Banning Human Cloning -- A Really Bad Idea?

[SpoilerVirgin]

I have been waiting and waiting for this discussion to arise in Great Debates so that I could sit back and read all of the enlightened responses and gain an understanding of the issues involved.

To my surprise, however, a search of GD reveals that there has never been a thread on this subject.

While reading the current "Ban the Big Bang Theory" thread, I once again started considering this issue, and noticed that the banning of human cloning was cited as an example of government interference in science.

While I recognize that banning a theory and banning specific research activities are entirely different, I still have to ask, isn't banning scientific research a really bad thing?

At this point, we have no idea where human cloning might lead. Is it appropriate to ban research into an area that might yield tremendous benefits to humanity in the form of new understanding of genetics and embryonic development, or provide alternatives to organ donation, or become a new approach to infertility treatment, not to mention all of the benefits that we don't know anything about because we haven't done the research yet?

Given our current state of scientific knowledge, I am opposed to a ban on human cloning. But whenever I state this opinion, I am greeted with horrified reactions from people who take it for granted that human cloning should be banned.

I'm not a scientist, so I have no direct stake in the matter (that is, I'm not going to be doing cloning research either way). But my gut instinct tells me that, while some limits or restrictions might be necessary, an outright ban will only impede scientific progress. My gut instinct not being sufficient evidence to support a position in Great Debates, I'm willing to hear other views and potentially change my mind.

So I'm calling on all of the Great Debaters to share your position on a ban on human cloning and the reason behind that position.

[scotth]

For essentially the same reasons as stated in the OP, I would have to say I am definitely against an outright ban at this time.

And one more reason/concern: Would banning cloning research really have the intended effect (actually stopping cloning research) or simply push it underground where it couldn't be reasonably monitored? That seems even more dangerous.

[dragongirl]

I agree that cloning shouldn't be banned because of the reasons stated by scotth but there are things about cloning that really bother me. I believe in God but I'm not extremely religous, so the thing that bothers me is the question of what is being created, yes it would be human, but the question is what about the soul of the clone ? It kind of scares me to think that all the people would be walking around like zombies. If one of the benefits is for organ donation and if the clone did have a soul and personality, it would have to die. I'm not a scientist. I just don't have a good feeling on this, there are too many "what if's" But it is true that if it is banned, it would still go on, unregulated. This is something that really bothers me.

[scotth]

I would have to say, that if both people who in a pair of identical twins have souls, I can't think of a logical reason that a clone would not. I will not debate the existance of the soul. But, I am not convinced that if a soul exists and you were born without one, there would be a way to tell the difference here on earth. I know there are differences between man and animal. But we are still biological creatures. Cloned animals don't go around zombie like, I can't see why a cloned human would either. Still as I said above, it seems most reasonable that if each twin would have one, there is no reason that a clone would not also. I am sure many people have very strong feelings on this issue, please don't confuse that with having evidence.

On the other hand, if cloning was being persued for organ donation, a little more research will probably reveal the methods necessary to clone just body parts. It would still be cloning techniques, but just grow what you need.

I have to ask... If I took a tissue sample from your body, you would consider it your property? If more tissue was grown from that sample, it still seems to me like it would be yours. I would even go so far as to say that whatever you grow from your tissue would be yours right up until the point that you had created another person. Then they would belong to themselves. Do you agree? (You certainly are compelled to... This is certainly an issue that I don't believe anyone has cornered the market on being right with.)

I shall state my biggest hope and fear of this. Interestingly enough, they both come from exactly the same use. It seems to me that if we were going to clone people, it would be natural to clone someone with some special talent. For instance, what if the world or the country really needed another Einstein? (We have quite a bit of his tissue that is well preserved, by the way... I am NOT saying that I KNOW it is in good enough condition to use for cloning... just giving a for instance) Wouldn't that be handy to be able to make an Einstein? What an amazing posibility to consider. The reason why the same idea scares me so much though, is to consider it from the young Einstein's side. How unfair would it be to be born a new Einstein and completely be expected to be able to fill those historical shoes?

[erislover]

The state of the technology as it exists now does not allow for "safe" cloning. As we have seen with the animals we have cloned, they exhibit all sorts of medical problems (rapid aging being foremost in my mind).

I support a ban which has a built-in death for rereview every four years or so, until such time as cloning animals can be demonstrated to be safe for the cloned.

[Fear Itself]

Originally posted by erislover
The state of the technology as it exists now does not allow for "safe" cloning. As we have seen with the animals we have cloned, they exhibit all sorts of medical problems (rapid aging being foremost in my mind).

I hope you are able to provide some cites for this "fact"; to my knowledge, no medical problems have been observed in high order cloned animals. Accelerated aging is speculation, at best, with no empirical evidence. The theory seems to come from reports like this: Will cloned sheep die prematurely?, which speculates that shortened telomeres might produce shorter life spans. However, this is far from conclusive, as is pointed out in the article:

Drawing any clear implications for the future of human cloning is much too premature, the scientists said. A telomere is a region at the end of a chromosome, which carries genetic information. In most cells, this cap that protects the chromosome ends from fraying progressively erodes as the animal ages. Such shortening does not occur in the germ line - the cells that produce sperm and eggs - where the length remains constant through the action of an enzyme called telomerase.

Neither have I seen any reports suggesting "all sorts of medical problems". If you have scientific evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

[erislover]

Try this.

Or, better yet, just follow this link.

For pro-lifers (which I am not) the problem is even stickier because of the large number of attempts that are needed for a successful birth.

[Fear Itself]

All your first link proves is that cloning is still difficult; hardly a reason for banning. As to your second link, two can play that game. I will let you sift through all the resulting hits, then you get back to us with the ones that are relevant, m'kay?

By the way, I noticed you dodged your rapid aging/telomere petard.

[erislover]

Originally posted by Fear Itself
By the way, I noticed you dodged your rapid aging/telomere petard.

In what way? The link you gave supported that.I will quote the very first sentence:

Dolly has been found to show molecular signs of accelerated aging...

You want to do that to a human being, be my guest.

The first link I provided mentioned pregnancy problems in monkeys sometimes resulting in the mother's death as well as:

Cloning, it turns out, is a serious health risk -- usually resulting in death for the clones themselves and sometimes even killing mothers pregnant with those clones. Moreover, as cloners expand their efforts to a growing variety of animals, including cows, goats, sheep and mice, it's becoming clear that the problem is not simply one of beginner's bad luck. "There are a hell of a lot of fetal and neonatal deaths along the way," said Gerald Schatten, who heads the lab that Dominko works in. "There are placental abnormalities, abnormal swelling, three to four times the normal rate of umbilical cord problems, severe immunological deficiencies."

You want to do that to people, be my guest. I prefer to wait until more effective methods are achieved.