https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=236
Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part II]
[
EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the
May issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]
As a result of the success of recent experiments in genetic
engineering, the cloning of humans is on the minds of many, both among
the general populace and with in the scientific community. In the past,
the cloning of humans was a subject best discussed within the genre of
science fiction novels, not scientific journals. When scientists, or
science writers, did discuss the possibility of human cloning, their
comments usually went something like this:
This is far beyond the reach of today’s science. There is a vast
difference between cloning an embryo that is made up of immature,
undifferentiated cells and cloning adults cells that have already
committed themselves to becoming skin or bone or blood. All cells
contain within their DNA the information required
to reproduce the entire organism, but in adult cells access to parts of
that information has somehow been switched off. Scientists do not yet
know how to switch it back on (Elmer-Dewitt, 1993, p. 66).
In this statement, Philip Elmer-Dewitt, a writer for
Time
magazine, echoed what seemed to be a commonly-shared view among the
researchers involved in genetic engineering. No one had been able to
clone mammals using
adult somatic cells, because for some unknown reason a great portion of the
DNA in those cells had been “switched off.” But, as the old saying goes, “That was then; this is now.”
“HELLO, DOLLY!”—
THE STORY OF AN “UDDERLY INCREDIBLE” LAMB
What a difference four years makes in science! In the Table of Contents of the February 27, 1997 issue of
Nature
(the official organ of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science), there appeared what seemed at first glance to be an innocuous
article titled “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian
Cells” (Wilmut, et al., 1997). That article, however, announced the
results of scientific research so significant that it not only would
make history, but change forever the way scientists viewed cloning in
both animals and humans.
Researchers from the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland had
accomplished what almost everyone in the scientific community thought to
be impossible. Headed by embryologist Ian Wilmut, Scottish scientists
produced a lamb using genetic material from the mammary cell of an
adult
ewe. The young lamb, named Dolly, did not owe her existence to a
procreative act occurring between a ram and a ewe. Instead, Dolly was
the result of a laboratory exercise in cloning. When her existence was
announced, the entire world gasped—first in disbelief, then in
amazement! As
Time put it, the Scottish researchers had succeeded in
...scoring an advance in reproductive technology as unsettling as it
was startling. Unlike offspring produced in the usual fashion, Dolly
does not merely take after her biological mother. She is a carbon copy, a
laboratory counterfeit so exact that she is in essence her mother’s
identical twin (Nash, 1997, p. 62).
 |
|
Technique used by Wilmut, et al. to
clone a sheep. Their breakthrough involved starving body cells of
nutrients, thus interrupting the normal cycle of growth and division. In
this quiescent stage, the cell can be “reprogrammed” to function as a
newly fertilized egg (after Travis, 1997, 151:215). |
Here is what Dr. Wilmut did to make Dolly a reality. As noted earlier,
embryonic cells are easier to use in cloning experiments than adult
somatic cells because they are, for the most part,
undifferentiated. In other words, they have not matured to the point where they have been able to carry out the instructions contained in the
DNA
within their nucleus that direct them to become skin cells, brain
cells, eye cells, etc. In its young, embryonic state, an
undifferentiated cell can become any other cell in the body, because it
has the capacity to activate any given gene on any given chromosome.
Non-embryonic somatic cells, however, already have carried out their
DNA instructions, and as a result are
differentiated
(i.e., in their mature state, they have become hair cells, muscles
cells, nerve cells, etc.). As a result, huge portions of the
DNA
instructions have been “deactivated,” so that mature cells can carry
out their particular function(s). Thus, much of the information coded
within the
DNA of adult cells no longer is accessible, having been “turned off ” at maturity because it no longer is needed by the cell.
In the past, most scientists involved in the broad area of genetic
engineering thought that the differentiation process was irreversible.
However, Dr. Wilmut and his coworkers disproved that idea by devising a
way to “reactivate” the portions of the
DNA molecule that previously had been deactivated, thus making adult somatic cells candidates for cloning.
