Freedom to Care Return to INDEX
Prof. Geoffrey Hunt
“We can distinguish cleverness
about means from wisdom about ends, and we are loath to
Great controversy has been aroused by the claim that it is now possible to clone human beings; to produce almost exact copies of a desired human individual. Cloning takes place without the union of egg and sperm, and indeed men are not necessary. (Only a few women are needed.) The first experiments to do so are scheduled to begin this month. This real possibility struck the world when in 1997 it was announced at a UK research institute that they had produced ‘Dolly’ the sheep, who was a clone of her mother. Dolly has no father. This announcement comes into a world already trying to absorb the implications of genetic engineering, genetically modified food, transgenic tissue transplants, foetal tissue transplants, in vitro fertilisation, stem cell research, the mapping of the human genome and many other developments. It seems that it is not enough that we face an uncertain future due to unwitting human damage to the environment such as deforestation, global warming and climate change, a growing hole in the ozone layer, polluted seas and air, desertification, the utilitarian despoiling of our beautiful forested mountains with highways and transmission masts, and new epidemics such as HIV-AIDS and BSE-CJD. It seems we are also deliberately bent on greatly increasing our chances of global self-destruction. Can the human race survive? At present, it seems unlikely. It is unlikely because our technical cleverness is not matched by any ethical wisdom. Because we can do something, it does not follow that we ought to do it.
2) What is a clone?
A Clone is a population
of genetically (almost) identical organisms or cells. The word
‘clone’ is also used for one individual in such a population. Clones
are nothing new, for they arise in nature. Any organism that reproduces
asexually, by dividing itself rather than combining with another organism,
is a clone. Many simple plants and animals, such as algae, plankton and amoeba,
are clones. Shocked as we are by the thought of a human clone we forget that
nature already produces human clones: naturally occurring identical (monozygotic)
twins and triplets are clones. Such twins and triplets originate from the
splitting of embryonic cells so have exactly the same genetic
programme.
For centuries human beings have practiced the cloning of plants, such
as vegetables, flowers and fruits.
Dolly2 was not the first laboratory clone.
Successful cloning
by nuclear transfer (see below) with frog cells was announced in 1975,
and in 1989 details of the first piglet clone after nuclear transfer were
published.
What
was new about Dolly was that she was produced not from an embryonic cell,
but from a (somatic) cell from the mammary gland of her mother. Scientists
have already cloned a number of animals, including mice and cows3.
3) How is it done?
How are animal clones produced in the laboratory? A small sample of cells is taken from the ‘parent’ individual and is then grown as a culture. When the cells have multiplied they are treated ‘to turn back their biological clock’. This returns them to an undifferentiated state. How this happens is not understood. They now have the potential to grown into any type of cell. This potential is not understood. The genetic material (the nucleus) is taken from one of these cells. Also, an unfertilised egg cell is taken from woman/female, and the nucleus removed (it is then an ‘enucleated cell’.)
The nucleus (with its genetic material) from a cultured cell is injected into an enucleated egg. A tiny electric jolt fuses the egg and the genetic material, making new nucleus. How this happens is not understood. The new cell then multiplies. How it multiplies is not fully understood. In these cells (of mammals), the outer layer is for the placenta and inner layer is stem cells. Stem cells can become any of 300 types of cells in human body. What makes this possible is not understood.
There are now two possibilities. 1) Therapeutic cloning: cloned stem cells may possibly be used to repair or replace defective tissues and organs – possibly by injecting the stem cells into a specific area. This research is still at an early stage, and for the most part scientists do not understand why they get the results that they do or what the dangers are. 2) Reproductive cloning: a complete embryo is allowed to develop and then implanted in the womb of a surrogate (genetically unrelated) mother, and development takes place as usual. This has been achieved with non-human animals, but with a very low success rate, and many abortions and deformities.
It is also possible genetically to engineer the material in the nucleus, altering the original genetic programme to get a clone with a ‘useful’ modification (such as high milk-yield cows), before it is introduced into the enucleated egg cell. The possibilities are enormous, and so are the dangers.
4) Ethical Disagreement
There are many different
kinds of ethical disagreement about all this. Some are more radical than
others. Some people think that all research involving human embryos is wrong.
They say that embryos are potential people and should be respected. This
would mean that all human genetic engineering, and stem cell research, as
well as human cloning, would be wrong.
Some people say it is alright
to use human embryos in research as long as they are not specially cultured
for research purposes, but are only ‘spare’ embryos (from
invitro fertilization) that would otherwise have been destroyed. There
is disagreement within this group of people as to whether such
‘spare’ embryos could be used for cloning or not.
