Moral and ethical implications of cloning.

[Guest guest]

Be careful with this brave new world. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060626/asp/knowhow/story_6382164.asp In an extract from his new book, Ian Wilmut considers the moral and ethical implications of cloning. First, there was Dolly — the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell.

For six years, she was a star munching happily in her stall, growing ever fatter and making headlines across the world. And then, a year later, came a clone called Polly. Poor Polly was an also-ran in terms of media coverage. But, in many ways, her birth in 1997 thrilled me just as much. She was the first sheep to be given a human gene via cloning — in her case, to make her milk rich in a clotting protein that could be used to treat haemophiliacs. Until then, scientists had been able only to add genes, not modify them. Now, for the first time, we had done the unthinkable: we had made precise genetic changes to a cloned embryo. Polly’s mere existence has opened an extraordinary new vista for mankind: the probability that we can one day prevent the birth of children with cruel genetic diseases. The science can be quickly

explained. One would take an IVF embryo with a hereditary defect, remove its stem cells, carry out a genetic correction, check that modification has worked, and then clone a defect-free cell to create a new embryo without the disease. The resulting child would be a clone not of any person but of an early embryo. For me, this distinction is profoundly important. It is one thing cloning a sheep, but I am profoundly opposed to cloning human beings because of the potential psychological effects on a child. However, an early embryo is not a person, and I see the use of cloning to prevent a child having a dreadful hereditary disease as far less controversial. I simply can’t see anything immoral about the use of these methods to prevent disease and suffering. I expect that there would be intense media interest in the first birth of a genetically altered human clone. But, in my view, the furore over what would no doubt be called a designer baby would quickly die down after the first few births — much as it did after the first IVF births. Making it foolproof Research going on at the moment will contribute to making the process safe and effective — though it is hard to put a date on when we will be able to introduce genetic changes into human embryos. But I do know that as soon as this becomes a viable option, many parents will be extremely keen to save their unborn children from cystic fibrosis, which leads to premature death from lung disease, or Huntington’s disease, a devastating degenerative illness in which the patient loses control of his limbs to such an extent that he appears to dance.

Even with the best current IVF methods, it can often be difficult to ensure that a child will be born without harmful genes. There is another issue to consider, though. The act of genetic manipulation does not simply end with the birth of a healthy baby. In fact, the child produced as a result of cloning (using a genetically altered embryonic cell) would eventually become an adult who could pass on this genetic change to her own offspring. This is what is called germ-line modification. What makes this proposal particularly radical is that scientists have agonised for at least three decades over germ-line therapy — or genetic changes passed down generations in eggs and sperm — and remain divided over whether it should be allowed. Critics point out that genes can interact in complicated ways and that the eradication of certain so-called disease genes could have unexpected side effects. Any errors, in other words, could not only wreak havoc with a person’s genetic legacy but also pollute the human gene pool. But I am on the side of the pragmatists who include Jim Watson, who helped to launch the molecular biology revolution by revealing the structure of DNA. “Whether based in ethics or unfounded fears of the unknown, such arguments are ultimately not compelling in my judgment,” says Watson. “Germ-line therapy is, in principle, simply putting right what chance has put horribly wrong”. In a recent book, Watson goes further and advocates genetic enhancement: changes that address our desires

rather than needs. If it is ever allowed, it could lead to a social revolution, since we would then be able — in theory, at least — to mould our children in all kinds of ways. In one sense, there is nothing new in parents struggling to give their offspring a head start. They try to get them into the best schools. They may sign them up for additional classes, whether in pottery, music or ballet. They ensure that they are vaccinated. They give them antibiotics and warm them with central heating to keep them well. They pay for expensive dental work to correct their teeth. Some even sign their children up for cosmetic surgery, or alter their mood with drugs such as Ritalin and Prozac. Genetic enhancement opens up far more possibilities. Lee M Silver of Princeton University raises the

spectre of “boutique babies”: the result of parents sitting at a computer and scrolling through a series of genetic menus from which they choose the characteristics they want for their offspring. Even though this kind of speculation is more suited to a science-fiction novel, I suspect that many people would consider tinkering with the genes of their children, if offered the chance. It might be possible to alter genes of utility, such as those linked with memory or dexterity. Or the genes valued by society, such as those that contribute to our capacity for altruism and sympathy. CLONING FEAT: A file photo of Dolly, the first mammal to be

cloned from an adult cell Altering humans? There are even wilder ideas — such as altering humans so that they are more tolerant of pollution, or of heat produced by climate change. But I object on biological and ethical grounds to any suggestion that we should try to “enhance” our children. The biological point is that most genes have many effects that are not understood at present. To attempt to change such genes would be to experiment on the child — and that is morally wrong. In the end, we would have embryos coaxed to life for shallow reasons of status, preference or style — so-called designer babies. Any such work is unsavoury because it reduces children to consumer

objects that can be “accessorised” according to the parents’ whims. In any case, love for one’s offspring should not be contingent upon their characteristics, even in our less-than-ideal world. There is also a fundamental difference between genetic enhancement and the established methods of enhancement — such as education, mood-altering drugs and cosmetic surgery. Genetic changes would be transmitted to all future generations, and their effects would be harder to reverse. In addition, they could undermine qualities and traits that are fundamental to our humanity, or exaggerate intolerance of disabilities. If fictions such as Remaking Eden

or Brave New World teach us anything, it is that the unfettered use of scientific technologies can present a danger to human freedom and dignity. The way in which they are applied has to be regulated. As Huxley once said, science in itself is morally neutral; it becomes good or evil according to how it is applied. Of course, there will be endless arguments over where to draw the line between eradicating genetic disease and enhancing a child. It is easy to understand the desire to prevent the birth of a child with a serious genetic disease, such as Huntington’s. Similarly, most of us would say that it is desirable to administer synthetic growth hormone to ensure that a stunted child grows to normal height. But what if a “normal” child’s parents cited the extensive scientific literature on how tall people fare better in

life — they tend to earn more, get more respect and attract partners more easily — and demanded that the height of their child be boosted? Whatever the shades of grey between enhancement and therapy, I believe that society has an obligation to intervene on the embryo’s behalf when it comes to weighing the risks and benefits of genetic alteration. Selecting traits Selection for traits thought by the parents to be beneficial could later be seen by the child as a curse. Parents striving to achieve their goals and make their investment worthwhile may discover that the uninhibited selection of children may erode the unconditional love that is the bedrock of the parent-child relationship. Apart from these

fundamental moral and ethical issues, there are practical and social considerations. Nothing should even be attempted until safe and effective methods have been established. And, even then, it is certain that genetic correction will be expensive. Several difficult steps are required, and at each point careful checks must be made to ensure that all is well. This means that choices will have to be made about how to allocate finite resources. As ever, the benefits are most likely to be enjoyed by the rich first, suggesting there will be genetic haves and have-nots. In short, the genetic modification of the human gene pool will have to be considered in a broad context — that of society as well as the family. And perhaps of history, too. In some ways, “designer babies” are nothing new: think of the mother with three daughters who is desperate to conceive again to have a son; the career woman approaching menopause; the poverty-stricken who have a big family to help work the farm; and the celebrity who thinks that a baby in designer denim is this year’s must-have accessory. When we apply reproductive science, we should aspire to do much better than this — and hope that we never do any worse. THE DAILY TELEGRAPH "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." -

Aurobindo.

Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business.