August Cloning Newsletter

Cloning Conference Report - News Summaries - Cloning Article - Cloning Interview

This months newsletter follows the dramatic conference at the National Academy of Science (on August the 7th 2001), in which Dr. Zavos, Dr. Antinori and Dr. Boisselier reiterated their wish to use human cloning technology to allow certain infertile couples to conceive a biologically related child. The following newsletter provides a report on the conference, a summary of the news following the event, an article on the ethics of cloning for infertility purposes and an interview with our Spokesperson Randolfe H. Wicker.

Editorial Group:
Christine Ryan (General Editor - email:caryan@wpe.com) -
    see also http://www.reproductivecloning.net/open/
Linda Rader (Co-editor - email:libfemmes@about.com) -
    see also http://homepages.about.com/libfemmes/libfemmes22/index.html
Roger Moorgate (Contributor - email:rogermoorgate@hotmail.com) -
    see also http://www.reproductivecloning.net/launch.html
Randolfe H. Wicker (Contributor - email:rwicker@gateway.net) -
    see also http://www.clonerights.com
George Waite (Contributor - email:waitegeorge@hotmail.com) -
    see also http://www.reproductivecloning.net/hosting//waite/
Hunter O'Reilly (Contributor - email:hunter@artbyhunter.com) -
    see also http://www.artbyhunter.com

Contents:
1. Report on the August Cloning Conference (by R. Moorgate)
2. August news summary (by C. Ryan and L. Rader)
3. Cloning, stem cells and infertility (by G. Waite, modified by R. Moorgate)
4. Interview with Randolfe Wicker (by R. Wicker)

Affiliates:
The Reproductive Cloning Network - http://www.ReproductiveCloning.net
The Human Cloning Foundation - http://www.HumanCloning.org
The Clone Rights United Front - http://www.CloneRights.com

Introduction by Christine Ryan:

