:: Clones-are-human-beings ::

:: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 ::

M. Shelley's book Frankenstein is frequently cited in cloning debates, but usually wrongly. Dr. Frankenstein's human creature was not evil until he was inhumanly rejected by society. (One more reason to read a book before citing it.) The lesson for reproductive cloning is that cloned babies will only be evil if society treats them as evil. And, that's exactly what society is doing when it bans reproductive cloning. Otherwise, cloned humans are just like any other human, just with set of genes that is a "twin" of (instead of very similar to) one of the baby's parents gene sets. And, when did it become so acceptable to ban a human from existence based solely on his/her gene sequence? Seems like an awful concept, to say the least. Perhaps careful regulation of cloning as a reproductive technology would be a more appropriate approach for society to take, lest it create evil by way of the ban itself.

:: Timothy 1:59 PM [+] ::
...

Here is a letter to the New York Times Editors (that I submitted, but that they did not publish):

Leon Kass argues for a Congressional ban on reproductive
cloning. ("How One Clone Leads to Another," Op-ed, Jan
24.) He couldn't be more wrong, for many reasons.
First, the Congressional action he wants would prohibit
human reproduction based solely on the genetic make-up of
the baby. That is direct, government-mandated eugenics, and
should not be pursued.
Second, it seems true that the medical procedures
underlying human reproductive cloning are not yet safe. But
that is an argument for regulation, not for a ban. No one
would argue that research into a new heart transplant
procedure should be banned simply because it isn't yet safe
for general use.
Most importantly, human dignity requires that we respect
cloned individuals as independent human beings with a full
set of inalienable rights of their own. Otherwise, we deny
free will in all humans because we fall victim to the
fallacy that genes determine who we are. Genes don't,
regardless of the reproductive method.

:: Timothy 7:46 PM [+] ::
...

Here is a letter I sent to the President's Council on Bioethics:

June 29, 2002
The President’s Council on Bioethics
1801 Pennsylvania Ave., 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20006

Re: Observations on the Council’s first Working Papers
Dear Council:
I am profoundly disturbed and saddened reading your Council’s first six working papers. It is clear almost from page one (from the framing of your arguments) that you are almost rabidly fearful of and against reproductive cloning. This is contrary to the Executive Order under which your Council was formed. More unfortunately, it does a profound disservice to the ideals of human dignity and discourse on difficult ethical issues in a representative democracy.
(I have also attached an article on therapeutic cloning written before President Bush’s decision last year on stem cell research in which I argue for a position similar to the one he took. In my opinion, it is therapeutic cloning that raises the far more challenging ethical issues than reproductive cloning.)
Let me explain. First, I will set out the arguments for why you are so seriously disserving those ideals. Second, I will walk through some representative examples from your working papers.
I hope that your Council, with these concerns brought to your attention, might just take a more balanced approach to this issue. I would point to the 1997 NBAC (National Bioethics Advisory Commission) paper “Cloning Human Beings” as a truly beneficial contribution to this discourse, in marked contrast to your first six working papers.

I. Human Dignity
The single greatest ethical challenge raised by reproductive cloning is to the concept of human dignity and individuality. Your working papers consistently imply (and even state directly) that a cloned human being is not a full human being and would seriously threaten not just the individuals around the clone and his or her familial relationships but society itself, by his or her mere existence. That is a dreadful, truly harmful suggestion. No one of whom I am aware would challenge that an identical twin is somehow less of a human or a real danger to his or her family, twin or society by the sole fact of having identical genomes to another human being. The fundamental point is that the genes do not determine who a person is or what that person’s worth or standing is as a human. To argue, as your working papers consistently argue, that the only pro-human dignity positions are against cloning is to deny this point entirely. That is tantamount to declaring any future human clone a pariah.
In fact, it is precisely human dignity and respect for the individual (and all the inalienable and other rights of the individual in society) that may well obligate us to respect human clones in all their glory as equal humans, no more or less dangerous to human society as a class than any other class of people. The motivation of the parents, the decision of society to permit or ban cloning, the means by which the human clone is created are all entirely and completely beside the point, critically so. A person must stand before society in his or her own right in light of his or her own actions. To do otherwise is for society to condemn human dignity because a human being is prejudged to be guilty or a danger or a monster before ever coming into existence and solely by external factors outside of his or her control.

