Should human beings be cloned?
Nov 17, 2003
Dolly is dead. The most famous sheep in the world, also the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell, was put down in February of this year
Dolly is dead.
The most famous sheep in the world, also the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell, was put down in February of this year. This happened shortly after the birth of a cloned baby was announced to the public, though never verified.
Dolly’s death created less of a sensation than her birth. However, even if the exact causes of this death have yet to be ascertained, it clearly raises the question of the long-term effects of cloning on the cloned organism.
And in a way, it grants human beings some respite. The codes governing medical research forbid the experimentation on human beings of a process whose safety and efficiency has not yet been proved through animal testing.
But what will be the outcome when the technical barrier has been lifted, and when the argument of sanitary precaution no longer applies?
Before it even materialises, the perspective of human cloning confronts us and our social awareness with a major ethical, cultural, and political challenge.
UNESCO, at the time of the 10th anniversary of the International Bioethics Committee (ICB), will continue to take an active role in debates and initiatives concerning this question.
The complexity of the issue cannot be dismissed. As far as bioethics, and cloning in particular, are concerned, we need to make sure that the fears and fictions of fantasy do not interfere with relevant questions.
Human cloning, in the present day, refers to two technical procedures which differ both in purpose and in practice.
The aim of therapeutic cloning is not to arrive at the birth of an individual, but to retrieve stem cells from an embryo created by cell nuclear replacement. It is generally understood that the use of these stem cells could transform regenerative medicine. Then why hesitate?
What we have at stake is the status of the embryo, and around this question hopes and reservations cluster and clash. Are we at risk of selling human embryos in supermarket stalls of future organ sales?
Is it legitimate to create embryos whose development will never be brought to completion? And who will provide the countless ovules required by these manipulations?
Would this not lead to a new form of commodification of the female body –– particularly in the case of poorer women?
These questions can only be solved through the creation of a strict legal framework for but in order to reach that point, there is still a need for further debate.
The aim of reproductive cloning, on the other hand, is to enable the birth of a child who would be a chromosomic replica of another individual. But cloning an organism is not the same as copying a person.
Real twins, for instance, are unmistakably different individuals, but still, they are more similar to each other than two clones would be.
Once we are rid of the illusion of an all-encompassing genome, what is left us? Human clones would certainly not be monsters; they could, however, reject the normative project that commanded their birth.
This is why we must investigate further upstream, and examine the motives which are behind such a project, and the underlying vision of the human race and of society.
This type of manipulation would consider clones as carriers for a particular genome, chosen for its specific qualities. It would not be difficult to imagine the disastrous psychological and social consequences of such a form of eugenics.
Nature provides each individual with a unique genetic identity, the result of the interplay of fortune and necessity. Giving up this natural wealth could eventually lead us as far as an artificial genetic divide between humans with original genomes and humans with cloned ones.
The idea of human cloning, at its best, rests on misunderstandings and fantasies; at its worst, it hinges on the desire to utilise genetics for purposes that are decidedly questionable –– whether they be commercial, ideological, or practical.
The idea of a ban on human cloning is therefore justified on all levels, medical, legal and moral. This ban, first recommended in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights adopted by UNESCO in 1997, and then endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1998, is irrevocable.
The writer is the Director-General of UNESCO
The most famous sheep in the world, also the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell, was put down in February of this year. This happened shortly after the birth of a cloned baby was announced to the public, though never verified.
Dolly’s death created less of a sensation than her birth. However, even if the exact causes of this death have yet to be ascertained, it clearly raises the question of the long-term effects of cloning on the cloned organism.
And in a way, it grants human beings some respite. The codes governing medical research forbid the experimentation on human beings of a process whose safety and efficiency has not yet been proved through animal testing.
But what will be the outcome when the technical barrier has been lifted, and when the argument of sanitary precaution no longer applies?
Before it even materialises, the perspective of human cloning confronts us and our social awareness with a major ethical, cultural, and political challenge.
UNESCO, at the time of the 10th anniversary of the International Bioethics Committee (ICB), will continue to take an active role in debates and initiatives concerning this question.
The complexity of the issue cannot be dismissed. As far as bioethics, and cloning in particular, are concerned, we need to make sure that the fears and fictions of fantasy do not interfere with relevant questions.
Human cloning, in the present day, refers to two technical procedures which differ both in purpose and in practice.
The aim of therapeutic cloning is not to arrive at the birth of an individual, but to retrieve stem cells from an embryo created by cell nuclear replacement. It is generally understood that the use of these stem cells could transform regenerative medicine. Then why hesitate?
What we have at stake is the status of the embryo, and around this question hopes and reservations cluster and clash. Are we at risk of selling human embryos in supermarket stalls of future organ sales?
Is it legitimate to create embryos whose development will never be brought to completion? And who will provide the countless ovules required by these manipulations?
Would this not lead to a new form of commodification of the female body –– particularly in the case of poorer women?
These questions can only be solved through the creation of a strict legal framework for but in order to reach that point, there is still a need for further debate.
The aim of reproductive cloning, on the other hand, is to enable the birth of a child who would be a chromosomic replica of another individual. But cloning an organism is not the same as copying a person.
Real twins, for instance, are unmistakably different individuals, but still, they are more similar to each other than two clones would be.
Once we are rid of the illusion of an all-encompassing genome, what is left us? Human clones would certainly not be monsters; they could, however, reject the normative project that commanded their birth.
This is why we must investigate further upstream, and examine the motives which are behind such a project, and the underlying vision of the human race and of society.
This type of manipulation would consider clones as carriers for a particular genome, chosen for its specific qualities. It would not be difficult to imagine the disastrous psychological and social consequences of such a form of eugenics.
Nature provides each individual with a unique genetic identity, the result of the interplay of fortune and necessity. Giving up this natural wealth could eventually lead us as far as an artificial genetic divide between humans with original genomes and humans with cloned ones.
The idea of human cloning, at its best, rests on misunderstandings and fantasies; at its worst, it hinges on the desire to utilise genetics for purposes that are decidedly questionable –– whether they be commercial, ideological, or practical.
The idea of a ban on human cloning is therefore justified on all levels, medical, legal and moral. This ban, first recommended in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights adopted by UNESCO in 1997, and then endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1998, is irrevocable.
The writer is the Director-General of UNESCO