|You are in: Talking Point|
Tuesday, 16 April, 2002, 08:28 GMT 09:28 UK
Should human cloning be allowed?
President George Bush has urged the United States Senate to ban all research on human cloning.
"Life is a creation, not a commodity," Mr Bush told an audience of doctors, scientists, religious activists and people with disabilities, lending his support to an upcoming Senate bill on cloning research.
The president said that anything short of a full ban would be unethical, and nearly impossible to enforce.
The House of Representatives passed a similar bill last July - banning the production of all embryos that are the genetic twin of a donor.
In the UK scientists at The Roslin Institute, who cloned Dolly the sheep, are to seek permission from the government's fertility authority for a licence to carry out experiments on human embryos.
Do you think human cloning should be allowed? Or would you like to see tighter controls placed on embryology research?
This Talking Point has now closed. Read a selection of your comments below
It's easy to say no, forbid and name scientists criminals for cloning attempts. But, in my opinion, it's absolutely useless. Nobody can stop cloning and further research. Human cloning will happen sooner or later. At the same moment we should remember that every invention has two sides. So let's hope that good side will affect our life more than dark one.
I chose not to study biology to an advanced level in high school, because I was not happy with the philosophy and ethics of what was being taught. Now I see biology being hijacked by large biotech companies who genetically engineer plants for short-term profit. I see the rush for human cloning. My decision in high school was no mistake!
I am sick of all this claptrap about cloning leading to the moral decline and to diminishing values for human life - it is the very desire for a better quality of human existence in the majority of those involved in this science that drives this potentially huge gift to humanity forward.
I think it's strange to think that people automatically assume the worst of every new situation. No one is talking about cloning a fully grown human, or even a baby for that matter. Human cloning will be used to clone cells that will help cure diseases and to repair damaged parts. Don't you think that this is a worthwhile cause?
It is nothing but hypocritical to ban human cloning when weapons of any kind are allowed to be mass produced. Is spending billions of tax payer money on more effective ways of killing people is OK, but spending a fraction of this on saving lives is morally questionable? We are yet to see cloning opponents to rally as fiercely against weapons manufacturers. It doesn't pay to save lives, but the capability to kill is a quite lucrative business.
It is unbelievable how na´ve people are in thinking that the same governments that ban cloning will not be conducting their own top secret cloning projects. Yeah right! That's how we ended up with all these weapons of mass destruction, because they are all banned and it's a sin to kill. Cloning will ultimately become an obsolete technology with the emergence of nanotechnology, but denying research in cloning is tantamount to hoping to invent space travel without first discovering fire.
We should not consider this issue in a superficial way. We are free to do anything to benefit to us and future generations. Let's consider all the pros and cons as thoroughly as possible.
David C, Czech Republic
Some years ago we all watched science fiction films on TV and thought this shouldn't happen to our earth. What is happening now? In my opinion it would be too dangerous to legalise human cloning. On the one hand because nobody knows all the risks for human development and on the other because it would be also legal to clone killers and psychopaths.
Bush is right (yes, it shocked me too) to draw a clear line banning human cloning. As a scientist, I know that limiting its use would not keep excited scientists in check. I doubt the ban would stop its development by less law-abiding scientists but it is important for governments to adopt responsible attitudes to situations on the rare occasions that they are free to respect human life.
Janet C, Canada
I suffer from a rare skin condition known as EB and in correspondence with people from around the globe who also suffer from thIS condition, it is clear that for some of them, stem cell research (using human embryos) is their only hope of living. Many people who do not have such a disease can afford to take the moral high ground. Those whose only hope of life rests with such research cannot. I am not advocating the cloning of a whole human, but surely these people deserve a chance.
Cloning occurs naturally. Just look out of your window at all the clones walking past - it seems that the human race is devolving into a mindless, seething mass of clones.
They all seem to think the same, act the same and generally not think for themselves.
So, don't talk about whether we should legalise scientific cloning - we already have a problem with social cloning.
Robyn, Wales, UK
As a technician, not a doctor, I fear the "Murphy's Law" of cloning (If anything can go wrong, it will!). Body cells/parts more disease-prone, faster growing cancer cells, more rapid deterioration of brain cells and faster aging; ALL of these traits being DOMINANT, rather than recessive!
If the West bans human cloning research, then it will be defenceless should a rogue nation (that wouldn't recognise such a ban) uses human cloning research to engineer the latest bio weapons to use for acts of terrorism.