Some people say that
cell-cloning in order to develop stem cells for therapeutic purposes is alright,
but cloning whole human beings is wrong. This is the position that most
scientists seem to take at present. Some people take the view that while
cloning humans is wrong, cloning whole animals such as cows, tigers or monkeys
is alright, while others think all animal cloning is wrong, even if stem
cell cloning is alright.
The radical view that all
embryonic research is wrong is taken by the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul
II personally lobbied Bush to oppose federal funding for such research when
they met at the Vatican this year. The Pope
said: “A free and virtuous
society, which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue
and violate human life at any stage from conception to natural death.”
He added that consumerism turns
“human reproduction into a manufacturing process in which children are
made in laboratories to preordained specifications and, potentially, in multiple
copies”.
The opposite radical view is taken by a group of well-known scientists and ‘free thinkers’. In a ‘Declaration in Defence of Cloning’ they have said:
“But we believe that there is a very real danger that research with enormous potential benefits may be suppressed solely because it conflicts with some people's religious beliefs. It is important to recognize that similar religious objections were once raised against autopsies, anaesthesia, artificial insemination, and the entire genetic revolution of our day - yet enormous benefits have accrued from each of these developments … We see no inherent ethical dilemmas in cloning non-human higher animals. Nor is it clear to us that future developments in cloning human tissues or even cloning human beings will create moral predicaments beyond the capacity of human reason to resolve.” 4
Ideally,
every human being should think about what their position is on this issue,
and not be intellectually bullied by scientists, bioethicists, politicians
and others who claim to have more moral sense than ordinary
people.
5) Why Therapeutic Cloning in Humans?
There seem to be two main motives for therapy in humans by means of cloned stem cells. One is that it may prevent a great deal of suffering. The other is that it may make a great deal of money. While it will certainly make a lot of money for a few people, will it prevent a lot of suffering? I discuss this question later. It is said that therapeutic cloning can be used to replace disease genes such as those of cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, polycystic kidney disease, Huntington’s chorea, or genes that predispose to certain disease conditions such as cancer, schizophrenia, coronary heart disease or diabetes. Some people envision a ‘library’ of good working copies of genes, or enhanced ones, which may always be available (at a price) for cloning therapy.
Some people are already speaking not so much of preventing suffering but what cloning techniques (wrongly called ‘therapies’) might do for tissue or organ enhancement. If you do not like some part of your body, perhaps it will be possible to remove it and replace it by stem cell regeneration with a shape or colour you prefer. Cosmetic surgery would become a thing of the past. People might also consider enhancing the tissue of their brain or muscles in order to perform better. You would just need the money to pay for it.
6) Why reproductive Cloning?
Why would
anyone want to have a cloned human being? The only medical or semi-medical
reason that has been given is as a form of infertility treatment by: producing
a genetically related child of a completely infertile man or woman (from
a somatic cell). Other non-medical reason that have been given by some people
are: to replace a cherished child or other person who has died; to produce
a copy of a person considered especially important to humanity (e.g. a genius);
to produce enhanced beings (eugenics). We need to think about whether any
of these are good reasons, even if the reproductive cloning technology is
possible and safe. High profits may motivate some doctors, scientists and
companies to embark on reproductive cloning regardless of whether the reasons
are good or not.
If human cloning is allowed how long will it be before its main
aim is human enhancement i.e. eugenics? Would you like your child to be like
a famous scientist or poet? Well, why not buy the cloning treatment for your
wife, girlfriend or pay for a surrogate mother? Or, would you like to have
your own personal copy of a famous pop star or film actor, why not buy one?
Why not keep a travelling copy of your boyfriend or girlfriend, so that you
will not miss them when you travel away? Is this really the way we should
think?
While international
agreements and national laws have banned human reproductive cloning, some
scientists are still prepared to go ahead with it. An Italian gynaecologist,
Severino Antinori5, announced in August this year that he and
his team would secretly begin human cloning experiments in November. He says
he will help infertile men by impregnating about 200 women with cloned embryos
even if he loses his medical registration. (Other doctors are already expelling
him from professional associations.) The nucleus of an infertile man’s
somatic cell will be injected into an enucleated egg, possibly taken from
the man's wife or partner.
In September this year it was reported that Mark and Tracy Hunt
(See photo next page) spent up to £350,000 trying to clone their
10-month-old son who died after a heart operation two years ago. They used
legal compensation to pay an American scientist, to carry out the procedure.
