A Clone of Your Own? The Science and Ethics of Cloning
BMJ 2004; 329 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7463.466 (Published 19 August 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;329:466All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Trevor Jenkins' "review" of the "science" and "ethics" of human
cloning comes across as slightly naive.
Might he have any conflicts of interests? One would think that a truly
proper and full "review" would take into account the decades of
intentional fabrication by "scientists" of the human embryology and
related sciences in this issue since the famous Warnoch Report's use of
the term "pre-embryo" - a term acknowledged by the Warnoch Committee
itself as "arbitrary", and a term now formally rejected by the
international nomenclature committee as “ill
defined”, “inaccurate”, “unjustified”, “equivocal”, and “introduced in
1986 largely for public policy reasons” [O’Rahilly and Muller, Human
Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 88].
Since then Great Britain (and other countries) has built on this
scientific deception to include the current laws and regulations on IVF,
human cloning, and human stem cell research -- which is to say they too
are all built on a house of cards. Whether the fake scientific terms used
are "pre-embryo", "therapeutic cloning", "nuclear transplantation", or
"stem cell research", etc., these and other such terms are simply
fabricated pseudo-scientific mechanisms to fool the public and to allow
researchers to do whatever they want to do - including the intentional
production and killing of living innocent human beings. Yes, that's
correct - the objective scientific fact is that the immediate product of
both sexual and asexual human reproduction is a new single-cell living
human ORGANISM (not just a "cell"). Every single one of us began to exist
as a single-cell ORGANISM. Nor is the 5-7 day human blastocyst just "a
ball of cells"; it too is a living developing human ORGANISM. If Mr.
Jenkins - or the government -won't tell the public the whole truth about
cloning, then the public should go to the libraries and look up these
objective scientific facts themselves in current human embryology
textbooks.
Mr. Jenkins also fails to note in his "ethics" review of cloning that
there are dozens of "ethics" out there besides "religious" ones that are
available to be selectively used and abused to "justify" this inherently
unethical research - including preference untilitarian "bioethics" which
has been used as the "ethical" foundation for justifying much unethical
research since its formal "birth" in 1978. This "ethics" considers ONLY
the ends or goals desired, and ignores the MEANS used to reach them.
That's scary. Also, only "the greater good" (however variously and
arbitrarily that is defined) is considered "ethically" relevant -
necessarily leaving out of consideration any and all minority "goods".
Given that "bioethics", like all ethical theories, defines itself as
"normative" (takes a stand on what is right or wrong), then how can any
democratic, multicultural, pluralistic government justify forcing this
"bioethics" that condons all human cloning on all of its citizens through
laws and regulations?
And it is precisely this "ethics" that makes a false distinction
between a "human being" and a "human person". If a "person" is only
defined by the active exercising of "rational attributes" and/or
"sentience", then the following list of human beings are not human persons
- and thus can also be "mined" for their body parts and used in
destructive experimental research "for the greater good": Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's patients, the mentally ill and retarded, alcoholics, drug
addicts, the frail elderly, the comotose, all mentally and physically
handicapped, perhaps even Mr. Jenkins when he is sleeping.
As a former bench researcher (NIH) I find the depth and degree of
corruption now pervading the research and pharmaceutical agendas
appalling. The ultimate question that people must ask is, if the
scientists and pharmaceutical companies are so willing to blatantly lie to
them for so long about THIS issue, why wouldn't they be just as willing to
lie to them about the science in ANY issue - as long as it can be
"ethically justified" for some "greater good" -- like money?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is unfortunate that the author imposes religious matters and,
thus, his own personal prejudices, into the debate on human research
subjects. The matter of species is not in doubt in human embryos. It is no
more "religious" to restrict experimentation on human subjects than it
would be to restrict and regulate nuclear power plants.
The United States does not prohibit embryonic stem cell research or
cloning of human embryos at all. There are restrictions on funding from
tax dollars, however. As a matter of fact, the National Institutes of
Health has announced that there are funds available for the research that
can be funded under current laws and regulations. As of this writing, the
governments of France, Canada, and Germany do prohibit cloning of human
embryos and have their own restrictions and regulations on human embryonic
stem cell research.
As to the commodification of human lives, please consider the
circumstances of the research on human embryos and pre-implantation
genetic diagnosis and selection as possible examples of the exact
situation that Dr. Kass predicted.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Buying the American dream
Trefor Jenkins writes a restrained review. The cloning business as
described by Arlene Klotzco highlighted the moral hypocrisy of the US
politician.
We learn that the people and their president have not yet decided
that reproductive cloning is an ethically unacceptable procedure. Rather
than actually outlaw the whole practice of cloning, President Bush’s
strong religious beliefs have simply halted research on therapeutic
cloning in the public sector. As an oil rich Texan, the President may thus
wish to keep alive the dream of cloning his own in the free market private
sector. Never mind that the American dream of cloning their own may be a
prelude to a ‘Brave New World’ conditioning process designed to make
people behave like automatons. It will almost certainly become a global
nightmare.
It should be remembered however, that the President’s Old Testament
religiosity nevertheless sanctions the extensive use of tax dollars in
pursuit of the death penalty with its consequent devaluation of human
beings, guilty or otherwise. Americans of course have a touching faith in
the infallibility of their justice system and anyway their leader,
incredible as he is, has assured them that the innocent are never
executed.
President Bush’s August 2001 edict protecting the sanctity of the
single-cell human blastocyst brought to the fore the moral inconsistency
of his and the American position on the killing of living human beings.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests