Deoxyribonucleic acid … gibberish to some, the origin of life to others. Deoxyribonucleic acid is the molecule known as DNA. James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA 50 years ago, in February 1953. Since then, it has been at the heart of many, many controversies ranging from genetically modified foods (GMOs) to the cloning of humans. Despite the many dust-ups surrounding DNA, human cloning is what riles people to irrationality.
As of last week, Dolly is dead. Dolly was the world’s first cloned mammal (a sheep), and now she has been euthanized. During her life she suffered from a number of illnesses including arthritis, an abnormal immune response which erodes joint linings and lung disease, for which she was laid to rest. These facts clearly demonstrate how much is yet to be understood about cloning and genetics in general.
All one needs is a basic biology course to make sense of the most fundamental functions of DNA. However, that is where the “basic” nature of DNA stops. In other words, beyond DNA’s simplest characteristics you will find a world with seemingly endless unknowns and not just to the lay person, but to the most advanced, well-educated folks in the world.
This leads to an interesting quandary. Can scientists clone organisms: Yes. Can scientists clone humans: Yes, or at least very soon. Should scientists clone humans: a resounding NO. However, it’s not for the reasons you are likely thinking. I have no ethical dilemmas with cloning … yet … solely because we should not even contemplate attempting it.
On the occasion of Dolly’s death, it is as ever apparent that we still have volumes to learn before we risk human life in the name of science. Enroll in any upper-level biology course and soon you will find that what is not known about how the human body (and more basically, the cell) functions far outweighs what is known. It is for this reason that the collective “we” should not be discussing cloning as a real possibility.
We, as animals, are a large collection of ongoing chemical reactions. How anyone can discuss employing a technology such as cloning without understanding, at least remotely, the mechanisms of every reaction in our body is difficult to fathom. Trillions of reactions occur in each of us every moment we are breathing. It is these reactions that Western medicine has seized on, harnessed and in many cases changed for the betterment of individual health. But scientists still are unable to understand, much less explain, so many of these reactions. If they want to clone humans they need to know, backward and forward, exactly with what they are dealing.
This is a pretty high threshold, of course, but does the value of human life warrant such high standards? Yep. Dolly suffered from many illnesses simply because we don’t yet understand how to prevent, much less treat, those illnesses. I also suppose many of her complications were the result of a scantily understood technology being used before its time.
Just because we “can” do something does not mean we should. We (probably) can clone humans, but we shouldn’t. We don’t yet comprehend the almost infinitely complex nature of cell function, much less system or human function. If we are going to tamper with the most fundamental characteristics of life, we better be darn sure we aren’t working beyond our means. Scientists ought to continue to pursue the knowledge on which cloning is based, but should stop short of successful completion without a comprehensive insight into each step along the way.
Cloning is a powerful technology and, to humans, is an ever more powerful concept. Cloning has many applications that will result in unimaginable increases in quality of life. However, for all of these reasons and more, we need to approach such a powerful technology with a temperament tantamount to the gravity of its ramifications. Only then, once cloning is thoroughly understood and non-hypothetical, should a discourse of its ethical repercussions ensue.