Cloning extinct and endangered species

Cloning, or more precisely, the reconstruction of functional DNA from extinct species has, for decades, been a dream of some scientists. The possible implications of this were dramatized in the best-selling novel by Michael Crichton and high budget Hollywood thriller Jurassic Park. In real life, one of the most anticipated targets for cloning was once the Woolly Mammoth, but attempts to extract DNA from frozen mammoths have been unsuccessful, though a joint Russo-Japanese team is currently working toward this goal. And in January 2011, it was reported by Yomiuri Shimbun that a team of scientists headed by Akira Iritani of Kyoto University had built upon research by Dr. Wakayama, saying that they will extract DNA from a mammoth carcass that had been preserved in a Russian laboratory and insert it into the egg cells of an African elephant in hopes of producing a mammoth embryo. The researchers said they hoped to produce a baby mammoth within six years.^[37]

In 2001, a cow named Bessie gave birth to a cloned Asian gaur, an endangered species, but the calf died after two days. In 2003, a banteng was successfully cloned, followed by three African wildcats from a thawed frozen embryo. These successes provided hope that similar techniques (using surrogate mothers of another species) might be used to clone extinct species. Anticipating this possibility, tissue samples from the last bucardo (Pyrenean Ibex) were frozen in liquid nitrogen immediately after it died in 2000. Researchers are also considering cloning endangered species such as the giant panda, ocelot, and cheetah. The "Frozen Zoo" at the San Diego Zoo now stores frozen tissue from the world's rarest and most endangered species.^[38][39]

In 2002, geneticists at the Australian Museum announced that they had replicated DNA of the Thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger), extinct about 65 years previous, using polymerase chain reaction.^[40] However, on February 15, 2005 the museum announced that it was stopping the project after tests showed the specimens' DNA had been too badly degraded by the (ethanol) preservative. On 15 May 2005 it was announced that the Thylacine project would be revived, with new participation from researchers in New South Wales and Victoria.

In January 2009, for the first time, an extinct animal, the Pyrenean ibex mentioned above was cloned, at the Centre of Food Technology and Research of Aragon, using the preserved DNA of the skin samples from 2001 and domestic goat egg-cells. (The ibex died shortly after birth due to physical defects in its lungs.) ^[41] One of the continuing obstacles in the attempt to clone extinct species is the need for nearly perfect DNA. Cloning from a single specimen could not create a viable breeding population in sexually reproducing animals. Furthermore, even if males and females were to be cloned, the question would remain open whether they would be viable at all in the absence of parents that could teach or show them their natural behavior.

Cloning endangered species is a highly ideological issue. Many conservation biologists and environmentalists vehemently oppose cloning endangered species — mainly because they think it may deter donations to help preserve natural habitat and wild animal populations. The "rule-of-thumb" in animal conservation is that, if it is still feasible to conserve habitat and viable wild populations, breeding in captivity should not be undertaken in isolation.

In a 2006 review, David Ehrenfeld concluded that cloning in animal conservation is an experimental technology that, at its state in 2006, could not be expected to work except by pure chance and utterly failed a cost-benefit analysis.^[42] Furthermore, he said, it is likely to siphon funds from established and working projects and does not address any of the issues underlying animal extinction (such as habitat destruction, hunting or other overexploitation, and an impoverished gene pool). While cloning technologies are well-established and used on a regular basis in plant conservation, care must be taken to ensure genetic diversity. He concluded:

Vertebrate cloning poses little risk to the environment, but it can consume scarce conservation resources, and its chances of success in preserving species seem poor. To date, the conservation benefits of transgenics and vertebrate cloning remain entirely theoretical, but many of the risks are known and documented. Conservation biologists should devote their research and energies to the established methods of conservation, none of which require transgenics or vertebrate cloning.^[42]

Public Opinion on Human Cloning
The prospect of human cloning has only been able to command serious press attention in the last 10 years, or since the first successful cloning of a higher mammal (Dolly the sheep in 1997). Prior to this point, human cloning was merely the stuff of science fiction, and its potential implications for humanity seemed distant and unthreatening. Now that we have the ability to actually clone a human being, the public's attitude towards cloning has become more well defined. Unfortunately, this attitude has manifested itself in a uniform opposition to the idea of cloning. Even though the public's attitudes towards cloning tends to be based on emotion and misinformation, the public does seem to have an implicit understanding of some of the moral implications raised by cloning. However, neither the public nor the Congress will be able to adequately deal with the ethical issues that surround cloning until they gain a better appreciation of the science involved.

Due to their failure to understand the science behind cloning, the public's attitudes towards cloning are still protean and malformed. Many object to the idea of creating genetic duplicates of other human beings at a visceral level. They give no thought to the fact that identical twins are, for all practical purposes, clones. Most public fears about human cloning stem from ideas that it has absorbed by osmosis from the popular culture. For many, the idea of human cloning conjures up memories of bad science fiction movies in which clones set out to dominate or destroy the world. Invariably, science fiction will focus on the possibility of cloning of our worst elements, simply because this prospect is more sensational than the prospect of cloning our best elements. To the extent that the public gets its ideas about human cloning from science fiction, it will be misled into having unreasonable fears about cloning.

Even though the public has very little scientific knowledge of the process of cloning or its eugenic potential, it seems to recognize some of its more important implications. Most people recognize that cloning will enable us to make exact "biological" copies of human beings. By extension, most recognize that human reproductive cloning would allow us to replicate our best representatives, or those who have the most valued traits. This is the great eugenic potential of cloning. Conversely, most people also realize that, in the absence of stringent regulations, cloning would allow for the replication of some of our worst representatives. It is the potential that cloning could be put to its worst possible uses that appears to be the main source of the public's fear about cloning. Unfortunately, it is this negative potential of cloning that tends to capture the public's imagination rather than its potential as a eugenics technique. Realization of the consequences that could follow if cloning was put to its worst possible uses, along with science fiction, and knowledge of eugenics practices under the Nazi regime have all conspired to create unreasonable fears about cloning and about any eugenics program that would involve the state.

