Abstract
In debates about human cloning, a distinction is frequently drawn between therapeutic and reproductive uses of the technology. Naturally enough, this distinction influences the way that the law is framed. The general consensus is that therapeutic cloning is less morally problematic than reproductive cloning — one can hold this position while holding that both are morally unacceptable — and the law frequently leaves the way open for some cloning for the sake of research into new therapeutic techniques while banning it for reproductive purposes. We claim that the position adopted by the law has things the wrong way around: if we accept a moral distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, there are actually more reasons to be morally worried about therapeutic cloning than about reproductive cloning. If cloning is the proper object of legal scrutiny, then, we ought to make sure that we are scrutinising the right kind of clone.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agar, Nicholas. 2004. Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Bayles, Michael 1976. Harm to the unconceived. Philosophy and Public Affairs 5(3): 293–304.
Bennett, Rebecca 2009. The fallacy of the principle of procreative beneficence. Bioethics 23(5): 265–73.
Brassington, Iain. 2010. Enhancing evolution and enhancing evolution. Bioethics 24(8): 395–402.
Harris, John. 1991. The Value of Life. London: Routledge.
Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Holm, Søren. 1998. A life in the shadow: One reason why we should not clone humans. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7(2): 161–62.
Knight, Will. 2003. Dolly the Sheep Dies Young. New Scientist 14 February.
Lanza, Robert; Cibelli, Jose; West, Michael 1999. Prospects for the use of nuclear transfer in human transplantation. Nature Biotechnology 17(12): 1172.
Ogonuki, Narumi; Inooue, Kimiko; Yamamoto, Yoshie; Noguchi, Yoko; Tanemura, K; Suzuki, Osamu; Nakayama, H; Doi, Kunio; Ohtomo, Yukiko; Satoh, Michiko; Nishida, Akira; Ogura, Atsuo. 2002. Early death of mice cloned from somatic cells. Nature Genetics 30(3): 253–4.
Purdy, Laura. 2006. Genetics and reproductive risk: Can having children be immoral? in Bioethics: An Anthology, ed. Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, pp. 115–22. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Robertoux, Pierre; Sluyter, Frans; Carlier, Michèle; Marcet, Brice; Maarouf-Veray, Fatima; Chérif, Chabane; Marican, Charlotte; Arrechi, Patricia; Godin, Fabienne; Jamon, Marc; Verrier, Bernard; Cohen-Salmon, Charles. 2003. Mitochondrial DNA modifies cognition in interaction with the nuclear genome and age in mice. Nature Genetics 35(1): 65–9.
Schmidt, R; Sobel, E.H; Nitowsky, H.M; Dar, H; Allen, RH Jr. 1976. Monozygotic twins discordant for sex. Journal of Medical Genetics 13(1): 64–8.
Wachtel, S; Somkuti, S; Schinfeld, J 2000. Monozygotic twins of opposite sex. Cytogenetic and Genome Research 91(1–4): 293–95.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brassington, I., Oultram, S. The Topsy-Turvy Cloning Law. Monash Bioethics Review 29, 1–18 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03351324
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03351324