Beginning Reflections of One Unitarian Universalist
on Cloning and Related Technologies
Karl E. Peters
Boston University Conference on Cloning and Genetic Technologies
June 2, 1999
Note: In 1999, with the cloning of Dolly in Scotland, the concern quickly became the possibility of human cloning. The conference at Boston University included scientists, professors of law and philosophy, and representatives from various world religions. I was asked to speak from a Unitarian Universalist Perspective. Whle the follow is something I would still stand by, I’m struck with how the issue of human cloning has faded into the background. The focus has shifted to how stem cells can be produced and used in contemporary medicine. Yet, the idea of human cloning is still a possibility. And so, from time to time, it might be good to reflect on its ethics. (Karl E. Peters July 2, 2011)
For a video of this presentation go www.counterbalance.org/iftm/kpet-frame.html
Introduction
I’ve been asked to present a Unitarian Universalist perspective on cloning and genetic technologies. Unitarian Universalism emphasizes the free, rational inquiry of each individual on moral and religious matters, along with respect for differing views in caring communities. In order to make decisions at both the local and national levels, Unitarian Universalists engage in democratic processes. At present, the federation of individual congregations, called the Unitarian Universalist Association, has not passed any resolutions regarding cloning and genetic technologies. Therefore, I am presenting the beginning reflections of one Unitarian Universalist.
As I do this, I am guided by Unitarian Universalist statements of seven principles and values as well as of six resources for religious and moral reflection. These have been approved by the Unitarian Universalist Association of congregations and are part of the Association’s Bylaws (Section C-2.1 Principles). The principles and values are 1) the inherent worth and dignity of every person; 2) justice, equity, and compassion in human relations; 3) acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; 4) a free and responsible search for truth and meaning; 5) the right of conscience and the use of democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; 6) the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; and 7) respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. The resources are 1) direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces that create and uphold life; 2) words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love; 3) wisdom from the world’s religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life; 4) Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves; 5) humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against the idolatries of mind and spirit; and 6) spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.
Based on some of these I will first outline elements of a world view that provides a context for making ethical decisions. Then, with these elements and some Unitarian Universalist principles and values I will address four questions. 1) Should we try to clone animals as resources for treating human disease? 2) Should we try to develop human mesenchymal stem cell technology to provide replacement tissues and organs? 3) Should we try to develop nuclear transfer cloning technology to produce human preembryonic stem cells that can be developed as replacement tissues and organs? 4) Should we use nuclear transfer technology to clone human beings?
Elements of a World View to Provide a Context for Moral Decision Making.
The first element of my own Unitarian Universalist world view comes from science. It is the evolutionary story. From this story I conclude that human beings are part of a larger natural family. Like everything else in the cosmos we are made from energy that was present fifteen billion years ago at the “big bang.” Like everything on our planet we have evolved from elements such as nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon that were created in the supernovae of earlier, giant stars. Like all living things on Earth we are constructed according to a DNA code, and our own code is almost the same as that of other higher primates, such as the chimpanzee. We are members of a larger natural family.
However, we are unique in two significant ways. First, we have evolved with the intelligence to direct energy, matter, and now even the further creation of life. As Philip Hefner and others say, we are “created cocreators.” To me this is consistent with the idea of the “image of God” in the first chapter of Genesis. If one asks, what is the God of which humans are the image, it seems quite clear from the text that God is the creator. The image of God thus means that we too are creators. Of course, we are not ultimate creators. We are part of the created universe. Nevertheless, even though we are finite creatures, limited in many ways, we have a capability that no other creature on Earth has–the power to direct energy, matter, and life, using them to create in new ways. One of these new ways has been the creation of the sheep Dolly through nuclear transfer cloning.
A second way in which we are different from other members of our natural family is that we have evolved with the capacity for ethical reflection. We can reflect on the power we have, on all the things we can do, and ask whether we should do them. We are thus created to be responsible cocreators. This is our special place in the natural family of which we are a part.
A second source for elements of my world view is religion. Looking at a variety of religions, from those of tribal societies to the developed world religions, I draw two ideas. One is that a central task of religion is healing. In almost all societies religious healers are very important. In the Christian religion Jesus is known for his healing of physical diseases, and this healing is related to his proclamation of the coming of God’s kingdom. Healing is therefore significant. Furthermore, many religions today support the use of modern science and technology in healing, for example, in religiously supported hospitals. A key question is, “to what extent can cloning be supported as a technology of healing?”
A second idea I draw from religions is that whatever creates life is sacred. Most religions value life, and they consider the powers or the processes that create life as holy or sacred. As created cocreators, we humans have created many things. However, with cloning we have created something that goes beyond anything we have done to date; we have created a new way of creating life. We have entered into the realm of the sacred. As I now move on to apply the elements of my world view, along with some Unitarian Universalist principles and values, a major question will be, to what extent should we enter the realm of the sacred in order to heal and to bring new life into being?
