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry , Washington D.C.: PCBE.
• Putnam, H., 1997, “Cloning people,” in The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights , J. Burley (ed.), Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press: 1–13.
• Ramsey, P., 1966, “Moral and religious implications of genetic control,” in Genetics and the Future Man , J.D. Roslansky (ed.), New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 107–69.
• Rao, M. and Condic M.L., 2008, “Alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells: scientific solutions to an ethical dilemma,” Stem Cells and Development , 17(1): 1–10.
• Resnik, D.B., 2001, “Regulating the market for human eggs,” Bioethics , 15(1): 1–25.
• Roberts, C., Throsby, K., 2008, “Paid to share: IVF patients, eggs and stem cell research,” Social Science & Medicine , 66(1): 159–169.
• Robertson, J.A, 1995, “Symbolic issues in embryo research,” Hastings Center Report , 25(1): 37–38.
• Rulli, T., 2016, “Preferring a Genetically-Related Child,” Journal of Moral Philosophy , 13: 669–698.
• Sadeghi, M., 2007, “Islamic perspectives on human cloning,” Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics , 13(2): 32–40.
• Saitou, M. and Miyauchi, H., 2016, “Gametogenesis from Pluripotent Stem Cells,” Cell Stem Cell , 18: 721–735.
• Sandel, M.J., 2007, The Case Against Perfection. Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• Saunders, R. and Savulescu, J., 2008, “Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 34(3): 214–221.
• Savulescu, J., 1999, “Should we clone human beings? Cloning as a source of tissue transplantation,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 25: 87–95.
• Segal, N.L., 2000, Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior , New York: Plume.
• Sparrow, R. 2006. “Cloning, Parenthood, and Genetic Relatedness,” Bioethics , 20(6): 308–318.
• Steinbock, B., 2001, “Respect for human embryos,” in Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research , P. Lauritzen (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: 21–33.
• –––, 2004, “Payment for egg donation and surrogacy,” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine , 71(4): 255–265.
• Strong, C., 2005, “Harming by conceiving: a review of misconceptions and a new analysis,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 30: 491–516.
• –––, 2008, “Cloning and adoption: a reply to Levy and Lotz,” Bioethics , 22(2): 130–136.
• Tachibana, M., Amato, P., Sparman, M., Gutierrez, N.M., Tippner-Hedges, R., Ma, H., Kang, E., Fulati, A., Lee, H.S., Sritanaudomchai, H., et al., 2013, “Human Embryonic Stem Cells Derived by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer,” Cell , 153: 1228–1238.
• Tooley, M., 1998, “The moral status of the cloning of humans,” in Human Cloning: Biomedical Ethical Reviews , J. Humber and R. Almeder (eds.), Totowa, NJ: Humana Press: 65–102.
• Walters, L., 2004, “Human embryonic stem cell research: an intercultural perspective,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , 14(1): 3–38.
• Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A.E., McWhir J., et al., 1997, “ Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells,” Nature , 385:810–3.
• Wilmut, I., Campbell, K.H., Tudge, C., 2001, The Second Creation: The Age of Biological Control , London: Headline Book Publishing.
• Whitworth, K.M. and Prather, R.S., 2010, “Somatic cell nuclear transfer efficiency: How can it be improved through nuclear remodeling and reprogramming?,” Molecular Reproduction and Development , 77(12): 1001–1015.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Savulescu, J., 2005, “ Equality cloning and clonism, why we must clone ,” bionews.org, accessed 17 Sept 2012.
• UNESCO, “ Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights ”, adopted 11 November 1997.

donation of human organs | ethics, biomedical: stem cell research | eugenics | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on reproduction and the family | informed consent | moral status, grounds of | personal identity | respect

Copyright © 2021 by Katrien Devolder < katrien . devolder @ philosophy . ox . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Clinical Case Studies
• Journal Club
• Clinical Chemistry Podcasts
• Clinical Trainee Council
• Special Issues
• Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
• Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Call for Papers
• Why Publish?
• About Clinical Chemistry
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

• < Previous

The Cloning Debates and Progress in Biotechnology

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Paul L Wolf, George Liggins, Dan Mercola, The Cloning Debates and Progress in Biotechnology, Clinical Chemistry , Volume 43, Issue 11, 1 November 1997, Pages 2019–2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/43.11.2019

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The perception by humans of what is doable is itself a great determiner of future events. Thus, the successful sheep cloning experiment leading to “Dolly” by Ian Wilmut and associates at Roslin Institute, Midlothian, UK, compels us to look in the mirror and consider the issue of human cloning. Should it occur, and if not, how should that opposing mandate be managed? If human cloning should have an acceptable role, what is that role and how should it be monitored and supervised?

