Skip to main content

Human cloning; the good, the bad and the ugly

The prediction that human cloning will be available in 50 years raises issues, good, bad and downright ugly. Whether it is ethical will depend on whether the 'good'  is sufficient to outweigh the potential 'bad' and 'ugly'. But good and evil in this context are not easy to define or measure. Even supposing there were good reasons for using human cloning, and that is a big if, it would need to be a pressing need to outweigh the potential for harm. Currently, the risk of abnormalities is high.

It has been suggested that cloning might be used to replace a lost child with a copy. And it is here a myth takes hold: the idea that cloning produces an identical human being. This is the stuff of science fiction, not of biology.  Cloning will not create identical, like-for-like people. A cloned human will not develop and become identical to the person from whom this being has been cloned. If we wanted to clone a person rather than an organism, it is highly unlikely we could succeed. A person has a unique history and an individual development; their hopes, fears, loves and hates are as likely to be as different as any other two people.

But even biologically they will be different.  They are likely, for example, to carry different risks of health and disease. Recent work on the developmental origins of health and disease indicate that much of the health risks we carry are environmentally determined during development in the womb and in early life. It is highly unlikely this could be replicated. A cloned human will be as unique as any other human. They are also likely to carry risks specific to being cloned.

But let us consider the idea of producing a replacement for a lost child. The psycho-social environment in which such a child develops would include the fulfilment or otherwise of the parents' needs. The burden of needing to be like the 'lost child' will make it less likely to be successful.  Better to be wanted as the person you are or will become than to always feel the need to be like someone else. The motives of such parents and their ability to adjust would be crucial. Perhaps they should not want to replace a 'lost child' but simply to have a child with his or her own personality. Psycho-social counselling would be better than a risky biological fix.

Postscript

Much of human development occurs after birth. This is particularly true of brain development and function, which are critically dependent on sensory input and social interaction.  Environmental influences are a significant feature in determining the capacity of our brains and our characteristics. In this sense alone, we will each have a different trajectory, and this is one of the reasons why 'identical' twins are not what their name suggests, identical.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As