By now, 17 years after Dolly the sheep, cloning is starting
to feel like a worn out topic. But, as reported by the New York Times, it was
just in May of this year that scientists were finally able to clone human
embryonic stem cells. For now, scientists say they have no intentions of
implanting the cloned human embryos, and that it would not result in the birth
of viable offspring. Still, the development opens up the possibility of human
cloning, the harm and good that it could do, and the inevitable fight about the
ethics of the entire thing.
In her book “Frankenstein’s Cat,” Emily Anthes offers a
compelling discussion about animal cloning, the rabid response to the ability
to clone our beloved pets, and the ethical dilemmas that have slowed the
initial enthusiasm surrounding the opportunity. While the stakes are higher
with human life on the line, Anthes' investigation of animal cloning provides a
starting point to think about what might happen should human cloning become a
reality.
Callous as it may sounds, Anthes’ discussion largely comes
down to costs and benefits. Take, for example,
the cloning of bulls as livestock versus the cloning of dogs as pets. Cloning a bull costs much less than cloning a
dog, about 80,000 dollars less, on average.
Not only that, but the earning potential generated by a genetically perfect
bull can often cover the cost of cloning. Financially speaking, we’re better
off cloning bulls than dogs. However, we all know that the costs and benefits
of cloning go beyond the economic. When we bring lovable animals such as dogs,
or in the future, humans, into the equation, emotions and morals get involved.
First let’s look to Anthes to see what this means in terms
of bulls and dogs. Cloning a bull is not only cheaper than a cloning a dog, it
is also easier. Bulls require fewer eggs and fewer pregnancies to result in a
viable birth. Dogs, on the other hand, have proven to be extremely difficult to
clone, even among other “pet” animals. The first cloned dog was the result of
1,095 embryos carried by 123 dogs. That’s one success out of over 100 pregnancies.
The odds just are not good. Such a
biological cost creates a serious ethical dilemma. Is the potential discomfort
and loss of so many created lives worth bringing back your animal pal? Most
people don’t think so. As Anthes says, “We’re creating these carbon copies
because we love our companions so much that we can’t bear the thought of living
without them. And yet that’s also why the endeavor is so fraught— because we
value cats and dogs above so many other species.”
It only gets more complicated when we move from bulls and
dogs to humans. Humans do value cats and dogs very highly, but is there any
species that we value more than ourselves? And what does that value mean for
the future of human cloning? Right now, scientists are not planning on actually
cloning any human persons, and instead say that this discovery could help
create replacement tissue and cure diseases. Surely, in the cost-benefit
equation, those feats weigh in heavily on the side of benefits. However, there
may come a time when we have to consider the costs of human cloning. Knowing
science, human cloning won’t stop with replacement tissue. If it takes 123 dogs to make one cloned
puppy, how many humans will it take to make a cloned baby? How could the
potential to recreate people, as some would say, to “play god,” hurt or help
society? When the time comes, which way will the cost-benefit scales tip? It’s
hard for any of us, even Anthes, to say. However, considering that customers of pet cloning
companies such as PerPETuate are still waiting for technology to advance enough
for cloning to be a viable option for their dogs or cats, I think we’ll all
have a while to think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment