Sex and Gender Issues
back to Sex and Gender Issues articles
The Bioethics of Cloning
Canon Maureen Palmer from Guildford Cathedral considers the phenomenon of the cloning of human tissue and discusses a Chris tian response.
A dvances in medical technology have changed the way that we think about disease and its treatment in recent years. We believe that everything can and should be cured. However, many ‘cures' and especially genetic manipulation, whether it is to replace faulty genes or the transfer of whole nuclei, has issues of ethical importance for us to consider: especially issues of relationship and of human self-determination.
What is ‘cloning'? It refers to the production of a copy of some biological entity – this could be applied to a single gene, to individual cells or the intention to create a clone of a complex organism such as Dolly, the sheep, or even a human being. Although this sounds very like the ‘Brave New World' scenario, much cloning takes place quite naturally. For example, most bacteria clone themselves by repeated cell division.
In the human body, cells are replenished by a process of cell division. Many specialist cells do not themselves divide but instead less specialised stem cells, which have the capacity to become more specialized are ‘turned on' so that they develop or differentiate to become the specialized cells. Within the cell certain genes are ‘switched on' or ‘switched off' so that new cells are generated from progenitor cells. Even these specialized cells though are set in their pattern – so, for example, a precursor liver cell cannot make a heart cell. Most tissues in the body can only be replaced by specialized cells which are programmed to become the new but same tissue. Before we discuss cloning we need a few definitions of cells. There are three words whose meaning is important for us:
Totipotent cells – having the ability to develop into every cell type required
for human development, including extra-embryonic tissue. These are found only
in the very early embryo.
Pluripotent cells – having the ability to develop into every cell type in
the human body, but not the extra-embryonic tissues such as placenta. These
cells are found in the embryo after the cells that will form the membranes
have been determined.
Multipotent cells – having the ability to develop into multiple (but not all) cell types. These cells are found in bone marrow and some other tissues.
You can see that most adult tissues will have multipotent cells while embryonic tissue will have either totipotent or pluripotent cells. For cloning it would therefore be preferable to have the most ‘plastic cells', that is the totipotent cells.
Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning
The process of fertilization takes about 48 hours and then the fertilized ovum divides, into two, four, eight, sixteen etc. Up to the division into eight cells, and possibly to sixteen cells, the cells of the embryo are ‘totipotent', that is, they are able to develop into any of the embryonic cells or membrane cells or part of the placenta – they are totally plastic. Up to sixteen cells, the cells can be manipulated, rearranged, removed and replaced without any developmental damage to the embryo. Since the cells of this very early embryo are completely plastic (‘totipotent'), they could be cloned to generate a cell line of embryonic stem cells.
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT)
Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a way of therapeutic cloning that might allow tissue repair without rejection. To overcome the problems of rejection the embryonic cells have their nuclei replaced by nuclei from the adult which will, of course, carry the identical genetic code of that person and thus will not be rejected. This is a minefield because it is the technique by which Dolly the sheep was cloned, and many would say that although it purports to be a technique of therapy, it could so easily be changed into a technique for cloning human beings. Dolly was produced by taking ova from one animal, removing the nucleus and replacing it with nuclei taken from adult udder cells of a second animal. The resultant embryo was a clone of the second animal because it carried the whole genetic blueprint, derived from the udder cell. Now, SCNT does not set out to clone, but what it does do is to take the adult nucleus from a somatic cell and transfer it into the unfertilized ovum to generate embryonic stem cells [ES cells]. The resulting cells will carry the same genetic blueprint and will thus be no immune threat.
The Christian Response
Normally when we are faced with ethical questions we have three strands of guidance. We can examine the scripture. We can follow the tradition of the Church. We can use our reason. In the case of this work we have little direct guidance from either scripture or tradition, so we have to use the principles of our understanding of God, his world, and our relationship to God and neighbour to help us in our decision-making. As far as scripture is concerned we have the concept of human beings ‘made in the image of God' from Genesis 1 : 26; the ideas about foreknowledge of our life and destiny from Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1 : 1 – 4, and the law pertaining to pregnancy in Leviticus 12 : 1 – 8. These texts give us guiding principles on how we should respect human life.
Tradition of the Church does give us a little help for in the teaching of early Judaism, there was an increasing status for the embryo and foetus after the third month of pregnancy when it became recognizably human. The humanity of a person later became encompassed in the concept of development of a ‘soul'.
Aristotle and many of the Arabic philosophers of the 9 th and 10 th centuries, and specially Avicenna, suggested that ‘a soul comes into existence when a body suitable for it comes into existence'. Plato identified the ‘soul' as the essential human being, independent of, and only temporarily united with the body.
