Cloning probably drew the most fire of debate in the past century. An opportunity to produce human clones divided the whole world Among those opposing the idea were not only most clergymen but also a sizable part of the scientific community. The Day offers views by Ukrainian experts.
Stanislav MALIUTA, deputy manager for research, head of the molecular genetics department, Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics:
There is nothing new about cloning as a scientific phenomenon. One often finds clones in the plant world. Among humans, [natural] clones are unicellular twins. In gardening, farming, cattle-breeding, clones are also often encountered. Here cloning is only natural. With humans, we have to allow for certain nuances; everything depends on the program. Cloning humans and copying certain genotypes is one thing. Cloning the cells of certain organs is something entirely different. I don’t think the former can be justified in any way, save for rare exceptions — for example, you could wish to preserve a genotype for your family or a member of your family — as when you’re about to lose one near and dear. However, such occurrences should be set forth in law. I think that all the other cases of human cloning are absolutely unjustified. There is no sense duplicating Newtons or Einsteins; we don’t need another dozen laws of gravity.
There are also sensitive aspects about cloning cells and tissues. There should be no restriction on generating one’s own cells, tissues, and organs. Yet if one wants to use those of an embryo, it means denying life to a living organism. By the way, here lies the main religious interdiction. Although it is hard to tell what can be considered a living organism, one with a soul: is it an ovule or a differentiated embryo starting to develop the nerve system? Or is it a newborn?
Cloning cells is already possible in Ukraine. From what I know, the cells of certain organs can actually be cloned, yet we do not seem capable of receiving fully cloned organs. Animals are cloned in Ukraine, specifically cattle. Several cells are obtained from an impregnated ovum and introduced into surrogate mothers eventually bearing calves. This way we can receive cloned offspring. The process is justified if we need to quickly multiply a high-yield genotype.
Incidentally, a clone is not an absolute copy; there are no such copies in nature. You won’t find two perfectly identical cells in the same organism, yet there is a considerable degree of identity with the initial individual..
Tetiana ABOLINA, Ph.D., chair of ethics, aesthetics, and cultural studies, Philosophy Department, Taras Shevchenko National University, Kyiv:
Cloning constitutes an extremely serious bioethical problem; it has existed for some thirty years and is clearly distinct from classical normative ethics teaching morals; it is also different from theoretical ethics explaining the world. In the West, modern bioethics relies on serious organizational principles. Thus let me start by pointing out that the cloning problem is not so much a problem addressing public opinion, science, or ideology; rather, it belongs with a series of tangible institutional forms, among them legislation and government. In this context, an expert on ethics can only act as a consultant. I believe that cloning should be decided at a very serious level — and by professionals rather than polls.
Cloning is a science that should not be prohibited, for any interdictions will only give an impetus to all sorts of underground studies financed by the most dubious sources. Every country must address this problem in strict accordance with its policies and laws. It is also true, however, that different countries show varying degrees of preparedness to handle it. A corrupt country, such as Ukraine, given to all kinds of abuses, must practice the toughest of restrictions. On the whole, cloning, especially with regard to humans, must be subject to state regulation, most comprehensive research, and be discussed by topnotch experts in every related field.
From the ethical point of view, cloning, regarded as a purely biological procedure, constitutes no danger — I mean all those threats like cloning Hitler, Stalin, and so on. All of them were formed under certain circumstances, so the would-be replicas would have nothing in common but a close physical resemblance. If ever, they would be totally different individuals. I also think that being cloned is every individual’s prerogative, a matter of personal choice. If I don’t want to be cloned, I must have it in writing as a legal instrument. I must have a lawful right to protect my individuality, just as my body and physical distinctions are all my property, a component of my ego as inalienable as my spiritual qualities.
Also, cloning to perpetuate the initial object must be banned, because even a clone will have perfect autonomy with regard to the specimen. Imagine a women being delivered of a child and then instructing that the child’s kidneys be implanted in her at a certain age. And I don’t rule out the possibility of such illicit experiments being done. Cloning living beings for purposes other than a healthy and happy life will certainly destroy the very foundations of our civilization. Cloning separate organs is an altogether different story. It’s normal and we need it.
Volodymyr VOITENKO, MD, Institute of Gerontology:
Cloning is an extremely interesting medical and biological experiment. It has both positive and negative aspects. Analyzing this phenomenon, one ought to proceed from the understanding that what has to be done in science will be done. There are lots of examples, including nuclear arms. This means that cloning shouldn’t be prohibited, just as there is no way to ban alcoholism or prostitution. Cloning should be regulated. Of course, there will be different ideas on the subject. From a purely religious point of view, there is only one approach. Nothing can be done other than that done by the God, which is a point we all of us should consider. However, there must be some rational points in other approaches. Thus, some believe that a father whose child is dying should have a right to use cloning and have that child back in flesh and blood. This concept should have a right to exist and have a humanistic potential.
The overall attitude to the problem is a bit less than adequate. People often fail to understand what cloning is all about. Consider one example. Twins are typical clones, they may even prove to have identical abilities and suffer the same ills. In other words, there is nothing terribly wrong about cloning as such. There is yet another assumption (which I find quite reasonable), holding that methods akin to cloning can be applied in animal husbandry — although the big question remains whether such clones will prove viable; we all remember the Dolly sheep experiment. Likewise, it is important to uphold experimenting with the cloning of tissues and organs that can be used to “repair” the human system. As for producing full- size clones, human copies, I believe that this kind of experimenting should be prohibited, even if temporarily; for we must accumulate findings and then return to the issue, after we have learned enough and after our society has become better prepared for the appearances of human clones. I think that future medical science will concentrate on cloning cells, organs, and tissues.