First, the team of Scottish scientists searched for a mechanism that
would allow them to arrest the normal cell cycle (i.e., the process
through which all cells go as they mature and prepare to reproduce
themselves). They surmised that this might be accomplished by starving
cells of the nutrients they normally would need to grow. Some of the
cells chosen for the experiment were from the udder of a Finn Dorset
ewe. Once deprived of these critical nutrients, the mammary gland cells
fell into a sort of “suspended animation” (what, in live animals, would
resemble hibernation), a state in which they remained for one week.
Second, using the procedure (discussed previously in this series of
articles) known as “nuclear transfer,” Dr. Wilmut took an unfertilized
oocyte (i.e., an egg cell) from a Scottish Blackface ewe and carefully
removed its nucleus, leaving the remainder of the cell (cytoplasm, cell
membrane, etc.) completely intact (see Stewart, 1997). Then, he took the
quiescent mammary gland cell, placed it next to the oocyte, and gently
applied short bursts of electrical current, which prompted the egg cell
to bond with the somatic cell and absorb its nucleus (containing a full
complement of chromosomes) as its own. As a result, the egg cell
possessed the number of chromosomes it would contain if it had been
fertilized by the male’s sperm. The biochemical activity usually
associated with a zygote (the cell that results when sperm and egg
combine) then began to occur.
Third, after one week of carefully-monitored growth, the
laboratory-engineered embryo then was inserted into the uterus of a
surrogate ewe, to see if it would implant successfully and grow to term.
All of this may sound quite simple, but it is not. Dr. Wilmut’s success
came only after a long string of failures. In fact, he reported in his
article in
Nature that out of 277 eggs fused with udder cells, he
and his team were able to produce only 29 embryos that survived more
than six days. Of those 29, all died before birth except Dolly.
CLONING—WHY BOTHER?
To the uninitiated, all of this may seem at best much ado about
nothing, or at worst a complete waste of time, effort, and money. Why go
to all the trouble and expense to clone an animal, when normal
reproductive processes can produce an animal without all the fuss? “Just
let nature take its course,” some might say.
There is much more to it than that, however. Cloning has the potential
to make animal husbandry more effective and efficient. Imagine (to use
just one example) the plight of the dairy farmer searching for a way to
breed cattle that produce better milk in greater quantities. If he could
isolate one or more cattle that consistently produced more, and better,
milk than all the others, he could have them cloned, thus guaranteeing
whole herds of the highest quality milk-producing animals.
In addition, cloning has the potential both to reduce human suffering,
and to extend human life. Suppose (again, to choose just one
hypothetical example) that scientists were able to discover a mechanism
by which they could genetically alter chimpanzees so that portions of
their immune systems, or products manufactured by those immune systems,
were indistinguishable from those found in humans whose own immune
systems were diseased or damaged, and thus incapable of fighting off
disease to sustain life. These chimpanzees then could be cloned so that
as many copies as needed could be produced, thereby ensuring life-saving
animal products in an endless supply for use in humans.
Further, cloning has the potential to enlarge our knowledge about how
cells differentiate and reproduce. Using the information gleaned from
the study of the cell during cloning, scientists believe they could
learn more about why cancer cells grow out of control, or why birth
defects occur. In short, cloning
does hold forth immense potential in many different areas and, used properly, could offer tremendous benefits to mankind (see
Scientific American, 1997).
The operative phrase, here, however, is “used properly.” With cloning,
as with many of the technologies offered by modern science, there can be
serious scientific and biblical ethical implications. Rarely is the
technology, in and of itself, morally objectionable; instead, it is the
use
of the technology that makes it so. Part of the problem is the fact
that science itself is not equipped to deal with moral issues. There is
nothing within the scientific method, for example, that can dictate
whether nuclear energy should be used to destroy cancer cells, or entire
cities. That is a judgment far beyond the scope of science to make.