As a eugenics technique which has the potential to substantially alter the composition of the human gene pool, cloning should be a matter of intense public scrutiny. But, to serve the public interest, public opinion will have to grasp not only the eugenic potential of cloning, but the obligation to realize this potential in order to serve the public interest. Because the public's attitudes towards cloning are emotionally based, and because they are influenced more by fear of its worst implications than by appreciation of its best potential, these attitudes may exhibit considerable flux and temporal instability. Nonetheless, current polls show that Americans reject the idea of human reproductive cloning by a fairly wide margin (80%). However, their attitudes moderate somewhat on the issue of cloning for medical research (cloning of stem cells, also called therapeutic cloning), or cloning of embryonic cells for the purpose of medical research.

In addition to its appreciation of the consequences that could follow from being put to it worst possible uses, the public's fears about cloning have been stoked by sensationalism in the media. The media have every incentive to sensationalize the cloning issue. First, they do not see the issue in light of its potential serve the public interest. Second, in their capacity as social engineers, members of the press want to spin news stories in a way that conforms with their view of the public interest. To them, not having fully explored how cloning could be of great benefit to society, it seems to have significant anti-egalitarian potential. Because this potential strongly conflicts with their own egalitarian values, members of the press consider it their sworn duty to oppose such measures and to depict them in an unfavorable light. Third, without having fully understood the issue and its likely impact upon society, members of the press have concluded (on behalf of the public) that the risks of cloning far outweigh any potential benefits. Fourth, sensational issues sell more copies of their work. Hence, the press has natural incentives to turn cloning into an emotional football. Consequently, we should not expect many ambassadors of good will for reproductive cloning to come from the press.

The press has every incentive to sensationalize cloning. Fueling controversies and creating heat rather than light is the bread and butter of the mainstream press. However, the fact that the press has treated the cloning issue unfairly does not mean that cloning does not raise serious ethical issues. Rather, due to the way the press covered the debate over cloning, many of these issues were not raised or fully explored. Largely in response to press coverage, the popular rejection of cloning and the legislative ban on cloning came about as a gut reaction, and without extensive deliberation. Neither the ethical implications nor the potential benefits of cloning were fully explored. The issue was simply deemed too hot to handle and it was banned. As a result of press coverage which was one sided and superficial, cloning came across as something threatening. The reality about cloning is quite different.

The truth is that the result of cloning (two individuals which are exact genetic copies) is not unnatural or even uncommon. Nature is cloning human beings all the time in the form of identical twins. Human reproductive cloning (which is even known by the term "artificial twinning") is merely doing by artificial means what occurs routinely in nature. Hence, cloning is the artificial duplication of a natural process. Many people who have the most meager knowledge of science already understand this. Their concerns are generated by the prospect of placing control over the practice in the hands of government. At points, these concerns are justified. At other points, they are entirely misplaced. Nonetheless, it is likely that public attitudes on cloning will moderate once the public learns more about it, once it understands its potential, and once it has adequate assurances that it will not be put to its worst possible use. Once the public begins to understand the potential of cloning, those who are now leading the charge against cloning will be forced to retreat, along with the emotionally based debate that currently surrounds cloning. As with many other aspects of our lives, science fiction will have once again become science fact. And those who are bearish on science and technology will be forced back into hibernation until some new fear stirs them from their intellectual slumber.

The Legislative Reaction to the Prospect of Human Cloning
Effectively, cloning is a reproductive technique. However, due to the unusual nature of this technique, due to its broader implications for society, and due to its potential to affect the genetic composition of the entire human gene pool, cloning is a legitimate target of both intense public scrutiny and stringent government regulation. Despite its profound implications for humanity, cloning has only recently become the subject of legislation. After a brief but spirited debate, the US Congress effectively closed the door on the subject by issuing a ban on human cloning. At the present time, the ban on human cloning has passed the House (HR 534, 2003), but has not been taken up by the Senate.

Given the visceral nature of the public attitude towards human reproductive cloning, a ban on the practice may have been the right decision, at least over the short term. However, the fact that the ban was not preceded by a lengthy consideration of the ethical issues that surround cloning; or by a discussion of the eugenic potential of cloning, suggests that the issue must come up again for discussion at some point in the near future. Most probably the issue of cloning will come up again for discussion in legislative circles once the first human being has actually been cloned. More enlightened congressmen understand that the ban is just a temporary measure designed to placate irrational public opinion on the issue. The ban is also designed to discourage cloning in the United States, at least until the issue can be studied and deliberated more thoroughly. In fact, the major ethical issues that surround human cloning have not even been adequately formulated yet, much less debated.

When the United States Congress issued its ban on cloning after such a brief period of discussion, and without considering either the full range of its moral implications or its eugenic potential, it took the politically expedient way out. No congressmen are likely to lose their seats in the next election because they supported the ban on cloning. But, in taking the politically expedient way out, Congress has evaded an important moral responsibility to diligently consider both the risks and the potential benefits of cloning. Due to its novelty, the importance of its implications for humanity, and the absence of a suitable moral frame of reference with which to structure the debate, serious discussion of the cloning issue in legislative circles has been prematurely brought to a close. And, due to the current level of opposition to the idea, both in the general public and in the ethical community, it is likely that the cloning issue will be slow to rematerialize. At this stage, human reproductive cloning is simply viewed as an idea that is filled with so many unknowns and potential dangers to humanity that it is better left alone. Yet, this view is born more of emotion than reason. Nonetheless, the emotions that surround the issue are not totally without justification.