In the February 27, 1997, issue of Nature , Ian Wilmut et al. reported that they cloned a sheep (which they named “Dolly”) by transferring the nuclear DNA from an adult sheep udder cell into an egg whose DNA had been removed ( 1 ). Their cloning experiments have led to widespread debate on the potential application of this remarkable technique to the cloning of humans. Following the Scottish researchers’ startling report, President Clinton declared his opposition to using this technique to clone humans. He moved swiftly to order that federal funds not be used for such an experiment and asked an independent panel of experts, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), chaired by Princeton University President Harold Shapiro, to report to the White House with recommendations for a national policy on human cloning. According to recommendations by the NBAC, human cloning is likely to become a crime in the US in the near future. The Commission’s main recommendation is to enact federal legislation to prohibit any attempts, whether in a research or a clinical setting, to create a human through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning.

The concept of genetic manipulation is not new and has been a general practice for more than a century, through practices ranging from selective cross-pollination in plants to artificial insemination in domestic farm animals.

Wilmut and his colleagues made 277 attempts before they succeeded with Dolly. Previously, investigators had reported successful cloning in frogs, mice, and cattle ( 2 )( 3 )( 4 )( 5 ), and 1 week after Wilmut’s report, Don Wolf and colleagues at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center reported their cloning of two rhesus monkeys by utilizing embryonic cells. The achievement of Wilmut’s team shocked nucleic acid experts, who thought it would be an impossible feat. They believed that the DNA of adult cells could not perform similarly to the DNA formed when a spermatozoa’s genes mingle with those of an ovum.

On July 25, 1997, the Roslin team also reported the production of lambs that contained human genes ( 6 ). Utilizing techniques similar to those they had used in Dolly, they inserted a human gene into the nuclei of sheep cells. These cells were next inserted into the ova of sheep from which the DNA had been removed. The resulting lambs contained the human gene in every cell. In this new procedure the DNA had been inserted into skin fibroblast cells, which are specialized cells, unlike previous procedures in which DNA was introduced into a fertilized ovum. The new lamb has been named “Polly” because she is a Poll Dorset sheep. The goal of this new genetically engineered lamb is for these lambs to produce human proteins necessary for the treatment of human genetic diseases, such as factor VIII for hemophiliacs, cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) substance for patients with cystic fibrosis, tissue plasminogen activator to induce lysis of acute coronary and cerebral artery thrombi, and human growth factor.

Charles Darwin was frightened when he concluded that humans were not specifically separated from all other animals. Not until 20 years after his discovery did he have the courage to publish his findings, which changed the way humans view life on earth. Wilmut’s amazing investigations have also created worldwide fear, misunderstanding, and ethical shock waves. Politicians and a few scientists are proposing legislation to outlaw human cloning ( 7 ). Although the accomplishment of cloning clearly could provide many benefits to medicine and to conservation of endangered species of animals, politicians and a few scientists fear that the cloning procedure will be abused.

The advantages of cloning are numerous. The ability to clone dairy cattle may have a larger impact on the dairy industry than artificial insemination. Cloning might be utilized to produce multiple copies of animals that are especially good at producing meat, milk, or wool. The average cow makes 13 000 pounds (5800 kg) of milk a year. Cloning of cows that are superproducers of milk might result in cows producing 40 000 pounds (18 000 kg) of milk a year.

Wilmut’s recent success in cloning “Polly” represents his main interest in cloning ( 8 ). He believes in cloning animals able to produce proteins that are or may prove to be useful in medicine. Cloned female animals could produce large amounts of various important proteins in their milk, resulting in female animals that serve as living drug factories. Investigators might be able to clone animals affected with human diseases, e.g., cystic fibrosis, and investigate new therapies for the human diseases expressed by these animals.

Another possibility of cloning could be to change the proteins on the cell surface of heart, liver, kidney, or lung, i.e., to produce organs resembling human organs and enhancing the supply of organs for human transplantation. The altered donor organs, e.g., from pigs, would be less subject to rejection by the human recipient. The application of cloning in the propagation of endangered species and conservation of gene pools has been proposed as another important use of the cloning technique ( 9 )( 10 ).

The opponents of cloning have especially focused on banning the cloning of humans ( 11 ). The UK, Australia, Spain, Germany, and Denmark have implemented laws barring human cloning. Opponents of human cloning have cited potential ethical and legal implications. They emphasize that individuals are more than a sum of their genes. A clone of an individual might have a different environment and thus might be a different person psychologically and have a different “soul.” Cloning of a human is replication and not procreation.

Morally questionable uses of genetic material transfer and cloning obviously exist. For example, infertility experts might be especially interested in the cloning technique to produce identical twins, triplets, or quadruplets. Parents of a child who has a terminal illness might wish to have a clone of the child to replace the dying child. The old stigma, eugenics, also raises its ugly head if infertile couples wish to use the nuclear transfer techniques to ensure that their “hard-earned” offspring will possess excellent genes. Moral perspectives will differ tremendously in these cases. Judgments about the appropriateness of such uses are outside the realm of science.

