Lexie Shadix, Campus Carrier asst. arts and living editor
Reproductive cloning is the process of creating a cell or organism that is genetically identical to a previously existing cell and implanting it into a uterus to develop to term. In 1996, perhaps the most well-known advancement in cloning was made when Ian Wilmut created a cloned sheep named Dolly. Cloning is no longer just the substance of movies and novels; it is becoming the forefront of scientific research and ethical conversations. Many are wondering how cloning will affect future human reproduction should it be further researched. However, the prospect of cloning a human is accompanied by many concerns should not be pursued.
Dolly the sheep was the only clone to survive out of 277 embryos. She also suffered from arthritis, which is unusual for a sheep of her age, and many wonder if this was due to her origins. Research regarding cloning opens the door to a tremendous loss of life. It may also produce many clones with a life that would be of an incredibly poor quality, or, while this is likely much rarer, a life in which non-existence is preferable. Even Wilmut, has denounced human reproductive cloning as something too dangerous to attempt.
Engaging in cloning may also cause humans to insert too much of their will into procreative decisions. They would be able to choose the genetic makeup of their child, which would seem to undermine the assumed promise of prospective parents to love their child no matter what they look like. Clones may also have unrealistic expectations placed upon them to be exactly like the person they were cloned from, which would simply not be true. This could, in turn, lead to a clone having poor mental health and being treated poorly by society.
Furthermore, there is concern about clones being created for the wrong reasons. Clones may be produced as “savior siblings,” someone created to donate something such as a non-vital organ or blood to their sick relative, or as replacements for lost loved ones. Instead of being their own person, they are now tools to either save someone or provide emotional comfort to others. This strips them of their autonomy and intrinsic worth and would be detrimental to human dignity and freedom.
Some may have reservations about the idea of completely banning human reproductive cloning. In vitro fertilization was once new and untested but is now widely accepted; cloning could experience the same thing. Others may argue banning cloning is a violation of reproductive liberty. However, the risk that cloning poses far outweighs these potential benefits. In vitro fertilization, surrogacy, sperm donors, and natural conception are all, currently used, ways to procreate. Continuing cloning research is, considering all these options, only a way to put human life needlessly in harm’s way. Furthermore, can cloning even be compared to these other ways of procreation? None of the aforementioned technologies creates a genetically identical copy of a previously existing human.
According to the Center for Genetics and Society, cloning has been banned in forty-six countries around the world and this has been done without violating reproductive liberty. While all threats to human dignity will not disappear with a global ban on cloning, cloning will not be able to be used to harm individuals or society. A world without cloning is a world with one less potential harm to humanity in it.