|
|
|
MULTIPLICITY
An exploration of cloning adult mammals: Answers to moral and ethical questions by Dr. John Fletcher, Bioethicist at the University of Virginia March 10, 1997 |
|---|
For Dr. Neal First's answers to questions about the Scientific Process of Cloning
click here.
To read Additional Comments from Online NewsHour Visitors
click here.
To return to the Discussion Introduction
click here.
NewsHour Backgrounders
February 24, 1997:
A background report on the cloning of sheep in Scotland.
February 24, 1997:
A technical discussion on the science of genetic engineering.
February 24, 1997:
A discussion on the ethics of genetic engineering and cloning mammals.
April 3, 1996:
Fred De Sam Lazaro reports on scientific advances in genetic research and the ethical questions they raise.
OUTSIDE LINKS
Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, Scotland report on cloning sheep.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science news brief on the Scottish cloning experiment.
The Genetics and Public Issues Program at The National Center for Genome Resources (NCGR) discusses cloning.
Discussion of Ethics and Social Issues in Gene Research at the Human Genome Project.
Browse the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics home page.
A question from Cedric Chun of Honolulu, HI:
1. Can you forsee any circumstances under which human cloning would be ethically condoned?2. Now that the cloning "genie" is out of the bottle, do you believe someone, somewhere will eventually attempt human cloning even if it is ethically condemned?
Dr. John Fletcher responds:
Mr. Chun: Assuming that it was safe (big if), effective (big if), and inexpensive (big if) to do human cloning, I can think of three or four situations in which it would be ethically acceptable:
1) as a replacement for prenatal diagnosis because of the terrible moral problem of needing to be open to aborting a wanted child... couples where one was carrying a serious genetic problem or couples where both had one recessive gene (e.g. cystic fibrosis) could use cloning; 2) cloning an infant or child dying of a disease not genetic in origin; 3) to overcome infertility, or 4) to clone whole organs, assuming that we knew the program for growing a liver or kidney.
Will someone do it? I do not think that scientists will try to do it unless there is some social consensus that it would right to learn how to do it in humans. If anyone did it beforehand, they would be condemned and ostracized. Most scientists do not want to take risks with human cloning, particularly since we don't really understand the scientific issues at this point in time... in human beings, that is.
A question from Susan Bram of Temecula, CA :
How can the scientific community or the legal system realistically legislate or regulate this "process"?Dr. John Fletcher responds:
Ms. Bram: How can science regulate it? In the U.S., there are two realms within which science is done, federally and privately funded research. The federal sector will be regulated, for sure, assuming that cloning is not banned, which is a real risk.
I am opposed to banning it prematurely, as some members of Congress misguidedly want to do. If it is physically or morally dangerous, then it should be banned, but we do not know that at this point. The private sector will be expected to conform to the federal sector, as it did during the era in the 70s and early 80s when DNA technology was being developed.
A question from Keith Humphreys Eugene, OR :
I seems an unquestionable "right" for a couple to procreate. On what grounds is it unethical for an individual to procreate through clone.Dr. John Fletcher responds:
Mr. Humphreys: We do respect people's liberty to procreate, for sure. We do nothing now to restrict it. So, I agree with you, if cloning were safe, effective, and inexpensive, it wouldn't make sense to prevent persons from doing it, unless the social consequences of using this approach were so forbidding.
I think that that outcome is highly unlikely. It may be that cloning will become one more form of assisted reproduction, or it may be so hard to do in humans that we will not want to do it. One scientific matter to worry about: the egg must be emptied of its nucleus, but the mitochrondria remain in the sustenance sac that holds the nucleus. The DNA content of the cell being cloned is emptied into the egg sac and then stimulated to divide.
We know nothing about how the mitochrondia in the remaining egg will interact with this DNA insertion and its aftermath. Mitochrondria have been linked to Parkinson's disease and to Alzheimer disease. Could we be setting these new people up for a bad time? There are BIG questions to be answered before going down that trail... if science is allowed to go down it.
A question from J. Gordon Betts, Commerce, TX :
Regarding President Clinton's announcement March 4th banning federal funding for research into human cloning: While nearly everyone would agree that human cloning is immoral, is it not premature to place a wholesale ban on cloning research? Will this not limit the possibility of cloning whole organs and/or specific tissues that might be used in the treatment of disease?Dr. John Fletcher responds:
Mr. Betts: I agree with you that it is premature to ban research into cloning, especially if we could learn how to grow organs for transplants. I hope that President Clinton meant that the ban would be in effect until the subject had been thoroughly debated by the Commission and the scientific community. Then, we will see what needs to be done.
For Dr. Neal First's answers to questions about the scientific process of cloning click here.
To read Additional Comments from Online NewsHour Visitors, click here.
To return to the Discussion Introduction,
click here.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