Opponents of animal cloning are concerned that cloning will negate genetic diversity of livestock. This also applies to human cloning, which could negate genetic diversity of humans. Cloning creates, by definition, a second class of human, a human with a determined genotype called into existence, however benevolently, at the behest of another. The insulation of selection-of-mate is lost, and the second class is created. Few contrasts could be so clear. Selection-of-mate is so imprecise that, at present, would-be parents have to accept a complete new genome for the sake of including or excluding one or a few traits; cloning, in contrast, is the precise determination of all genes. If we acknowledge that the creation of a second class of humans is unethical, then we preempt any argument that some motivations for human cloning may be acceptable.

The opponents of cloning also fear that biotechnically cloned foods might increase the risk of humans acquiring some malignancies or infections such as “mad cow disease,” a prion spongiform dementia encephalopathy (human Jakob–Creutzfeldt disease).

The technological advances associated with manipulation of genetic materials now permit us to envision replacement of defective genes with “good” genes. Although current progress is not sufficient to make this practical today for human diseases, any efforts to stop such research as a result of cloning hysteria would preclude the development of true cures for many hereditary human diseases. Unreasonable restrictions on the use of human tissues in gene transfer research will have the inevitable consequences of delaying, if not preventing, the development of strategies to combat defective genes.

Wise legislation will enable humankind to realize the benefits of gene transfer technologies without risking the horrors that could arise from misuse of these technologies. Our hope is that such wise legislation is what will be enacted. In our view, the controversy surrounding human cloning must not lead to prohibitions that would prevent advances similar to those described here.

Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhire J, Kind AJ, Campbell KHS. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 1997 ; 385 : 810 -813.

Pennisi E, Williams N. Will Dolly send in the clones?. Science 1997 ; 275 : 1415 -1416.

Gurdon JB, Laskey RA, Reeves OR. The developmental capacity of nuclei transplanted from keratinized skin cells of adult frogs. J Embryol Exp Morphol 1975 ; 34 : 93 -112.

Prather RS. Nuclei transplantation in the bovine embryo. Assessment of donor nuclei and recipient oocyte. Biol Reprod 1987 ; 37 : 859 -866.

Kwon OY, Kono T. Production of identical sextuplet mice by transferring metaphase nuclei from 4-cell embryos. J Reprod Fert Abst Ser 1996 ; 17 : 30 .

Kolata G. Lab yields lamb with human gene. NY Times 1997;166:July 25;A12..

Specter M, Kolta G. After decades of missteps, how cloning succeeded. NY Times 1997;166:March 3;B6–8..

Ibrahim YM. Ian Wilmut. NY Times 1997;166:February 24;B8..

Ryder OA, Benirschke K. The potential use of “cloning” in the conservation effort. Zoo Biol 1997 ; 16 : 295 -300.

Cohen J. Can cloning help save beleaguered species?. Science 1997 ; 276 : 1329 -1330.

Williams N. Cloning sparks calls for new laws. Science 1997;275:141-5..

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1530-8561
• Print ISSN 0009-9147
• Copyright © 2024 Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Cloning Moral and Ethical Issues

Introduction.

Cloning is the creation of an embryo by the method of human somatic cell nuclear transfer. This procedure involves implanting DNA cells from an organism into an egg whose DNA nucleus has been removed then chemically treated so that the egg begins to behave as though fertilization has occurred. This results in the creation of embryonic growth of another organism that contains the complete genetic code of the original organism. Through this process, the cloning of mammals has resulted in, to date, hundreds of cloned organisms born. Though this process has produced many live successes, it has proved considerably less likely to produce successful pregnancies than those conceived through sexual reproduction. Replication of an organism’s DNA identity does not occur naturally within mammals. The majority of cloned animals have experienced some type of birth defect, a horrific scientifically proved reality. Therefore, cloning of any form should be illegal due to negative psychological impacts, harmful health effects and its damage to religious beliefs. This unnatural style of reproduction has an overwhelming potential for decisions being made based on reasons of vanity in regard to children. The very nature of the traditional family is in danger of evolving in a strange, unknown and undesirable direction.

The Dolly Dilemma

Successes and failures.

On February 23, 1997 Ian Wilmut, a Scottish scientist, with his colleagues at the Roslin Institute announced the successful cloning of a sheep named Dolly who was the first animal that matured to a fully developed state by the usage of the nucleus of a somatic cell from one animal. The cloning of animals has stirred the debate about the ethical, legal and social aspects regarding human cloning. (Di Bernadino, 1997). Because of the rate of failure as compared to natural conception in animal testing, scientists, scholars and politicians generally agree that human experiments are also likely to result in a number of clinical failures.

At least at this stage of cloning development, attempts to duplicate human DNA would lead to an unacceptable number of miscarriages, abortions and births of massively deformed offspring. “Recent study of mammalian cloning suggests that a number of defects often created in the reprogramming of the egg do not manifest themselves until later in the life of the resulting clone, so that mature clones have often undergone spectacular, unforeseen deaths” (McGee, 2001). The concept of human cloning is a controversial subject that is problematical to comprehend as the physical and psychological needs, present and future, of someone produced by this method are unknown. Societies throughout the world generally believe that human cloning experiments will violate a moral barrier, taking humans into a sphere of self-engineering.