Lawrence Edwards, UK
As a natural clone (I'm an identical twin) I can't say I'm worried about the idea of human cloning. There will not be armies of mindless clones marching about - we clones are people too, as individual and as human and as anyone else. Face facts - we really are all just complex chemical reactions. It's not magic, and frankly I'm quite glad about that. Anyway, there's really no point in wholesale people cloning, so it's much more likely to be used for medical purposes. I suppose people could get twin siblings made up, but most people aren't quite that curious to know what it's like! Besides, it's good to know we will be cloning in an orderly and careful manner - in nature, cloning is an uncontrolled accident.
What is the meaning of life? I would say the basic premise is to survive and evolve. Research into human cloning could bring about the rapid evolution of our species in terms of increased mental ability and a constitution that is impervious to any form of disease. If we are intelligent enough as species to be able to artificially advance our own evolution, then why not?
W. J. Andrews, England
In the worst case scenario, the human species might clone itself into oblivion. And let's be perfectly honest, no matter how horrible the thought, the world would be a better place without us.
Cloning should only be allowed if the end result means saving another human life. We should not clone purely for the sake of cloning.
The answer has to be no, for the same reason that genocide is wrong. The end result, given human nature, would be to 'edit out' whole human characteristics, tantamount to physically going out and killing whole genetic groups. Since it would not be seen as physical murder, it would be legally and ethically acceptable. Can this be right? Do we really need to speed up human development when we don't even understand the human body properly as it is? Are we dabbling with things we don't know enough about?
If cloning complete human beings does occur in the future - What will happen to the DNA profiling that is used to identify criminals?
Human cloning is in its early stages and global society as a whole has not accepted the concept, mainly because they do not understand it, including Bush. They find is scary and going against god. People who talk about saving lives and all the benefits - why are you so desperate? Give it time and let the idea of cloning will become norm.
It's as ridiculous as cloning rabbits - we are capable of breeding so what's the problem? This world is populated enough!
We should stop playing God and leave nature to its cause.
Read "A brave new world". This will provide a window into the possible future of cloning.
Cloning is going to happen, whether you like it or not. It is no longer an issue of holding the line, rather deciding how to redraw the lines.
I can think of many good uses of cloning: growing new organs; ensuring that production of biological medicines within animals remains efficient through several generations to name but two.
It is a choice for each nation to make, but I personally believe that cloning technology must be developed, however under strict guidelines for the time being.
Who are the daddy and mummy of a clone? The team of scientists or the somatic cell donor? Who are the brother and sister of a clone? His other fellow clones from the same lab or clones from the same donor? What right has a clone to inheritance, and who gets the clone when the donor and the lab "fall out"? Let's leave this Pandora's box firmly shut!
Richard James, UK
Here's a question: Can any of us, with hand on heart, say that we could look into the eyes of our clone and say 'I need a heart and lung transplant - Its time for you to do your job!'.
Now imagine that clone is 8 year old.
Another question: Using the same argument that twins are 'natural' clones and have rights like any one else, how long would it be before 'Artificial' clones get legal representation and win human rights for themselves and prevent us from harvesting them - back to square one.
As a biologist I totally agree with the principles of cloning and the uses of the method. However to clone a whole human is wrong and indeed "playing God". Cloning of body parts is extremely useful and the research done in this area could lead to the ease of suffering of many people. I agree with the President that cloning of entire humans should be banned, if not could it lead to the formation of a "superhuman"?
Human cloning does not exclusively have to be the creation of an embryo, which I also see as a new and precious human life...it could also be the cloning of certain cells, certain organs which could, for example, help people who would otherwise die because of long waiting lists like they have here in Holland. You cannot forbid all cloning of human cells, if you do it will only contribute to science developing an illegal underground network to be able to continue their experiments.
Mashinini ID, South Africa
My twin sister has M.S. and so, although I think there should be strict control over it, I agree with cloning if there is any hope that it can help people whose daily lives are blighted by incurable illness or who are paralysed as the result of accidents.
Human Cloning should not be banned as the medical uses for transplant are just too useful. As for cloning a whole person ... Why? Cloning doesn't transfer memories so it isn't like you could make a copy of someone - just a look-a-like. But also it would be a look-a-like that is much younger than the original. Cloning a person would be just weird and not really useful - adoption is much better.
Read Michael Marshall Smith's 'Spares'. He paints a picture of a future where people have clones of themselves, to provide spare parts if, say, you happen to loose a limb, or an eye, or need a new heart. The question he poses is, are clones human or not? And if they are, shouldn't they be treated like humans and not as disposable spares? These are questions that humans will need to face if we allow cloning of humans!
When will people understand that cloning is not copying? Yes, a clone is derived from the same genetic tissue as the originator (donor?) but the creature, whether human or otherwise, will still have to grow, mature and learn as with any other child. It is moronic to think that by cloning a 35 year old woman, for example, there will be a sudden flash of light and then an exact copy will appear...all that would be created is an entity with the same genetic make-up and, possibly, dispositions.
