From the Princeton Weekly Bulletin, June 23, 1997

Cloning Human Beings

Following is a summary of the report, "Cloning Human Beings," presented by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to President Clinton on June 9. This article is in press with Science and under embargo; it is presented here with permission for University readers.

The idea that humans might someday be cloned from a single adult somatic cell without sexual reproduction moved further away from science fiction and closer to a genuine possibility when scientists at the Roslin Institute announced the successful cloning of a sheep by a new technique that had never before been fully successful in mammals. The technique involved transplanting the genetic material of an adult sheep, apparently obtained from a well-differentiated somatic cell, into an egg from which the nucleus had been removed. The resulting birth of the sheep, named Dolly, on July 5, 1996, was different from prior attempts to create identical offspring since Dolly contained the genetic material of only one parent, and was therefore a "delayed" genetic twin of a single adult sheep.

This cloning technique, which I will refer to as "somatic cell nuclear transfer," is an extension of research that had been going on for over 40 years using nuclei derived from non-human embryonic and fetal cells. The further demonstration that nuclei from cells derived from an adult animal could be "reprogrammed," or that the full genetic complement of such a cell could be reactivated well into the chronological life of the cell, is what sets the results of this experiment apart from prior work. At the same time, several serious scientific uncertainties remain that could have a significant impact on the potential viability of this new technique to create human beings. Examples of such uncertainties include: the impact of genetic imprinting, the nature of some currently unknown species differences, and the effects of cellular aging and/or mutations.

The initial public response to all this news, both here and abroad, was primarily one of concern. In some cases, these concerns were amplified by largely fictional and mistaken accounts of how this new technology might dramatically reshape the future of our society. The sources of these feelings were complex, but usually centered around the basic fact that this technique would permit human procreation in an asexual manner, would allow for an unlimited number of genetically identical offspring, and would give us the capacity for complete control over the genetic profile of our children.

Ethical and legal issues

Within days of the published report, President Clinton instituted a ban on federal funding related to attempts to clone human beings in this manner. In addition, the President asked the recently appointed National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to report within 90 days on the ethical and legal issues that surround the potential cloning of human beings.

This was an unusually challenging assignment, in part because of the complexity and difficulty of the issues; in part because of the many remaining scientific uncertainties; in part because conflicting values are at stake; in part because Americans disagree on the implications of this new technology for the social and cultural values they hold dearest; in part because it is difficult to decide if and when our liberties, including the freedom of scientific inquiry, should be restricted; and in part because of the Commission's ambitious timetable.

Nonetheless, NBAC made every effort to consult widely with ethicists, theologians, scientists, scientific societies, physicians, and others in initiating an analysis of the many scientific, legal, religious, ethical and moral dimensions of the issue. This included a careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits of using this technique to create children and a review of the potential constitutional challenges that might be raised if new legislation were to restrict the creation of a child through somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning.

The Commission focused its attention on those new and distinctive ethical issues that would be raised by the use of this technique for the purpose of creating an embryo which would then be implanted in a woman's uterus and brought to term. In its essence, the truly unique prospect raised by "Dolly" is the creation of a new child genetically identical to an existing (or previously existing) person, and it is this particular prospect that has been the source of the overwhelming public concern about such cloning. While the creation of embryos for research purposes alone always raises serious ethical questions, these issues have recently received extensive analysis and deliberation in our country, and the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to create embryos raises no new issues in this respect. The unique and distinctive ethical issues raised by the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to create children relate to, for example, serious safety concerns and a set of questions that go to the nature of what it means to be human, to the heart of the way we think about families and the relationships between generations, our concept of individuality, the potential for treating children as objects, and particular issues of constitutional law that might be involved in the arena of procreation.

Concerns

In its deliberations, NBAC reviewed the scientific developments that preceded the Roslin announcement, as well as those likely to follow in its path, and the many moral and legal concerns raised by the possibility that this technique could be used to clone human beings. As noted above, much of the initial reaction to this possibility was negative. While some of this negative response arose from fictional accounts of cloning human beings, more thoughtful concerns revealed fears about harms to the children who may be created in this manner, particularly psychological harms associated with a possibly diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy. Others expressed concern about a degradation in the quality of parenting and family life.

In addition to concerns about specific harms to children, people have frequently expressed fears that the widespread practice of somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning would undermine important social values by opening the door to a form of eugenics or by tempting some to manipulate others as if they were objects instead of persons. These are concerns worthy of widespread and intensive debate, but arrayed against these concerns are other vitally important social and constitutional values, such as protecting the widest possible sphere of personal choice, particularly in matters pertaining to procreation and child rearing; maintaining privacy; protecting freedom of scientific inquiry; and encouraging the possible development of new biomedical breakthroughs.

To arrive at its recommendations, NBAC also examined longstanding religious traditions and found that religious positions on human cloning are pluralistic in their premises, modes of argument, and conclusions. Some religious thinkers argue that the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning to create a child would be intrinsically immoral and thus could never be morally justified. Other religious thinkers contend that human cloning to create a child could be morally justified under some circumstances, but hold that it should be strictly regulated to prevent abuses.

Public policies

The public policies NBAC recommended with respect to the creation of a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer reflected the Commission's attempt to balance the various interests at stake, and to apply its best judgments about the ethics of attempting such an experiment at this time and its view of American constitutional traditions regarding limitations on individual actions in the name of the common good. We considered a wide number of options, including continuing and/or expanding the existing federal moratorium on the use of federal funding in support of any attempt to create a child by somatic cell nuclear transfer, calls for voluntary agreement by the private sector to abide by the intent of the federal moratorium, extending human subjects protection to those not enrolled in federally funded protocols, new federal legislation, cooperation with other nations and further public education.

We concluded that, at present, the use of this technique to create a child would be a premature experiment that would expose the fetus and the developing child to unacceptable risks. In our judgment, this in itself might be sufficient to justify a prohibition on using this new technique to clone human beings at this time, even if such efforts were to be characterized as the exercise of a fundamental right to attempt to procreate. Beyond the issue of the safety of the procedure, however, NBAC found that concerns relating to the potential psychological harms to children and effects on the moral, religious and cultural values of society merit further reflection and deliberation. Whether upon such further deliberation our nation will conclude that the use of this new cloning technique to create children should be allowed or permanently banned is, for the moment, an open question. Fortunately, time is an ally in this regard, allowing for the accrual of further data from animal experimentation, an assessment of the prospective safety and efficacy of the procedure in humans, and a period of fuller national debate on ethical and social concerns.

The Commission therefore concluded that there should be imposed a period of time in which no attempt is made to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Conclusions and recommendations

Within this overall framework, the Commission's full set of conclusions and recommendations was as follows:

(1) The Commission concluded that at this time it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning . We reached a consensus on this point because current scientific information indicates that this technique is not safe to use in humans at this time. Indeed, we believe it would violate important ethical obligations were clinicians or researchers to attempt to create a child using these particular technologies, which are likely to involve unacceptable risks to the fetus and/or potential child. Moreover, in addition to safety concerns, many other serious ethical concerns have been identified which require much more widespread and careful public deliberation before this technology may be used.

The Commission therefore recommended:

Once again, however, time is an ally in this regard, allowing for the accumulation of more scientific data from animal studies as well as granting a period of time for fuller national debate on ethical and moral concerns. Through such deliberation, we can, as a society, not only improve our understanding of the scientific issues, but we can improve our prospects for achieving moral agreement where that is possible, or mutual respect where such agreement cannot be achieved.

Harold T. Shapiro
Chair, National Bioethics
Advisory Commission
President, Princeton University