IN THEORY:Is interspecies cloning for research immoral?

British researchers have reignited a debate over interspecies cloning as they seek to eliminate the need for women to donate eggs for the cloning of human embryos. They have proposed experiments that would inject human DNA into animal eggs to “trick” them into thinking they’re pregnant. After a few days, the scientists would destroy the cloned embryos and extract stem cells from them that would be used to help researchers better understand the genetic reasons for many diseases. They are pursuing this alternative because of the scarcity of human embryos they can use for research. Critics say the technique is immoral. Do you think interspecies cloning is immoral or a tool to better mankind?

That’s like asking me if I think murdering Gypsies is wrong. It doesn’t matter who it is, any murder is wrong. The same is true with interspecies cloning. I don’t care if you’re cloning sheep or cows or mixing species. It is all wrong and unnecessary. God has given us perfectly capable and enjoyable means of reproduction without needing human intervention. One of the reasons there is a bottleneck in getting eggs is because most women are uncomfortable giving up their eggs for cloning or research. This should be one clue as to the morality of it. You cannot bypass this by adding insult to injury. Both the dignity of humanity and these animals dictates we be more thoughtful than just abdicating to mere convenience.

Our culture has so bought into the modern idea that humans and animals are of equal dignity and value that we have lost the distinctions. For example, we will argue that men and women are created equal in dignity, we are not exchangeable. We are different and those differences are to be honored and dignified. A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man; our dignity arises in both our humanity and our sexuality. The same is true with animals. They have dignity in their created purposes, but they are not exchangeable. A woodlouse (a.k.a. “roly-poly”) does not have equal value to my dog. I will not spend $300 to make sure a woodlouse survives getting run over by a car. Nor will I spend $300,000 to rescue my dog compared to what I would spend to rescue my child. There are differences in value of each creation. Each has dignity in its design. To mess with intermingling species is like taking a Da Vinci sculpture and mixing it with a Picasso sculpture. It not only violates the beauty of the art, but also insults the intent of the artists.

Though curing disease is a noble cause, it can never take precedence over who the cause is attempting to cure. The end-game is not to merely cure diseases, but to improve human life. We cannot improve our lives if in the prevention of disease we have destroyed human dignity.

RIC OLSEN

Lead Pastor

The Beacon

Anaheim

Cloning — that is, copying the DNA (the chemical code that programs each cell of the body) — has been used to produce tomatoes, and scientists have been able to clone animal cells for some time. This brings up some interesting moral and ethical questions. Moreover, human and interspecies cloning presents not only moral but also theological problems, challenging our own sense of just being human beings. We are not God. We were created in the image of God. Our job in life is to improve life, not create it. Adam and Eve are put into the Garden of Eden to work and preserve it. The reason given for the banishment from the Garden of Eden is that to eat from the Tree of Life we would be like God. We are not God.

Several chapters later in the Bible, The tower of Babel story reminds us there is a boundary about what we do and what God does. There are some things simply out of man’s reach. We have the right and the obligation to heal life, not create it. For example, the doctor treats the patient, and the body heals itself. Cloning plants or animals for medical cures or cloning tomatoes and milk cows to provide food and medical care thereby improves the world that we live in. If we can cure diseases or infertility, or learn about ourselves or increase the world’s food supply, this is what God meant in the Creation story when it is says, “It is good.” It is permissible to act as God’s partners in creation to improve the world that we live in. In summation, the dangers of cloning require that it be supervised and regulated, not banned. Cloning can increase life expectancy, but cloning mistakes must be identified and handled.

RABBI MARC RUBENSTEIN

Temple Isaiah

Newport Beach

It sounds strange to think of species commingling. But I think there’s another way to morally achieve a supply of stem cells. According to an article I recently read in Seed Magazine, Chad Cowan, an assistant professor at Harvard, has proven that you can take embryonic stem cells and adult cells and throw them together with certain chemicals and turn them back into stem cells. This means, according to the research, our cells can be reprogrammed. This doesn’t necessarily solve the moral dilemma, because it’s still human cell manipulation. But as Cowan puts it, “Working with stem cells (in this manner) is sort of like writing a haiku. The boundaries force you to become more creative.” Personally, I don’t have a problem with stem cell research, but I understand why others do and honor their concerns. I believe there is a way around this corner, and I know that God’s intelligence will supply the way.

PASTOR JIM TURRELLCenter for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa

To be or not to be.

The object of the scientific enterprise has expanded from investigating how life began to include how life can begin, from the “Origin of the Species” to the destiny of the species. That this knowledge may be new and applied in original ways for bringing forth human life does not necessarily render it a violation of God’s will.

Many note that such innovative abilities are deviations from the norm and therefore reflexively brand them “immoral.” Is the betterment of humankind immoral? Is alleviating human agony immoral? Granted, the end may not necessarily justify the means, but are the means proposed here morally inexcusable? Will the image of God be diminished in a person thus created or assisted, will he be endowed with less of a soul, will his human potential be compromised, will he not be a person?

