The objection about the impossibility of presuming consent may even go beyond
the obvious and sufficient point that a clonant, were he subsequently to be
asked, could rightly resent having been made a clone. At issue are not just
benefits and harms, but doubts about the very independence needed to give
proper (even retroactive) consent, that is, not just the capacity to choose but
the disposition and ability to choose freely and well. It is not at all clear
to what extent a clone will truly be a moral agent. For, as we shall see, in
the very fact of cloning, and of rearing him as a clone, his makers subvert the
cloned child's independence, beginning with that aspect that comes from knowing
that one was an unbidden surprise, a gift, to the world, rather than the
designed result of someone's artful project.
Cloning creates serious issues of identity and individuality. The cloned person
may experience concerns about his distinctive identity not only because he will
be in genotype and appearance identical to another human being, but, in this
case, because he may also be twin to the person who is his "father" or
"mother"--if one can still call them that. What would be the psychic burdens of
being the "child" or "parent" of your twin? The cloned individual, moreover,
will be saddled with a genotype that has already lived. He will not be fully a
surprise to the world. People are likely always to compare his performances in
life with that of his alter ego. True, his nurture and his circumstance in life
will be different; genotype is not exactly destiny. Still, one must also expect
parental and other efforts to shape this new life after the original--or at
least to view the child with the original version always firmly in mind. Why
else did they clone from the star basketball player, mathematician and beauty
queen--or even dear old dad-- in the first place?
Since the birth of Dolly, there has been a fair amount of doublespeak on this
matter of genetic identity. Experts have rushed in to reassure the public that
the clone would in no way be the same person, or have any confusions about his
or her identity: as previously noted, they are pleased to point out that the
clone of Mel Gibson would not be Mel Gibson. Fair enough. But one is
shortchanging the truth by emphasizing the additional importance of the
intrauterine environment, rearing and social setting: genotype obviously
matters plenty. That, after all, is the only reason to clone, whether human
beings or sheep. The odds that clones of Wilt Chamberlain will play in the NBA
are, I submit, infinitely greater than they are for clones of Robert Reich.
Curiously, this conclusion is supported, inadvertently, by the one ethical
sticking point insisted on by friends of cloning: no cloning without the
donor's consent. Though an orthodox liberal objection, it is in fact quite
puzzling when it comes from people (such as Ruth Macklin) who also insist that
genotype is not identity or individuality, and who deny that a child could
reasonably complain about being made a genetic copy. If the clone of Mel Gibson
would not be Mel Gibson, why should Mel Gibson have grounds to object that
someone had been made his clone? We already allow researchers to use blood and
tissue samples for research purposes of no benefit to their sources: my falling
hair, my expectorations, my urine and even my biopsied tissues are "not me" and
not mine. Courts have held that the profit gained from uses to which scientists
put my discarded tissues do not legally belong to me. Why, then, no cloning
without consent--including, I assume, no cloning from the body of someone who
just died? What harm is done the donor, if genotype is "not me"? Truth to tell,
the only powerful justification for objecting is that genotype really does have
something to do with identity, and everybody knows it. If not, on what basis
could Michael Jordan object that someone cloned "him," say, from cells taken
from a "lost" scraped-off piece of his skin? The insistence on donor consent
unwittingly reveals the problem of identity in all cloning.
Genetic distinctiveness not only symbolizes the uniqueness of each human life
and the independence of its parents that each human child rightfully attains.
It can also be an important support for living a worthy and dignified life.
Such arguments apply with great force to any large-scale replication of human
individuals. But they are sufficient, in my view, to rebut even the first
attempts to clone a human being. One must never forget that these are human
beings upon whom our eugenic or merely playful fantasies are to be enacted.
Troubled psychic identity (distinctiveness), based on all-too-evident genetic
identity (sameness), will be made much worse by the utter confusion of social
identity and kinship ties. For, as already noted, cloning radically confounds
lineage and social relations, for "offspring" as for "parents." As bioethicist
James Nelson has pointed out, a female child cloned from her "mother" might
develop a desire for a relationship to her "father," and might understandably
seek out the father of her "mother," who is after all also her biological twin
sister. Would "grandpa," who thought his paternal duties concluded, be pleased
to discover that the clonant looked to him for paternal attention and support?