Both legislators and the general public recognize that cloning has important implications for society and is subject to misuse. And, until a suitable theoretical and ethical framework has been developed to deal with the issue, and until the cloning issue can be intelligently debated and considered in light of the full range of its ethical implications and its eugenic potential, it is probably best for the issue to remain dormant. However, it is likely that this dormancy will be rudely interrupted in the near future when some rogue scientists actually clone the first human being, if they have not done so already. Once this occurs, the United States and other nations that have issued bans on cloning will have missed an important opportunity and will have to play catch up.

Rather than having to react to cloning after the fact, legislators should make proactive attempts to get out in front of the issue by designing legislation which treats cloning as an inevitability. It would be better if cloning were kept as a front burner issue, so that a well structured debate on the ethics and eugenic potential of cloning is already under way once the inevitable occurs. By keeping the discourse on human cloning alive in the US Congress, legislators will be in position to craft meaningful legislation designed to regulate the practice of cloning before anyone else can seize the opportunity. In addition, because human reproductive cloning has such important implications for humanity, it would be better if legislation designed to regulate its practice first took shape in the United States and had the imprint of our own ethics and values.

Once human cloning becomes a reality, the moral inertia of legislation regulating its practice will have shifted from those nations which simply banned it to those nations that attempt to "regulate" it. The nations that draft legislation designed to regulate the practice will be in a position to take the lead and establish precedents for cloning legislation that we might wish to establish ourselves. Rather than having to play catch up with such legislation, it would be better to seize the moral high ground on the cloning issue while we have the clear opportunity. Once again, this will require a well structured debate to consider the full range of the ethical implications and eugenics potential of cloning. This debate need not logically reach the conclusion that the ban on cloning should be lifted, but it should clearly specify the ethical reasons why a total ban should remain in place. Simply banning cloning does not begin to address the manifold moral and functional issues that surround it. If a total ban on human cloning is in place, the ban must be justified on ethical grounds, and the important moral reasons for maintaining the ban must be clearly stated. Conversely, if the ban is to be lifted, legislation regulating cloning should should clearly specify the conditions under which cloning will be allowed.

The ethical and intellectual void that currently surrounds the cloning issue means that the United States has a rare opportunity to shape both the moral debate on human cloning, and the legislation designed to regulate the practice of cloning. This legislation can be used as a model the world over. Currently, the Congress has refused to avail itself of this opportunity. It has evaded its moral responsibility to deal with the cloning issue decisively, by failing to bring all reasonable arguments to bear on the issue pro and con. Accepting that human cloning is an inevitability, and that it is not an inherently dangerous practice are the first steps towards crafting legislation designed to regulate it.

If the Congress thinks that simply banning the practice is going to prevent cloning from occurring, this belief is illusory. The reality is than human cloning is possible right now, and that the successful cloning of a human being, if it hasn't occurred already, is, at most, 10 years away. In all probability, human cloning will first occur in Europe, for several reasons. First, the moral climate in Europe is more permissive and ambiguous, and Europeans are more likely to tolerate its occurrence. Secondly, the Europeans have the advanced medical technology than cloning requires. Unfortunately, if human cloning first occurs in Europe, it will allow the Europeans to take the lead in crafting legislation to regulate it. If legislation which regulates cloning first takes shape in Europe, it will have the distinctive imprint of the European normative environment and ethical ethos, which may not be altogether desirable. In order to promote our long term interests (and the interests of humanity at large), and in order for the eugenic promise and potential of cloning to have the best chance of realization, it would be better if legislation designed to regulate cloning first took shape in the United States, and had the imprint of American values.

If human cloning first occurs in Europe, and if the US Congress does not preemptively moved to head off the issue, legislation that is designed to regulate cloning will first appear in Europe. Where legislation regulating cloning is concerned, we don't want to be placed in a situation where the Europeans are leading and where we are forced to follow. Given the Europeans' track record where the determination of important moral decisions is concerned, having to follow the Europeans' lead on cloning legislation is probably not a good idea. It is probably not a good idea to leave the determination of an issue which has such important implications for the human race in the hands of people who have such a questionable moral compass.

Like the ethical environment in the United States, the ethical environment in Europe is tainted by the effects of ethical relativism. But, the ethical ethos of Europe is even more deeply affected by relativism than the ethical ethos of the United States. Such influences are more likely to distort the judgment of Europeans as they attempt to regulate cloning. The Europeans will be less likely to see human cloning as a eugenics and reproductive technique that needs to be subject to rather rigorous controls. Specifically, If legislation regulating its practice first takes shape in Europe, it is likely that this legislation will err on the more permissive side and that it will not include adequate safeguards. Conversely, if legislation regulating cloning first takes shape in the United States, it is more likely to err on the side of caution.

Even if a suitable legislative framework is in place to regulate cloning, we should not have any illusions that cloning will be a cure for all of our social ills. Our clones will still be human. They will only differ from us in that, on average, they will be more like our better representatives and less like our worse representatives. However, if only this modest effect is achieved, cloning will have great potential to ameliorate a host of social problems.

The Major Ethical Issues
Like any technology, cloning can be misused. The technology which gives us nuclear energy can be used to destroy us. And, who will be charged with making the decision of who can and should be cloned is going to be a sticky issue, no matter what. But, we cannot simply recoil from the moral challenges which making such decisions presents. One of the benefits of the moral debate over cloning is that it will force us to make some clear statements about what we value in mankind to serve as criteria for cloning. Perhaps the best way to begin to meet the moral challenges raised by cloning is by issuing a clear statement of what we know to be good qualities in men. There is also the need to clearly state the main ethical issues that surround human cloning. There are a number of major ethical issues that surround cloning, but they can be basically divided into seven categories. The ethical debate on cloning should be structured with these issues firmly in mind.

1)The potential impact of cloning on individuals; its potential to create a genetic underclass
2)The potential impact of cloning on the social structure and the division of labor
3)The implications of cloning for the composition of the gene pool and the future of human race
4)Who decides who is eligible to be cloned?
5)How will the decision to select and approve candidates for cloning be made, and what criteria will be used?
6)What will be the quality of life of the clones?
7)What are the implications of cloning for the survivability of the species; how will it enhance survivability?

Despite the difficulty of the moral judgments involved, the cloning issue must be addressed by the Congress in a more decisive manner than it has been thusfar. By virtue of the important implications it has for the future of humanity, cloning is an issue which deserves to be confronted rather than evaded with makeshift legislation which simply bans its practice. The ban is only suitable as an interim measure. The debate which preceded this measure failed to adequately address the full range of ethical issues raised by cloning, and it failed to consider the potential benefits of cloning. Consequently, this measure will not stand the test of time. Yet, by addressing the issue of cloning at all, Congress did not completely forsake its responsibilities. And, by reviving the debate over human reproductive cloning, and by structuring the moral framework in which the cloning debate takes place, the United States Congress can influence how regulations on cloning will take shape around the world. The potential benefits of cloning for humanity are too important for debate over the issue to be shelved indefinitely. A prohibition on cloning is simply a way of skirting the issue over the short term.

Outside of legislative circles, the current ethical debate about cloning is structured in such a way that it fails to define the key ethical issues that should properly be at the center of the cloning debate, namely, cloning's potential as a eugenic technique. The debate over cloning fails to acknowledge that cloning could be of great benefit to humanity, as long as safeguards are in place to insure that it is not put to its worst possible use. Currently, the ethical debate over cloning focusses only on the potential of cloning to do harm. Properly, we should be concerned with the potential of cloning to do harm. But, when considered in the context of both the full range of its risks and its potentials, debate should center around how to minimize its risks and how to maximize the probability that it will do good.

The main issues that should be driving the debate over cloning are the criteria that will be used to determine who can or should be cloned, and who will be charged with applying these criteria. By virtue of its greater potential to affect the composition of the human gene pool than reproductive decisions which are normally made by individuals, human cloning should be the object of intense ethical scrutiny. But, at some point this ethical scrutiny must yield a stable and rationally based consensus about cloning. In turn, this consensus must translate into policies that will insure that cloning takes place in a way that will benefit humanity.

At its simplest level, and as it pertains to any individual, approaching the ethical debate over cloning involves asking some basic questions: Based upon what is known of a person's qualities, is there a high probability that the clones of this person would be an asset to the community? should people be entitled to become candidates for cloning by virtue of their worth to the community? Does some special quality entitle a person to be cloned, or would this special quality prohibit their cloning because of its rare or an exceptional nature?, Are a person's demonstrated qualities simply the manifestation of average intelligence in combination with above average character and temperamental qualities? Based upon an assessment of their qualities, how many clones should a person be allowed? To whom will the clones be designated as sponsors (effectively, the parents of the clone)? Can an institution rather than a couple be designated as the sponsor? Eventually these and many similar questions will need to be asked. And, more importantly, these questions will need to be answered in order to insure that cloning becomes a safe, routine and ethically acceptable means of reproduction

The Moral Case for Cloning
Can a moral case be made for cloning? As a result of the sensationalist atmosphere that developed around the cloning issue, serious debate on human cloning in legislative circles was brought to a premature halt. The issue has been marginalized, for the time being. When the debate over cloning resurfaces, it will be accompanied by a higher level of urgency. The next phase of the debate over cloning will involve the reality of its occurrence, rather than its mere potentiality. This presumes of course that the few remaining technical problems of human cloning can be overcome and that cloning can deliver on its promise to produce genetic duplicates which are free from defects. There is some speculation that clones will tend to have a higher incidence of certain genetic defects than their originals, and that cloning should be prohibited on these grounds alone. Until this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of the scientific community, the other debates about the ethics of cloning will remain moot. However, it is likely that this technical problem can be overcome in a relatively short period of time and that it will soon be possible to produce clones that are as free from defects as the originals. Once this problem has been solved, we will need laws to regulate the practice of human cloning.

Because human cloning is a reproductive technique that multiplies the contributions that any one person can make to the gene pool, it has the potential to alter the composition of the human gene pool in ways that other reproductive techniques do not. Hence, the potential of cloning to alter the gene pool is one of the most important ethical issues that surrounds cloning. In fact, whether most recognize it or not, this is the central ethical issue that surrounds the cloning debate. The legislative reaction and blanket prohibition of cloning in the United States effectively bypassed discussion of this and a host of other ethical issues that relate to cloning. The fact that the legislative response to cloning was relatively swift and that it was not preceded by a more well developed and vigorous discourse suggests that legislators simply abdicated their moral responsibility to deal with the issue in a comprehensive fashion. They failed to conceptualize or explore either the full range of its ethical implications or its potentials.

One explanation for the legislative failure to deal with the cloning issue in a more thorough fashion is that legislators simply had no precedents to use as reference points. Without either suitable precedents or a well developed moral framework with which to shape the debate over cloning, legislators simply responded to pressure from interest groups and summarily dismissed cloning as a frightening and bad idea. From its beginning, the debate over human cloning has been dominated by the idea that cloning would inevitably be put to bad uses. So why not attempt to heavily regulate cloning to insure that it is only put to good uses? Did the legislators not trust their own judgment to craft legislation that could achieve this effect, or did they simply want to table the issue and avoid the controversy surrounding it? Of course, like any other technology, cloning can be abused. And, the possibility that it might be put to bad uses cannot be ignored. But, it is even more likely to be put to bad uses under a ban than under legislation which is designed to strictly regulate it.

There is no denying that cloning raises a number of challenging issues. But, difficult or not, the cloning issue must be taken up again at some point and considered in light of the full range of the issues which it raises. The ethical issues that surround cloning in particular are too important to be postponed into the indefinite future. There is a tendency to avoid dealing with issues that have difficult moral implications until circumstances make it absolutely necessary. This tendency is even more likely among legislators who must deal with novel issues, and when they do not have adequate precedents to rely on. Under such circumstances, debate tends to be highly unstructured, incoherent and takes place outside of a moral framework that is suitable for the purpose. But whether such a framework is in place or not, the cloning issue will soon resurface and legislators will again be forced to deal with it. And this time they will be forced to explore the full range of the ethical implications and potentials of cloning in order to answer the question: Should cloning take place among humans? If not why not. If yes why. First of all, cloning must be recognized as a reproductive and a eugenic technique. It is potentially a way to improve the quality of human life and to increase the survivability of the human species. Our ability to enjoy a high quality of life is largely a function of what we are born with in the way of natural abilities. It is specifically a function of genetic attributes that relate to our health, intelligence and temperament.

If cloning is categorically prohibited because of fears associated with its possible misuse, we might as well scrap all of our technical achievements and go back to the cave. We didn't come this far by recoiling from scientific progress and technical achievements. Conceivably, a host of ethical arguments could have been raised against space flight. The argument could have been made that, by venturing into space, we might be treading on someone's territory. We are not naturally equipped to live in space and therefore, living in this environment by artificial and technologically dependent means is in some sense unnatural. So, along similarly specious lines it can be argued that cloning is an unnatural occurrence. Actually, there is more of a precedent for human cloning than there is for space flight. For nature is cloning humans all the time in the form of identical twins. What implications do identical twins have for society? This expresses the cloning issue in a nutshell.

If we do not recognize the good possibilities of cloning for the human race at some point , we are failing to take advantage of our opportunities. The emergent technological capability to clone human beings represents a rare opportunity to improve the quality of life for human beings, and to enhance the survivability of the species. If we shrink from these opportunities, it will invalidate the standards that we routinely apply to judge such qualities as form, character and intelligence. It will say that we do not quite trust our own judgment where these qualities are concerned, or that no consensus can be reached as to a person's moral worth, their intellectual capacity, their health, fitness, or beauty. Alternatively, it will say that even if a consensus can be reached on the essential human qualities which would serve as criteria to determine eligibility for cloning, cloning would somehow be a subversion of nature's design to produce these qualities in a proportion that occurs naturally. But, this would be the same as saying that we should not use technology to enhance our quality of life or to enhance our survivability as species? Does this mean that we should not use technology to artificially extend our lives or to reduce infant mortality?

The ability to reason and to develop technology to enhance our lives and improve the genetic stock of our species carries its own moral mandate to be put to good use. As with other forms of technology, cloning carries the natural mandate we have to use technology for whatever constructive purpose we may find for it. As a result of cloning and other techniques, we now have the technological capability (as opposed to the simple ability of individual judgment that has led to improvements in the species over the eons) to vastly improve our species and our quality of life. Admittedly, we need to be very deliberate as well as careful in our approach. But because of the strong underlying consensus about what constitutes good qualities in human beings, there are no legitimate grounds for prevarication or indecision on the cloning issue. We simply need to apply what we already know. We know what traits are generally valuable in the human species. As individuals, we routinely make choices based on our understanding of these criteria. Yet, many people seem to recoil from the idea that we should apply these criteria to human cloning. This may be because we have an implicit understanding of the profound implications that cloning has for humanity. But even though the implications of cloning for humanity are profound, operating from the proper ethical base, these implications are uniformly positive.

Human cloning admittedly needs to be approached with caution. Even more importantly, it needs to be approached with a full appreciation of both its risks and its potentials. One or the other part of this equation standing alone is insufficient. It will not stand the test of time, and it will not result in the best moral judgment, or the one that will prove maximally conducive to human survivability. Evolution has endowed us with reason and intelligence to further our survival. Where cloning and certain other technical advances are concerned, we are failing to avail ourselves of the opportunities which our reason and our intelligence have afforded us. If we fail to do this, we violate the Prime Criterion. If we say that cloning should be prohibited, then we should make sure that the reasons for the prohibition are substantial and not just based on some irrational fears about the possibility that it could be put to its worst possible uses.

There is a troubling logical problem which surrounds the "ethical" decision to prohibit cloning. It casts doubt upon our ethics in general. It says that we are not fit judges of the moral, the intellectual, and the aesthetic good. If we prohibit cloning because we have no trust in our notion of the good then how can we be certain that our decision not to clone is good itself? As beings with both reason and a moral faculty, do we shrink from moral decision making because of the possibility that we might be wrong? If we approach the prospect of cloning ourselves with caution, and deliberative thinking, then this is as it should be. But, if we approach it with emotional argumentation and ready convictions one way or another, then our ability to make a reasonable determination on the issue is likely to be impaired.

There is nothing unnatural about the process of human cloning. To the extent that it routinely occurs in nature, it has nature's sanction. And, it is entirely appropriate to use reason and knowledge to incorporate cloning as a eugenic measure that is routinely used to improve the condition of the human species. We know what will constitute improvement. But, our knowledge of what constitutes improvement is tempered by our recognition that even in the course of improving the human race, it may result in unfairness for certain segments of the population. We know cloning has the potential to be unfair to a certain subset of humanity. We know it would seem to have the potential to relegate some to the status of an underclass. And, it is mainly the realization of this potential and our resulting concern with fairness that seems partly responsible for the public's reluctance to embrace cloning as a eugenic technique. In fact, it is not only the possibility that cloning could be put to bad uses that causes people concern, but also the possibility that it could be put to good uses. No one wants to relegate a subset of humanity to become a permanent underclass because they possess certain traits and do not posses others. Yet, as we will see, cloning is more likely to have an egalitarian effect.

