Sermon
Almost a year ago the story of Dolly, the Scottish, cloned sheep, made the front page of the newspapers. At the time, I thought the whole issue was a little overblown based on the projected difficulty of cloning humans. However, human cloning jumped back into the news after the NPR interview January 6th with Richard Seed[1]. Seed wants to be the first to clone a human embryo for a couple with fertility problems. What got me motivated to do this sermon today was a discussion during Conversations Among Friends on Tuesday morning as we talked about this latest cloning news. For those of you who have never attended Conversations Among Friends, it is a weekly open and spontaneous discussion group moderated by Charles Miller. Charles complained that too many people were offering their opinion without contributing to the knowledge of the group. After this morning, I hope what I have to say will contribute both to your knowledge as well as stimulate your now better informed opinions and help you get a greater appreciation of the ethical issues which arise when considering human cloning.
The politics of cloning are heating up with lobbyists choosing sides. The Catholics, the Right-to-Lifers, and the more fundamentalist Christian churches are officially against cloning because they do not believe embryos should be used for experimentation. Their position mirrors their stance on the use of fetal tissue for experimentation or medical procedures. On the other side we find the liberal freedom fighters. Reproductive rights advocates, while repulsed by some of the motivations for cloning, stand firm on a couples right to control their own reproduction, free from government interference. Along side the reproductive rights advocates are the scientists who don't want their academic freedom to he hemmed in by law. They argue we should not limit research a priori before we know what positive or negative benefits cloning might bring to the human race. In June of last year, the President's National Bioethics Advisory Commission produced their report arguing that human cloning was not morally acceptable at this time and it should be prohibited until more animal studies have been done and the nation can begin to digest this new discovery. President Clinton has asked for legislation to be passed which will ban human cloning research for the next five years.
Interestingly, the Commission was not able to agree about the ethics of human cloning, but rather based their decision on the state of the technology rather than a religious position or ethical argument. The Commission said:
"...given the current stage of science in this area, that any attempt to clone human beings via somatic cell transfer techniques is uncertain in its prospects, [it] is unacceptably dangerous to the fetus, and, therefore, is morally unacceptable."
The Commission's report states a need for a national discussion and public education to help us figure out how to proceed with this new technology of creation. The Commission cautions that we, as a nation, do not have a "universally accepted ethical theory" to use to decide some of the critical issues.
In this spirit of opening the forum for public debate in this congregation, I offer my words this morning.
Let us be clear that even though Richard Seed is ready and willing to clone human beings, our ability to do actually clone a human embryo appears to be a long way off. Only a handful of animals have been cloned at this point. If you recall, it took 270 some attempts to produce just one Dolly.
When we speak about cloning, at this point we are talking about two strategies. The first is to take a fertilized egg and encourage it to split into two or more copies as happens naturally in the process of producing identical twins, triplets, quadruplets etc. We know this is possible because it happens on a regular basis. In the fall of 1993 a researcher from George Washington University reported being able to clone six cows from one egg this way.
The second approach was the technique used to create Dolly. The nucleus which contains the genetic material is removed from an egg and replaced with the nucleus of another cell. Theoretically, the same process used to clone Dolly could be used to clone human beings except some of the mechanisms in human reproduction are much more complicated. Sheep were specifically chosen for the cloning experiments because they have certain advantages and simplifications in their reproductive biology.
As we consider human cloning, we must also understand the impossibility of making an exact duplicate of a human being at this time or any time in the foreseeable future. Dolly wasn't a perfect copy of her mother. She had a black hoof where her mother did not. The DNA which holds our genetic code exists in other places in the cell besides the nucleus. Every cell also has mitochondrial DNA which now appears to control some aspects of cellular reproduction. Also scientists are discovering genes which are conditionally activated by the environment. Clearly both nature and nurture shape us into who we are. When we combines all this with what we already know about the differences and similarities between identical twins raised apart, it is quite likely a human clone, while having striking physical similarities, is about as likely to be identical in spirit to the clone donor as to the clone donor's neighbor. The Hindu leader Mata Amritanandamayi puts it together for us metaphorically in these words:
Many identical suits can be fabricated from the same bolt of cloth, but what can we say about the wearer of the suit? While science may eventually succeed in cloning a carbon copy of a physical form, the indwelling consciousness of that form is still beyond the reach of material science[2].
