Should Human Cloning Be Banned?

Two osteopathic family physicians add their opinions to the raging clone debate.

Original Equipment Replacement Body
By Thomas Told, DO, FACOFP


Counterpoint Risks of Replacement Parts
By Katherine Galluzzi, DO, FACOFP

By Thomas Told, DO, FACOFP

Imagine if you will, a world that did not have the capability to produce replacement parts for our cars. We would have to rely on salvage yards to provide all the parts we needed to keep us out on the road.

It is easy to imagine the huge black market and price gouging that would result from the economic pressure of this system. This will never happen, because we can go to the auto parts store and buy original equipment replacement auto parts.

The very scenario I mentioned above exists daily in the field of organ transplantation. Because of the lack of available donors in this country, 2,025 kidney patients, 1,347 liver patients, 458 heart patients and 361 lung patients died in 2001 while waiting for life-saving organ transplants. (Source 2002 National Kidney Foundation)

How great it would be if we could purchase original equipment replacement body parts too? Those of us who do not want to put a lot of money into a clunker of a body could settle for a remanufactured liver or heart in the same way we do for a rebuilt starter motor or generator on our car.

Far-fetched you say? Not at all. The technology already exists to begin doing this and the world is rushing to be the producer of the first custom human body parts store. Not a bad concept in my eyes.

We all have heard about stem cells. These cells have the ability to divide for indefinite periods in a culture to become specialized cells. As with all life, not all stem cells are created equal. Some are capable of giving rise to most tissues of an organism and these we call pluripotent stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are called totipotent because they have the ability to specialize into extra embryonic, embryonic, and post-embryonic tissues and organs. In short, they produce the total person and supporting structures.

The story does not stop here. Pluripotent cells can undergo further specialization on their own to give rise to cells with a particular function such as bone marrow cell lines. In a process that sounds very much like the molecular version of My Fair Lady, common somatic cell nuclear material can be transferred to pluripotent stem cells causing them to produce more specialized stem cells with any particular function we may choose.

Cells derived in this way are known as multipotent stem cells. Both pluripotent stem cells and multipotent stem cells produce tissue, and in fact that is all that they produce. One can produce sheets and sheets of tissue, but no organs. It takes totipotent stem cells (embryonic stem cells) to make functioning organs and entire organisms.

Since totipotent stem cells make whole individuals, are organs produced from these cells just replacement parts especially manufactured for the recipient, or a clone of the person contributing the genetic blueprints? At what point do you have to interrupt the process to avoid violating the cloned tissue’s rights as an individual?

If we harvest the liver that happened to have a supporting brain and heart hooked up to it, have we violated the rights of an intact human being? Some might argue that those supporting organs were simply byproducts in the manufacture of the donated part.

Who has the right of ownership of the part? What about the genetic blue prints, who owns them? Is the data generated in the process of production personal and confidential? If we happen to produce a good model, can it be copied and sold? Will government demand that any lemons that are produced be eliminated as we do with our cars?

Whether you agree with the trend or not, it is hard to argue against the ability to grow customized body parts, or just to rebuild defective ones. It is equally obvious the great potential this science has for humankind.

The problem is that the science is way ahead of the ethical concerns. Simply not funding research will not stop the advances. Private industry is committed to the development of this technology for the enormous financial rewards.

Not allowing research to go on in this country will not slow development either. Other countries are partnering with our technologies, and doing the work in the safety of their borders where we cannot monitor or control development.

In my mind, the genie is out of the bottle and our challenge is to help guide development of sound ethical and legal policies to protect our patients from those who seek to use this technology for discrimination and domination of others.

Until we have a better handle on things, I wonder if those replacement body parts will come with a limited warranty?


Thomas N. Told, DO, FACOFP is a member of the ACOFP Board of Governors and liaison to the Ethics Committee. He is in private practice in Craig, Colorado and is an assistant professor of Family Medicine at the Colorado Springs Osteopathic Family Medicine Residency, and the University of Colorado Medical Center in Denver.

By Katherine Galluzzi, DO, FACOFP

Man has always attempted to gain greater control of the world through manipulation of his physical and emotional environment. The ultimate revolution for humankind targets the ability to harness technology to bring about large-scale societal change.

In the past 50 years, we have seen amazing changes based on computer technology, medical understanding, and mechanization. Some of the changes we are experiencing today were predicted many decades ago by scientific visionaries.

Over a half-century ago, Aldous Huxley visualized the potential use of technological advances to standardize the population, in essence, to “iron out” cultural differences and physical problems. In his landmark, cautionary book Brave New World, Huxley details a society that had achieved the capability of mass-producing individuals in a sort of scientific caste system.

To eliminate any psychic discomfort or angst over the plight of oneself or others, this fictional society used the marvelous pharmacologic substance soma, which Huxley subsequently described as being simultaneously a narcotic, stimulant, and hallucinogen.

It is hard to argue against technology, or to repress progress. However, the ramifications of such progress must be considered. The current controversy over cloning has ethical, logistical, and financial implications.

Recently, it has become a hot political question, as legislators consider whether to place bans on human cloning. Issues of concern are the selection process for candidates for cloned organ transplantation, regulation of laboratories where cloning is done, and insurance coverage for cloned organ replacement.

However, the most salient and ethically charged considerations concern the source of genetic material for cloning. The issues include how organisms (organs, cells) are cloned (in vitro or in vivo), as whole organisms or “parts.” Will embryos be cultivated in order to harvest their organs, as in some types of stem cell production?

One would hope that such embryos are anencephalic, or they would posses the ability to express personality. Is it even possible to separate the brain from an organism without affecting the overall function of that organism?

This begs the crucial question: are embryos grown in vitro as clones any less human than those produced in petri dishes for implantation into a mother’s uterus?

At first blush, the ability to grow a new heart, liver, or pancreas for replacement seems too good to be true. Who would not accept such a “new lease on life?” Yet, we must remember that with any new technology, new questions and ramifications will emerge which have not yet been considered or even imagined.

An example is the birth of septuplets to couples undergoing infertility treatments. Most couples contemplating parenthood dream of the patter of little feet, not the stampede of their own homegrown hockey team with a goalie to spare! The financial considerations of raising such a brood are staggering, let alone finding the time to nurture each new life individually.

Humanity’s desire to perfect itself and to realize total control over life’s circumstances is timeless. Utopian fantasies such as those depicted in Brave New World remind us, however, that our technological advances can carry surprising costs.

Is humankind capable of addressing the practical and ethical dilemmas certain to occur with cloning? It behooves the medical and scientific community to ask the difficult questions, imagine the ramifications, and weigh the risks. Only with forethought and vigilance can we assure that the costs of cloning are not met with a loss of our own humanity.

Katherine E. Galluzzi, DO, FACOFP, is Professor and Chair of the Department of Geriatrics at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (PCOM) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.