II. Representative Democracy
Our country’s greatest failings have come from reducing the rights of classes of humans (and reducing individuals to classes). Native Americans and African Americans were handed reduced rights in our Constitution itself, and injustice was compounded thereafter by the acts of our governments and the sanctioned acts of private citizens for centuries. Japanese Americans were interned as a class in WW II. These people, each a separate individual by nature, were treated as a class by a society that could and would only identify them by group characteristics (genetic characteristics, naturally derived).
It is terribly dangerous to set out an argument, as your papers do, that by conjecture, implication and direct statement sets the stage for a new round of this truly inhuman behavior and truly human tragedy by a body politic.

III. “Natural Genetics”
You consistently praise procreation by two couples as some natural panacea of mixing of personal characteristics of the father and mother. This simply is not accurate. Genetic characteristics pass from the parents according to the Mendelian genetics on statistically predictable patterns of dominant and recessive genes. Genetically-caused diseases and diseases supported by genetic pre-dispositions are an inevitable result of this type of procreation. Many parents elect, on defensible ethical grounds, not to have children because they know in advance that statistically there is a strong likelihood (e.g., 50% or 75%) that a child would have a very difficult and unhappy life. I cannot fathom why that situation, due solely to the fact that it is our current medically-unaided human procreative method, is one we should elevate to some immutable podium except on grounds of some specific religious faith. Further, throughout human history (by natural selection of disease stricken individuals being unable to procreate and by human intervention of societies removing such individuals), genetic intervention and direction has taken place. Again, why shouldn’t it be done under controlled and knowledgeable circumstances, rather than after the fact in the most unhappy and questionable circumstances? Which promotes human dignity more?

IV. Discussion of Examples from the Working Papers

A. Executive Order
Your mission is to “undertake a final inquiry”, “to explore”, to “facilitate a greater understanding”, “to study” and “to strive to develop a deep and comprehensive understanding” of bioethical issues. To do this, you must approach the issue without having tried and issued judgment on the issues in advance. This doesn’t mean each individual on the Council can’t have pre-conceptions; that is inevitable. But each should strive to, and you as a Council must, overcome these pre-conceptions in your investigations. So far, your working papers have fallen woefully short of the mark. They demonstrate an extraordinary fear and bias against reproductive cloning, even at the early stage of the Council’s activities.