Why are religious communities so quick to tamper with the scientific temper? From the trial of Galileo that condemned the reality that the universe is heliocentric, to the trial of John Scopes in which the prosecution upheld literal creationism, scientific understanding has been under assault by protectors of the faith. The same arguments generated today greeted the emergence of in vitro fertilization technology several decades ago.

One man’s morality is another’s sin. I do not believe it immoral to explore alternative ways of engendering life out of the material that God created. I do not believe that a lump of undifferentiated cells is a human being. Is cloning intrinsically evil? While there exists the potential for abuse of human dignity, this possibility does not outweigh the probable gains. Everything is neutral and subject to exploitation. The same atom that can be harnessed for social benefit can be employed to wreak inconceivable destruction; the same steel used to provide the foundation of a home can be shaped into a blade to inflict death. No doubt, ethical issues may arise at every turn of this process, but the tremendous progress in human fertility and the curing of disease that may well be made possible argues for permission to take initial steps on what will no doubt be a long journey.

The Luddite movement swept England in the early 18th century as a protest by textile artisans against the introduction of machines they felt threatened their careers. Change and technological change inspire fear, but who would argue that the Industrial Revolution they railed against has not profited humankind? I would join the chorus of those who recognize that scientific sophistication does not necessarily herald ethical advance. But I wonder if neo-Luddite, knee-jerk reactions by opponents would be forthcoming if this technology would be put at the service of their suffering loved ones. Would they be so quick to label such explorations as “Frankensteinian” if they thought through the potential benefits? Such procedures may portend the eradication of afflictions that plague us and our loved ones, and in so doing enhance all life. What could be more moral?

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

The hobbling by politicians of any scientific research that has the promise of being able to save many lives is clearly a mistake. Admittedly, research in new fields has the potential of not working out, since the way we learn things is frequently through trial and error. There are no guarantees in life about anything. But through such efforts we eventually learn how to improve our lives. Overall, we are all better for it. Science, unlike politics and ideology, is self-correcting.

Politicians are the worst people to rule on what kind of research should be allowed or prohibited. Our current presidential administration is famous for taking the reports of government-sponsored research and having them rewritten (by people who know nothing about the science involved) so that the reports appear to conform with the administration’s approved ideology. But that is just another example of how our politicians lie to us for political reasons.

Any oversight of questionable research should be done by other scientists in the field who don’t have any political or monetary incentive to come to a specific conclusion. Knee-jerk reactions against new types of research simply because of political biases, whims or pretense of religious morality, or claiming a violation of human dignity — whatever that means — should have no influence in the matter.

JERRY PARKS

Member

Humanist Assn.

of Orange County

Who makes such decisions? There is already strong disagreement on whether or not to permit embryonic and/or somatic cell nuclear transfer technology.

Personally, no theologian or scientist or politician, however learned; no church council or scientific organization or government agency, however authoritative; no person of faith, however holy will persuade me that something as strange-sounding as “interspecies cloning” is more immoral than continuing to allow people to suffer Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or ALS-Lou Gehrig’s disease. That cells in a laboratory could be so significant that a suffering patient would be denied the benefits of medical research goes against my admittedly limited reason and deepest feelings. I believe that our religious obligation is to discover the cures for disease, to heal the sick, to relieve suffering and to save lives.

Perhaps one criterion for deciding the morality of a particular technology would be to ask: “Could this be used to clone humans?” On that point, every reputable scientist and politician and theologian I know agrees that the reproductive cloning of humans would be morally reprehensible and believe that cloning human beings should result in stiff criminal penalties.

(THE VERY REV’D CANON) PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

I must admit that my first reaction is that this seems creepy. But if reputable scientists believe that interspecies cloning will contribute to their research and eventually help those suffering from spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and other diseases, then I am open to it.

Interspecies cloning is a topic so broad and complicated that I think the ethical issues should be evaluated and regulated on a case-by-case basis. What is best for all involved? How can I avoid making self-centered decisions based only on what benefits me? How will animals be protected and cared for, as well as the environment and planet? How can the public be better informed about these issues and participate actively in the formation of public policy and laws?

I am in favor of research using stem cells that have been extracted from human embryos. Excess embryos from infertility treatments or terminated pregnancies could be donated for this purpose, and I think the laws prohibiting this choice should be overturned. I also support legal abortion and emergency contraception because I do not believe that embryonic life is the only value or necessarily the most important value in the lives of individuals faced with an unplanned pregnancy.

In Zen, the precept of “not killing” has literal aspects, but it also may be interpreted compassionately, with regard to circumstances. As Zen teacher John Loori says, “It is not possible for humans to live without killing. Our immune systems are constantly fending off invading microbes.” Its broadest meaning — to encourage life — calls for us to realize our essential oneness. Rather than relying on opinions and doctrines, we must take responsibility for responding with wisdom and compassion to the choices presented by advances in science.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa