CLONING: A BIBLICAL RESPONSE
Now that a mammal (Dolly the sheep) has been cloned for the first time from an adult non-reproductive cell, what are the implications, and what should the Christian response be?
The cloning of humans
Using techniques similar to those of Wilmut et al.1 at the Roslin Institute, it may well be possible to clone humans from adult cells in the near future. The most likely justifications for this are the cloning of embryos for spare parts, and the treatment of sterility, according to a perceptive commentary in Nature by Axel Kahn 2. Should embryos be cloned to produce cell lines or organs for therapeutic purposes, when in most instances the remaining embryo will die? Potentially there is huge commercial interest: the market for human organs currently obtained from transplants is worth $6 billion a year, and demand increasingly exceeds supply. The culture of human embryo clones for spare parts is just an added dimension to the existing practices of conducting research on human embryos, and the production of spare embryos from most in vitro fertilisation techniques: in all these cases the embryos are ultimately destroyed. Moreover, Kahn suggests that there is "the possibility that the current direction of public opinion will tend to legitimize the resort to cloning techniques in cases of sterility" eg. where the male partner cannot produce gametes. It might also enable lesbians to have a child: one partner donates the nucleus, and the other supplies the egg. The two Christian doctrines foundational to these issues are those of creation and the incarnation.
1. Creation
Firstly, in Genesis 1:27 we read "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". The value of human life is thus because God made man in His image. This is clear from Genesis 9:6, where murder is forbidden: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man". Thus it is man who is created in the image of God. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, white or black, rich or poor, healthy or handicapped: all are members of the human race. There is no "quality control" to deny any members the supreme dignity of bearing that image 3. However, historically human character was denied to certain classes of persons who today are recognised undoubtedly as being humans. For example, in the past, the mentally-retarded and the mentally-ill were treated like animals; in the Third Reich, Jews were considered non-persons leading to their abuse and extermination; and in the years of apartheid South Africa, skin colour affected the civil rights of the country's inhabitants. It seems to be the same case today for the unborn where some people qualify image-bearing with some particular capability (such as artistic or social skills) which is not evident in the unborn. In all these cases, some other criterion other than the biological fact of human membership determines the dignity and worth of the person3.
Secondly, in Genesis 1:31 we read that "God saw everything that He had
made and behold, it was very good." This speaks of how, when God had finished
His Creation, it was a masterpiece of completed work, awesomely and optimally
designed. In ignoring this principle, man's efforts to engineer improvements
upon nature are generally flawed: the products are inferior to God's best
design. A classic example is another recent Roslin production, the transgenic
cow Rosie, who produces a human milk protein in her milk which, according
to Wilmut 4 "could eventually be used to feed very premature
infants". It just so happens that I have just given birth to a very premature
baby of my own, who is in a neonatal unit at the moment. I am the only breastfeeding
mother in the entire unit of over 20
babies. The problem is rarely that mothers cannot breastfeed, but rather
that they won't! In many parts of the country bottle feeding with formula
milk is still overwhelmingly dominant. Human protein formula milk could
be the latest commercial attraction to boost formula milk sales yet further.
The addition of a human protein to formula milk still leaves formula milk
far inferior to human breastmilk: the latter contains hundreds of constituents,
including other proteins, that God has optimally designed for the baby's
needs, including the adjustment of these constituents to produce tailor-made
"neonate" milk if the baby is premature. "Breast is best", and will always
remain so. With improved infection screening protocols, there is a resurgence
in human milk banks 5 which offer a far better solution
to problems of breastfeeding than what Wilmut advocates.
Thirdly, Scripture implicitly declares the family to be the fundamental unit God designs for human society, thus precluding cloning to produce offspring in lesbian relationships:the child would be impoverished from receiving the complementary attributes normally shared between the two genders. "A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh (Genesis 2:24)." The normal result of this scriptural imperative ensures the uniqueness of every member of the human race, resulting from the unique recombination of two equally unique genomes 6.
2. The Incarnation
At what point does "human life" begin? Is it to be identified with our biological beginnings at fertilisation, or do we start our human existence at some later stage? The former is the position held by embryologists. For example, one representative embryology textbook states that "a zygote is the beginning of a new human being" 7. The latter position is advocated by John Habgood, former Archbishop of York, of key influence in the debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill of 1990, arguing that "the transition to individual life is rooted in gradualism ... it is not clear and decisive" 8. Others argue for agnosticism: we simply do not know when "life" begins 9. The concept of "ensoulment" concerns when the human soul enters the body. One view identifies ensoulment as occurring some time after fertilisation (eg. Aristotle believed that the male embryo gained a soul after 40 days, and the female after 90 days!). However, this at variance with the Biblical view of the unity of body and soul. According to James Barr "The soul is not an entity with a separate nature. Rather...the flesh expresses outwardly the soul.....Man does not have a soul, he is a soul." 10
"The embryo is not a human being before 14 days" is another argument used to justify destructive research on embryos up to 14 days. This viewpoint stems from the Warnock Committee in their recommendations for legislation in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990), to "allay public anxiety". It is erroneously based on utilising primitive streak formation (which takes place at approximately 14 days) as "marking the beginning of individual development". This view in turn is on based on the developmental time limit for twinning to occur. Other Groups suggested the start of implantation (around 6 days), whilst others advocated the end of implantation (around 12 days). The mere consensus position reached is a purely arbitrary one, and attempts to base "ethics" on anything other than Biblical principles have floundered.
