Human cloning

Author: Henri Atlan
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-01-01
Features: The confusion of bloodlines, reproductive cloning produces individuals who are genetically identical to the person being cloned, just like fraternal twins or identical twins. However, due to the temporal displacement, they may be perceived as "child" or "grandchild" generations. Yet, this situation first risks completely disrupting all markers of human blood relations. Although anthropologists have described various blood systems in our society that are quite different from traditional blood systems, none of them can eliminate either of the parents, as they all depend on sexual reproduction. The asexual reproduction of reproductive cloning will disrupt all existing blood systems, and ultimately, even lead to the disappearance of blood relations. On the other hand, the coexistence of individuals born by parents and those created through asexual reproduction will give rise to difficult-to-resolve identity issues and may create morally unacceptable social environments. From the danger of instrumentalization to the danger of a new form of slavery, the reproductive cloning of human birth must adhere to the purposefulness that is external to these so-produced individuals. In reality, these individuals are merely the result of a plan, and by definition, the purpose of the plan is to replicate a specific genome. The organism of the individual to be created is designed to embody a genome chosen by a third party. Genetic coincidences will disappear. Of course, as we can see, due to the role of cytoplasmic genetics and the influence of postnatal changes during development, an individual's biological identity cannot be simply reduced to chromosomal genetic identity. An individual's identity in a broader social and cultural context is even more complex. Creating a person through reproductive cloning is equally the result of a clear and planned purposefulness outside of that person, rather than the person's own future and unpredictable full growth. Therefore, accepting such a technology is to deny the personal freedom of individuals, placing them from the very beginning under the constraints of instrumentalized plans, which, in both literal and metaphorical senses, will determine their "identity." In reality, reproductive cloning will completely disrupt the relationship between genetic identity and personal identity in all aspects. The unique individuality that each person uses to represent human rights and personal dignity is actually expressed in a visible way through the uniqueness of their body and facial expressions. This appearance itself directly comes from the uniqueness of each person's genome. True twins are exceptions—very rare, limited only to siblings born at the same time, but this exception can approximately represent the social reality created by cloned adults of different generations. Although their genetic identity does not necessarily represent their personal identity—therefore, they are completely different individuals, just as personalized as others—both literally and metaphorically, they can be seen as replicas of cloned ancestors. The symbolic value of the body and face, which serve as pillars of personal uniqueness, will disappear. Dolly the sheep does not know what genetics is, nor does it know that it was cloned. The sheep itself does not know where it comes from, but cloned humans will know that they are clones, and others will also know that they are clones. In the future, these cloned humans may be seen as different "races" or "subhuman" or "posthuman" in humanity. They are created for purposes of which they are unaware. Their existence may be instrumentalized, and there is a risk of becoming a new form of slavery: the purpose of cloned humans is to demonstrate the quality of the genome selected by others. Therefore, when others create them for this purpose, they may become slaves to their own genome. Nevertheless, their individuality, like that of others, is very resilient, and we can imagine that this individuality may lead them to resist. Creating them is not a step forward but a regression in social and moral terms, creating conditions for a new form of slavery. What motivations could justify the existence of cloned humans? Some witnesses heard by the U.S. National Bioethics Committee believed that reproductive cloning should be limited to personal use in special circumstances and should not be adopted as a popular form of reproduction in society. According to this view, cloning could only be used as a new method to meet the special needs of individuals who want children but have failed with other medical means. Under this proposal, people talked about cloning one or more adults or children as repositories for transplantable organs, which, in essence, restores the ancient practice of sacrificing humans. Some people applied to clone themselves or their relatives. The purpose of such requests always has a illusory aspect, imagining the regeneration or immortality of humans as explained in ancient myths using pseudobiological terms to continue their roots. In the face of the prospect of using this technology on the pretext of pseudomedical evidence, these psychological tendencies of personal or collective imagination towards myths inevitably lead to increasing vigilance. Some people are prepared to agree to parents' requests to clone their children in case they die. The child produced in this way is actually a completely new person. But in the eyes of parents, due to the similarity of his body to that of the deceased child, and due to the parents' belief—that of course is wrong—that the two children have the same genes, which means they are identical in whole, the cloned child is the rebirth of the deceased child. Going further, some people want to clone their deceased spouses or other relatives. All these wishes imply an idea: in the old tradition, a person's genome has the attribute of the soul, so the soul seems to be permanently embedded in the molecular structure of the gene. The idea of the immortality of the soul naturally leads to a regeneration idea based on a mystically gene-based view. A world without diversity? Mireille, Delmar-Maury: People cannot use these technologies to create a society with only males, but they can create a female society. Because in reality, there must be an egg waiting to be fertilized. If there are only males, this condition cannot be met. Cloning can not only achieve gender-neutral reproduction but also eliminate this distinction. How regrettable! Since this elimination is achieved under asymmetrical conditions—because human cloning can be completed only through females—it means that human reproduction cannot be carried out under all "male" conditions. Assuming this technology becomes feasible, maintaining the gender balance at birth will be very complex. In normal sexual