1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 
Advances in knowledge and related developments in the procedures of molecular
biology, genetics and artificial fertilization have long made it possible to experiment
with and successfully achieve the cloning of plants and animals. 
Since the '30s experiments have been made in producing identical individuals by
artificial twin splitting, a procedure which can be improperly called cloning. The
practice of twin splitting in the zootechnical field has been spreading in
experimental barns as an incentive to the multiple production of select exemplars. 
In 1993 Jerry Hall and Robert Stilmann of George Washington University published
data concerning the twin splitting they performed on human embryos of two, four
and eight embryoblasts. These experiments were conducted without the prior
consent of the appropriate Ethics Committee and were published, according to the
authors, in order to stimulate the ethical debate. 
The news published in the journal Nature, 27 February 1997, about the birth of the
sheep Dolly through the efforts of the Scottish scientists Jan Vilmut and K.H.S.
Campbell and their team at Edinburgh's Roslin Institute, however, had an unusual
effect on public opinion and led to statements being issued by committees and
national and international authorities: this happened because it was something new
and was considered troubling. 
There are two new aspects of this event. The first is that it is not a question of
splitting but of a radical innovation defined as cloning, that is, an asexual and
agamic reproduction meant to produce individuals biologically identical to the adult
which provided the nuclear genetic inheritance. The second is that until now this
type of true and proper cloning was considered impossible. It was thought that the
DNA in the somatic cells of the higher forms of animal life, having already
undergone the imprinting of differentiation, could no longer recover their original
totipotentiality and, consequently, their ability to direct the development of a new
individual. 
With the overcoming of this supposed impossibility, the way now seems open to
human cloning, understood as the replication of one or more individuals somatically
identical to the donor. The event has rightly caused concern and alarm. But after
an initial phase of unanimous opposition, some have wished to call attention to the
need for guaranteeing freedom of research, for not demonizing progress. The
prediction has even been made that the Catholic Church herself will one day
accept cloning. 
Now that some time has passed, it would be useful in a more detached way to
examine closely the fact that has been noted as a disturbing event.

 
2. THE BIOLOGICAL FACTS 

In its biological aspects as a form of artificial reproduction, cloning is achieved
without the contribution of two gametes; therefore it is an asexual and agamic
reproduction. Fertilization properly so-called is replaced by the "fusion" of a
nucleus taken from a somatic cell of the individual one wishes to clone, or of the
somatic cell itself, with an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed, that is,
an oocyte lacking the maternal genome. Since the nucleus of the somatic cell
contains the whole genetic inheritance, the individual obtained possesses—except
for possible alterations—the genetic identity of the nucleus' donor. It is this
essential genetic correspondence with the donor that produces in the new
individual the somatic replica or copy of the donor itself. The Edinburgh event
occurred after 277 oocyte-donor nucleus fusions: only eight were successful, that
is, only eight of the 277 started to develop as embryos and only one of these eight
embryos reached birth: the lamb called Dolly. 
Many doubts and questions remain about quite a few aspects of the experiment: for
example, the possibility that among the 277 donor cells used there were some
"staminals", that is, cells endowed with a not totally differentiated genome; the role
that could have been played by possibly residual mitochondrial DNA in the maternal
ovum; and many other questions which the researchers, unfortunately, did not
even attempt to address. However, it is still an event that goes beyond the forms of
artificial fertilization known until now, which have always been performed by using
two gametes. 
It should be stressed that the development of individuals obtained by cloning, apart
from eventual possible mutations—and there could be many—should produce a
body structure very similar to that of the DNA donor: this is the most disturbing
result, especially when the experiment is applied to the human species. 
It should be noted however that, should the extension of cloning to the human
species be desired, this duplication of body structure does not necessarily imply a
perfectly identical person, understood in his ontological and psychological reality.
The spiritual soul, which is the essential constituent of every subject belonging to
the human species and is created directly by God, cannot be generated by the
parents, produced by artificial fertilization or cloned. Furthermore, psychological
development, culture and environment always lead to different personalities; this is
a well-known fact even among twins, whose resemblance does not mean identity.
The popular image or aura of omnipotence that accompanies cloning should at
least be put into perspective. 
Despite this impossibility of involving the spirit, which is the source of personality,
the thought of human cloning has already led to the imagining of hypothetical
cases inspired by the desire for omnipotence: duplicating individuals endowed with
exceptional talent and beauty; reproducing the image of departed loved ones;
selecting healthy individuals immune from genetic diseases; the possibility of
choosing a person's sex; producing selected frozen embryos to be transferred in
utero at a later time to provide spare organs, etc. 
By regarding these hypothetical cases as science fiction, proposals can soon be
advanced for cloning considered "reasonable" or "compassionate": the procreation
of a child in a family whose father suffers from aspermia or to replace the dying
child of a widowed mother; one could say that these cases have nothing to do with
the fantasies of science fiction. 
But what would be the anthropological significance of this activity in the deplorable
prospect of applying it to man? 

