Luddite Objections to Human Cloning?

Dr. Glenn McGee is director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical Center. He is Editor-in-Chief, American Journal of Bioethics. His books include The Perfect Baby and The Human Cloning Debate. He is concerned with the over-all field of Biotechnology, which encompasses not only cloning, but also genetic engineering, stem-cell research, and much of modern medicine.

Prof. McGee chose as his subject: Luddite Objections to Human Cloning?

[As you may recall, back in 1811 General Ned Ludd led a movement in Britain revolting against the new mechanized weaving looms because of fear they would deprive workers of the use of their skills at the hand looms, and thus of their income. His followers destroyed many of the new machines. Their revolt was finally broken and faded away, but fear that technology separates you from the chain of life is still with us and aggravated by aspects of biotechnology.]

McGee noted that when you are subjected to modern medical care, strangers are at your bedside. From admittance to and discharge from a hospital, as many as 94 medical people see your records; and that the American population is uninformed on what is going on.

As a case in point, McGee cited the problem of the comatose state, reminding us of the Schiavo case. A person can remain comatose for more than 33 years, and accumulates enormous costs far in excess of any insurance cap. As another paradox, McGee pointed to the case where somebody is hurt in an accident, and a million dollars may be spent for his recovery, starting with a rescue and helicopter transport to a hospital, everything paid for somehow, but there is no payment for a relatively simple liver transplant.

Genetic engineering is already in full swing and by many considered controversial. The controversies are exacerbated when it comes to stem-cell research and, of course, cloning. These are areas of particular concern to bioethics.

We know where President Bush stands: stem-cell research and cloning are evil. The clergy of various religious denominations demand a say in bioethical questions, though 94% of the clergy have no training in bioethics.

McGee cited Leon Kass as an example for very strict ethical convictions regarding biotechnology. Kass has written several books on bioethics and coined the concept: there is a wisdom to repugnance we have to honor.

Some opponents of biotechnology with strict bioethical convictions go so far to claim sabotage is the right response (Luddism!) and base their ethical opposition to biotechnology on arguments such as these:

Biotechnology is inherently offensive.

God will not be imitated or replaced.

Children must have parents.

Death will not be denied.

People must not be parts or means.

Cloning is a slippery path to superman.

Clearly, bioethics does not have all the answers, but Luddism certainly is not an answer. Bioethics will have to provide guidance to solving the problems biotechnology has generated and will generate in the future, which affect our lives, laying the foundation of laws, politics, and policies. They concern, as examples:

the regulation and education of scientists.

the protection of freedom of expression.

the right of the present and the future person.

therapeutic vs. cosmetic cloning (therapeutic cloning  aims at offspring free from diseases; cosmetic cloning seeks good-looking, attractive offspring).

reproduction without sexual recombination (i.e., replication – generation of multiple clones by cell division).

McGee did not go into the science of cloning but rather gave us glimpses of the philosophical side of bioethics, starting with his observation that people care only at the moment of anecdotal deviation from the equilibrium – i.e., people typically wake up if something out of the ordinary happens specifically to somebody they know, rather than getting stirred up by evolving developments or trends.

McGee then presented a chart headed MA/PATERNALISM highlighting the relationship between a child and his parents. (In Western civilization, a child grows up with kinfolk who instill the values that define the civilization.) He offered the following issues, expressed from the viewpoint of the clone child:

bridges to the past; a clone who has never experienced a natural parent may still be confronted with the knowledge that natural families exist or at least once existed.

the overwhelming reaches in reproductive authority masked as careful public policy.

the development of the notion that future generations need to be protected from existence.

the nature of future laws; the expectation that everybody will be tested (before or after birth) for imperfections.

the situation of telling your child that he (she) is made with sperm from a sperm bank.

the decision how to choose a sperm.

the high certainty that at age 18 they will sue the doctor.

dangers of sperm deficiencies, e.g. leading to brain malfunction being the cause of autism.

It is assumed that reproduction is controlled by authorities who must instill the notion in their constituents that what they do is in the best common interest. This may include control of over-population or taking measures if something went wrong (euphemism: protected from existence).

In his last chart entitled FUTURE SHOCK, McGee projected the situation that on the one side there will be the opinion that there is nothing to gain from cloning technology and much to gain from a moral stand; on the other side there will be those who see children in new ways creating an increasing demand for cloning. The politics of cloning will then no longer resemble traditional abortion politics as new reproductive constituencies emerge.

McGee concluded by refuting the widespread belief that the young generation, including high-school students, is not interested in bioethics. He presented data from research and personal experience that there is, indeed, a growing interest of our high-school and college students in bioethics; he urged us to fight Luddism and not allow it to become the way to deal with biotechnology.

Note: Readers who are familiar with Aldus Huxley's classics Brave New World (1931, new edition 1949) and Brave New World Revisited  (1959) will recognize that Huxley envisioned modern biotechnology, including cloning and its ethical problems, 75 years ago. – GL