Whether for or against scientific constraint, or the idea of cloning any organism, most everyone universally expresses great concern regarding somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning techniques used for human experimentation. Whatever reasoning brought forth by proponents of human cloning must be measured against the Hippocratic precept of ‘first do no harm’ to satisfy public, political and the medical communities’ ethical threshold. At present level of technological advancement, the considerable threats to the physical welfare of a person created by somatic cell cloning far overshadow any possible benefits of this technique. Dolly the sheep was successfully created only after more than 250 attempts by this method of cloning. “If (cloning) were attempted in humans, it would pose the risk of hormonal manipulation in the egg donor; multiple miscarriages in the birth mother and possibly severe developmental abnormalities in any resulting child” (Brock, 1997).

Regulations Needed

The obligation to justify such an experimental and potentially dangerous technique as cloning falls to the scientists employing these methods. Common sense as well as standard medical practices would not permit the use of a drug or mechanism on a person simply based on preliminary research such as in cloning techniques without benefit of additional animal experimentation. Innovative therapies much endure rigorous investigation before being implemented on a patient. In cloning, the innovative procedure creates the patient and is thus responsible for any ill effects, physically and socially inherent in the technique. In other words, other types of medicine intended to treat an existing patient is carefully examined before being utilized whereas cloning creates the problem. It is inconceivable that any conscientious physician or scientist would attempt to use somatic cell nuclear transfer to create a human at this early period of experimentation. The scientific community, the public and politicians overwhelmingly agree that, at least for now, regulations are warranted on all attempts to produce humans through nuclear transfer from a somatic cell. (Brock, 1997).

Unethical Outcomes

Some argue however, that potential parents are today permitted and even encouraged to conceive, or to carry a baby to term, when there is a substantial risk known to the doctor and patient that the child will be born with a profound genetic disorder. Even if the majority of public opinion considered the decision to have the child as morally wrong, the parents’ rights to reproductive free-will always supersede. “Since many of the risks believed to be associated with somatic cell nuclear transfer may be no greater than those associated with genetic disorders, some contend that such cloning should be subject to no more restriction than other forms of reproduction” (Brock, 1997). Harm is subject to speculation only and cannot accurately be determined until after experimental tests are conducted, not simply in the context of cloning humans, but in any innovative clinical procedure. “The first transfer into a uterus of a human embryo clone will occur before we know whether it will succeed” (Robertson, 1997). Many people, scholarly and otherwise, contend that initial attempts to clone humans would be unethical and immoral experimentation on the un-consenting children and because the results are speculative at best, it would possibly result in children who have mental and physical handicaps and other developmental difficulties.

Religious Considerations

Religious sensitivities should also be taken into account in the cloning discussion. People should not ‘play God’ are opposed to the scientists investigating the dark mysteries of life, which are only God’s to control and that humans lack the divine authority to decide when life begins or ends. In other words, the fallible human does not have the knowledge, especially knowledge of future outcomes, attributed to divine omniscience and would make a disaster in the attempt. “Men ought not to play God before they learn to be men, then, after they have learned to be men, they will not play God” (Ramsey, 1970).

Creating humans or other living beings by utilizing cloning methods described in this discussion is unethical. Overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that such techniques are not safe at this progression in the state of cloning technology. Even if apprehension regarding the physical and psychological well being of patients were to be resolved, major concerns would continue regarding the destructive influence and the potential for abuse that the technology would cause to both society and to individuals. Human cloning, through somatic cell nuclear transfer, will never be an ethical consideration because it undercuts essential social values that hold together the fabric of society and that cloning will always pose the risk of causing psychological and physical harm to people.

Works Cited

Brock, D.W. “The non-identity problem and genetic harm,” Bioethics 9:269-275, 1995. Web.

Di Bernadino, M.A. “Genomic Potential of Differentiated Cells.” New York: Columbia University Press. (1997).

McGee, Glenn. “Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning.” Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia. (2001).

Ramsey, P. “Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control.” New Haven: Yale University Press. (1970).

Robertson, J.A. “A Ban on Cloning and Cloning Research is Unjustified.” [Testimony Presented to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission]. (1997).

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, November 25). Cloning Moral and Ethical Issues. https://studycorgi.com/cloning-moral-and-ethical-issues/

"Cloning Moral and Ethical Issues." StudyCorgi , 25 Nov. 2021, studycorgi.com/cloning-moral-and-ethical-issues/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Cloning Moral and Ethical Issues'. 25 November.

1. StudyCorgi . "Cloning Moral and Ethical Issues." November 25, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/cloning-moral-and-ethical-issues/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Cloning Moral and Ethical Issues." November 25, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/cloning-moral-and-ethical-issues/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Cloning Moral and Ethical Issues." November 25, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/cloning-moral-and-ethical-issues/.

