Buddhist Answers to Current Issues

It is a different proposition when it comes to human cloning. The lapsed Canadian legislation bans the cloning or splitting a zygote, embryo or fetus and no exceptions are considered. The Church of Scotland declares that the cloning of human beings is ethically unacceptable as a matter of principle. It explains its position further:

On principle, to replicate any human technologically is a violation of the basic dignity and uniqueness of each human being made in the image of God, of what God has given to that individual and no one else. It is not the same as twinning. There is a world of difference ethically between choosing to clone from a known existing individual and the unpredictable occurrence of twins of unknown nature in the womb. The nature of cloning is that of an instrumental use of both the clone and the one cloned as means to an end, for someone else’s benefit. This represents unacceptable human abuse, and a potential for exploitation which should be banned worldwide. (Ibid. Emphasis mine)

The concession of scale and intention given to animal cloning is denied to human cloning. The only reason discernible for this ambiguity is that the rational bioethical consideration, which went into the decision about animals, is replaced by a faith-based theological dogma in the case of the humans. It is certainly within the competence of the Church to put forward its dogma on the creation of man in the image and likeness of God in expressing its objection to human cloning. But to demand worldwide banning on the basis of that dogma alone would be to disregard contrary views, which might find support in other religions.

I see no reason why the sound bioethical principle of scale and intention, which had been so rationally developed in favor of limited and well-intended animal cloning cannot be extended to human cloning. Based on the progress made in other branches of genetic engineering, there could be scientists who would wish to investigate whether human cloning has its own set of benefits to humanity: e.g. yet another option open to desperate people who have no other way of having a child of their own; an assured means of supplying custom-made organs for transplanting to save lives; increasing the sum-total and distribution of supremely endowed persons, whether they be savants and saints or luminaries in arts and sciences.

In our present state of knowledge we do not even know whether these constitute reasonable expectations. Nor do we know whether the fears of the prophets of doom are based on fact or fiction. We do not know enough to make an informed decision. We need information and that has to come from experimentation. In this case, such experimentation is not likely to have any ill-effects on the donor. Is there any other way in which we could have answers to the following questions?

• Is human cloning feasible or is the humankind biologically or otherwise beyond the scope of manipulation?
• What exactly will be the result of human cloning: A new person - a tabula rasa? Or, an unaltered and unalterable identical replica of the donor of the tissue with his or her own pre-existing personality, memory, habits, inclinations and so forth?
• Are the speculations on the benefits accruing to humanity from human cloning within a reasonable limit of accuracy?
• What are the real dangers against which safeguards should be taken?

Unless we have scientifically established answers to these questions we are in the domain of wild speculation in no way different from the days when people wondered whether the earth was flat or global.

I am not questioning the sincerity and the serious concern of individuals and organizations, which urge the banning of human cloning. My position is that their campaign is premature and to a very great extent counter-productive for the following reasons:

• First, no effective ban can be imposed and supervised because the vast resources necessary for it could never be raised.
• Second, if cloning humans is found to be lucrative business, industry is bound to do it any way.
• Third, bans may be effective in countries where rule of law is the standard. The scientists who would be prevented from doing the experiments will be the very ones who will be objective, disciplined and responsible, on the one hand, and who have the resources to deal with any untoward consequences, on the other. The scene of human cloning could move to places where similar standards might not be enforced and deleterious results could go undetected and unattended.
• Fourth, the only result achieved by banning will be a delay by a few years or decades. We have only to recall the campaigns of yesteryears and observe how the things that were dreaded a few years ago are now commonplace.

My recommendation would be for limited experimentation in human cloning overseen by theologians and moralists, biological and medical scientists and national and international jurists. Let the long term decision be on the principles of bioethics which would emerge from these very experiments.