I don't think it matters if USA ban cloning, there will always be somewhere in the world where the research can continue.
On another note, don't you think it is more likely that governments claim to be anti-cloning, whilst still carrying out research in secret? After all, who can afford to be left behind when scientific advancement, technology and future military applications are at stake?
My healthy lifestyle means that I am relying on a cloned body part to get me past 40 :) Full human cloning shouldn't happen as it reduces the gene pool and diversity is what keeps a species going. However, cloning body parts, organs, growing things like heart lungs in a lab, blood plasma would make the need for donors a thing of the past and save millions of lives. Let's look past the media driven rubbish that is being said about cloning and look at the benefits that would come from being able to clone individual body parts. Imagine hospitals having an unending supply of all the blood they need, even the rarest types, all made possible by cloning
Why not accommodate both points of view? Those who are for it can (eventually) reap the medical benefits of cloning. Those against can watch and let themselves and their loved ones die.
Cloning is something we cannot afford to ignore in the near future. Granted, technology is not quite refined enough for human cloning yet, but soon it will. Cloning will lead to technologies which will remove hunger, birth defects, disease and even old age from humanity. It is not a question of how can we justify this research, but one of how can we justify ignoring this research.
I think the objection to cloning for stem cell research is based upon some antiquated sense of morality that is lacking in society in general. This is simply a case of creationists and the religious holding back scientific progress due to their fears and superstitions.
If the technology is available, people will clone humans, come what may. Legislation may create obstacles, but it won't totally stop people cloning humans.
On ethical grounds, no, I'm not in favour of human cloning, but when markets are taken into consideration, I'm afraid the laws of supply and demand will work, no body can stop these most powerful forces in today's civilization!
It is very sloppy to try and ban the concept of "human cloning" outright without considering some of the incredible scientific issues it encompasses. This area of science provides many solutions to some of the greatest medical challenges the world has ever seen. Why choose to ignore the possibilities?
First, while many of us would rather avoid the choice, either by claiming that it is inevitable or that it is far-fetched and not something we need to think about right away, it is neither inevitable nor implausible. This means that, while we might prefer to avoid the choice, it is ours to make. How should we choose? I believe we should show less arrogance and more humility; less ingratitude and more gratitude. I believe that accepting certain limits on our actions, our humanity, would (perhaps ironically) empower us in the long run. Few of the world's many problems at this point will be solved by a magic techno-fix: they all deserve our conscious attention and human care. Mortality, rightly understood, is what fuels good work. Humility and gratitude towards the Creator is what gives us peace of spirit.
Among species which reproduce sexually, nature tends to go to extreme lengths to avoid allowing anything like cloning (such as self-pollination or incestuous mating). I think we should pay good attention to this, since it is obviously the result of millions (or billions) of years of evolution, so it must have a sound survival basis.
To outlaw human cloning is, in my opinion outrageous. Those who argue against it on the basis that human life is sacred are hypocritical in the extreme as it is they who are "playing God". If there is any possibility if cloning research providing a single cure, for a single diseased or disabled person, then surely to enforce a full ban is nothing short of sadistic and evil. This is simply another example of those who happen to be religious, exhibiting delusions grandeur and attempting to enforce their beliefs on others at any expense, even the development of life saving medical knowledge.
When Sir Hilary was asked why people wanted to climb Mount Everest he replied: "because it's there". For the same reason people continue to do things that are hardly justifiable from the rational point of view. When medical techniques sufficiently improve people will be cloned, even if the procedure will be made illegal. Cloning is simply yet another mountain to be conquered.
Bush needs to put religion aside and think realistically about how this can save lives. Stem cell research is a must for cures to diabetes and other life threatening diseases. As a relative of diabetics, I hope everything is being done to cure this disease.
Cloning and the use of genetics to manipulate the species homo sapien should be applauded. The HS species is not suited to long term survival in its current form and will require substantial help from these technologies to exist beyond the next 10-20 thousand years in its current state. The moral ground on bending the rules has already been broken with the use of drugs and artificial surgery to ensure birth and extend human life spans.
Cloning is wrong. Not only is it a joke to the morality of the human race, but it is being attempted with very little scientific knowledge about the subject.
Whom should we clone? That is the question, there will
be a clone sooner or later.
Why don't we ban flying cars and fusion reactors while we're at it? Bush's statement is ridiculous not for any ethical reason, but because neither he nor anybody else has any idea what "cloning a human" actually means: it's not even close to being a reality yet. He's willing to block all sorts of valuable research before it ever has a chance to flourish, based on a highly dubious "moral" stance.
I wish some of the correspondents would check the facts before stating that cloning is murder, etc. What scientists want to clone are individual stem cells, which can grow into any type of cell in the body, heart, blood, muscle, skin, hair, etc. Therefore if is wrong then so is cutting your fingernails as you are killing those cells. I do however believe that creating a live human by cloning is wrong and should never be allowed.
Any excuse to bring a new life is a good one... if you asked most people whether they would rather have been born or not, they will of course say that they would rather be living than be a passing thought.
It's a shame that they can't clone humans yet. There is a lot of talent wasted because extremely gifted people die.
I think the cloning of humans should be allowed just because it is totally immoral to allow the cloning of sheep, cats, monkeys, etc but not humans. Not allowing humans to be cloned is disrespect for other species and is wrong.
This is one of the few times I agree with President Bush. It can always be argued that human cloning is acceptable, but there are some lines that just shouldn't be crossed.
So many people misunderstand this issue. This is not about creating cloned human beings, this is about creating cloned embryos which are allowed to grow to the point where they can provide useful cells, not to the point where they become sentient beings. If it can provide a cure for diseases like Alzheimer's, then that is surely more important than any religious objections by the so-called 'pro-life' brigade. In any case, why is letting someone die of Alzheimer's disease 'pro-life'?
No ban can be effective since no ban can or will be world-wide. It's a very bad idea to pass laws you can't enforce.
Or course it should be banned. Unfortunately if George Bush said publicly that the sky was blue, I think most of this forum would say that is wasn't. Or they'd claim that it became this "ugly blue" due to U.S. isolationism/expansionism/whatever.
In that case George, stop destroying life on a global scale if it means that much to you!
I don't see any major ethical problems with cloning. Many people forget that cloning already happens naturally; this is, after all, what identical twins are. We have no particular problems recognising the individuality of identical twins, so why should there be any objection to artificial clones? There are, however, technical problems at the moment. Attempting the cloning of a human at this stage of our knowledge is reckless and irresponsible, in the same way as introducing any new medical procedure without adequate testing.
If anything can be created to avoid the pain of giving birth then I am all for it. Us women have to stop drinking for nine months when we are pregnant. Just think of the fun we could all have! It's no longer a man's world!
Jo-anne from Brentwood's comments trouble me. If alcohol is more important to you then a healthy baby then you really shouldn't consider even getting pregnant. It shows a complete lack of maturity. A child growing inside its mother is the bond it holds to its mother.
Reading these comments makes me cringe. Obviously so many people still don't understand what cloning is. Yes, you will still have to get pregnant. Sorry to burst your bubble Jo-anne.
R Dirven, The Netherlands
It's OK for a lesbian couple to genetically disable a child on purpose, but we're not allowed to use the same research and principles to genetically improve people's lives, including those of unborn children?
Mr Bush ought to get his priorities right.
If we are talking about complete human cloning then no. If we are talking about organ cloning, I'm all for it. Science is always a double -edged sword. In order to get the good we have to risk the bad. I know that if I needed a heart transplant I would be delighted to be told that a new one could be "grown" in a few months.
The US medical system is based on the concept that medical care is a commodity not a basic human right. It seems, to me, to be inconsistent to then state that cloning is not a commodity. Perhaps the advocates of cloning have been unable to finance the appropriate political authorities.
I can't believe that people actually want this. Life is sacred, just because we can do things does not mean that we should. I could commit murder but I know it's wrong so I don't. For the people who say that it would be a great step for medicine, don't you realise how many 'dolly the sheep' there were cloned until they had a result. As for women saying that it would cause them less pain, I think that you had better go back to school to learn what cloning really means. For once Dubya talks sense.
Stephen, N Ireland
Cloning would be good but how much would it cost? I am not a wealthy person but I do like the sound of the idea.
Trying to duplicate a copy of a specific individual seems pretty pointless to me, although, research into human genetics, including embryo research, I do accept. But could anyone imagine how disastrous another GW Bush would be? He'd declare war on his duplicate, if there was oil and money involved.
Uh-oh, I agree with George Bush on something!
If I were trying to rally support for a cause I certainly wouldn't want George Bush on my side. His stance on the issue will probably lead to cloning becoming compulsory.
It is far too early to start human cloning. It isn't that long ago since those scientists cloned Dolly, whom they have since discovered to have arthritis, so they do not no the full implications as yet. There is no doubt that in the future this could lead to a range of cures for diseases but I think it is too big a step to take just now.
19 Dec 01 | Europe
Scientist warns on human cloning
05 Apr 02 | Sci/Tech
Woman 'pregnant with clone'
25 Nov 01 | Sci/Tech
US looks to outlaw human cloning
27 Feb 02 | Sci/Tech
The cloning debate
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Other Talking Points:
Links to more Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy