CLONING

On February 24, 1997 scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced they had successfully cloned a sheep. As believers in the Bible we certainly don’t want to decry all technology. But Dolly leaves us to wonder how long till someone clones a human being, and what the ramifications of that are, and whether such is even right. Dolly is a “Xerox copy” of another sheep. In reality she has no mother. She is her “mother’s” identical twin, not her mother’s daughter.

The Bible says nothing directly about cloning. Genesis 1:26-28 fairly well covers human propagation from the scriptural viewpoint, and yet says nothing of molecular biology or DNA. Neither does any other verse of scripture. So instead of looking for a direct and specific statement from the Bible (“thou shalt not clone!”) we need to open the Word of God to search for principles that will help us in the maze of questions that cloning poses for us.

It is important to note that science or scientists did not create life. Some in the media frenzy that surrounded Dolly went way overboard in their statements and reporting, making it sound almost as if the Roslin team grew Dolly in a petri dish out of modeling clay and pipe cleaners. This is simply not true. They grew a sheep in a sheep just like every other sheep has ever been grown. All they did was transplant some DNA, and then use the exact natural reproductive processes that God set in place at the beginning.

Human cloning intentionally copies the genetic code of a person for the purpose of creating another person with the same genetic material. This creates a new human life and a individual genetic model based on a single donor or a single parent instead of two.

Current attempts to clone humans use the same technique used previously to clone animals such as was done with Dolly. The method used is called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which results in the creation of a new organism by fusion rather than fertilization. The result of a successful somatic cell nuclear transfer in animals, is the creation of an individual member of the species containing the full complement of genetic material, and the same result is obtained by fertilization. As the cloned sheep is one hundred percent, so the cloned human embryos would be one hundred percent human.

The somatic cell nuclear transfer involves removing the nucleus of an egg that has not been fertilized and replace it with the nucleus from a donor somatic cell to be cloned. A somatic cell, a skin cell or a white blood cell, containing the DNA or genetic code of the donor. Then, instead of fertilization occurring,  a small electrical vibration is applied to stimulate the cell to start the process of division. The result is a new cloned individual begins the same process of human development which we all go through.

All human cloning is reproductive, because it involves the creation of human life. Both the "reproductive" and "therapeutic" cloning requires the nuclear transfer of somatic cell to duplicate the genetic material of the donor. The difference between "reproductive" and "therapeutic" cloning has to do with the purpose of the action and not the method, considering the question, "What do you intend to do with the clone?" Once the human embryo has been cloned, it can be implanted in the womb of a woman with the purpose that after nine months she will give birth to a child (reproductive cloning) or allowed to develop for several weeks, and then destroyed for their stem cells in order to investigate it (therapeutic cloning).

It is speculated that embryonic stem cells may be a promising source to cure a variety of human diseases. Some scientists want to expand research of embryonic stem cells using the genetic material of a patient to clone a human embryo, which would be destroyed for their stem cells. These cells would be used to create personalized therapies which the patient's body would not reject. To date, the scientists  who are trying to clone embryos for the purpose of obtaining stem cells for research, have failed to develop an animal or human model to confirm their theory.

Other researchers say it is unnecessary to do cloning  just to study embryonic stem cells. They point out that there is another more effective type of immunosuppressant medicine to prevent transplant rejection and they point out that the existence of a record that contains information on alternative sources has been verified, through which stem cells can be obtain, bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, which can provide patients real medical therapies.

A steady stream of published research, show that there are high hopes in the area of sources through which you can obtain the cells called "adult" or non embryonic. Therapies using sources such as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and pancreas, to obtain stem cells, and have successfully treated patients with diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and multiple sclerosis. These therapeutic benefits for patients demonstrate that the use of adult stem cells, surpasses any animal research being carried out at present and that uses embryonic stem cells.

One of the example includes the research done on Parkinson's disease. A recent study, published in the United States, reported on the success achieved by using embryonic stem cells obtained from mice, as a treatment for some of the symptoms exhibited by rats with Parkinson's disease. Although this sounds promising, it is minimal when compared to the research done on Parkinson's disease using adult stem cells. For example, in April 2002, a doctor in Los Angeles reported having effectively treated a patient who had Parkinson's disease using stem cells from the same patient neuron.

The large amount of evidence that exists of apparent healing power of adult stem cells, makes research using embryonic stem cells unnecessary. Furthermore, the moral implications are staggering that lead to create human embryos for the purpose of destroying them for stem cells. It is never morally or ethically acceptable to kill a human being to possibly save another. A cloned embryo is a genetically identical twin of the donor, except different age and therefore is fully human. Human embryos deserve the same protection that humans are at other stages of development. Every human life begins as an embryo, and is expected to grow from then on to other stages of life: fetal, infant, child, and so on. The size or location do not determine human nature.