This paper, “Cloning Moral and Ethical Issues”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 25, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• Find Student Housing
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays
• Human Cloning Essay

IELTS Human Cloning Essay

This is a model answer for a  human cloning  essay.

If you look at the task, the wording is slightly different from the common  'do you agree or disagree'  essay.

However, it is essentially asking the same thing.

As people live longer and longer, the idea of cloning human beings in order to provide spare parts is becoming a reality. The idea horrifies most people, yet it is no longer mere science fiction.

To what extent do you agree with such a procedure?

Have you any reservations?

Understanding the Question and Task

You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts (in other words, what are the benefits), and what reservations (concerns) you have (in other words, what are the disadvantages).

So the best way to answer this human cloning essay is probably to look at both sides of the issue as has been done in the model answer.

As always, you must read the question carefully to make sure you answer it fully and do not go off topic.

You are specifically being asked to discuss the issue of creating human clones to then use their body parts. If you write about other issues to do with human cloning, you may go off topic.

Model Human Cloning Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer for Human Cloning Essay

The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too. Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past. This, though, has brought with it problems. As people age, their organs can fail so they need replacing. If humans were cloned, their organs could then be used to replace those of sick people. It is currently the case that there are often not enough organ donors around to fulfil this need, so cloning humans would overcome the issue as there would then be a ready supply.

However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development. Firstly, there are religious arguments against it. It would involve creating other human beings and then eventually killing them in order to use their organs, which it could be argued is murder. This is obviously a sin according to religious texts. Also, dilemmas would arise over what rights these people have, as surely they would be humans just like the rest of us. Furthermore, if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end. Is it then acceptable for people to start cloning relatives or family members who have died?

To conclude, I do not agree with this procedure due to the ethical issues and dilemmas it would create. Cloning animals has been a positive development, but this is where it should end.

(276 words)

The essay is well-organized, with a clear introducion which introduces the topic:

• The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too.

And it has a thesis statement that makes it clear exactly how the human cloning essay will be structured and what the candidate's opinion is:

• Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues.

The first body paragraph discusses the advantages of cloning humans, and then the second body paragraph looks at the problems associated with this. The change of direction to look at the other side is clearly marked with a transition word ("however") and a topic sentence:

• However, for good reasons, many people view this as a worrying development.

Other transition words are used effectively to guide the reader through the ideas in the human cloning essay: Firstly,.. Also,... Furthermore,...

The candidate demonstrates that they can use a mix of complex structures. For example:

• Due to breakthroughs in medical science and improved diets, people are living much longer than in the past.
• It would involve creating another human and then eventually killing it in order to use its organs, which it could be argued is murder.
• ...if we have the ability to clone humans, it has to be questioned where this cloning will end.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay: Should we all be vegetarian to be healthy?

Vegetarianism Essay for IELTS: In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay: Should the government ban it?

Ban smoking in public places essay: The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Student Housing
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Cloning: Ethical Questions Essay

The sheer pace of scientific progress in the twentieth century had created a situation when people often find themselves in the position of taking immediate advantage of purely theoretical scientific concepts. The discovery of DNA and its role in predetermining the physical and mental subtleties of one’s existence, allowed us to realize that it is now only a matter of time before we are going to be able to talk about genetic engineering, as the method of improving biological quality of the human population. Even today, the practice of genetic cloning of living organisms, which became possible due to recent revolutionary breakthroughs in the field of biology, yields absolutely real benefits – it allows people to extend their lifespan. In his article “The Benefits of Human Cloning” Simon Smith says: “Human cloning technology could be used to reverse heart attacks, it can “fix” defective genes, it will help people dealing with infertility and it might even lead scientists to the discovery of a cure for cancer” (Smith 2007). However, as it has always been the case, within the historical context of religion vs. science, those who think that it is solemnly up to them to set the moral standards in Western societies, try their best to prevent scientific progress from remaining on its natural course, and even to reverse it back, if possible, simply because their narrow-mindedness prompts self-proclaimed “experts on morality” to think of empirical scientific research as “evil” in its very essence.

After having “benefited” humanity by organizing Crusades, burning heretics at the stake, and prompting people to indulge in “witch-hunt”, Bible thumpers now want us to think of scientists, who insist on the legalization of human cloning, as “evil-doers”.

