Patrick D. Hopkins in Bad Copies: How Popular Media Represent Cloning as an
Ethical Problem, writes;
The primary characterization of cloning as an ethical issue centers around
three connected concerns: the loss of human uniqueness and
individuality, the pathological motivations of a cloner, and the fear of outof-control scientists.1
Human therapeutic cloning technologies are impressive. The replication of body
parts and rejuvenation of body functions, forcefully re-figures our conception of
the human body as a finite entity. However, support for human therapeutic
cloning is not universal and objections are raised on 3 main grounds.
a. It is unethical to experiment on cells which in another time or place might
become human beings, regardless of how those cells have been obtained.
This relates to concern 1 raised above.
b. The large amount of money consumed by this highly experimental
research is not well spent, when considered in relationship to the needs of
persons already living. This relates to concerns 1 and 3 raised above.
c. Persons who support this type of research, imply that science intrinsically
possesses its own categorical imperative. This is the rationale that if it
can be done, it should be done. For many, this rationale is scientific
hubris as it represents science as an out of control discipline. This relates
most strongly to concern 3 raised above, and also to concern 2.
The following learning activity A Better Future, debates objection b.
1
P. D. Hopkins, "Bad Copies: How Popular Media Represent Cloning as an Ethical Problem,"
Hastings Center Report, vol. 28, no. 2 ( March-April 1998): p 6-13.
A BETTER FUTURE: WHEN AND FOR
WHOM?
OUTCOMES
Knowledge

Describe possible uses of therapeutic cloning
technologies
Skill

Debate the
technologies
value
of
therapeutic
cloning
Value and Attitude

Develop an appreciation of the complexity of debate surrounding
therapeutic cloning technologies
One proposed use for human therapeutic cloning is the replacement or regrowth
of damaged body parts. The possibility of replacement or regrowth is projected
as giving particular hope to persons suffering from spinal cord injury. High profile
sufferers such as quadriplegic Christopher Reeve, lobby heavily for funding for
this research and their statements usually receive a high level of media attention.
Research in this area is highly experimental and it is likely it will be many years
before actual benefit are delivered. Research is conducted on the reasonable
belief that benefits will be delivered in the future. However for many persons
within the disabled community, this expenditure represents an obscene waste of
presently funds. As research funds in Australia come mainly from public funds,
this public money might be better spent on enabling disabled persons who are
currently alive, to enjoy a higher standard of mobility and participation in the
community and workplace. Rather than support for a speculative science, this
would support and actually address with real funds, the more ethical goal of
equal human rights of disabled persons.
Using the Resource material, Back Bone of Hope, Reeve’s Standing Stuff of
Superman,There are no simple answers for the Quandaries of a Quad, Banking
on a future of cures, Lay off scientists until you brush up on ethics, and for older
students the extended piece, False Dawns in the Brave New World of Genetics,
debate this question:
Is public funding better spent on human
therapeutic cloning or is it better spent on
disabled persons living in our communities
here and now?
In preparing for this debate, following are some points for
research or consideration:
Where is most human therapeutic cloning performed?
In Australia, how is the human tissue used for therapeutic cloning
obtained?
Who pays for human therapeutic cloning research?
Who is likely to benefit from this research?
Within what time frame are benefits expected to be delivered?
When successfully developed, how will this technology be made
available? Will it be patented and only available for large payment or will it be
free and publicly available for all persons? Consider the human value outlook
versus the commercial value outlook.*
Which would be fair and just, considering some of the previous points?
Which might be more likely to happen?
Is it ethical to use human cells from unused embryo’s or aborted embryo’s,
to grow items that may be cosmetic for example; external ear parts or new
breasts?*
Is it more ethical to use these human cells for potentially beneficial
research, rather than just throw them away?*
How will you differentiate between functional body replacement items and
cosmetic body replacement items?*
If a dirty, smelly, limping person harangued you on a street corner about
the value of human therapeutic cloning, would you seriously consider and
reflect on what he or she said?*
If an articulate, impressive, intelligent, high profile campaigner such as
Christopher Reeve lectured you about the value of human therapeutic
cloning, would you seriously consider and reflect on what he or she said?*
Would you permit your fertilised ova or aborted embryo’s to be used for
this research?*
How often has speculative research led to real benefits? Consider the
development of antibiotics, vaccines or major anatomical discoveries – things
we consider commonplace necessities.
Consider the principle of beneficence. Who benefits?
Are those who try to stop human therapeutic cloning, Luddites of the 21 st
century?*
Are the objections of disabled people are just ‘sour grapes’?*
After the debate, you might like to:
Ask students to interview a genetic research scientist or genetic oncologist
and an advocate for disabled persons, regarding how they view human
therapeutic cloning.
Ask a research scientist and a disabled advocate to speak to your
students.
Vote on the allocation of funding to these two areas.
Snowball personal answers to the questions with asterisks. Snowballing
is particularly good for very personal questions and answers. ‘Secret ballot’
answers can often be surprisingly different to publicly expressed views!
SNOWBALLING
A secret ballot and fun!
Each student begins with a piece of white A4 paper.
The teacher or a designated student asks a question
and all students write their answers on their paper.
All participants then scrunch the paper up into a ball
and throw it into the middle of the room. Each person
then picks up a ball, unscrunches it and answers the
next question on the piece of paper, following on from
where the first question was answered. Repeat the
scrunching, throwing etcetera until all the questions have been answered. After
the final throw, each person opens and shares the answers of the paper they
have.