Cloning

What Is It Really?

Assessing Kass’s Arguments

Arguments:

There are very few if any good reasons to wish to clone a human being (as opposed to human cells)

There are very few if any good reasons to be strongly opposed to cloning human beings

The Xerox Fallacy

Cloning a human being is like putting yourself in a Xerox machine and making multiple copies

Real Cloning

Take DNA from cell of adult human Transfer DNA into an embryonic cell

capable of undifferentiated division Grow a multicelled embryo Implant embryo into a female host

(“surrogate mother”)

Real Cloning-- II

Gestate the embryo/fetus for 9 months Deliver newborn baby Raise the child to adulthood “Identity” of this person will be

determined by complex interplay of genes and environment

Real Cloning-- III

Your “clone” would be as much like you as your identical twin would be, if your identical twin was 20 years younger than you and raised by different parents in a different household

Real Cloning-- IV

Your “clone” would be an independent person with full legal rights as a U.S. citizen, not your possession or “organ farm”

Scary Scenarios

Wanting to raise a child who would be an exact copy of me

“Organ farm” for transplants Raise an army of automatons to fight a

future war All are unrealistic and depend on the

Xerox Fallacy

Possible Real Scenario

Parents are carriers for serious genetic disease

Want to have a child who is genetically linked to one or both of them

Any other method of natural or artificial reproduction would lead to a child who is affected by the disease

Conclusions

Once people come to understand that the Xerox Fallacy is a fallacy, there will be very few cases where one would even consider cloning a human being

Once we see how limited is the use of real cloning, we need hardly fear a massive movement (even if it is in fact a bad idea)

Conclusions (cont.)

Outlawing the cloning of humans is overkill, and may impede useful research if it fails to distinguish cloning entire humans from cloning cells and organs

Kass’s Argument

Kass is a well informed physician and does not believe the Xerox Fallacy

But Kass seems to believe a false view of the “conservative” argument against a variety of new reproductive and other technologies

Kass’s False View

The Ethical High Road:Thoughtful, nuanced analysisof long term subtle consequences

The Ethical Low Road:Crude, short-sighted excitementabout immediate benefits (“gee whiz”)

Kass’s False View-- II

The “conservative” position (opposing a new technology) will always or almost always represent the Ethical High Road

The position calling for acceptance of the new technology will almost always represent the Ethical Low Road

Kass’s “Warm-up”

Associates cloning with general breakdown of traditional religious and family values

(Majority of) bioethicists have forgotten deeper issues and become fixated on mere procedural questions

Repugnance Against Cloning

Not by itself an argument May be a window into deeper wisdom How we evaluate cloning:

– Description– Context– Viewpoint

Three Perspectives

Technological, liberal, meliorist All are distorted views of the true ethical

and social meaning of a new life Mistake to view birth and the meaning

of a person through the lens of reductive science and potent technology

Vague Charges

Cloning threatens confusion of individuality and identity

Cloning violates human equality, freedom and dignity

If cloning is not Xeroxing, then exactly how does all this arise?

Legitimate Concerns

Raises serious problems of lineage, biological kinship, social relations

Risks in the use of unproven technology on human infants without consent

These tend to argue against any widespread urge to clone humans

How to Regard a Cloned Child? “Gosh, kid, you sure are messed up;

you’re the identical twin to one of your parents, and your individuality and identity are seriously in question”

“Hi, kid, want to play Frisbee?”

How to Regard a Cloned Child?-- II We are not helpless in the face of

Kass’s serious concerns How we nurture the child has a great

deal to do with whether dire predictions come true

Kass’s own approach threatens to insure a bad outcome

Over-Argument

Kass quotes Ramsey on turning “natural” baby-making into a factory-commodity model

Ramsey was objecting to IVF in the 1970’s

No evidence that widespread use of IVF has produced any of the dire consequences Ramsey predicted

Over-Argument-- II

Kass’s argument against cloning could logically be extended to most if not all reproductive technologies used to treat infertility

To say that all of these are grave threat to human values seems implausible

Valorization of Sexual Reproduction To have a baby the “natural” way is to

demonstrate our humanity and our humility

To clone a human being would be inherently exploitive

Valorization of Sexual Reproduction-- II Numerous examples of exploitation of

children born “naturally”– Parental pressure to conform to preset

expectations– Sexual abuse of children by adults

How plausible that cloning kids would lead to worse outcomes?

Kass’s Errors

Not the Xerox Fallacy Vague threats of harm Self-fulfilling threats of harm Over-argument Valorization of “natural” sexual

reproduction Raises some legitimate concerns