Should We Clone Animals as Resources for Treating Human Disease and Maintaining Health?
In 1997 Scottish scientists took specialized cells from the mammary gland of an adult sheep, placed them in a culture dish, and by undernourishing the cells returned them to a state in which they could once again become any cell in a sheep’s body. Next the scientists took an egg from another sheep and removed its nucleus, creating an enucleated ovum. Then they removed the nucleus from one of the dedifferentiated cells originating in the mammary gland and fused it with the enucleated ovum of the other sheep. After 277 attempts, Dolly was born.
One of the reasons for cloning animals is to create a more efficient and effective way of producing pharmaceuticals. As sheep and goats are cloned, their DNA can be modified. For example, “snippets” of human DNA can be inserted into the DNA of these animals, so that they produce insulin in their milk.
Here we are entering the realm of the sacred with genetic engineering and a new way of creating animals. Do we have good reasons for doing this? I think we do, for this helps us carry out a central task of religion, that of healing.
However, as responsible created cocreators we should consider setting some moral boundaries. Maybe we even need to develop more explicitly and comprehensively an “ethics of agriculture,” related to current work in animal rights ethics and environmental ethics. I am struck by the fact that an ancient society, the people of Israel, included animals in their ethical thinking. The Torah of Judaism not only articulates how humans should be related to God and to one another. It also states how humans should behave toward animals and the land. Contemporary society seems to have forgotten this.
Following the Unitarian Universalist principle of living in harmony with all creatures out of respect for the interdependent web of existence, and because animals are part of our natural family, we should be concerned about their health and longevity even as we use them for our own purposes. We seek for humans a healthy life and a normal life span. As we use animals to help us do this, we should not jeopardize their health or longevity. For example, it has been reported in the journal Nature that Dolly’s telomeres are shorter than expected. Although the scientific jury is still out, it could mean that her cloned cells are older than expected, which might mean a shortened life span. Such a finding would be morally relevant as we consider whether we should continue cloning animals.
On the other hand, it seems that animal cloning is less harmful to animals than many of the other things for which we utilize them. Further, nuclear transfer cloning combined with genetic modification could produce pharmaceuticals for animals as well as for humans. This technology can be beneficial for both the practice of human medicine and veterinary medicine.
Should We Develop Mesenchymal Stem Cell Technology for Treating Human Disease and Maintaining Heath for the Total Life Span?
In early April 1999 it was reported that scientists isolated mesenchymal cells from bone marrow. Using a combination of various growth factors, nutrients, spatial organization, and mechanical forces, they got the cells to differentiate into bone cells, fat cells, and cartilage cells. The hope is that stem cells from various parts of our body could be developed for repairing damaged tissue and replacing organs.
There are good reasons for doing this. Developing and applying mesenchymal stem cell technology would be a boon for people as they age, and would carry out the healing task of religion. It would not use aborted fetuses or embryos left from in vitro fertilization, and it would not produce any new life form. Ethically this seems to be the least controversial of the questions we are considering.
The main drawback may be a technological one. Mesenchymal stem cells are not pluripotent, able to be developed into all the types of tissues and organs we night need. This leads to the next question.
Should We Develop Nuclear Transfer Cloning Technologies to Produce Preembyronic Stem Cells That Can Be Developed as a Wide Variety of Possible Tissue Repairs and Organ Replacements?
Preembyronic stem cells are cells capable of becoming an adult human if implanted in a uterus. They are less than fourteen days old and have not yet divided to form the placenta and the embryo. As long as they are not implanted, some people think it is okay to use them for other purposes.
Current sources of preembryonic stem cells are the germ cells of aborted fetuses and preembryos remaining from in vitro fertilization. Whether to use cells from these sources for research and other purposes is the subject of the current report of the National Bioethics Advisory Board.
These stem cells are pluripotent or totipotent, which means they have the potential for becoming any type of tissue or organ a person needs. Thus they have a wider range of uses than mesenchymal stem cells. One drawback, however, is the problem of rejection. Tissue and organs derived from existing preembryos would probably not be related to those of a recipient.
To solve the rejection problem, one might engage in nuclear transfer cloning. One could take somatic cells from the person who needed replacement tissue or an organ and dedifferentiate them using techniques developed in cloning Dolly. The nucleus of one of these cells could be fused with an enucleated ovum. The resulting preembryonic stem cells could then be directed to form the desired tissue or organ. People could thus become their own organ donors.
Are their good reasons for doing this? Once again, this would fill a religious task of healing, enabling more people to life full, healthy lives. However, with such a technology preembryos would be created that conceivably could be implanted to produce another human being. This leads to my final question.
Should We Develop Nuclear Transfer Technology to Clone Human Beings?