The scientist is a member of the Raelians, a sect which claims humans were
cloned by aliens. They stopped the funding when the scientist got carried
away with making publicity for the Raelians. They still have their child’s
tissue samples and hope to clone him in the future.
7) Some misconceptions
Before we consider some arguments in detail we should note that many popular discussions about human cloning are at a low level. Scientists have failed to make themselves clear to the public and have left the news media to misrepresent many important facts.
To begin with there is often a simple confusion between cloning of cells and cloning of whole organisms, including humans. Then it is common for people to think that the clone of organism X will be absolutely identical to X in every respect. However, this is not true. Natural identical twins are probably more alike one another than a cloned human would be to its ‘parent’. Even identical twins are not really identical and may become very different as they grow older. In any case they are separate people with separate lives. Here are the main reasons for the non-identity of clone and parent:
(a) The
cloned cell makes use of mitochondrial material in the enucleated egg, and
this is why monovular twins are genetically closer than are artificially
produced clones. Dolly is not an identical clone of its parent.
(b) There
will be some genetic mutation during development, however
small.
(c) The physical environment has an impact from gestation through adult life (including biochemical ambience, nutrition, disease, and accident).
(d) Upbringing and culture have an impact (including language, social norms and education).
People who say that the very existence of a human clone is morally unacceptable often forget that in most modern societies there is nothing morally reprehensible about the existence of identical twins or triplets. People who emphasise the genetic similarity of clone and parent as being in itself the main reason for rejecting cloning forget that human beings already share over 98% of their genetic material with chimpanzees. We do not find chimpanzees, or humans, reprehensible for this reason.
Some people seem to think that if cloning were allowed, then at some time in the future everyone would be exactly the same. They forget that, besides the fact that clones are not really identical, clones would presumably not be from one individual but many genetically different individuals.
People are often disturbed by the idea of cloning because they think that if A1 is a clone of A then you have two copies of the same “person”. This is the most important misconception, because it leads to the most common objections and support for human cloning. In fact, you really only have here two people who are biologically very close, but they are still two different people, with their own lives to live and are equally deserving of human respect.
My view is that an immediate ten-year moratorium should be put on all biotechnology involving animal and human somatic cell nuclear transfer. This would halt both stem cell research and, more specifically, human cloning. I now give my reasons.
8) Human Therapeutic cloning: The Debate
i) Therapy
It is not unreasonable to speculate that therapeutic cloning might have benefits
for many people with a wide range of dysfunction and disability.
Hughes, a bio-ethicist, has written in defence
of a wide range of genetic technologies, including cloning of embryos. He
says,
“In the case of genetic engineering my broad assertion is that
There are two main counter-arguments. Firstly, the overwhelming majority of human disease and disability is not caused by genetic defects. One only has to think of the mortality and suffering caused on a planetary scale by malaria, TB and gastrointestinal infection. Even if we restrict ourselves to disability we find that the great majority of cases are due to birth trauma, environmental damage and accident. Secondly, even if we use cloning/stem cell technologies to engineer solutions to some public health problems this raises the question of why we should take the risk of unforeseen genetic ecological damage when we already know what the public health solutions are (such as, for example, clean water). In the public health realm most of the obstacles are political, social and economic not technological.
ii)
Unlimited Human Enhancement
As though
Hughes does not find his own therapeutic argument very convincing he also
proposes that such cell engineering technologies could enhance the
characteristics of the human race. He says,
“Somewhat
further in the future, our sense organs
When he says “us” who does he mean? Given current political-economic arrangements it seems that such benefits, if they are benefits, would only be available to those who could pay for them. I fear that “re-engineered minds” may not only be a eugenic programme, but one in which cleverness and self-interest is once again being confused with wisdom and compassion.
iii) Ecological Implosion?
Medicine
has always faced great uncertainties in its diagnoses, prognoses and treatments.
It has also had a great problem admitting to this uncertainty, for to do
so would undermine its own ideological power7. If scientists could
only be truthful about the great areas of ignorance and uncertainty involved
in cell engineering then I think the public would call for an immediate halt.
Clearly the public is already justifiably alarmed by genetically modified
food, and yet genetically modified humans are on the horizon8.
If we look again at my diagrams of the cloning techniques we
find that there are dozens of unanswered fundamental questions at each stage.
To take one example, we have a very poor understanding of the interaction
between the nucleus and the cytoplasm and its mitochondria, and yet nuclear
transfer cloning depends on separating them. Is it not cause for alarm that
the vast majority of organisms produced during cloning experiments are aborted,
dysfunctional or deformed? Once we have cultured stem cells ready for therapeutic
transplant we then have to face our ignorance about histocompatibility antigens
encoded by mitochondrial DNA.
While trial and error is a research strategy that may be fairly
harmless in certain areas, mechanics for example, it is surely a very dangerous
experimental approach in manipulating the life process itself. When one considers
that someone as eminent as the UK’s Professor Robert Winston, who pioneered
In Vitro Fertilisation techniques, can blandly suggest that “Cloning
techniques might also be useful in developing transgenic animals – for
example, for human xenotransplantation”9, then we must consider
the possibility that we are already playing with fire. Further genetic
engineering experiments may eventually, through out-of-control and hidden
permutations, lead to an ecological implosion at the very roots of life’s
process. One cannot say that it is impossible, and even its likelihood cannot
be rationally
assessed.
iv) Exploitative approach to humans
Scientists and bioethicists
who speak with such optimism about new cell technologies do not take into
account the widespread iatrogenic disease and psychological dependency already
brought into the world by conventional medicine. The fact that modern medicine
has not dealt adequately with public health conditions, ranging from malaria
to HIV-AIDS, should in itself act as a warning that political and social
maturity are a precondition for further human advancement. Everywhere we
see modern medicine already taking advantage of the wealthy sick, ignoring
the poor sick, and killing and hurting millions in its misdirected profit-driven
endeavours. In the UK alone about 5,000 people are killed by hospital infections
every year, about twice as many are killed by medical error and negligence,
while hundreds of thousands are dependent on sleeping pills and anti-depressants.
Medicine’s great potential for human welfare is still thwarted
by humanity’s failure to transcend its ignorance, greed and pride. Why
should we now expect any better from scientists and doctors in the pay of
biotechnology companies?
Given what we know about humanity’s
contemporary ethical level does it come as a surprise that some are looking
forward to the possibility of creating banks of cloned human embryos, and
cells and tissues derived from them, as a resource for people who can pay
for bodily enhancement? We are only a step away from manipulating the core
human life process itself as a further means of man exploiting man.
9) Human Reproductive cloning: The Debate
i)
Animal cloning
It is
helpful perhaps to think about the implications of reproductive cloning with
animals before we consider the question of cloning humans. My view is that
embryonic cell cloning of animals may be justifiable, whereas all
nuclear transfer cloning should be put under a moratorium. The former
may be justifiable for two reasons. Firstly, to save animals (such
as the tiger and panda) which are on the brink of extinction. This seems
to me to be a good reason. Secondly, there may be a human welfare reason
for producing livestock (animal husbandry) in this way. I am not so sure
that the reasons would be good ones, but this is not the place to explore
this further. Suffice it to say that embryonic cloning of an animal for its
wool for example seems, on the face of it, to be harmless enough, whereas
such cloning of cows and sheep for eating is ethically suspect. One problem
with cloned animal populations to be kept in mind is the commonality of their
disease susceptibilities. Anyway, the livestock biotechnology’s real
interest is in the big profits of nuclear transfer cloning (not cloning by
embryonic separation).10
ii)
Abnormality and Ecology
For every
100 cloning attempts fewer than five result in live births. Of the live births
a large proportion are abnormal, some of them grossly abnormal.11
In the case of Dolly it required 277 nuclear transfers to produce the one
viable clone. I have already discussed unacknowledged scientific uncertainties
and the dangers of ecological implosion (See 8iii) above). Regarding human
reproductive cloning its is undoubtedly highly irresponsible to accept the
very high probability of abortion and abnormality. It is hard to see what
benefits could possibly outweigh these dangers (see infertility treatment
below).
Most often scientists do not even understand the scientific
basis of each abnormality, they just throw it away. Abnormalities are seen
as a frustrating waste of time and money. This is not only unscientific,
it is irresponsible because no real effort is being applied even to acknowledge
the gross and unexpected consequences of the biotechnologist’s actions
let alone understand their basis and implications for ecology and humanity.
Human reproductive cloning faces a number of ethical objections, but it surely
suffices that the potential for the suffering both of the ‘parents’
and the resultant offspring is much too great to outweigh any benefits. The
first human clone may seem alright at first, and have serious mental or physical
problems later. How will the ‘parents’ feel then? There are
alternatives that do not carry such awful risks. The potential financial
rewards and fame of the clone doctors are irrelevant to the rightness of
such a course of action.