This is not a matter of being a person or not; it is a matter of whether humanity will protect weaker humans that are among us or allow young humans to be used as if they were raw material for scientific experiments.

Another thing to consider is the undoubted possibility that the scientists fail in their attempts to use in their research, embryonic stem cells that have been cloned. Currently, a general definition of "therapeutic" cloning, as proposed in public policy, including the destruction of cloned embryos within the first 14 days of its existence. What if scientists discover that stem cells from a fetus at eight weeks is more promising than those of a two-week embryo? This question is not entirely speculative: Recently, researchers working for the company Advanced Cell Technology (Advanced Cell Technology) in the U.S., reported having cloned cattle embryos implanted in uteruses, allowing embryos to grow to eight weeks before they were destroyed to obtain stem cells more developed. The researchers say that this experiment succeeded because fetal cells were more mature.

How do you respond to claims made by some people in favor of the "therapeutic" cloning who argue that cloned embryos are just "unfertilized eggs," inferring that it is morally acceptable to destroy them to obtain embryonic stem cells?

"Unfertilized ova" is a misnomer. Supporters of the "therapeutic" cloning are trying to correlate with unfertilized eggs the products of cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Technically, it is correct to say that the eggs formed by this method have not been fertilized with sperm but that is the purpose of cloning: ignore sexual reproduction. However, the result of somatic cell nuclear transfer is not "eggs" (before fertilization or otherwise) but embryos that contain all the genetic material necessary to become a developing human being. By using the term "unfertilized eggs", proponents of cloning to obtain embryonic stem cells go against your own argument because the eggs before fertilization are not, nor contain stem cells, stem cells exist only in human beings who are genetically complete. The fact that the final result of human cloning is a being with stem cells validates the human nature of the embryo . If cloning products were equivalent to the egg before fertilization, stem cells would not be collected, and thus would not have any profit potential for research.

Proponents of "therapeutic" cloning also say that the products of human cloning are not able to become humans. If this were true, there would be no need to ban "reproductive" cloning. The reality is that somatic cell nuclear transfer creates a human embryo if implanted in a womb would develop into a fetus and give birth as any newborn.

BIBLICAL PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS TO CLONING HUMANS

If we look carefully we will see that cloning humans is destined to be a disaster, both ethically and morally.

Our first objection is that cloning is not wise. Wisdom is knowing the end of a matter from the beginning (Proverbs 14:15). We should count the cost before we do something.

Our second objection to human cloning is that it can be outright sinful. This is true for several reasons. First, cloning results in abortions. Cloning is a complicated procedure that often does not work, so many, many cloned embryos must be made. In the case of Dolly It took 277 trials and errors to produce Dolly the sheep, While toying with (and destroying) sheep embryos is not troubling to anyone what if that were done with human embryos?

Further, cloning could be used to have a child outside of the family unit. God’s order for the family is clearly set forth in Ephesians 6:1-4. Children need parents, both a mom and a dad. Who is it that is most thrilled with cloning? The homosexual community. With cloning there’d be no need for men. A single woman might choose to clone herself rather than involve a man in any way. God forbid that we should design such technology in order to give homosexual couples an opportunity to produce a family, or even to allow the unmarried to reproduce outside of marriage.

Perhaps worst of all, cloning will inevitably result in exploited children. When the experts are pressed to explain what cloning could be used for, what do they talk about? How about producing a child as “spare parts”? Children are a gift from the Lord, not something to be exploited for our or another’s benefit!

Humans were created separately, in God's image, unlike the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:27). Our existence extends beyond physical death (Luke16:19-31, Philippians 1:23). This is nowhere indicated for animals.

Apparently there is universal support for a ban on "reproductive" cloning, then, why not just ban such cloning? A ban on "reproductive" cloning does not prohibited cloning, it only prohibits the implantation of cloned human embryo in the womb of a woman (or in an artificial womb), for the purpose of giving birth. It does allow "therapeutic" cloning or cloning for embryonic stem cell research, the technology developed, because of this, add to the scientific knowledge of those who want to clone in order to give birth to this clone. The challenge has to do with cloning the embryo not implanting. Inevitably, a human embryo created for research on stem cells would be implanted in the womb of a woman. The only way to ensure this does not happen, is that each nation or all nations together, prohibit all forms of human cloning.