Social identity and social ties of relationship and responsibility are widely
connected to, and supported by, biological kinship. Social taboos on incest
(and adultery) everywhere serve to keep clear who is related to whom (and
especially which child belongs to which parents), as well as to avoid
confounding the social identity of parent-and-child (or brother-and-sister)
with the social identity of lovers, spouses and co-parents. True, social
identity is altered by adoption (but as a matter of the best interest of
already living children: we do not deliberately produce children for adoption)
. True, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization with donor sperm, or
whole embryo donation, are in some way forms of "prenatal adoption"--a not
altogether unproblematic practice. Even here, though, there is in each case (as
in all sexual reproduction) a known male source of sperm and a known single
female source of egg--a genetic father and a genetic mother--should anyone care
to know (as adopted children often do) who is genetically related to whom.
In the case of cloning, however, there is but one "parent." The usually sad
situation of the "single-parent child" is here deliberately planned, and with a
vengeance. In the case of self-cloning, the "offspring" is, in addition, one's
twin; and so the dreaded result of incest--to be parent to one's sibling--is
here brought about deliberately, albeit without any act of coitus. Moreover,
all other relationships will be confounded. What will father, grandfather,
aunt, cousin, sister mean? Who will bear what ties and what burdens? What sort
of social identity will someone have with one whole side--" father's" or
"mother's"--necessarily excluded? It is no answer to say that our society, with
its high incidence of divorce, remarriage, adoption, extramarital childbearing
and the rest, already confounds lineage and confuses kinship and responsibility
for children (and everyone else), unless one also wants to argue that this is,
for children, a preferable state of affairs.
Human cloning would also represent a giant step toward turning begetting into
making, procreation into manufacture (literally, something "handmade"), a
process already begun with in vitro fertilization and genetic testing of
embryos. With cloning, not only is the process in hand, but the total genetic
blueprint of the cloned individual is selected and determined by the human
artisans. To be sure, subsequent development will take place according to
natural processes; and the resulting children will still be recognizably human.
But we here would be taking a major step into making man himself simply another
one of the man-made things. Human nature becomes merely the last part of nature
to succumb to the technological project, which turns all of nature into raw
material at human disposal, to be homogenized by our rationalized technique
according to the subjective prejudices of the day.
How does begetting differ from making? In natural procreation, human beings
come together, complementarily male and female, to give existence to another
being who is formed, exactly as we were, by what we are: living, hence
perishable, hence aspiringly erotic, human beings. In clonal reproduction, by
contrast, and in the more advanced forms of manufacture to which it leads, we
give existence to a being not by what we are but by what we intend and design.
As with any product of our making, no matter how excellent, the artificer
stands above it, not as an equal but as a superior, transcending it by his will
and creative prowess. Scientists who clone animals make it perfectly clear that
they are engaged in instrumental making; the animals are, from the start,
designed as means to serve rational human purposes. In human cloning,
scientists and prospective "parents" would be adopting the same technocratic
mentality to human children: human children would be their artifacts.
Such an arrangement is profoundly dehumanizing, no matter how good the product.
Mass-scale cloning of the same individual makes the point vividly; but the
violation of human equality, freedom and dignity are present even in a single
planned clone. And procreation dehumanized into manufacture is further degraded
by commodification, a virtually inescapable result of allowing babymaking to
proceed under the banner of commerce. Genetic and reproductive biotechnology
companies are already growth industries, but they will go into commercial orbit
once the Human Genome Project nears completion. Supply will create enormous
demand. Even before the capacity for human cloning arrives, established
companies will have invested in the harvesting of eggs from ovaries obtained at
autopsy or through ovarian surgery, practiced embryonic genetic alteration, and
initiated the stockpiling of prospective donor tissues. Through the rental of
surrogate-womb services, and through the buying and selling of tissues and
embryos, priced according to the merit of the donor, the commodification of
nascent human life will be unstoppable.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the practice of human cloning by nuclear
transfer--like other anticipated forms of genetic engineering of the next
generation--would enshrine and aggravate a profound and mischievous
misunderstanding of the meaning of having children and of the parent-child
relationship. When a couple now chooses to procreate, the partners are saying
yes to the emergence of new life in its novelty, saying yes not only to having
a child but also, tacitly, to having whatever child this child turns out to be.
In accepting our finitude and opening ourselves to our replacement, we are
tacitly confessing the limits of our control. In this ubiquitous way of nature,
embracing the future by procreating means precisely that we are relinquishing
our grip, in the very activity of taking up our own share in what we hope will
be the immortality of human life and the human species. This means that our
children are not our children: they are not our property, not our possessions.
Neither are they supposed to live our lives for us, or anyone else's life but
their own. To be sure, we seek to guide them on their way, imparting to them
not just life but nurturing, love, and a way of life; to be sure, they bear our
hopes that they will live fine and flourishing lives, enabling us in small
measure to transcend our own limitations. Still, their genetic distinctiveness
and independence are the natural foreshadowing of the deep truth that they have
their own and never-before-enacted life to live. They are sprung from a past,
but they take an uncharted course into the future.