I now look at reasons why someone might think it desirable to
replace a person with a ‘copy’. I think they are all very bad,
even absurd, reasons.
iii) Grief
therapy?
Someone might want to replace
someone who has died or is about to die, because this grieves them. I mentioned
the case of Mr and Mrs Hunt and their wish to clone their dead child Andrew
(See 6) above). Mr Hunt is reported as saying: “When you let
go, you turn your back on your child, given the fact that there’s an
option that you don’t have to”. Mrs Hunt has said: “We have
another baby, and he’s lovely, and we love him dearly, and he’s
dear and precious to us. But he is not Andrew. I could have ten kids. They
would all be different. They’re not that little boy.” What the
Hunts do not understand is that the cloned child would also be
“different” and would not be Andrew. Therefore cloning would be
an enormous disappointment to them, even if it succeeded, and even if we
put aside all other objections. You cannot clone a person, you can
only clone a human organism. The Hunts are not thinking about what their
motives and actions would mean for a person brought into the world in this
way. This person would not be valued for who they are, but because
they are thought to be someone else.
This is, perhaps, an understandable response of grieving parents, but is it wise? Is this not a situation in which anyone with concern for such a grieving parents would wish to help them think through and make adjustments to the limits of human life. Science cannot and will never eradicate grief; only human compassion and wisdom can ameliorate it in the process of learning from the experience itself.
Some popular writers have spoken of the possibility of cloning people who are special to some individual or to humanity. I could have my own copy of a film star, or the human race might like to have a copy of someone like Einstein. This is absurd. As I have said, such clones would be separate people in their own right, even if they shared characteristics with the ‘parent’; and they may well resent being treated as ‘copies’ and do the very opposite to what is expected of them. Our Einstein clone might decide to behave like a complete idiot.
In some popular writings we also find the suggestion that humans with genetically useful traits might be cloned. In fact this is not so unreal as it might at first appear. Already a number of couples are having what the media have called ‘designer babies’.12 These are not clones but are selected by IVF and genetic screening so that they have biological qualities that are useful in saving the life of a sibling. We can see how this idea could be extended to the production of ‘useful’ clones; this is surely abhorrent. It is a manipulative approach to making babies. As a cloned individual I would have to live with the fact that my sole reason for existing was to provide for someone else’s existence. ‘Designer babies’ might come to feel the same way, even though they are not clones.
Very much the same considerations apply to the idea of cloning special
group characteristics and other eugenic fantasies. For example, one might
envisage cloning a group of individuals who could better withstand the long
journey to Mars and other space travel. And what if they do not want to go
to Mars!
vi)
Self-Cloning?
There
are wealthy people in the USA who try to dodge death by means of cryogenics.
This involves freezing their heads in liquid nitrogen when they die, in the
hope that when technology has advanced they will be restored to life by means
of a body transplant. It does not seem to occur to them that if this bizarre
experiment succeeds (which is highly unlikely) it is almost certain that
they would not remember anything of their previous life, and would therefore
be a completely new person who would have to begin life as an adult, probably
disabled, and with the mind of a newborn baby. Sooner or later they would
have to face death again. Cloning holds out a similar bizarre prospect: I
could clone myself. The trouble is that the clone would not be my self
at all. It might even hate me! Therefore such cloning has no purpose. The
idea is simply another symptom of a perversely individualistic, materialistic
and consumerist society.
vii)
Infertility Treatment?
Winston
has said, “In human reproduction, cloning techniques could offer prospects
to sufferers from intractable infertility. At present there is no treatment,
for example, for those men who exhibit total germ cell
failure.”9 Of all the arguments offered to justify human
reproductive cloning this is undoubtedly the strongest. But it is not strong
enough, in my view. To begin with, is cloning a treatment for infertility?
No, it is not. The infertile man is not being treated at all. Since his
dysfunction is not being corrected or even ameliorated cloning cannot be
described as a ‘therapy’. We would simply be using cloning to
circumvent the infertility. It would be a substitute for sexual
reproduction because we would be using a cell from the infertile man’s
body as a substitute for a sperm cell.
My arguments about the risks of harm would apply here too, and
they are the ones I would rely on. After all, there are safe alternatives
such as adoption and artificial insemination by a donor (AID).