B. Working Paper #1
Generally this appears on its face as a more-or-less neutral introduction. But creeping in is the bias towards the negatives, the dangers, of reproductive cloning. For instance, in the second paragraph of Section 2, the Council already speaks of “normalizing the genetic design of children” and “eugenics.” These are catch words and phrases of fear. No mention of the potential benefits is made. In the first paragraph of Section 3, you label reproductive cloning as “an important challenge to the character of human procreation” and you speak of the “survival” of “aspects of our humanity.” Does this sound neutral to you?
In the fourth paragraph you use the term “clonal baby-making” (a slogan if ever there was one) in relation to “the character of human procreation, the character of human freedom and the goals of biomedical science.” Why not just state explicitly your position that cloning is a direct assault on the first two and that science is the culprit?
And then in paragraphs four and five you frame the debate: high ideals on the one hand, science and “engineered improvements” on the other. Your last paragraph hammers the bias home: scientists and “techno-entrepreneurs” (the bad guys) shouldn’t be allowed to decide the issue. Again, what sort of language is this for your Council, with its charter of fundamental inquiry?
C. Working Paper #3a
The very first sentence speaks of “undeniable unease, fear and revulsion” taints the supposedly “pro” page immediately. (You then mention Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as if it supports this argument when, in actuality, Frankenstein only became a monster because he was treated inhumanely, not because of his nature. It was precisely the fears you are engendering of humans who are clones that rendered him alien and monstrous, not his natural person which initially sought human companionship, compassion and participation but met only fear, rejection and hatred based on his appearance and origin.)
The paper then proceeds to outline certain arguments in favor of reproductive cloning. But not only are the arguments narrowly proposed but the strongest arguments are entirely missing. I’ll outline those that are missing.
First and foremost is that we as a society must learn to overcome our xenophobias. Society, including ours, has often treated with vicious inhumanity (and against all democratic ideals) humans who appear other, where by natural origin, physical characteristics, religion or otherwise. The real challenge for society with respect to reproductive cloning is to recognize these people as full-fledged humans and contributors to society, regardless of their genome and procreative origin. Your papers would make them a class of their own, essentially relegated to an inhuman status that threatens the very fabric of our society. Given history, this position seems essentially reprehensible in the extreme.
The underlying example of identical twins (i.e., siblings with identical genomes) is not even mentioned in this paper, even though it is the best means for demonstrating that people are not solely their genes. Identical twins are separate individuals, by family recognition, societal recognition and by law. A human created through reproductive cloning will not be any different. That person will be his/her own separate individual, regardless of the intent of those involved in the creation or the parenting and regardless of the technology. It is only by society decreeing that he or she is subhuman (through fear or misguided arguments by those who should know the dangers better) can the tragedy occur.
To the contrary, genes only play an indirect role in determining who and what a person is. Each person’s brain and that person’s life interactions and lessons play far more important roles. And, the brain develops over each person’s life.
Another bias throughout your paper is that somehow there is this natural definition of a modern, two parent family, and that somehow a cloned person challenges that notion to its core. First, I posit that parents are more loving than that. Families don’t even treat their pet dogs that they purchase from stores that way. Second, I seriously question whether adequate research into the history of “families” has been done. This sounds more like the hidden introduction of a particular religious viewpoint than an unbiased inquiry. My understanding is that many societies throughout human history have had a much more extended notion of family, with direct procreative parenthood not a factor in who and how well children are raised. This is a criticism applicable to virtually every aspect of your working papers. Again, the theme seems to be: if it is different from a very narrow and localized concept of “Normal”, we should fear it and ban it.
In a related point, this country has had laws banning inter-racial marriages. How close are the arguments in your paper for banning reproductive cloning for reasons based on inherited genes to the arguments made in favor of those laws?
There is also a real focus on the benefits of reproductive cloning as limited to some kind of unnecessary or inequitable “improvements.” To the contrary, to present the strongest pro-cloning argument if you also include the concept of genetic choices (and the two are not intrinsically linked), most people may choose a genetic make-up to resolve truly terrible health consequences. If a married couple determines one partner has a dominant gene that predisposes a child to a life of terrible pain, that couple might choose not to procreate naturally if they would face the choice of terminating a pregnancy if they determine during the pregnancy that the baby will have that genetic disposition to a life of pain. Instead, wanting a child of at least one of them, they might choose to clone the parent without the harmful gene. (And, in this way, the issue of abortion becomes moot in these circumstances; parents, whether or not they accept abortion as a right, can bring a healthy child into existence in the face of a genetic pre-dispostion under Mendelian genetics to a terrible life of disease.)
The point is there are many, many positive reasons someone might choose to reproduce by clone. But even more fundamentally, the new life is not and should not be, a lessened life based on the reasons of his/her progenitors.
I would also go one step further. Many examples of unnecessary or “bad-intentioned” improvements that might be achieved by reproductive cloning are really not unnecessary or bad at all. The definition of what is unnecessary or bad seems to come from those at the top, the successful, smart, athletic and/or handsome. These people may fear the consequences of more people having access to what makes them successful. It is my understanding that statistically correct studies show that tall, handsome, smart people are far more likely to succeed in society. By legislatively banning access to reproductive technology that makes these qualities broadly available and limiting these qualities to people who genetically already have them, it seems arguable that discrimination against the masses is being written into law. And the speculation can go one step further. On the off-chance a “black” person chose “white” skin genes, the white population wouldn’t know they were dealing with a “black” person. Is that an unstated fear behind the argument against reproductive cloning that raises the spectre of societal disruptions? It may be far-fetched and I’m not accusing anyone, but the Council should try harder to imagine the human dignity problems and societal repercussions if reproductive cloning is banned. (The Council is certainly hugely imaginative of the potential downsides, no matter how unlikely, of reproductive cloning.)
I hope this short discussion of your working papers to date will assist the Council in furthering its charter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can assist in any way.

:: Timothy 7:07 PM [+] ::
...

I will start posting to this blog later today (11/12/02).
:: Timothy 12:40 PM [+] ::
...