Bookmarkers beware: Bookmarks to pages other than the home page may not work after we change our server in April Editor's Choice | This Week in BMJ | Press releases BMJ No 7129 Volume 316 Medicine and books Saturday 7 February 1998 Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? Gregory E Pence Rowman & Littlefield, £9.95, pp 174 ISBN 0 8476 8782 1 See News, p 411 The debate over human cloning (specifically, nuclear somatic transfer) has been dominated by the doom merchants who usually gather round the sites of major scientific breakthroughs. By making an ethical case against laws banning nuclear somatic transfers, Pence swims against the tide. His first swipe is at the religious right and the US National Bioethical Advisory Commission. He finds that the opponents of in vitro fertilisation are out in force again - this time against nuclear somatic transfers. As their earlier predictions turned out to be so wrong, he wonders why they have been invited back by the commission to deliberate over human cloning research. Pence goes on to discard major misconceptions that commonly arise when human cloning is debated. Ian Wilmut (of Dolly fame) came out against human cloning because of concern that the clone would not be treated as an individual. But, as Pence points out, a human being created by means of nuclear somatic transfer will develop just as much into an individual as twins do. Unless one adopts a genetic determinist stance, this widely held concern turns out to be a non-issue. It follows from this that we cannot use people created by means of nuclear somatic transfer as organ banks, because they are real persons. Pence argues convincingly that the fact that a person has originated in a way different from other people does not diminish his or her standing as a moral agent in society. The feminist idea that women would be reduced to productive machines is countered with the obvious argument that pregnancy is not imposable on women in liberal democracies. Pence goes to some length to show that both classical utilitarian as well as contractarian ethicists ought to support his permissive stance on human cloning. He argues that, "despite the widespread belief to the contrary, if no one is harmed by human asexual reproduction, then it raises no moral issue." About half of the book is devoted to making a positive case for the use of and research on nuclear somatic transfer. It is fairly straightforward: people would have another option, allowing for human asexual reproduction. This may benefit all those who cannot reproduce by other means. Further advantages would accrue to the offspring of parents with an autosomal dominant disease. Pence realises that there is only one serious type of objection to human asexual reproduction - the potential of harm to children born as a result of nuclear somatic transfer. Ian Wilmut, for instance, had to struggle with many deformed fetuses until Dolly was born. Pence wants further animal research to be undertaken before nuclear somatic transfer is attempted in humans. His "acceptable risk" is that the predicted risk from animal studies is no greater than the normal risk accepted by people who engage in sexual reproduction. I am unconvinced by this criterion. Firstly, deducing anything about the risk to humans from animal studies is difficult. Still, Pence argues elsewhere in his book that fetuses are not people and should not be treated as such. Just as we accept today abortions on the basis of serious deformation of the fetus, it would be just as acceptable in the case of seriously deformed fetuses which follow nuclear somatic transfer. This new technique would not introduce any new quality to the morality of such an abortion. Regardless of whether you agree with Pence's main argument, this is a highly readable book. I remain unconvinced that taxpayers' monies should be used to develop an inefficient reproductive technology to allow rich people in Western societies to reproduce, while elsewhere people starve to death. However, I can find no fault with the ethical analysis. It will be up to his opponents now to replace their hand waving with better arguments than those Pence has put to rest. Udo Schüklenk, lecturer in applied ethics, University of Central Lancashire, Preston Rating: *** Home | Current issue | Past issues | Classified ads | Career Focus | Feedback Collections | About this site | About the BMJ | BMA | Medline