Human Cloning and Human Dignity: The Report Of the President's Council on Bioethics [Paperback]

Having unique fingerprints does not distinguish us as individuals, only our achievements do. It is the total contributions we have made in the entire span of our lives that distinguishes us as individuals. But Leon Kass, the main author of this book, and the chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, has chosen the fingerprint as its focal point. Indeed, in the first sentence in the forward, he states that "the fingerprint has rich biological and moral significance", and that it "signifies our unique personal identity." It is ironic perhaps that he has chosen to address the issue of human cloning by beginning with a purely physical characterization of human individuality. Why worry about how different we are from others anyway? If a handful of clones, all with the same fingerprints, make brilliant contributions to humanity, should we not celebrate this? And if a physical attribute is needed to differentiate us as individuals, then should not human clones be regarded as unique by reference to the way they came into this world, i.e. by asexual reproduction?

The main virtue of this book is that it omits the vituperation that frequently accompanies discussion of genetic engineering and human cloning. It addresses the main issues calmly, without hype and without personal attacks against those who advocate the genetic engineering of or cloning of human beings. It does however present a very narrow view of the ethical philosophy behind the technology of genetic engineering. The authors cannot seem to find a sound ethical framework in which to speak. Utilitarian considerations behind reproductive cloning for example are abandoned, and are to be replaced with a "different frame of reference". The Council Members (interesting use of capital letters here) though never articulate in detail just what this ethical "frame of reference" is, but only seek a "deeper meaning" in that act of human procreation, which in their view will then give meaning to the raising of children.

The reproductive cloning of humans has, interestingly, a certain shock value for the council members (no caps are needed). It, to them, is the "most unusual, consequential, and most morally important" of the ways of bringing children into the world. Why indeed is this so? If the council members were suddenly to find several children in the world that were brought into the world as a result of cloning, would they find these children that much different than any other children born as the result of "ordinary" reproduction? The actions taken to produce cloned children are certainly different than taken to produce "ordinary" children, but will the children themselves be any different in terms of their humanity? Cloned children will play in the sand box, get into fights with each other, face the same struggles, and require the same kind of nurturing as any other children. The moral significance of the actions taken to voluntarily produce children shrink in comparison to their value as humans.

It is perhaps ironic that the council members believe that sexual procreation gives each human being a "sense of individual identity". They inadvertently express a belief that genetic structure is primarily responsible for making humans unique as individuals. Genes and not life experiences and the accumulated wisdom obtained from these experiences are believed by the council members to have great weight in determining our uniqueness as individuals. They don't believe in total genetic determinism though, as further analysis of the book reveals, but their emphasis on the genetic makeup is actually quite surprising given their anti-cloning stance. It is usually the technophilic pro-cloning groups who over-emphasize the role of genetics. One can safely bet though that both the council members and these groups would forget their differences if they saw a lovely cloned human child in a crib, one that is deserving of all the warmth and care that should be given to any other human on this planet.

Stem cell research has complicated the cloning debate, and with the announcement last month of promising work involving pluripotent human embryonic stem cell cells derived from a cloned blastocyst, and with the reorganization of the President's Council of Bioethics to make it more anti-cloning and anti-stem cell in its beliefs, one can certainly expect much more contention in the near future. Scientists, geneticists, and genetic engineers must make sure their work and its ethical justification are not left to the sometimes myopic and unjustified opinions such as can be found in this book. The members of the Council of Bioethics do not speak for everyone, and any authority regarding scientific or ethical matters imputed to them is incorrect. Any advice they give is purely their own personal opinion, a result of their own biases and personal history. As such it does not have moral or legal binding for anyone.

If you favor such research, for whatever reason, whether it be the development of tissues for the cures of disease or for other reasons, the Human Cloning and Human Dignity report will definitely give you an idea regarding the ideology of those who composed the report. The position of many of the members is common and frequently theological in nature, with much of the discussion concerning the subject of the earliest cell divisions, before recognizable human features have developed.

The position against human cloning in the report is recognizable, honest, and thorough so someone hoping to change public opinion in favor of cloning and stem cell research can determine what they need to do to address public opinion on the subject.

I found the report very informative.