However, we need to understand that, within the context of discussing the effects of human cloning, religious moralists’ argumentation holds absolutely no value, simply because it is always religion that resorts to science, in order to substantiate the validity of its theological notions (“scientific creationism”) and not vice versa. Science, and especially medicinal science, might not have answers to all questions (yet), but the answers it has are undisputable, whereas religion does not provide people with even a single answer of any practical value, in regards to the existential challenges, these people have to deal with on daily basis. Yet, “holy fathers” often prove themselves ignorant enough to suggest that doubting the conceptual validity of religious dogmas represents a major “sin”. In their book “Philosophy Made Simple”, Richard H. Popkin and Avrum Stroll talk about the concept of scientific inquiry, which lays at the foundation of Western rationalistic civilization, as being often morally disturbing by definition, because it is namely their willingness to question just about anything that allows scientists to be referred to as scientists, in the first place: “Philosopher claims that fundamentally the questions to be considered are too important to be answered in any quick and lazy fashion. It would be far better to have no answers than unexamined answers or, worse, answers that might be wrong” (Popkin, Stroll XIII). However, it is not only on a purely theoretical level that the nonsensical nature of moralists’ denial of human cloning becomes apparent. Michael Moore’s article “End Embryo Research?”, provides us with a better understanding of the level of Bible thumpers’ argumentation, which is being utilized by them to slow down the pace of scientific progress. In it, the author quotes Cardinal Thomas Winning, Archbishop of Glasgow, who while referring to stem cell research and the practice of human cloning in general, said the following: “We are being duped into believing that by destroying human embryos and creating people’s biological replicas, we can conquer diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes and childhood leukemia and repair hearts, livers, kidneys and so on” (Moore p. 946). If anything – it is Christian religion the dupes people into believing that by praying Jewish tribal God Jehovah and his illegitimate “son of man” they can be cured of deadly diseases. The wealthy members of Christian clergy, like Winning, understand this fact very well, which is why they prefer to undergo medicinal treatment in Swiss private clinics, rather than relying on prayers when they become ill – unlike ordinary “lambs of the herd”, the self-appointed representatives of God on Earth, never suffer from the shortage of money.

Religious moralists never get tired of whining about the prospects of an individual’s life being dropped in value if human cloning becomes a fully legitimized practice. The editorial “To Clone or Not to Clone”, which can be found in Christian Century Magazine from June 2002, claims: “The prospect of people replicating themselves or their dead relatives seems intuitively repugnant – a clear case of treating people as commodities” (Christian Century, 2002 p.5). However, as history shows, even before it became practically possible to clone people, the value of human life had never been held in particularly high regard. The laws of nature clearly point out at metaphysical wrongness of the notion of life’s sanctity. As the character of Wolf Larsen, in Jack London’s novel “Sea Wolf” says: “Why, if there is anything in supply and demand, life is the cheapest thing in the world. There is only so much water, so much earth, so much air; but the life that is demanding to be born is limitless…Life? Bah! It has no value. Of cheap things, it is the cheapest. Everywhere it goes begging. Nature spills it out with a lavish hand. Where there is room for one life, she sows a thousand lives” (London Ch. 6). And yet, it is the practice of human cloning, which can help people to improve their health, and maybe even to set them on the path of achieving real immortality, namely because this practice is not concerned with the issues of “morality”.

Those who oppose the practice of human cloning often suggest that cloned individuals will be deprived of the actual soul, because it is only when children are being conceived by conventional means (which Christians still think of as sinful!), that allows them to be born with a soul inside of their bodies. However, Bible thumpers never bother to actually come up with a clear and comprehensible definition as to what the notion of the soul stands for. Their existential ignorance causes them to believe that even human fetuses have souls, which is why biologists should be forbidden from utilizing them, during the course of scientific research. Moreover, moralists suggest that human embryos are entitled to what they refer to as “free will”. At the same time, the proponents of “free will”, do not expound much on the subject of whether the people affected by genetically predetermined mental or physical illnesses possess free will or not, because it is just too obvious that they do not. However, it is namely the practice of human cloning, which can completely eliminate the possibility of genetic disorders being passed from one generation to another. Is it good bad or? For Bible thumpers, it is bad, because if there are going to be no cripples and mental retards left; Christian doctrine would lose the last remains of its credibility. As religious doctrine that feeds on pain and suffering, Christians actually confuse such suffering with free will, which is why their arguments, in this respect, cannot be taken seriously. Every time, Christian (especially Catholic) moralists open their mouths to criticize human cloning as immoral, they should be pointed at the actual effects of their religious concept of morality, being utilized to increase the amount of pain and suffering in countries of the Third World. In his book “The Death of the West”, Patrick J. Buchanan rightly suggests: “Great folly of Christian doctrine was probably never as glaringly revealed as by the insane policies the Christian churches implemented in the Third World. The churches oppose contraception, sterilization, and abortion among their members. This results in exploding population growth which is further abetted by the medical care and food provided by the same churches” (Buchanan p.125).