Unfortunately, once the technology is made available, there are those
who are prepared to employ it, regardless of any ethical problems that
might be associated with it. Since many within the scientific community
either do not believe in God, or do so only accommodatively, they
neither are interested in, nor restricted by, the guidelines and
principles set forth in His Word. As a result, in their eyes the simple
fact that the technology is available is reason enough to use it. Within
the scientific community, this is referred to as the “technological
imperative”—whatever
can be done
should be done!
WILL WE BE ABLE TO CLONE HUMANS?
In regard to cloning, the most pressing questions on almost everyone’s
mind are: (a) why would anyone want to clone a human in the first place;
(b) if attempts at cloning humans are successful, would a clone be an
exact duplicate of the original; (c) will we eventually be able to clone
humans; and (d) most important, would humans produced by cloning
possess a soul?
Why would anyone want to clone a human? First, parents might want to
clone a child as a “replacement” for one that had died. Second, parents
might want to clone a child to provide compatible organ transplants for a
diseased relative. [There have been cases of women wanting to become
pregnant so they could abort the child to provide fetal brain cells for
transplantation into a relative (e.g., a parent suffering from
Parkinson’s Disease).] Third, individuals might want to have themselves
cloned to guarantee immortality—if not in soul, at least in body.
Fourth, some may desire to clone a human simply for the prestige and
adulation that inevitably will result from having accomplished what no
one else has been able to do. A Nobel Prize can provide a very strong
incentive indeed!
If attempts at cloning humans are successful, would a clone be an exact duplicate of the original? A clone would be an exact
genetic duplicate of the original—the word “genetic” providing a critical distinction. Merely possessing identical
genes does not guarantee identical
people.
Ask anyone with identical twins. In fact, twins would be more alike
than clones for the simple reason that the twins would have shared the
same environment, upbringing, etc. People are more than merely a “bag of
genes.” Each of us is the end-product of many different external forces
that influence us from cradle to grave. Our personalities and attitudes
are formed by parents, friends, teachers, daily routines, societal
interactions, and many other factors that affect us during our
lifetimes.
Will we be able to clone humans eventually? That remains to be seen. No
scientist can answer that question, for to do so would be to possess
the ability to predict the future—something neither a scientist, nor
science, is equipped to do. Furthermore, there are too many unknowns. We
do not know if human adult somatic cells will respond the same way
adult somatic cells from sheep responded. We do not know if the process
used to produce Dolly (nuclear transfer) would work in humans. And so
on.
However, if the question were reworded so that it asked, “Will scientists
attempt to clone humans?,” I think the answer would be “yes.” An analogy might be helpful. When mountaineers are asked
why
they ascend a challenging (and often life-threatening) mountain, they
routinely respond: “...because it’s there.” Some scientists likely will
take the same approach. When asked
why current technology should be used to clone humans, they will respond: “...because it’s there.” One writer has suggested:
...it is not a question as to whether we will attempt to clone a
human being or not. Many technical hurdles will have to be overcome
first before we can attempt to produce cloned humans, so they say. But
if the moral and ethical scientists want to wait, or even shrink in fear
from such an undertaking, there are many in the world who have the
financial means, who do not have any scruples or reservations about
cloning humans. What about them? (Sinapiades, 1997, p. 6, emp. in
orig.).
I believe it no longer is a matter of
if attempts will be made to clone humans using this new technology, but only
when.
Eventually some scientist, or group of scientists, will yield to the
temptation to apply the Scottish scientists’ methodology to the human
race.
If (and this is a big “if ”) scientists are successful in cloning
humans, the most pressing question then becomes—will the people so
produced possess a soul? Much of the debate occurring today (especially
in religious circles) centers on this question. For example, three staff
writers for
U.S. News & World Report posed the question,
“Would a cloned person have its own soul?,” and answered it as follows:
“Most theologians agree with scientists that a human clone and its
DNA
donor would be separate and distinct persons. That means each would
have his or her own body, mind, and soul” (Herbert, et al., 1997, p.
63).