When we are given the opportunity to improve the species and the human condition, we should take advantage of it. The technological capability to clone humans is one such window of opportunity. Again, the question is raised, what will constitute "improvement" of the race, and who will make this determination? As individuals, we already have criteria for making such decisions. We routinely employ the same criteria that should be used in determining eligibility for cloning in our evaluations of others. We have a eugenic sense and a common ability to recognize intelligence as well as good character and good form. These are the principal criteria that would be used to determine eligibility to be cloned. As long as the criteria and their administration are held to the highest standards, we can have some reasonably assurances that cloning will take place in a way that is both ethical and functional.

There is no reason why the quality of eugenics decisions which are made in the legislative or regulatory environment cannot exceed the quality of the eugenics decisions which individuals routinely make in their own lives. Obviously, the power to make such determinations should be assigned with great care. It should be carefully regulated and should not be left up to individuals of only average discernment. In other words, where the determination of eligibility for cloning is concerned, individuals should not be allowed to decide their own cases. But even individuals of average discernment have a general understanding of those qualities which are most valued among men. Anyone who poses questions about our ability to establish rational criteria for cloning would seem to presume that the average human being has no idea of what qualities are good in themselves or in others. This is an example of the same kind of moral relativism that has been winding its way through the social sciences and the legal profession for the last 30 years. It has finally surfaced again in the cloning debate.

There is no place for moral relativism in the cloning debate. Cloning is an opportunity to make a statement about those qualities that are valuable in human beings. There is nothing to prohibit us from seeking to reproduce these qualities in ourselves. There is no moral reason why we cannot attempt to "improve" the human race, or why we cannot attempt to insure that more of its representatives possess qualities that are generally recognized as being valuable to both the individuals who possess them and to the communities of which these individuals are a part. There is no reason why the improvement of the human race cannot be pursued through techniques such as cloning, provided that stringent guidelines are in place. We were given reason to make the difficult ethical decisions which cloning requires. Cloning represents an opportunity to improve the human race and to enhance our survivability as a species. Due to the nature of the risks and the potentials, cloning needs to be approached deliberately, but with caution. The full extent of our reason and our knowledge must be brought to bear on the cloning issue to ensure that the eugenic potential of cloning is completely realized and that its risks are completely avoided. If we fail to capitalize on the opportunities which cloning affords us, we are failing to use our reason to maximize our survivability as a species. And, if we fail to use our reason to maximize the survivability of our species, we are violating the Prime Criterion.

The Eugenic Potential of Cloning
Eugenics is a principal way of improving human society in order to enhance the quality of life for individuals and in order to enhance the survivability of the human species. Cloning is a potentially valuable eugenics technique. But, to put cloning to its best and most ethical use, the aims of cloning must first be specified and acceptable. So, what are the aims of cloning? What would be the likely consequences of cloning for society? What is the potential of cloning to improve the lives of individuals and to enhance the survivability of the species? Why would any one want to be cloned? To deal with this last question first, motives for cloning can be narrow and selfish and can carry no particular guarantee of good results for society. Given the choice between cloning that it the result of bad motivations and more conventional forms of reproduction that are the result of good motivations, the latter is preferable.

Humans are most certainly vain, and no one should be a judge in his own case where determination of eligibility for cloning is concerned. Such determinations should be made by a committee and its decisions should be based on a variety of objective measures. They should also involve a careful assessment of the likely impact that each clone will have upon society and of the potential of each clone to make social contributions. And, these determinations should be based on the actual performance of the proto (the one to be cloned) in society. Determining the eligibility for cloning must take place as part of an overall eugenic vision for society. The basis for this vision is the consensus about genetic qualities which conduce to the intelligence, health and good character of individuals.

The great promise and potential of cloning is that is would allow us to greatly reduce the proportion of our worst representatives. Conversely, cloning would allow us to increase the proportions of both our average and our above average representatives, or those who rank average or above average on the principal dimensions that would serve as criteria for cloning. Using these criteria as the principal means to regulate cloning, our best representatives can become a larger proportion of the total population and our worst representatives can be made a progressively smaller proportion of the population. This result would seem to have important implications for the division of labor, among other things, which will be discussed elsewhere in this essay.

As most people currently seem to understand it, using technologically based means to alter the natural distribution of the gene pool (the distribution that naturally results from the reproductive choices that individuals make), even if it results in an improvement of the human condition, is a little bit like playing God. In fact, as a eugenics technique, cloning is no more like playing God than the current use of medical advances to unnaturally extend life or to save individuals who would normally die. It is simply the result of a logical progression in which technology is becoming available to enhance the survivability of the human species. But, as with all scientific applications, cloning must be accompanied by reason and knowledge.

Cloning does not allow us to play God. But, it does allow us to exert greater control over the future course of our species. To some extent at least, we have always had this power. Cloning just increases this power and allows us to exercise this power in a different way. In the past we have merely exercised this power in a less technically sophisticated way. We have always had the power to determine our breeding stock and our genetic makeup as a species. We have always practiced sexual selection to improve our species and to give our offspring the best possible chance of survival. It is only that these means seem somehow more natural when juxtaposed the science of cloning. In fact, cloning will simply enable us to do what we do naturally on a larger scale. Specifically, it will allow us to more extensively alter the composition of the gene pool. And, it is this potential that seems to cause people the most concern, as well as the need to place decision making power over such matters in the hands of government. From another standpoint, cloning merely represents taking the next step in rationalizing the decision making process by which we already exert control over the human gene pool.

Humans exert control over the gene pool and over their own genetics. Humans have been defining the composition of the human gene pool for as long as the species has existed. In this sense, humans play God every time they choose a mate. They make decisions that will affect the future composition of the human gene pool. Through the practice of sexual selection, they choose mates who posses certain traits and they exclude others because they do not have certain traits. Although their motivations may be more closely related to their own gratifications rather than to eugenics concerns per se, eugenics decisions are unavoidably made in the normal course of mate selection. But somehow, when eugenics decisions are practiced at a societal level rather than as the result of millions of decisions which individuals make in the normal course of their lives, they begin to take on an unnatural character. When technology is brought to bear on the reproductive process, as with cloning, it conjures up ideas of things that are unnatural. Somehow, cloning seems unnatural even when it is our natural destiny to exert increasing control over our genetic composition by means of technology. Cloning is a natural evolutionary step. As a practical matter it will only result in an increase in the number of identical twins.

The Potential Benefits of Cloning
What major benefits can be expected to accrue to humanity from human cloning? Why would we want to do it? Succinctly, cloning will allow us to improve human life. It will allow more individuals to live more rewarding lives. And, it will actually have the potential to increase the quality of life of those who do not rank as high on the principal valued dimensions as the clones themselves. In addition, it will give us prior knowledge of medical conditions of clones, so that these conditions can be addressed before they become life threatening. Longevity will also be increased by other means (chiefly gene therapy and anti-aging drugs). Thus, if the clones of a certain person have a normal life expectancy of 90 years, by the time they reach this life expectancy, in all probability, medical technology will have advanced to the point where another 30 or more years can be added to this. Hence, a clone's foreknowledge that their proto died at a certain age from natural causes will not be an automatic death sentence for them. Clones can expect to add years to their lives through environmental influences and medical advances, so the age of their natural death will remain uncertain.

There are many additional benefits from cloning to be considered. Cloning has great implications for the human species to the extent that candidates can be selected which are largely free from genetic defects. Correspondingly, the non cloned offspring of clones will be more likely to be free from genetic defects themselves, thereby improving the quality of the human gene pool. The fears associated with establishing a qualitative distance between clones and the rest of humanity have already been discussed at some length. But summarily, the tendency of cloning will be to push the entire species in the direction of greater functionality and survivability. Inevitably, clones will marry and propagate with non-clones that are not their equals. In effect, some clones will marry down. Correspondingly, some non-clones will marry up, resulting in a genetic improvement and uplifting of the entire human race. In short, cloning will allow us to accelerate our evolution beyond what would normally occur merely by means of the choices people make in the mate selection process.

Cloning as a Reproductive Choice
Conceivably, techniques such as cloning and in vitro fertilization will eventually allow couples to chose their offspring from a catalog. As far fetched as this sounds, there would be nothing inherently unethical about such practices. As long as reasonable precautions are in place to ensure that clones have qualities that will enable them to enjoy a high quality of life, and to be an asset to the societies in which they live, such practices are ethical. A few years ago such concepts would be more appropriate for a work of science fiction. But now, they are within easy reach of our current technological capabilities. And, later in this century, such practices will become commonplace. Selecting one's offspring from a catalogue will become an especially attractive option for couples that have battled infertility. There is nothing inherently wrong with such practices as long as the clones are naturally predisposed to be "normally" healthy, intelligent and of good temperament. These qualities are all conducive to a high quality of life.

Who Should Decide?
Once the ban on cloning has been lifted, and once cloning has become a safe, routine procedure, the people who will actually be charged with deciding who is eligible to be cloned will likely continue to be a matter of concern to the general public. Because cloning has important implications for the entire species which the normal reproductive decisions made by individuals do not, cloning must be heavily regulated by government. Left completely in the hands of individuals, cloning would pose far greater risks of being put to bad uses. The government agency that is charged with regulating cloning will have primary responsibility for ensuring that cloning occurs in a manner that will serve the public interest. The agency would be headed by a team of experts whose job it will be to interpret and administer cloning legislation, to establish standards and evaluation criteria, and to make appointments to the state or regional cloning boards. This agency, which for now we will call the Eugenics and Cloning Commission, will also be tasked with devising and enforcing regulations governing the practice of cloning as part of a broader eugenics program.

One of the most important tasks of the ECC will be to establish criteria for determining the eligibility of candidates to be cloned, and to establish quotas based on where individuals rank on the evaluation criteria. A quota is an established limit on the number of times an individual can be cloned. Another important task of the e ECC will be to make appointments to the state or regional cloning boards. In turn, the state or regional ECC boards will be tasked with making appointments to the local ECC boards. The local ECC boards will actually have the task of approving or denying permits for individuals to be cloned. The local boards, (as well as the state and regional boards and the ECC itself) would be staffed by experts from a number of fields which are well suited to make decisions on matters related to cloning. These would include mainly physiologists, psychiatrists, social psychologists, behavioral geneticists and sociobiologists. Individuals in these professions are uniquely qualified to determine which human qualities are likely to be assets and which are more likely to be liabilities. These individuals would also be uniquely qualified to evaluate the cognitive, affective and behavioral capacities and propensities of the candidates.

Although the ECC will have both a popular and a congressional mandate, in its structure and operation, the agency should be top down. The day to day operations of the agency would be confined by relatively austere rule sets and procedural guidelines. Very little discretion would given to local boards, except when deciding eligibility of candidates. Even these decisions would conform to strict guidelines. This very restrictive delegation of authority should be maintained at least until such time as the full implications of cloning can be carefully evaluated. To facilitate the evaluation process, local boards would be authorized to conduct studies to determine the academic, social and professional progress of clones under their jurisdiction, and they would be charged with assessing the social impact of these clones. The boards would also be tasked with issuing reports to the ECC concerning the "good standing" of clones. In sum, the local boards will have responsibility for issuing a clean bill of health for clones.

While a group of experts will have the overall authority to make cloning decisions, what role will the general public have in this process? As the decision to clone will have implications for the whole species, the public should have the final say as to whether or not human beings should be cloned. Consequently, the matter should be put to a referendum. The public should treat the cloning decision as a serious responsibility, but, as long as cloning would be subject to austere regulations, reaching the decision to approve cloning as a reproductive technique should not present either legislators or the public with an overwhelming moral burden. For, as a practical matter, cloning will merely result in an increase in the number of identical twins in society. The process should be approached in the spirit of optimism that reflects knowledge of cloning's potential benefits for humanity.