Much harm is already done by parents who try to live vicariously through their
children. Children are sometimes compelled to fulfill the broken dreams of
unhappy parents; John Doe Jr. or the III is under the burden of having to live
up to his forebear's name. Still, if most parents have hopes for their
children, cloning parents will have expectations. In cloning, such overbearing
parents take at the start a decisive step which contradicts the entire meaning
of the open and forward-looking nature of parent-child relations. The child is
given a genotype that has already lived, with full expectation that this
blueprint of a past life ought to be controlling of the life that is to come.
Cloning is inherently despotic, for it seeks to make one's children (or someone
else's children) after one's own image (or an image of one's choosing) and
their future according to one's will. In some cases, the despotism may be mild
and benevolent. In other cases, it will be mischievous and downright
tyrannical. But despotism--the control of another through one's will--it
inevitably will be.
The defenders of cloning, of course, are not wittingly friends of despotism.
Indeed, they regard themselves mainly as friends of freedom: the freedom of
individuals to reproduce, the freedom of scientists and inventors to discover
and devise and to foster "progress" in genetic knowledge and technique. They
want large-scale cloning only for animals, but they wish to preserve cloning as
a human option for exercising our "right to reproduce"--our right to have
children, and children with "desirable genes." As law professor John Robertson
points out, under our "right to reproduce" we already practice early forms of
unnatural, artificial and extramarital reproduction, and we already practice
early forms of eugenic choice. For this reason, he argues, cloning is no big
deal.
We have here a perfect example of the logic of the slippery slope, and the
slippery way in which it already works in this area. Only a few years ago,
slippery slope arguments were used to oppose artificial insemination and in
vitro fertilization using unrelated sperm donors. Principles used to justify
these practices, it was said, will be used to justify more artificial and more
eugenic practices, including cloning. Not so, the defenders retorted, since we
can make the necessary distinctions. And now, without even a gesture at making
the necessary distinctions, the continuity of practice is held by itself to be
justificatory.
The principle of reproductive freedom as currently enunciated by the proponents
of cloning logically embraces the ethical acceptability of sliding down the
entire rest of the slope--to producing children ectogenetically from sperm to
term (should it become feasible) and to producing children whose entire genetic
makeup will be the product of parental eugenic planning and choice. If
reproductive freedom means the right to have a child of one's own choosing, by
whatever means, it knows and accepts no limits.
But, far from being legitimated by a "right to reproduce," the emergence of
techniques of assisted reproduction and genetic engineering should compel us to
reconsider the meaning and limits of such a putative right. In truth, a " right
to reproduce" has always been a peculiar and problematic notion. Rights
generally belong to individuals, but this is a right which (before cloning) no
one can exercise alone. Does the right then inhere only in couples? Only in
married couples? Is it a (woman's) right to carry or deliver or a right (of one
or more parents) to nurture and rear? Is it a right to have your own biological
child? Is it a right only to attempt reproduction, or a right also to succeed?
Is it a right to acquire the baby of one's choice?
The assertion of a negative "right to reproduce" certainly makes sense when it
claims protection against state interference with procreative liberty, say,
through a program of compulsory sterilization. But surely it cannot be the
basis of a tort claim against nature, to be made good by technology, should
free efforts at natural procreation fail. Some insist that the right to
reproduce embraces also the right against state interference with the free use
of all technological means to obtain a child. Yet such a position cannot be
sustained: for reasons having to do with the means employed, any community may
rightfully prohibit surrogate pregnancy, or polygamy, or the sale of babies to
infertile couples, without violating anyone's basic human "right to reproduce."
When the exercise of a previously innocuous freedom now involves or impinges on
troublesome practices that the original freedom never was intended to reach,
the general presumption of liberty needs to be reconsidered.
We do indeed already practice negative eugenic selection, through genetic
screening and prenatal diagnosis. Yet our practices are governed by a norm of
health. We seek to prevent the birth of children who suffer from known
(serious) genetic diseases. When and if gene therapy becomes possible, such
diseases could then be treated, in utero or even before implantation--I have no
ethical objection in principle to such a practice (though I have some practical
worries), precisely because it serves the medical goal of healing existing
individuals. But therapy, to be therapy, implies not only an existing
"patient." It also implies a norm of health. In this respect, even germline
gene "therapy," though practiced not on a human being but on egg and sperm, is
less radical than cloning, which is in no way therapeutic. But once one blurs
the distinction between health promotion and genetic enhancement, between
so-called negative and positive eugenics, one opens the door to all future
eugenic designs. "To make sure that a child will be healthy and have good
chances in life": this is Robertson's principle, and owing to its latter clause
it is an utterly elastic principle, with no boundaries. Being over eight feet
tall will likely produce some very good chances in life, and so will having the
looks of Marilyn Monroe, and so will a genius-level intelligence.