One of the most unfortunate things to happen in the recent development of a potentially great new aid to reproduction was the label of the procedure as cloning. The very word brings to mind all the bad movies, all the scary novels and things associated with them that have nothing to do with helping people to have genetically related children. People need to understand that nothing is going to hatch out of a pod, as an adult, no less, and steal their identity, or their spouse; at least nothing having to do with this new technology in assisted reproduction. If the procedure had been called anything else, we might already have been proceeding with bringing the joy of parenting related children to childless couples. It is lamentable but not difficult to understand why people find this procedure unacceptable. People were suspicious of lightbulbs, too, and found electricity fearsome, believing that it could kill them by flooding from the sockets. The telephone was labeled as a demonic device. In the early stages of surgery, Christian groups railed against it, saying it was God's will that certain sick people should die. Now the failure to seek medical help for ailing children would be considered child abuse, and a criminal act. How we change our minds when we finally understand! And, of course, there were outcries against IVF, where children were labeled "test tube babies", an unfortunate term for children whose germ cells met in a petri dish and yes, if souls exist, they have them. Ask the church. Today we know that IVF has brought boundless joy to many couples who had no chance of having children without this procedure. With all the good that can come of cloning technology, both in curing illnesses and aiding childless couples, why do people feel the need to imagine every possible abuse first, and then vote against it because of some remote possibility that one of them may one day be attempted? If we are to ban new technologies based on the theoretical possibilities of their abuse, then computers and robotics must be prime candidates for the axe. Some writers have brought up the possibility that cloning technology would enable one person to recreate another person without that person's permission, with the idea that he could somehow gain from doing so. This is a remote possibility, but let's look realistically at what would happen. First of all, most people are far more interested in their own families to spend 18 years of their lives trying to raise someone else. People do so in cases of adoption, but that is not for financial gain. The claim that one person would try to reproduce another for financial gain or lust is hard to imagine. Let's say a couple decides, surreptitiously and against the law, to reproduce Michael Jordan, hoping that he would become a great basketball player and that eventually they would be able to profit from this. First of all, they would have to find a doctor to perform the illegal procedure. Then they would have to pay an enormous amount of money, wait nine months, and take their baby home. After that, they raise him, clothe him, spend money on him. But one thing poorly understood is where drive comes from, and the pride of doing a good job. Why would they think that the middle or upper middle class upbringing of this child would have the effect of producing a great athlete? The circumstances would be so different that the child may elect to become a doctor no matter how hard he was pushed. There would be no guarantee that he would be happy in his adoptive family, because children like to be raised by their genetic relatives. It just works better that way. And even if this child became a star athlete, who's to say he'd share the money with the parents? Becoming a great basketball player, playing for hours on city streets well into the night, may not be possible for that child because of circumstances or a host of other reasons. Perhaps a skier or skater would be better suited to affluence. Those sports require money and lessons. Then there's the fear that someone would reproduce a movie star or model to have as his own. Well he, too, gets to spend a lot on the illegal procedure, assuming he finds a criminal doctor. Then he must wait several years. By then that movie star or model may be out of style, may run away, he himself will be older, and the child will likely report him. Exceptional athletes and many other famous people come from exceptional circumstances not likely to be duplicated in a middle class household. But all of this is pure imagination. In reality, people want to spend their time and money on children produced by them out of love and the desire to raise their own offspring. People mistakenly believe that the cloned child would be a duplicate of another person. Although the child would share most of his genetic material with one of his parents, he would grow in a different uterus, have different parents, live in different times and have different experiences. If a loving couple cloned one of the members, the child would grow up in a family where he felt very comfortable. If the husband were cloned, the relationship would be very similar to one in which a much younger brother were adopted by his older brother and that brother's wife. The difference would be that he would not have suffered whatever tragic circumstances would usually have led to such an arrangement. The situation would be similar for a couple who wanted a girl and who decided to clone the wife. There will always be bad parents - parents who expect too much, parents who are unkind, the ones who try to relive their lives through their children.. We've all seen them - the overbearing ones, the competitive ones, the neglectful ones. But parents who went to so much effort to have a child through cloning would probably be better than average. And just because there are some bad parents is not a reason to deny the reproductive rights of those who would like to have a child who is related to one of them. Adoptive parents have a whole set of terms they prefer, and of treatments of their children that they find more acceptable. Parents of cloned children will find their own special needs and how to meet them in dealing with the public and in raising their children. For example, they will have to find ways not to expect their child to like everything they like, or develop in every way they developed. One thing is for sure: Cloning will definitely answer many nature/nurture questions. Some say that we already have IVF and that we don't need cloning. However, in some circumstances, cloning appears more natural than some forms of IVF. For example, taking donor sperm from a sperm bank raises many questions for the child later in his life about the donor and his own genetic make-up. It is also a way of pairing one's wife with a stranger, which must be unsettling to many men even if they don't admit it. The other option is to pair your wife with someone you do know. If it's the man's brother who donated the sperm, then the child, if a male, is the woman's son and the man's nephew. There have been cases where the man's father donated the sperm, making the baby the man's half brother and the woman's son and the grandfather's son. If the couple uses sperm from a friend, then the man is the step-father, the woman is the mother and the friend is the father, and the man is raising a child his wife had with another man, who is no relation to himself. In other IVF treatments, the woman's daughter donates eggs. Then we have a baby who, if female, is the woman's granddaughter, and the man's daughter. If the woman's sister donates the egg, then the baby is the woman's niece and the husband's daughter, by the wife's sister. We accept all of this, but in comparison the relationships produced by reproductive cloning are so simple. The baby would be either a genetic brother or sister to one member of the couple. A stranger, as in the case with anonymous donors, would not have been invited into the relationship, possibly straining it. The child would be very comfortable in his family because he would be related to one of the members, the other member having been specially chosen in love by his genetic parent. His genetic history would be known to him. Couples may choose to tell or not tell outsiders. Another objection to cloning is the fear of eugenics. But when people thumb through donor sperm catalogues, might they not be looking for someone tall? If they aren't selecting for specific traits, why are those traits listed in the catalogues? Whether they are selecting for similar or dissimilar traits, they are still selecting. In reproductive cloning, people are simply trying to have a baby related to one of the members of the couple. They are not sifting through traits. We should remember, too, that the genius sperm bank did not flourish. On the other hand, who could object to replacing genes that could allow a child to live and not suffer a terrible inherited disease? How can people say, "Oh, that poor child!" and then vote against something that could help him? And if parents who choose cloning can be labeled narcissists, what do we say of those who donate to sperm banks? In fact, many people thank them every day. Finally, there is the issue of reproductive rights. Each and every person should have the right to reproduce. As with the child who inherited the debilitating disease, how can we look at infertile couples and know that we could help them, and not do so? How could we base that decision on another person's religion? Why should we tell them that they can use IVF, when cloning offers an alternative that is just as good and which can be less complicated? We do not spay women who abuse, torture or kill their children. Their reproductive rights are defended. We preserve the reproductive rights of the mentally handicapped. Why should we not do so for all couples who wish to reproduce their own genetic material? Our DNA belongs to us. In fact, that may be the bill that should be rushed to a vote - one stating that unequivocally. Reproductive cloning can help so many. It could be carried out in fertility clinics at a cost eventually around the same as current IVF treatments, or even lower. The research may lead to many great discoveries. As for clones having souls, the best way to reserve one is to make a weekly contribution to the basket. Let's not ban something based on the religions of some. That would not be fair. People have not been properly informed about cloning and are being expected to vote on an issue many know nothing about. A great many people still think that clones are born as adults. (I pity the women who would carry them! Oh that's right - it's the pod thing.) If more people understood what cloning was, how it was carried out, how it compares to other procedures, what discoveries its development might lead to and the possible benefits to humanity, more people would be in favor of it. Let's not decide its fate before people are fully aware of its potential.

NEXT PAGE - REPORT ON THE HUMAN CLONING CONFERENCE

Cloning Conference Report - News Summaries - Cloning Article - Cloning Interview