Augustine distinguished between the formed foetus endowed with an immortal soul and a ‘tissue', a living entity on the way to becoming a human being and Aquinas, some centuries later, distinguished between the unanimated and the animated foetus. He held that in its generation the embryo is first a living thing, then an animal and finally a human being. The teaching of Aquinas coloured how the Church regarded the unborn child until the nineteenth century.
As we consider the Christian response to the possibility of stem cell cloning for therapeutic reasons we should consider the status of the human embryo and the responsibility we have towards human life.
The technique of in vitro fertilization [IVF] has increased our knowledge of the early development of the embryo and has allowed us to do some research in manipulation of the ball of cells. The techniques inevitably gives rise to ‘spare embryos'. These may be held frozen in case a second pregnancy is needed, or they may be used for research or they could be used to produce stem cells. The burning question is should we create embryos with the express purpose of destroying them to provide stem cells? So we have to decide on the point at which we afford respect for life for the embryo/foetus.
Life is a continuum and the ova and the sperm are ‘alive' and yet we do not afford them a moral status equivalent to that of a new born infant. There is therefore the concept that the moral value of the embryo develops gradually. The fertilized ovum has a symbolic moral value, as a potential human being, but the degree of respect rises during its development. The embryo has potential but can this potential support ‘right to life' for the early embryo or the ‘right to respect'? Before there can be a person, there must be an individual, and there can be no individual until the embryonic divisions have passed through the stage of manipulation without damage. If only persons have ‘rights, then the embryo has no rights. However, as a potential person should it have respect? There are six possible points at which respect for the embryo/foetus could be given]:
1 At the beginning of the fertilization process when the potential for development into a human being begins – that is, from conception.
2 After 14 days when the cells are programmed to make certain organs, membranes and tissues.
3 If we determine death by the cessation of electrical activity in the brain, then perhaps this would also make a viable starting point. Electrical activity in the brain begins 40 days following fertilization.
4 Aquinas suggested the point of respect should begin at ‘quickening' – that is, the time at which the mother is aware of the foetus in the uterus.
5 At birth when the infant is able to live independently of the mother
6 Following the development of a personality. This is a dangerous suggestion, because some people with brain damage may never develop a personality as we understand it.
Human embryos do not develop into humans, they develop as humans. Therefore this makes the argument for affording respect practically very difficult to ascertain. We might say we respect the future chances for the life of the individual at every point of his/her development in time.
Human Cloning
Stem cell cloning for therapeutic reasons may be acceptable but once such technology is developed there is always the chance that it will be misused to clone a human being. Why are most theologians so concerned about creating a human clone? What are the reasons why we might want to clone a human being? Replacing a beloved child? Creating another Mozart? Of course even though the DNA of the cloned person would be identical, their cytoplasm, their nurture, the position in the uterus would be different thus making them dissimilar to the person from whom they are cloned. However far fetched you may feel the possibility is at the present time, it is worth reflecting that the individual cloned would be a person produced, not out of love, but out of convenience – as a means to an end. This is also true of creating embryos for stem cell cloning. This is not how we as Christian see the begetting of children out of love and ‘made in the image of God'. Human beings are unique. We are encouraged to be ourselves. Through the act of sexual reproduction our genes are a combination of characters from both parents. The mix of genes makes us unique: ourselves and like no one else. We may have characters which are similar to those of our families, but we are released from the pressure of being anyone other than ourselves. Cloning would make life a commodity.
As we examine the technological advance in genetic studies and cell manipulation there are decisions that we can make based on our understanding of the work of God in creation, the place of love and in the ways that we understand ourselves with respect to our environment. We could reject genetic manipulation and cloning on the grounds of a tension of seeing individuals as the sum of their genes rather than individuals made in the image of God, infinitely precious in the eyes of God, human beings for whom Christ was willing to die. There is the other side of the coin, that God has endowed us with intelligence and inventiveness and so perhaps we should use these gifts to alleviate suffering and produce perfection in human health. The whole aim of medical research and treatment, whether by drugs or vaccines or surgery or genetic manipulation is ‘interfering with nature' and its aim is to alleviate suffering and to keep alive people who would otherwise die. Death, though, is not the ultimate disaster but the natural progression of human life!
Life is a gift, to be received and welcomed with joy and thanksgiving. It is to be cherished, preserved and protected as the most sublime expression of God's creative love. Human beings are endowed with ‘sacredness' from conception and human life finds its ultimate sense, its spiritual meaning, in the quest for holiness. The worth of human life does not reside in any immanent quality of human beings but in the fact that they are created and redeemed by God. Human beings are a mirror reflecting God's glory. If we begin to lose respect for the created order we begin to lose respect for one another and for ourselves.
© 2005 Maureen Palmer & Newsline