Given that cloning another completely identical human being is not possible in the foreseeable future, if it ever will be, people still have concerns about human cloning today. The one on the front burner and probably the one with the greatest standing for public debate is the ethics of experimenting with potential human beings created by the cloning process. Those who oppose fetal tissue research argue cloning falls in the same category. They argue a baby is killed very time a cloned cell starts dividing but then dies. More credible to those who support fetal tissue research is the argument that cloning will produce hideously deformed babies at least at first. This is exactly what happened in the Scottish sheep cloning experiments before they succeeded cloning Dolly. Is it right for researchers to experiment on a potential human being for the sake of scientific knowledge and advancement at the expense of the quality of that being's existence? This was the most persuasive argument to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and probably will sway many of us. Much more animal research is needed before we should consider experimenting with human life.
This should not cause us to shrink from the debate however. I expect the animal research will progress a fast pace and we shall be revisiting human cloning more quickly than we might think. There will be those like Richard Seed who find an offshore haven to do their research, produce the deformed babies, perfect the technique and begin to market it to the world. We must go further and explore the deeper concerns about human cloning.
For many, the first image that comes to mind when human cloning is suggested is Hitler and his eugenics experiments to purify the German race of what he viewed as imperfection. Others shudder remembering Huxley's book, Brave New World which describes genetically manipulated and bred clones programmed for their place in life. In a world where heterosexual procreation becomes obsolete, what greater control can a government have than controlling reproduction? We, of course, recoil in horror from such a scenario, but are we, right now, laying the groundwork for this being possible in the 23rd Century? Our increasing population and increasing technology are motivating governments to take greater control of our lives for the good of the whole but not necessarily the individual. It is quite possible the right to have children may become transformed into a privilege. Perhaps someday a woman will be issued a cloned egg to raise rather than choosing a husband. And she may do this willingly.
This is not so far fetched. To the sober minded individual, reproduction is pretty frightening. I remember my concerns when Philomena was going through her first trimester of pregnancy. Becoming a father or mother for the first time has a scary side. Would this fetus be born healthy? What if she or he is deformed? Mentally deficient? Develops a horrible genetically recessive disease? I can imagine getting a government issue kid guaranteed to have a high IQ, a pleasant disposition, and be free of genetically carried disease could be very attractive to a man and woman contemplating parenthood. The rise of cloning could be looked back on as the beginning of the end of fatherhood.
Another angle on eugenics which seems to offend people follows from being able to select the child you will carry. People are repulsed by the idea of women being able to have a designer baby; to carry to term their own Cindy Crawford, Paul Newman or Tom Hanks clone. Of course they wouldn't be the same personality, but doesn't every dad want to be sure he has a beautiful daughter to dote on? Every mother a loving son?
More objectionable is the narcissism of cloning oneself for personal immortality or for spare parts. Even the idea of cloning a body part such as a new heart in a bag of skin artificially makes many uneasy. Not much less troubling would be cloning a spouse or child upon their death so at least their genetic material will have some kind of immortality. I may no longer have my beloved by my side, but their image will remain with me. Unfortunately such attachment to individual physical form is hopeless for sooner or later, we all must die. Cloning oneself will not stave off this reality forever. Cloning or no cloning, our physical form is mortal.
The whole notion of intentionally cloning an individual person brings up another 21st Century concern: genetic property rights. Do we have a natural, God given right to genetic uniqueness? It is certainly possible someday one could be cloned against one's will and without one's knowledge after a few cells were stolen from one's body surreptitiously scraped from the skin or swabbed from a cheek at night. If my genetic material encodes a cure for AIDS, say, shouldn't I profit from my good fortune?
The other side of the genetic uniqueness concern is the possibility of genetic homogeneity. If a particular clone becomes predominate or all cultivated animals or human beings come from a small pool of genetic material, it may put these species at risk if a disease mutates into a new form which wipes out everyone with a heretofore unrealized genetic vulnerability. This is very relevant concern today as monocultures are grown using hybrid seeds which could be entirely destroyed by one new infection. Protecting diversity is an imperative to protect our reproductive future.
And then come the arguments against human cloning drawn from the religious world. Many traditional religious leaders fret about the nature of the soul of a clone. Will a clone really be human as it is given life through artificial means. A man and a woman's love for each other isn't incarnated in this new being by their union. Of course this also could be argued for artificial insemination which has been used since the 40's to conceive children. The children I've met who were conceived this way seemed pretty normal and I don't think there is any evidence they are deficient in the soul category.
The Buddhists and most humanists don't worry so much about the soul because they don't believe we have one. The Hindu's think we do have a soul but are more sophisticated because they believe the soul can enter and leave the body. The Hindus wonder what kind of soul, waiting for a body to jump into, would choose one that was cloned and thus deficient in prana, or spiritual energy that is passed to it from the process of conception. Another Hindu concern comes from their folklore. One particular demon, when cut and his blood touched the ground, was able to procreate as new demons would leap from the spilt blood. Could we be propagating a new race of demons? They wonder.
Beyond the issue of tampering with the soul transmission process, a larger religious concern is raised: Are we attempting to usurp God's creative role in the universe? Who are we to create our own new Adam and Eve and begin our own Garden of Eden? I am reminded of the Tower of Babel story. The people came together to build a city and a tower into the heavens. God worried that "nothing they have a mind to do, will be beyond their reach." God then stepped in confusing their speech and scattering them all over the earth. Could we be tempting the patience of God again? The Most Bhagwan Sri Deep Narayan Mahaprabhuji put this largely superstitious argument succinctly: "Do not go against nature, or else it will take revenge and you will suffer the consequences."
Many religious leaders would argue that rather than worrying about investing our worldly treasure in our genetic inheritance, we should be more interested in getting right with God in this life and seeking eternal salvation.
This argument smacks to me of a limited view of the nature of divinity. It may very well be PART of the divine plan that we begin to clone ourselves. I think Ingrid Shafer presents this possibility much more beautifully than I can so listen to her inspiring words:
Humanity emerged from the primeval mists and swamps when Homo sapiens began to use reason to forge cosmos out of chaos. Why is it any more plausible to imagine God erecting electric fences around certain areas of knowledge than to imagine God watching with delight and parental pride as human beings use their divinely designed brains to decipher the code of life? What's wrong with envisioning God perching on the side of a Petri dish, eager to have us correct some copyists' errors which have crept into the three billion "words" [in our DNA] in the past six hundred million years. Why not have faith in a God who expects us both to cherish the genetically defective already alive and to do our utmost to have future babies come into this world healthy in every way? A God who appreciates our willingness to learn by sacrificing part of ourselves for the sake of the species? A God who challenges us to perfect ourselves not only spiritually but biologically? After all, if we believe in the only kind of Creator God compatible with evolution we must also accept the divine way of improving all life-forms through the divine experiment of natural selection which at some point begins to include the human ability to become an active part of the process, a change agent, one in whom -- as Teilhard de Chardin insists -- evolution is becoming conscious of itself[3].
I think she captures well the progressive theological spirit to open the door to cloning when the time is right. As a resource for infertile couples and an expression of our right to reproductive freedom, someday cloning will be and should be a viable option. I think Richard Seed's words responding to the ethical concern about human cloning will be prophetic:
"I think it will blow over...There were an awful lot of people against the automobile, too...Any new technology ... creates fear and horror." But as time passes, human cloning will receive "enthusiastic endorsement.[4]"
Let us be guided this morning by both our reason and our hearts as we approach the subject of cloning so in the end we may discover that with or without cloning, human life is precious and worthy of preservation.
Copyright (c) 1998 by Rev. Samuel A. Trumbore. All rights reserved.
[1] http://www.npr.org/news/health/980106.cloning.html (Real Audio)
[2] http://www.baltimorenews.com/religion/clocom01.html
[3] http://mercur.usao.edu/www/faculty/shaferi/shafer1.html titled: "The Moral Challenge of Human Cloning" She is Professor at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma
[4] From an article dated 1/7/98 posted from Chicago on CNN's web site.