When U.S. Congress had put a ban on human cloning in 2005, only very naïve people believed that it would last for longer than few years. Today, all signs point out the fact that the practice of human cloning will become fully legal in the U.S. even before the end of this year. This is because legislative acts, introduced to protect “morality” can only temporarily slow down the pace of scientific progress but they can never stop it altogether. Just like their contemporary spiritual heirs – Medieval inquisitors used to justify their anti-scientific stance by their dedication to the protection of “morality”. Yet, they ultimately failed, because, by opposing science, they were transgressing the laws of nature. Therefore, modern watchdogs of “morality” can do all they want, in order to prevent scientists from conducting research on the subject of human cloning – they can hold “pro-life” public rallies, they can place explosives under the cars of their opponents, they can pray God for progressive scientists to be struck with a lightning bolt; yet, they will ultimately prove themselves as being unable to reverse the course of scientific progress.

In his article “Human Biotechnology”, Jesse Reynolds suggests that it is only the matter of time, before human cloning is going to be fully legalized, because scientists will be able to convince everybody in the apparent benefits of this practice: “Today, a number of respected writers, academics, and researchers are explicitly advocating the development of technologies that would set us on our way towards a new eugenics. The road to human clones and designer babies is being built not by easily dismissed sects, but by some leading bioethicists and biotechnologists” (Reynolds 2003). It is not a secret that Christianity has entered the era of its twilight. Moreover, it would not be too daring to suggest that there are not going to be many people left in the world, believing in Christian nonsense, by year 2100. We face paradox – Christianity has long ago ceased to be a credible religious concept; yet, our code of social ethics is still being largely based on it. However, it appears that uneducated people simply do not have the right to impose their outdated moral concepts onto society. People are entitled to have their opinions, whatever ridiculous they might be, but when it comes to making decisions, which affect millions of people, religious fanatics need to be silenced. Christian “scientists” would be much better off talking about donkeys that can speak and about the Sun, made to stay motionlessly up in the sky by one of Jewish tribal leaders (as described in Bible), while trying to prove their intellectual sophistication, then providing people with their “valuable” opinion on issues they could not possibly understand.

The last Presidential elections in America had proven beyond any doubt that citizens became tired of right-wing Christian moralists telling them how to live their lives. They became tired of hypocritical politicians, who scream bloody murder, when being asked about their opinion towards possible legalization of human cloning in this country, while suggesting that the Americans soldiers should continue to needlessly die in Iraq.

As we have shown earlier, there is a good enough reason to fully legitimize the practice of human cloning, because having a ban on such practice violates the most fundamental principles of scientific progress. However, there are many purely pragmatic reasons as to why scientists should be put at liberty of conducting a research on the subject of such cloning. Even though Christian moralists and their neo-Liberal cronies suggest that people’s lives can only be improved by the mean of education, the recent revolutionary breakthroughs, in the field of genetics, point out at conceptual fallacy of such assumption. This is because, as it has been revealed by these discoveries, the particularities of one’s social upbringing are the least responsible, within a context of forming his or her individuality – the only truly effective way of improving people’s lives is improving a biological composition of these people. In his article “The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell”, Marian Van Court establishes a close link between eugenics, genetic engineering, and human cloning, while exposing these concepts as utterly beneficial to a mankind: “Egalitarians take a circuitous route to solving social problems – they keep trying to change people by altering their environments. Despite witnessing their abysmal string of failures, our natural desire to alleviate suffering and improve the world persists. This desire finds new hope in eugenics based on science, not propaganda and wishful thinking. Eugenics takes the direct route. It holds the unique potential of actually creating a better world, of making profound, concrete, lasting improvements in “the human condition” by improving human beings themselves” (Van Court 2004). We need to dispose of narrow-minded vision of human cloning as simply the practice of creating people’s biological replicas – such cloning is nothing less of a pathway to better, brighter world. Countless “experts on morality”, strive not to mention the fact that, while cloning just about any living creature, biologists are in position to make replica much better then the original. Namely, such their ability lay at the core of stem cell research. In its turn, stem cell research has direct implications, within the context of human cloning. Our understanding of DNA mechanics puts us in position of demi-Gods, capable of exercising a full control over our own biological destinies, instead of relying on good graces of non-existent Christian (Muslim, Judaic) deity. Christian objections that the practice of human cloning represents “meddling in God’s affairs” and as such, it would eventually be “punished”, needs to be rejected as irrelevant. Even if we assume that God does exist, he can hardly be regarded as “universal lover of mankind”, simply because of the overwhelming evidence as to his own biological incompetence – people born with horrible physical deformities, doomed to the “life of living death”, as good Christians deny them their right to end their painful existence by resorting to euthanasia. There is absolutely nothing unnatural in human cloning, because this practice simply indicates the fact that people continue to remain at the leading edge of biological evolution – it is not simply that they become ever-more complex, as time goes by, thus reducing the amount of entropy in the universe, but that they now in possession of practical instruments of being in full control of this process.