How Should They Decide?
Next in importance to who will decide which individuals are eligible to be cloned will be the standards that are actually applied in making this determination. The criteria used to make this determination will be one of the most sensitive aspects of the cloning debate. While value judgments will be inescapable, the natural consensus about what constitutes valuable traits will go far towards avoiding difficulties. Stated simply, most people tend to have a pretty good idea of what constitutes good form, intelligence and good character.

There tends to be a broad and rationally based consensus about those human qualities that are deemed to be good or desirable. We already apply the criteria that would be used to evaluate candidates for cloning to evaluate our fellow human beings. We have standardized ways of evaluating cognitive ability. And even though exceptions occur in which people who score low on tests may have some rare talent which the test does not measure, where the establishment of criteria for cloning is concerned, we are less concerned with rare exceptions and are more concerned with general rules and tendencies. It is more important that clones have the general quality of intelligence than some specialized quality or a rare talent. For this reason, people who have at least demonstrated some minimal proficiency at cognitive tasks (to substantiate their potential to become a functioning member of society), would pass the criterion for cognitive ability.

We also have standards for assessing dimensions of temperament. These dimensions can be thought of as the precursors of good character. We know the difference between people who, as a matter of temperament, appear to have a natural predisposition to exhibit bad character traits or even criminal predispositions. And, it is obvious that one of the main objectives of a eugenics program will be to identify and exclude such individuals as candidates for cloning. In sum, we have means by which we can evaluate candidates for "temperamental predispositions" which convey a high probability for the development of criminal propensities or the exhibition of bad character traits.

We also have standards for evaluating health, fitness and even beauty or sexual attractiveness. And although some may consider attractiveness to be subjective, even this quality can be measured objectively. Consequently, there is a natural basis for reaching a consensus on all the valued dimensions. And this consensus provides a rational basis for the establishment of certain widely accepted standards. Thus, for all the major criteria that would be needed to evaluate candidates for cloning, we have standards. These are the same standards that we already routinely apply to evaluate our fellow human beings. These criteria will enable us to make a general determination about whether someone would constitute an asset or a liability to the species.

There is already an ethical framework in place that is suitable for resolving most of the ethical issues that surround cloning. Most of these ethical issues relate to the criteria that would be used to evaluate candidates for cloning. For instance, there is general agreement as to what constitutes desirable qualities, or qualities which would prove to be assets to the human race, versus those qualities which are deemed to be less valuable, or even a threat. According to such criteria, a generally healthy person who is substantially free from defects in health, temperament, behavior and intelligence (about which there is an increasing body of objective evidence) would be a suitable candidate for cloning.

Incidentally, the behavioral sciences are moving us closer to having the ability to objectively evaluate individuals for certain temperamental propensities. These propensities are some of the most important precursors or indicators of future moral development. Formerly, these potentials have been obscured and difficult to discern, which has helped to fuel the fires of relativism. Now that these potentials can be determined with far greater certainty, the relativists have less wiggle room. As for qualities such as fitness and beauty, while the latter may seem superficial, it is often related to the former. The ability to assess such characteristics does not generally require any special expertise.

We know what qualities we admire in ourselves and in others. There is no moral reason why we cannot use techniques such as cloning to make our best representatives a larger proportion of the population than they would be naturally. This is the ultimate end of cloning. It should be approached deliberately and with some caution, but it is no cause for fear. Of course individuals may have a variety of motives for wanting to clone themselves, their offspring, or any number of other human beings, without due concern for how their decisions might impact the public interest. If such self interest motives were allowed to prevail in the cloning process, we might expect that cloning would not occur in a way that would maximize the public interest. For this reason principally, the practice of cloning must be well regulated and standards which reference the species interest must be placed ahead of individual motives for wanting to be cloned.

Criteria for Cloning
There are three major categories of criteria for cloning. In no particular order of importance, these include cognitive ability, health and form, character and temperament. While the criteria of health and form can be distinguished from one another, in most cases they tend to be so closely related that one tends to be a function of the other. Beauty and physical fitness tend to be outward indicators of health. Although people who are neither physically fit nor beautiful can be reasonably healthy, the universal ideal of good form includes beauty and fitness. A similar case holds for character and temperament. Although a person of generally good character can have bad qualities of temperament, good character is more commonly associated with a certain evenness of temperament. Temperament can be thought of as the hereditary component of good character.

Where a person ranks on all three of the major dimensions will be the major considerations in determining their eligibility to be cloned. However, if an individual ranks high on any of the major dimensions it would not automatically guarantee an entitlement to be cloned. Conversely, if an individual ranks low on one of the major dimensions, it would not automatically prohibit them from being cloned. But, an exceptionally low rank on several dimensions would be more likely to catch the attention of the evaluators and would increase the probability that a cloning permit would be denied.

Cognitive Ability as a Criterion
As stated above, we have standardized tests to evaluate intelligence and cognitive ability. And even though some people who score low on standardized test may exhibit some rare or exceptional ability, for the purpose of determining eligibility for cloning, evaluators will be more concerned with the presence of general intelligence. Standardized intelligence tests are designed to capture several dimensions of intelligence. Some of the major dimensions include the following:

alertness/responsivness index
learning/memorization index
verbal index
abstract-mathematical index
spatial reasoning index

In addition, performance on standardized tests depends heavily on motivation. As a case in point, I cite my own performance on the GRE. Because I had to take a specialized GRE as an exit requirement, and because this particular GRE would have no bearing on my acceptance into graduate school, I had no incentive to perform well on the test. The test was an optical scan, so I randomly picked ovals to fill in. Many of t

Date: 2015-12-24; view: 836