What gives me additional concern is that the discussions in
this area do not include concerns about the children who may be produced
in this way. Besides the risks of abnormality there is the question of how
such a child would feel about their identity. We cannot say for sure how
they will feel, but it could be problematic. They might feel that they do
not have a ‘real’ mother because, biologically speaking, they are
‘completely’ like their father. A child cloned from a woman’s
somatic cell (perhaps for a Lesbian couple) would have no biological father
at all. They might feel that instead they have two ‘mothers’: the
somatic cell donor and the surrogate gestational mother who probably provided
the enucleated egg. A cloned child might grow to feel that they are not a
genuine member of the (or a) family.
10) Conclusion
Recommendation
I have already recommended that an immediate twelve-year moratorium should be put on all biotechnology involving animal and human somatic cell nuclear transfer. This would halt both stem cell research and, more specifically, human cloning. In this period an in-depth international, multi-stakeholder and broad-based dialogue involving the public should take place. In the first two years the means by which such a dialogue should take place should be created under the auspices of the United Nations and World Health organisation. Accountability is even more important than technique – let’s solve the accountability problem first.13
During this period some individual doctors and scientists may attempt to proceed without international approval. I suggest that somatic cell nuclear transfer of animal cells should be made internationally illegal, and that national governments should be encouraged to enforce this. The transfer of human cell nuclei, including human transgenic experiments, should be made a ‘crime against humanity’ under international legislation, such a law (and related laws) to be reviewed at the end of the twelve year moratorium.
1 Kass, Leon R., ‘Preventing
a Brave New World’, The New Republic (USA), May
2001.
2 Dolly was cloned at the Roslin
Institute research centre in Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. See Campbell KHS, McWhir
J, Ritchie WA, Wilmut I. ‘Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured
cell line’, Nature 1996; 380:64-6.
3
The Missyplicity Project, in the USA, is working on cloning a
dog.
4 Declaration in Defence of Cloning and the Integrity of Scientific Research, Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 17, Number 3.
5 This is the Italian gynaecologist who made history in 1996 by helping a 62-year woman to have her own child.
6 Hughes, J. ‘Embracing
Change with All Four Arms: A Post-Humanist Defence of Genetic Engineering’,
Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, June 1996,
6(4):94-101(and translated into German in
Telepolis).
7
See: Katz, I. ‘Why Doctors don’t disclose uncertainty’,
Hastings Centre Report, 1984, 14:35-44;
A I Moskowitz, B J Kuipers & J P Kassirer,
‘Dealing with Uncertainty, Risks and Trade-offs in Clinical
Decisions’, Annals of Internal Medicine, 1988, 108:435-449;
I P Kassirer, ‘Sounding Board
— Our
stubborn quest for diagnostic certainty
—
a case of excessive testing’, New England J.
of
Medicine, 1989, 320:1489-1491; M M Rosenthal, The Incompetent Doctor:
Behind Closed Doors, Open University Press, 1995.
8 To give an example of concerns
about GM food: the Monsanto corporation is apparently trying to monopolise
soya, one of the world’s most important food crops. It has applied for
a patent (No. WO 00/18963 Geneva) to a genetic sequence which would give
it an exclusive right on high yield soy plants, seeds and seedlings. See:
<http://www.greenpeace.org>.
9
Winston, Robert. ‘Editorial: The
promise of cloning for human medicine. Not a moral threat but an exciting
challenge’, Brit.Med.J. 1997; 314:913 (29
March).
10 For example,
Wilmut’s work at the Roslin Institute, UK is sponsored by
a biotechnology company, PPL Therapeutics, that plans to use the patented
cloning technique to produce animals that will secrete valuable drugs in
their milk. One report says: “American cloning companies are busy making
multiple copies of
just
about every top pedigree cow and bull in the land. In time, they hope
identikit supercows and superbulls will be bred, milked and even butchered
for profit, just like the old ones.” Cohen, P., Concar, D. ‘The
awful truth’, New Scientist, 19 May 2001.
11 Abnormalities are reported, for example,
in Campbell KHS, McWhir J, Ritchie WA, Wilmut I. ‘Sheep cloned by nuclear
transfer from a cultured cell line’, Nature 1996;380:64-6. See
also Cohen and Concar, op. cit., in note 10.
12 UK couple, Susanna and David Peters,
went to the USA for (non-cloning) procedures to give birth to a baby with
an immune system matching to their son, who is recovering from leukaemia
and may relapse. The Guardian (London), October 15,
2001.
13 For the accountability of science
and technology see
Freedom to
Care.
This is a voluntary organisation, which I founded in 1991, that promotes
the public accountability of large organisations in all sectors and supports
professionals who speak up in the public interest. Information at:
http://www.freedomtocare.org
Freedom to Care, 18th January 2004