Proponents want us to believe that there are legitimate uses of cloning that
can be distinguished from illegitimate uses, but by their own principles no
such limits can be found. (Nor could any such limits be enforced in practice.)
Reproductive freedom, as they understand it, is governed solely by the
subjective wishes of the parents-to-be (plus the avoidance of bodily harm to
the child). The sentimentally appealing case of the childless married couple
is, on these grounds, indistinguishable from the case of an individual (married
or not) who would like to clone someone famous or talented, living or dead.
Further, the principle here endorsed justifies not only cloning but, indeed,
all future artificial attempts to create (manufacture) "perfect" babies.
A concrete example will show how, in practice no less than in principle, the
so-called innocent case will merge with, or even turn into, the more troubling
ones. In practice, the eager parents-to-be will necessarily be subject to the
tyranny of expertise. Consider an infertile married couple, she lacking eggs or
he lacking sperm, that wants a child of their (genetic) own, and propose to
clone either husband or wife. The scientist-physician (who is also co-owner of
the cloning company) points out the likely difficulties--a cloned child is not
really their (genetic) child, but the child of only one of them; this imbalance
may produce strains on the marriage; the child might suffer identity confusion;
there is a risk of perpetuating the cause of sterility; and so on--and he also
points out the advantages of choosing a donor nucleus. Far better than a child
of their own would be a child of their own choosing. Touting his own expertise
in selecting healthy and talented donors, the doctor presents the couple with
his latest catalog containing the pictures, the health records and the
accomplishments of his stable of cloning donors, samples of whose tissues are
in his deep freeze. Why not, dearly beloved, a more perfect baby?
The "perfect baby," of course, is the project not of the infertility doctors,
but of the eugenic scientists and their supporters. For them, the paramount
right is not the so-called right to reproduce but what biologist Bentley Glass
called, a quarter of a century ago, "the right of every child to be born with a
sound physical and mental constitution, based on a sound genotype ... the
inalienable right to a sound heritage." But to secure this right, and to
achieve the requisite quality control over new human life, human conception and
gestation will need to be brought fully into the bright light of the
laboratory, beneath which it can be fertilized, nourished, pruned, weeded,
watched, inspected, prodded, pinched, cajoled, injected, tested, rated, graded,
approved, stamped, wrapped, sealed and delivered. There is no other way to
produce the perfect baby.
Yet we are urged by proponents of cloning to forget about the science fiction
scenarios of laboratory manufacture and multiple-copied clones, and to focus
only on the homely cases of infertile couples exercising their reproductive
rights. But why, if the single cases are so innocent, should multiplying their
performance be so off-putting? (Similarly, why do others object to people
making money off this practice, if the practice itself is perfectly
acceptable?) When we follow the sound ethical principle of universalizing our
choice--"would it be right if everyone cloned a Wilt Chamberlain (with his
consent, of course)? Would it be right if everyone decided to practice asexual
reproduction?"--we discover what is wrong with these seemingly innocent cases.
The so-called science fiction cases make vivid the meaning of what looks to us,
mistakenly, to be benign.
Though I recognize certain continuities between cloning and, say, in vitro
fertilization, I believe that cloning differs in essential and important ways.
Yet those who disagree should be reminded that the "continuity" argument cuts
both ways. Sometimes we establish bad precedents, and discover that they were
bad only when we follow their inexorable logic to places we never meant to go.
Can the defenders of cloning show us today how, on their principles, we will be
able to see producing babies ("perfect babies") entirely in the laboratory or
exercising full control over their genotypes (including so- called enhancement)
as ethically different, in any essential way, from present forms of assisted
reproduction? Or are they willing to admit, despite their attachment to the
principle of continuity, that the complete obliteration of "mother" or
"father," the complete depersonalization of procreation, the complete
manufacture of human beings and the complete genetic control of one generation
over the next would be ethically problematic and essentially different from
current forms of assisted reproduction? If so, where and how will they draw the
line, and why? I draw it at cloning, for all the reasons given.
home +
discussion +
interviews +
videos +
cloning +
quiz
links & readings +
contacts +
synopsis +
glossary
press +
tapes & transcripts +
frontline +
pbs online +
wgbh
web site copyright WGBH educational foundation
| |