The Human Cloning Debate (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Human Cloning Debate Mary B. Mahowald The Human Cloning Debate, 4th ed.Edited by Glenn McGee and Arthur Caplan. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Books, 2004. Pp. 306. $15.95 (paper). The back cover of this new edition of The Human Cloning Debatedescribes it as "the most up-to-date and comprehensive guide to these and other questions surrounding . . . 'the kitchen sink of bioethical debates.'" As is common in such blurbs, the first part of this statement exaggerates the book's merits; the second part suggests that the issues addressed arise from a topic that needs to be cleansed or separated from its undesirable components so that further progress can be made. With regard to the book's updatedness and comprehensiveness, a plethora of significant tomes and articles on human cloning have appeared since the first edition was published in 1998. Among those contributing to the debate from different perspectives are a collection that examines scientific and medical aspects of reproductive cloning (Peat 2003), another devoted to religious positions on cloning and stem cell research (Waters and Cole-Turner 2003), and the President's Council on Bioethics reports on human cloning, stem cells, and reproduction (see this issue). Most books on human cloning are single-, multi-authored, or edited texts covering scientific, ethical, and policy aspects of the topic with varying degrees of expertise and comprehensiveness; The Human Cloning Debatealso exemplifies these features. [End Page 307] If human cloning is the "kitchen sink" of bioethics, the topic is thus construed as mired in messiness, and the messiness, as the blurb further maintains, "cuts across the fields of science, politics, philosophy, law, and religion." The goal of the editors, therefore, is to clear away the messiness by clarifying the issues and presenting relevant arguments about different positions as cogently as possible. They succeed admirably, but not wholly, in both tasks. The need for successive editions of this book has been precipitated by the pace of scientific development, especially the successful development of blastocysts through human somatic cell nuclear transfer and progress in research with stem cells derived from blastocysts. That the issue of stem cell research is inevitably connected with that of cloning was not widely recognized six years ago. Since then, however, realization of this connection has persuaded many who previously opposed human cloning to reexamine their position in light of the therapeutic potential of embryonic stem cell research. While remaining opposed to cloning for reproduction, they support it as a means by which people with otherwise incurable diseases may eventually be treated effectively. A widespread confusion that the editors of The Human Cloning Debatehope to clarify is that human cloning inevitably entails baby-making. This is the meaning of cloning that most of the world deplores. Admittedly, the same process (somatic cell nuclear transfer) that has already led to the development of human blastocysts in vitro may eventually lead to the birth of an infant who is genetically identical (except for mitochondria) to but one adult. However, because retrieval of stem cells from blastocysts destroys their potential for further development, the objective of embryonic stem cell research obviously precludes baby-making. Consequently, this objective is supported not only by stem cell researchers, but also by many members of the public and by many governments (e.g., the United Kingdom). To promote the therapeutic potential of stem cell research, some prominent scientists have proposed that the term "human cloning" be used only for the process by which cloning is done to produce children, and the term "nuclear transplantation" be used instead for the process through which blastocysts are derived from adults cells for research purposes (pp. 299–302). This edition of The Human Cloning Debateretains strengths of the first edition by incorporating some of the better articles contained therein. Some of these (e.g., Robertson's support of cloning for reproductive choice) seem outdated because they were written prior to the authors' awareness of the connection between cloning and stem cell research. Other scholarly articles have apparently been jettisoned in favor of recent opinion pieces or remarks by President George W. Bush on cloning and stem cell research. A useful addition, however, is the...