In addressing what at the time was the unlikely possibility of the
cloning of humans, Gish and Wilson asked: “What do we say, then? Would a
clone be truly human? The answer is that, indeed, he would be human,
for its life came from human life even though in a manner different than
is usually the case” (1981, p. 174). In addition, they noted, the
cloned human “is already alive, responsible to God for his actions,
needing to preserve his own body against sickness, to see that he is
properly fed, and all the rest. Each clone would have its own individual
responsibility, its own soul” (p. 172).
I concur with such an assessment. In James 2:26, James made this
observation: “The body apart from the spirit is dead.” The point, of
course, was that when the spirit departs the body, death results. But
there is an obvious, and important, corollary to that statement. If the
body is alive, it must be the case that the spirit is present. This is a
biblical principle that cannot, and must not, be ignored—especially in
light of the present controversy. The simple fact of the matter is that
if (again, a very big “if ”) scientists succeed in cloning living humans, those clones would possess a soul.
But only God can instill a soul. It is He Who “giveth to all life, and
breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25). It is only “in Him” that “we live,
and move, and have our being...” (Acts 17:28). The real issue is not
whether man is intelligent enough to clone a human, but whether or
not—should that eventually happen—God will choose to instill the
lifeless creature in the laboratory with a soul. This is a question no
one can answer.
SHOULD WE CLONE HUMANS?
Very often it is the case that with increased knowledge also comes
increased power. And with increased power comes the potential for misuse
or abuse of that power. The question, “
will we be able to clone humans?” is not the same question as “
should
we clone humans?” The first is a question to be answered by an appeal
to science; the second is a question to be answered by an appeal to the
Word of God.
Oddly, at times those who do not believe in God or His Word as an
objective moral standard seem to understand the ethical/moral issues
better than some Christians. For example, long before the technology was
available that could lead to human cloning, evolutionist Gunther Stent
of the University of Southern California stated: “The idea of cloning
humans is morally and aesthetically completely unacceptable” (as quoted
in Howard and Rifkin, 1977, pp. 125-126). Compare that with the comment
of Christian ethicist Randy Harris of David Lipscomb University:
“Although there has been a good deal of rhetoric on the evils that are
just ahead, I have yet to hear a cogent ethical argument as to why even
the cloning of a human would be wrong” (1997, p. 16).
There are, in fact, several “cogent ethical arguments” that can, and
should, be made against the cloning of humans, only two of which I would
like to mention here.
Cloning’s “Failures” Represent Dead Human Beings
It is one thing to attempt—and fail—277 times using sheep cells in an
attempt at cloning. Sheep are animals that do not possess souls, and
that are not made in the “image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26-27).
But it is quite another thing to try—even once—and fail in an attempt to
clone a human.
Embryos are living human beings! [On occasion, pro-abortion forces often argue that embryos within the womb are “not living.” If that is the case, then
leave them alone.
This, of course, is hardly an option, because in nine months the
end-result is a human baby—something impossible to explain if the embryo
was “not living” to begin with.] A laboratory littered with dead and
dying sheep embryos is one thing; a laboratory littered with dead and
dying human embryos is quite another!
Ask any knowledgeable ethicist, Christian or otherwise, and he or she
will confirm that basic medical ethics requires that in any experiment,
the subject must know the risks and give “informed consent.” In the case
of cloning, however, the tiny embryo being produced (and that more
often than not will die) can do no such thing. With cloning—if the
success rate of the Scottish scientists is taken at face value—the
failure rate will be staggering.