A Biblical response to these issues is provided by Nigel Cameron 11. "In the Gospel testimony "Mary is told that she will conceive as a result of the Holy Spirit `coming upon' her, and the `power of the Most High' `overshadowing' her. ... it is logically necessary to identify the incarnation with the virginal conception since there is no other point in the story at which it can have occurred. The life-story of Jesus Christ, God and man, begins in the earliest days of his embryonic biological existence; and the significance of this fact is that the manhood which he took on is our manhood. That is, it cannot be claimed that his case was in this respect unusual, since the entire principle of the incarnation is the taking up of normal, yet sinless, humanity by God. If that is the point at which his human life-line began, it is also the point at which ours begins. Such a conclusion immediately rules out any attempt to relativise the moral significance of the early stages of life. The reason why God could become man was that man, although his creature, already bore his image, reflecting the personal character of God in a human form. For God to become man in embryo therefore requires that man in embryo already bear the image, and absolutely forbids the possibility that in the early stages of biological life man can lack the divine image because lacking something which is its prerequisite."
Would a clone be a separate individual, with its own soul? The answer is yes, for the same reason that twins are. We can consider asexual reproduction in an animal such as Hydra, or in vegetative propagation (a form of cloning) of most horticultural fruits and vegetables. In all these cases they can divide to become two, three or several individuals: from a biological perspective there is no question of the parental stock's individuality just because of the potential indeterminacy of the number of offspring that will be produced. Similarly, if a human embryo divides, at that stage it becomes two human beings. And, because man is a soul, each twin or clone would be a soul. This also shows the error of The Warnock Report idea that "for an embryo to be able to divide means that that embryo is not an individual".
If a clone is a separate human being, doesn't this warrant cloning? Even from simply a biological perspective, Axel Kahn is surely right in saying that part of the individuality and dignity of a person lies in the unpredictability of heredity, which "constitutes the principle protection against biological predeterminationism imposed by third parties, including parents......What would the world be like if we accepted that human 'creators' could assume the right to generate creatures in their own likeness, beings whose very biological characteristics would be subjugated to an outside will?2"
The cloning of animals
Why was Dolly the sheep cloned? She is the product of modifying the animal's milk production by genetic engineering, in order to make valuable pharmaceuticals. So, for example, Tracey the sheep has been genetically engineered to produce alpha-1-antitrypsin, a human protein needed for treatment of cystic fibrosis. It has been predicted that in the future most farmed animals could be clones 12. Only the top 10 to 15% elite herds would be kept, which would then be cloned to increase the farming yield. Already, without genetic engineering, there are problems associated with intensified agricultural practices. For instance, cows are milked so intensively as to generate exhaustion, damaged udders and the serious weakening of their immune system. Genetic engineering could lead to yet further problems of intensification. Caution has been urged about cloning and the use of human genes in animals, because it is necessary to examine the effects after a few generations, rather than a few weeks13. The Bible provides clear guidelines for agricultural practices. God commanded mankind to "till" and "keep" the land. The Hebrew words used are abad (meaning to work or serve) and shamar (to keep, watch or preserve). Therefore our agriculture should aim at productivity that is in keeping with the animal's welfare.
Also God's mandate to Creation is for them to reproduce "after their own kind". This has implications in promoting the invigorations of variation within the population. In contrast, it is an established fact that selection to extremes comes at a price: breeds so-produced are less fit to withstand other environmental pressures eg. disease resistance. In addition, traditional farming practices allowed the animals to mate; this is often precluded in today's farming. Cloning practices could intensify this situation 14.
The techniques
According to the embryologist Jonathan Slack of Bath University, nuclear transplants may generate a false positive result because not all the original DNA may have been removed from the host egg. In addition the DNA from Dolly's udder may have come from a stem cell (which retains a large capacity to differentiate), as opposed to a mature udder cell 15.