It was at the end of 19 th century, when Friedrich Nietzsche had realized that homo sapiens was not the final product of evolution, but rather an intermediary link between the ape and the super-man. In his prophetic book “Thus Spake Zarathustra”, Nietzsche suggested that: “All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man? What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame” (Nietzsche 3). Therefore, our present ability to clone human beings, while perfecting them biologically, simply indicates the fact that representatives of most scientifically advanced races stand on the brink of new evolutionary jump, which will render all our earlier moral concepts as grossly outdated. This is the reason why members of Christian clergy hate the concept of human cloning with such an utter passion. Once we take our destinies in our own hands, these people will be revealed as who they really are – social parasites, preoccupied with enriching themselves, without contributing to society’s welfare.

It is quite natural for people to remain skeptical of new scientific concepts. As Richard H. Popkin and Avrum Stroll suggest in the book, from which we have already quoted: “The thinkers who began the philosophical quest were those who found that when they scrutinized these accepted beliefs, they were seen to be inadequate” (Popkin, Avrum XIII). This is why many people consider it highly unethical to design human beings, although they can rarefy come up with a comprehensive answer why. This, however, does not mean that it will continue to be the case in the future. When first cars and motorbikes appeared on the streets of American towns, many overly religious people used to refer to them as “devil machines”. Today, we cannot imagine how it is possible to live without cars. The same is going to happen to the concepts of genetic engineering and human cloning. Professional moralists try their best to convince people in the sheer wickedness of these concepts, by pointing out to potential hazards, associated with replicating people. However, from our point of view, it appears that the only problem that might arise out of practice of human cloning becoming fully legitimate is that merely few rich money-bags would be able to take the practical advantage of it.

Ancient Romans knew that seemingly illogical behavior of particular groups of people might not be quite as illogical as it appears. In order to define the essence of just about any socio-political event, they would ask themselves a question “ quo bono? ”, which literally means “who benefits?”. If we apply the same principle to explain what prompts many people to oppose the concept of human cloning with such a passion – we would be able to realize that it is all about money, as always. There can be no doubt that rich and powerful are already having their biological replicas produced for them (as shown in movie The Sixth Day ), just as there can be no doubt as to the fact that NASA is well aware of presence of some unimaginably ancient ruins on the Moon, and that the cure for cancer already exists. Yet, this kind of information is not being released to the public, because had it happened, the very foundations of our civilization would be shaken. World’s political, religious, and financial elites are not interested in it. It is namely people’s ignorance that allows representatives of these elites to buy whole islands for the purpose of recreation, to light cigars with thousand dollar bills and to have freshest lobsters and oysters directly flown to them, regardless of where they might be at particular moment. As we have mentioned earlier – the concept of human cloning is the practical path to immortality. But if people were set on this path, they would radically revise the very essence of their worldviews. This is the reason why “moralists” on the payroll of financial and religious elites apply such a big effort into trying to convince people that, while dealing with life’s challenges, they should resort to just about anything but science. Nevertheless, since scientific progress is an objective category, it is only the matter of comparatively short time, before the practice of human cloning would become universally recognized as being utterly beneficial to the well-being of mankind.

Bibliography

Buchanan, Patrick “The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization”. NY: Thomas Dunne Books, 2001.

Popkin, Richard and Stroll, Avrum “Philosophy Made Simple “. NY: DoubleDay, 1993.

London, Jack “Sea Wolf”. 1999. About.Com: Classic Literature. (2009). Web.

Moore, Michael “End Embryo Research?”. The Christian Century. (117)26, (2000): 946-7.

Smith, Simon “ The Benefits of Human Cloning”. 2001. Human Cloning.Org. (2009). Web.

Reynolds, Jessie. “Human Biotechnology”. 2003. Z Features Online. (2009). Web.

Nietzsche, Friedrich “Thus Spake Zarathustra”. 2001. Philosophy. (2009). Web.

To Clone or not to Clone (editorial). The Christian Century. (119 )12, (2002): 5.

Van Court, Marian “The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell”. 2004. Eugenics. Net. (2009). Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, December 2). Cloning: Ethical Questions. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cloning-ethical-questions/

"Cloning: Ethical Questions." IvyPanda , 2 Dec. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/cloning-ethical-questions/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Cloning: Ethical Questions'. 2 December.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Cloning: Ethical Questions." December 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cloning-ethical-questions/.

1. IvyPanda . "Cloning: Ethical Questions." December 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cloning-ethical-questions/.

IvyPanda . "Cloning: Ethical Questions." December 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/cloning-ethical-questions/.

• “Questions for Free-Market Moralists” by Srinivasan
• Ethics of Cloning
• The United States' Eugenics Movement
• Theory of Evolution and Religion
• Whether or Not Human Cloning Should Be Allowed
• Frederick Douglass’s poem
• The Application of Eugenics Practices
• Cloning in Terms of Society and Theology
• History and the Modern Problem of Eugenic Science
• Human and Animal Production Cloning Concepts
• Ethics and Morality Theories: Explanation and Comparison
• Moral and Rules: Comparison and Contrast
• Philosophy of Merit and Desert Distribution
• Ethics and Combination of Religious Faith, Ethical and Aesthetic Beliefs
• Modern Science: Issues Posing Ethical Concerns