Basic medical ethics also requires that the experiment be to the
subject’s benefit. Laboratory procedures for cloning humans scarcely
would be to the benefit of the cloned embryos. Scottish scientist Wilmut
and his colleagues saw 277 of the embryos they had produced perish
before they saw a single one live. What if the same failure rate held
true for the cloning of humans? Or, for the sake of argument, suppose
that somehow the failure rate could be cut in half (in other words, out
of 277 attempts, “only” 139 human embryos died in the process)? Would
that then be ethically and morally acceptable? It would not! Producing
human embryos—with the full knowledge that many more of them will die
than will live—is indeed (to quote evolutionist Stent) “morally and
aesthetically completely unacceptable.” Medical ethicist Paul Ramsey has
suggested that we cannot even develop the kinds of reproductive
technologies being discussed here “without conducting unethical
experiments upon the unborn who must be the mishaps (the dead and
retarded ones) through whom we learn how” (as quoted in Restak, 1975, p.
65).
Human life, as a gift from God (Acts 17:25), is sacred. The Proverbs
writer observed that “there are six things which Jehovah hateth; yea,
seven which are an abomination unto him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and
hands that shed innocent blood” (6:16-17). Yet there is a
tendency to ignore these divine principles, and to view human life as
that which may be destroyed capriciously. Should Christians consider
laboratories teeming with the dead and dying human embryos that resulted
from failed attempts at cloning to be a “cogent ethical argument”
against such procedures? Or should they instead, to use Leon Kass’
words, simply “leave it so that discarding laboratory-grown embryos is a
matter solely between a doctor and his plumber” (as quoted in Restak,
1975, p. 65)?
Further, in examining the ethical issues surrounding procedures such as
these, the implications of the various technologies must be
acknowledged. For example, if cloning were possible:
-
It could be used to provide children for unmarried people.
-
Parents could pre-select the sex (and many other attributes) of their child(ren).
-
Women’s liberation would be complete, since no male would be needed.
The old Cockney saying, “It takes a man to make a girl,” no longer would
be true.
-
Large batches of human clones could be made for statistical studies.
-
Clones could be produced in order to harvest “spare parts” for transplants (e.g., bone marrow, organs, etc.).
-
People enamored of their own importance could ensure that exact
genetic replicas of themselves were brought into existence via
cloning—by tens or hundreds if they so desired.
If we scrutinize the alleged benefits of human cloning, there is less
here than at first meets the eye. Producing people for spare parts, or
to use as guinea pigs, is repugnant. David Lygre wrote: “The current
risks of abnormality and our reverence for human life should rule these
experiments out” (1979, p. 44). Indeed they should.
Cloning Circumvents God’s Plan for Reproduction
In a series of articles authored some years ago, Wayne Jackson remarked
that these scientific experiments “strike at the very heart of God’s
arrangement for human reproduction within the circle of the family unit
and all that this involves” (1979, 15:3; see also Jackson, 1994, pp.
27-36). The use of such things as donor sperm, donor eggs, surrogate
mothers, and cloning stand in stark contradistinction to God’s divinely
designed plan for the home. While many things, biblically, could be said
about God’s design of the home, one thing is clear. It is through the
family unit (which includes both a husband and wife in the procreative
act) that God intended for children to be brought into this world.
According to divine design, marriage is to precede the bearing of
children (1 Timothy 5:14). And it is not by accident that Moses
recorded: “And the man [Adam—
BT] knew Eve,
his wife; and she conceived...” (Genesis 4:1; emp. added). Jack Evans correctly observed that God’s
...spiritual law says the oneness of the flesh can be approved only by
Him in the marriage of the male and female who are producing another
part of their flesh (Hebrews 13:4; I Corinthians 6:16; 7:1-5). Thus, the
Bible teaches that the male and female producing the offspring of the
one flesh, according to spiritual law, must be married to each other.
...It is obvious that marriage precedes bearing children. Thus, if the
female bearing the child is not married to—is not one flesh with—the
male in the reproduction process, they violate God’s spiritual law
(1987, p. 358).
God’s plan is that children be produced through the husband and wife
via their “one flesh” covenant. The world often forgets that
childbearing never was intended to be an end within itself, but is part
of a much larger plan.
