Cloning Conundrum Skip navigation
  Cloning ban coming?

Cloning: Nuts 'n bolts

Reproductive cloning

Therapeutic cloning

Dolly's disaster

Charting the debate

  The cloning bogeyman!
Each parent supplies 50 percent of a child's genes in traditional reproduction, but inreproductive cloning, all genes come from one "parent." When Dolly the sheep was cloned, the immediate reaction was that humans would now be able to make brand-new copies of themselves. People -- whether infertile couples or rich megalomaniacs -- would trundle down to the lab, donate a few skin cells, and have their genes squirted into an egg cell.

After a few weeks manipulation, the developing embryo would be implanted into a woman, much like embryos made by in-vitro fertilization (IVF).

At the end of gestation, out would pop an uncanny replica of the DNA donor.

The idea raised serious qualms -- not to mention moral revulsion.

How would a parent react to a genetic twin that happened to be an infant?

What would be the legal status of a child with no clear mother?

Who, if anybody, would be the father?

Didn't cloning amount to playing God?

These psycho-legal hassles soon were swept away by the reality that cloning is a primitive procedure. In animal cloning, hundreds of embryos are typically needed for each live birth. And the offspring have enough birth defects to scare even those who favor therapeutic cloning from favoring reproductive cloning. Even if it were ethical, reproductive cloning is simply too risky.

Reproductive cloning "is simply too risky," says Dan Wikler, professor of medical ethics at University of Wisconsin-Madison. "The experience of people who cloned animals was very uneven. To raise a child with these kinds of questions would be unethical at best, probably much worse."

Ronald Green, professor of medical ethics and head of the Ethics Institute at Dartmouth College, is an ethical advisor to Advanced Cell Technology, the Massachusetts company that cloned a human embryo last November. Green agrees that the risks are too great at this point. "This is a case of public health. The health of that child is not guaranteed." Green thinks reproductive cloning may deserve another consideration if, in the future, it becomes safer and more reliable.

Can't stomach carbon-copy people? How about using cloning to treat disease?

 

 

  back more
       
  The Why Files  

There are 1 2 3 4 5 pages in this feature.
Bibliography | Credits | Feedback | Search

©2002, University of Wisconsin, Board of Regents.