Here, as created cocreators we clearly and fully enter the realm of the sacred, using humanly developed techniques to create human life. Do we have good reasons for doing this? Not if we simply what to clone ourselves for DNA immortality. This would not be affirming the worth and dignity of the cloned person–a violation of a Unitarian Universalist principle. Not if we want to clone individuals for special tasks. This again violates human dignity and also the principle of equity, justice, and compassion, for it probably would create special classes of humans for other people’s purposes. Not even to clone a replacement child, say a teenager who died in an accident. This would be using the cloned child as an instrument for the parent’s purposes. Expectations placed on the child as the substitute for its dead sibling would make it difficult to regard it as having worth and dignity in itself.
However, consider the following possible scenario (modified from a short story titled “Carbon Copy” in Wired Magazine, reprinted in Glenn McGee, The Cloning Controversy). A couple in their late thirties marries. They want a child. Taking precautions to make sure they have a healthy child, they reproduce. The child dies in two weeks. They are devastated. It turns out that the mother has a rare mitochondrial defect that does not affect her but kills her offspring. It also makes it impossible for her to have any offspring.
Assume we are sometime in the future. Because nuclear transfer technology has been developed to safely clone animals and preembryonic stem cells, it is possible to take cells from the dead child, dedifferentiate them, and transplant the child’s DNA into an enucleated ovum donated by a woman with healthy eggs. The ovum is then placed in the uterus of the dead child’s mother, and the mother gives birth to a healthy child.
Should cloning for reproduction be done in a case like this? One might respond “yes” if cloning in such cases were regarded as a way of dealing with the mother’s mitochondrial disease, assuming there was no other way to cure the defect. The cloning would be carrying out the task of healing. A second reason for cloning might be to carry on the biological heritage of a family. This might be a reason for some people in religious traditions such as Judaism. In this case the healthy child would be the DNA serial twin of the dead child and, therefore, the descendant of both the wife and the husband. Their biological heritage would be continued.
On the other hand I have some concerns of about the ethics of human cloning even in a case like this. I wonder about the burdens this would place on the child, especially if it became known that the child was a clone. Even though it would be difficult to recognize a cloned child by its appearance, I am not as sanguine as some that the way it was created could be kept secret. Once discovered, I worry that cloned child would not be treated with worth and dignity? Worth and dignity are conferred by people in the society. Could a society give worth and dignity to any child created by cloning, or would it be considered more like a freak?
A second concern is justice and equity. In similar cases would such technologies be available to all regardless of race or economic class? If nuclear transfer cloning were regarded as one of the means of treating a disease, it might be accepted as something covered under insurance. Unless it was covered, it would probably be primarily for the wealthy and the privileged.
Another issue arises when we consider other alternatives available to a couple having children. One is adoption. Because of the number of children needing loving homes, it might be more just and compassionate for the couple to adopt a child, even if that child does not carry on their own genetic heritage.
A related issue arises when we consider our responsibility to the rest of our natural family as part of the interdependent web of life. With the overall rate of growth of the human population, I wonder if we need to develop new ways to create human children.
Finally, I want to raise an issue related to the Unitarian Universalist principle of encouraging one another to spiritual growth. This is an issue that applies not only to reproductive cloning but also to the other three questions concerning the treatment of disease.
We all know that death and loss are difficult to deal with. So is sickness. So is the degeneration of our own bodies. We try to overcome these, and with the aid of science and its technology we in part succeed. However, many who have experienced the loss of a loved one, even the death of a much wanted child, and many who experience the ravages of disease conclude that there is more to health than just a physical existence free from suffering. For some health includes loving and being loved, caring for others and being cared for–even in the midst of disease and death. In such cases there can be a growth in matters of spirit.
I do not wish to say we should do nothing to treat disease, nothing to compensate for the deaths of infants. However, I want to raise the question of how far we should go. If we rely only of what some call “technological fixes” to solve problems of illness and mortality, we might miss developing some of the spiritual resources that religion calls us to develop.
Conclusion
In conclusion, drawing on the scientific story of how we have evolved to be responsible created cocreators in a larger natural family, I have suggested that we should enter into the sacred realm of developing new ways of creating life when such ways help us to carry out a primary task of religion–that of healing. Therefore, I suggest we support the development of cloning technology to further the health of individuals already existing. If, in some cases reproductive cloning were thought of as a medical technology, it too might be considered part of the human repertoire for healing.
Like all medical technologies, cloning and related genetic technologies should be carried out in a way that respects the worth and dignity of persons; is just, equitable, and compassionate; and respects the wider web of existence of which we are a part, including the health and longevity of animals we use for helping treat disease.
These moral principles become even more important when considering whether we should engage in the reproductive cloning of humans. All too often we think of doing things for our own selfish ends, or simply because they can be done. A form of moral reflection that combines scientific understanding, wisdom from the world’s religions, and principles and values such as found in Unitarian Universalism will be required to help us decide what we should do from all the possible things we can do.