Any action that ignores, or nullifies, God’s plan for the home, and
reproduction within the framework of the home, must be avoided and
opposed. Cloning does just that. It circumvents the principle of a
husband and wife becoming “one flesh,” and through that procedure
bringing children into the world. The family unit was planned to provide
an atmosphere of love and trust (Proverbs 15:17; 17:1), which would
create an ideal environment for spiritual growth. To ignore these truths
is to miss the real meaning of the divinely planned family, and the
procreative acts that God placed within that family unit.
CONCLUSION
Each day brings exciting new scientific discoveries. Improved
techniques block pain and prevent suffering. New medicines cure or
prevent diseases. Advancements in knowledge and methodology continually
work to mankind’s benefit. As Suzuki and Knudtson concluded:
There is no reason to fear the stunning new conceptions of human
hereditary disease now emerging from genetics research. In fact, we can
rejoice that this new genetic knowledge is certain to improve the
prevention, detection and treatment of many previously untreatable
genetic disorders. At the same time, each of us shares responsibility
for ensuring that techniques allowing the manipulation of the human
genome are never exploited for arbitrary and self-serving ends or in
ways that fail to consider the potential long-term consequences of
large-scale genetic repair on human populations (1989, pp. 206-207).
Certainly, the faithful child of God may support many scientific
advances that cure disease, alleviate suffering, and make life better.
But the Word of God is the criterion against which every advance must be
measured. The end does not always justify the means.
REFERENCES
Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1993), “Cloning: Where Do We Draw the Line?,”
Time, pp. 65-70, November 8.
Evans, Jack (1987), “Is Surrogate Motherhood Sinful?,”
Gospel Advocate, 129:358, June 18.
Gish, Duane T. and Clifford Wilson (1981),
Manipulating Life: Where Does It Stop? (San Diego, CA: Master Books)
Harris, Randy (1997), “Will There Ever Be Another You?...Ewe?,”
Christian Chronicle,
54[5]:16-17, May. [Harris is one of several scientists, theologians,
and philosophers whose positions on cloning are presented in a special
two-page spread, edited by Lindy Adams.]
Herbert, Wray, Jeffrey L. Sheler, and Traci Watson (1997), “The World After Cloning,”
U.S. News & World Report, 122[9]:59-63, March 10.
Howard, Ted and Jeremy Rifkin (1977),
Who Should Play God? (New York: Dell).
Jackson, Wayne (1979), “Ancient Ethics in a Modern World,”
Christian Courier, 14:41-47; 15:2-4,6-8, May/June.
Jackson, Wayne (1994),
Biblical Ethics & Modern Science (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Lygre, David (1979),
Life Manipulation (New York: Walker).
Nash, J. Madeleine (1997), “The Age of Cloning,”
Time, 149[10]:62-65, March 10.
Restak, R.M. (1975),
Pre-Meditated Man (New York: Viking).
Scientific American, “Special Report: Making Gene Therapy Work,” 276[6]:95-106.
Sinapiades, Mike (1997), “Cloning, Clowning, or What?,”
First Century Christian, 19[2& 3]:6, February/March.
Stewart, Colin (1997), “An Udder Way of Making Lambs,”
Nature 385:769,771, February 27.
Suzuki, David T. and Peter Knudtson (1989),
Genethics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Travis, John (1997), “A Fantastical Experiment,”
Science News, 151:214-215, April 5.
Wilmut, Ian, A.E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A.J. Kind, and K.H.S. Campbell
(1997), “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells,”
Nature, 385:810-813, February
The writers and editors of National Geographic
are notoriously guilty of saturating their articles with evolution.
That is why it is almost humorous to read articles in the periodical
that seem to slip by the editors—articles that, if read in a
straightforward manner, defy evolution. For instance, in the December,
2006 issue, the editors included a tiny, one-page article titled “Power
Beak.” This article discusses the beak of the toucan. John Eliot, the
author of the article, interviewed Marc André Meyers, “a materials
scientist at the University of California, San Diego.” Meyers believes
the unique design of the toucan beak could be used to produce strong,
lightweight materials used in vehicles.