reproduction, the balance between XX and XY is self-regulating. The fusion of gametes basically ensures gender balance. Later, this may no longer be the case, and very strict rules may need to be implemented to maintain this balance. Under the guise of liberalism, there is a risk of moving towards even worse authoritarianism. Henri Atlan: Women can decide to self-reproduce among themselves, or to reproduce using one of them, that is, through parthenogenesis! Theoretically, they can do this. Women can plot to only give birth to girls! Nadine Fresco: About 15 years ago, especially in London, there were active lesbian women who named themselves the "Lesbian Club." These women advocated self-fertilization, just as lesbian women had proposed before them, attempting to avoid any male involvement (partners or doctors) in the reproductive process. Moreover, long before cloning technology was considered feasible, this "Lesbian Club" had already intentionally used new test-tube fertility technologies to try to have only girls. In this extreme, especially in the plan to eliminate fathers and all men, one can see the phantom of collective parthenogenesis. Henri Atlan: If we imagine cloned humans becoming a practical large-scale reproduction method—now, we believe that in the foreseeable future, this method is far from being realized—we should consider another very important point, that is, the reduction of genetic diversity. However, this means that thousands of cloned humans will be produced. This is also an advanced, anti-reproductive cloning argument—not only against cloned humans but also against cloned animals. If sexual reproduction becomes the exception rather than the rule, then within the species, individuals with the same genes will rapidly increase, and genetic diversity will dangerously shrink. However, this diversity is necessary for adapting to environmental changes. If people only intend to use reproductive cloning for special purposes, such as for pharmaceutical purposes in animals or to treat male infertility in humans, then the reduction of genetic diversity can be ignored and will not harm the species. However, both domestically and internationally, people still believe that protecting dignity is protecting human rights. There are many examples, of course, and it is not necessary to list them all; some documents have significant influence with symbolic titles (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948), or more technical reasons (such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966). However, these different documents all confirm the principle that everyone has equal dignity, or explicitly call it the common foundation of human rights (Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the preamble of the United Nations Covenant), or include prohibitions on torture, ill-treatment, or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the European Convention, Article 7 of the United Nations Covenant adds: "Forcing individuals to undergo medical or scientific experiments without their voluntary consent"), and prohibition of slavery (Article 4 of the European Convention, Article 8 of the United Nations Covenant). Although the concept of dignity is somewhat ambiguous (because dignity sometimes becomes the theoretical basis for eugenics), it has always been defined by the prohibitions it contains. The prohibition of the death penalty comes before the affirmation of the right to life (Article 2 of the European Convention, Article 6 of the United Nations Covenant), while the prohibition of torture or slavery is directly proposed without explicitly involving the protected values, as if it cannot be "emphasized in a few words" the values sometimes used to describe "stubborn people." To make progress in defining—due to the complexity of new methods related to biotechnology, a definition is necessary—comparing the right to life that re-establishes individuals as biological beings with the dignity right of these "stubborn people" recognized through the aforementioned humanization process. First, it should be noted that, in fact, only a few human rights are not subject to various restrictions, even if these restrictions are not always obvious. This gives rise to a certain hierarchy: rights that are "absolutely protected" are not subject to any restrictions, while other rights are exceptional (temporary) or restricted (permanent). In terms of this hierarchy, the right to life is not an absolutely protected right, because it includes exceptions (many documents allow the death penalty, self-defense, and killing opponents in war). On the other hand, the social moral norms that serve as the basis for prohibiting torture, ill-treatment, or degrading treatment are not subject to any restrictions, even temporarily. In wartime, people can kill opponents but cannot torture them, and during periods of terrorism, a country should not resort to torture or inhumane and degrading law enforcement measures. This principle leads to very specific applications, such as the UK's condemnation in 1978 of the use of brutal law enforcement measures in the fight against terrorism. In the case of prohibiting slavery, people also follow this principle. Administrative courts compare reproductive clones to slavery, and people may ask whether the prohibition of cloning technology should not fall into this category if "inhuman treatment" has not occurred. However, if we look at documents that explicitly involve reproductive clones, we can find some important differences. On the one hand (as mentioned above), UNESCO's declaration does not directly propose a prohibition (these activities "should not be allowed"); on the other hand, the European Parliament's protocol seems to create an absolute prohibition term, as it explicitly states: "No approval of any degrading practice" (Article 2), but Article 26 of the convention also appears to take this view in the context of human rights and biomedical issues. However, this document, which uses the ambiguous concept of "limitations necessary for democratic societies" instead of specifying "degrading treatment" like the protocol, uses a vague concept for this purpose, and the European Court of Human Rights recognizes that countries can make their own judgments. Returning to this document, the protocol on cloning technology only states that such restrictions are excluded. To infer that the prohibition of cloning is as important as prohibiting torture and slavery and will be universally implemented in countries is somewhat excessive. Because the protocol, like the biomedical convention it supplements, does not consider implementing international sanctions for violations of the provisions. Violations of the prohibition can only be handled within the national framework and must take into account domestic circumstances. This proves that the reasons for prohibition and the implementation of prohibition are closely related.