Concerning the Roslin Institute's history: in 1996 identical lambs, Megan and Morag, were created from an 8-cell embryo. But the other three lambs (out of 5 total) which died at birth or soon after had congenital abnormalities and one was almost twice the normal size, requiring caesarian delivery. This point was omitted from the original report in Nature by the authors, who were so strongly criticised that they had to write to the correspondence page to reveal it 16. In the ensuing efforts to produce Dolly, out of 277 fusions, Dolly was the only lamb successfully born. There were an alarming number of miscarriages and abnormalities. See Note
How do these cloning techniques differ from twinning? There's all the difference in the world! The cloning techniques of Wilmut et al.1. employ a so-called adult nucleus which is transplanted. The aging effect upon the cloned offspring is as yet unresearched (indeed animal models might not necessarily release all the clues to this, since there may be species-specific aging effects). Thus, a cloned human at birth might already be aged to the same extent as the donor nucleus. [Update: there is evidence that Dolly has premature ageing]. Wilmut's technique also has an extremely high failure rate and leads to many malformed embryos: even with improved techniques it is unlikely that these problems will be eradicated. Malformed embryos would probably be destroyed in the petri dish (or subsequently?): this is not ethically acceptable from a Biblical perspective.
The technique more likely to be encountered in the future is that of artificial twinning or embryo splitting, in which an embryo is split into multiple identical copies. This has been performed experimentally on human embryos by Stillman & Hall in 1993, although the embryos did not survive. It is being justified if a woman has a very limited supply of eggs. However, at the very least, one has to ask what will become of any embryos malformed by the technique or of any "spare" embryos which the technique generates? Also, even placing embryos in vitro, without any experimental manipulation, can generate abnormalities. This suggests that the practice has inherent risks.
Conclusions
Kahn commented that "creating human life for the sole purpose of providing therapeutic material would clearly not be for the dignity of the life created" 2. He concluded that it is not a technical barrier that will protect us from cloning but "a moral one, originating from a reflection of the basis of our dignity". Kahn has no solution as to where this basis is derived, but for the Christian, the answer is plain: our dignity is founded on bearing God's image. This means human beings are sacred, and should be afforded the most awesome respect, protection and care. The Incarnation of Christ confirmed the continuity of human life from fertilisation to death: He did not bypass the early stages. To reiterate Nigel Cameron "If that is the point at which his human life-line began, it is also the point at which ours begins." As for the cloning of animals, which generates so many abnormalities, this is in conflict with the Biblical command to care for God's creatures, rather than tinker with them. It also fails to acknowledge God's perfection in creation because holistic considerations are over-ridden by commercial pressures. As society continues to generate reproductive technologies such as cloning which lack a moral rudder, we Christians, of all people, are the ones most able to speak into the situation, and we should do so.
What you can do
1. Pray
......for more pro-life people to emerge and win opinion in this debate. This would include not only politicians but those whom they listen to as advisers: embryologists and other scientists, moral and religious leaders, journalists, and voters!
.....that there would be a public, even global, abhorrence to every aspect of cloning, along with other burgeoning reproductive technologies in which either the means or ends are not part of God's design.
2. Act
Write to your local MP and to Government Ministers - particularly pressing the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health for people who are pro-life to be included (currently they seem to be deliberately excluded) in the representation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Genetics Commission. Ministers make the appointments and technically these appointments are accountable to Parliament.
Support pro-life organisations who are addressing the cloning issue. For further information, visit the UK site launched by the Movement Against the Cloning of Humans. In the US, The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity has set up a site specifically addressing the issue: On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research. A very useful PBS interview with Nigel Cameron is also online:Making Babies.
Sheena E.B. Tyler (April 1997)
References
1. Wilmut, I. et al. 1997, Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells, Nature, 385(27 Feb), 810-813.
2. Kahn, A. 1997, Clone mammals ... clone man? Nature, 386(13 Mar), 119.
3. Love your unborn neighbour. 1994, SPUC, London.
4. Sunday Telegraph, 1997(23 Feb), 32.
5. Midwife News, 1997, Midwives, (May).
6. Galibert et al., 1997, Advantage of learning Nature's secrets, Nature, 386(3 Apr), 431.
7. Moore, 1988, The developing human, Saunders.
8. Habgood, J. 1984, in Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, The Warnock Committee, HMSO, London, 60.
9. Berry, R.J. 1996, God and the biologist, Apollos, Leics.
10. Barr, J. Cited in Ref 3, 41.
11. Cameron, N.M. de S. 1985, Image in embryo, Biblical Creation, No.21, 3-12.
12. Wilmut, I. 1997, Daily Mirror, (7 March), 2.
13. Nicholson, R. 1997, The Guardian, (5 March).
14. Sutton, A. 1997, Cloning, Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy, London.
15. Slack, J. 1997, quoted by Coghlan, A. New Scientist, (1 Mar), 4.
16. King, D. 1996, Sheep cloning furore misses the real issues. GenEthics News, 11(Mar/Apr), 1,3.
Note added February 17, 2004:
"In addition to being a notoriously inefficient procedure, animal cloning has produced many animals with conspicuous developmental problems, like respiratory illnesses and overly large placentas. Dolly the cloned sheep suffered from premature arthritis before dying last year. Such genetic dysfunction is one reason for nearly unanimous scientific opposition to reproductive cloning." Source: Specter of Cloning May Prove a Mirage, By Stephen S. Hall, The New York Times, February 17, 2004 [Return]