3. ETHICAL PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH HUMAN CLONING 

Human cloning belongs to the eugenics project and is thus subject to all the ethical
and juridical observations that have amply condemned it. As Hans Jonas has
already written, it is "both in method the most despotic and in aim the most slavish
form of genetic manipulation; its objective is not an arbitrary modification of the
hereditary material but precisely its equally arbitrary fixationin contrast to the
dominant strategy of nature" (cf. Hans Jonas, Cloniamo un uomo: dall'eugenetica
all'ingegneria genetica, in Tecnica, medicina ed etica, Einaudi, Turin 1997, pp.
122-54, p. 136). It represents a radical manipulation of the constitutive relationality
and complementarity which is at the origin of human procreation in both its
biological and strictly personal aspects. It tends to make bisexuality a purely
functional left-over, given that an ovum must be used without its nucleus in order to
make roomfor the clone-embryo and requires, for now, a female womb so that its
development may be brought to term. This is how all the experimental procedures
in zootechny are being conducted, thus changing the specific meaning of human
reproduction. 
In this vision we find the logic of industrial production: market research must be
explored and promoted, experimentation refined, ever newer models produced. 
Women are radically exploited and reduced to a few of their purely biological
functions (providing ova and womb) and research looks to the possibility of
constructing artificial wombs, the last step to fabricating human beings in the
laboratory. 
In the cloning process the basic relationships of the human person are perverted:
filiation, consanguinity, kinship, parenthood. A woman can be the twin sister of her
mother, lack a biological father and be the daughter of her grandfather. In vitro
fertilization has already led to the confusion of parentage, but cloning will mean the
radical rupture of these bonds. 
As in every artificial activity, what occurs in nature is "mimicked" and "imitated", but
only at the price of ignoring how man surpasses his biological component, which
moreover is reduced to those forms of reproduction that have characterized only
the biologically simplest and least evolved organisms. 
The idea is fostered that some individuals can have total dominion over the
existence of others, to the point of programming their biological identity—selected
according to arbitrary or purely utilitarian criteria—which, although not exhausting
man's personal identity, which is characterized by the spirit, is a constitutive part of
it. This selective concept of man will have, among other things, a heavy cultural
fallout beyond the—numerically limited—practice of cloning, since there will be a
growing conviction that the value of man and woman does not depend on their
personal identity but only on those biological qualities that can be appraised and
therefore selected. 
Human cloning must also be judged negative with regard to the dignity of the
person cloned, who enters the world by virtue of being the "copy" (even if only a
biological copy) of another being: this practice paves the way to the clone's radical
suffering, for his psychic identity is jeopardized by the real or even by the merely
virtual presence of his "other". Nor can we suppose that a conspiracy of silence will
prevail, a conspiracy which, as Jonas already noted, would be impossible and
equally immoral: since the "clone" was produced because he resembles someone
who was "worthwhile" cloning, he will be the object of no less fateful expectations
and attention, which will constitute a true and proper attack on his personal
subjectivity. 
If the human cloning project intends to stop "before" implantation in the womb,
trying to avoid at least some of the consequences we have just indicated, it
appears equally unjust from the moral standpoint. 
A prohibition of cloning which would be limited to preventing the birth of a cloned
child, but which would still permit the cloning of an embryo-foetus, would involve
experimentation on embryos and foetuses and would require their suppression
before birth—a cruel, exploitative way of treating human beings. In any case, such
experimentation is immoral because it involves the arbitrary use of the human body
(by now decidedly regarded as a machine composed of parts) as a mere research
tool. The human body is an integral part of every individual's dignity and personal
identity, and it is not permissible to use women as a source of ova for conducting
cloning experiments. 
It is immoral because even in the case of a clone, we are in the presence of a
"man", although in the embryonic stage. 
All the moral reasons which led to the condemnation of in vitrofertilization as such
and to the radical censure of in vitro fertilization for merely experimental purposes
must also be applied to human cloning. 
The "human cloning" project represents the terrible aberration to which value-free
science is driven and is a sign of the profound malaise of our civilization, which
looks to science, technology and the "quality of life" as surrogates for the meaning
of life and its salvation. 
The proclamation of the "death of God", in the vain hope of a "superman",
produces an unmistakable result: the "death of man". It cannot be forgotten that the
denial of man's creaturely status, far from exalting human freedom, in fact creates
new forms of slavery, discrimination and profound suffering. 
Cloning risks being the tragic parody of God's omnipotence. Man, to whom God
has entrusted the created world, giving him freedom and intelligence, finds no limits
to his action dictated solely by practical impossibility: he himself must learn how to
set these limits by discerning good and evil. Once again man is asked to choose: it
is his responsibility to decide whether to transform technology into a tool of
liberation or to become its slave by introducing new forms of violence and suffering.
The difference should again be pointed out between the conception of life as a gift
of love and the view of the human being as an industrial product. 
Halting the human cloning project is a moral duty which must also be translated into
cultural, social and legislative terms. The progress of scientific research is not the
same as the rise of scientistic despotism, which today seems to be replacing the old
ideologies. In a democratic, pluralistic system, the first guarantee of each
individual's freedom is established by unconditionally respecting human dignity at
every phase of life, regardless of the intellectual or physical abilities one possesses
or lacks. 
In human cloning the necessary condition for any society begins to collapse: that of
treating man always and everywhere as an end, as a value, and never as a mere
means or simple object. 

4. HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF RESEARCH 

At the level of human rights, the possibility of human cloning represents a violation
of the two fundamental principles on which all human rights are based: the principle
of equality among human beings and the principle of non-discrimination. 
Contrary to what may appear at first sight, the principle of parity and equality
among human beings is violated by this possible form of man's domination over
man, and the discrimination comes about through the whole selective-eugenic
dimension inherent in the logic of cloning. The Resolution of the European
Parliament (12 March 1997) expressly states the violation of these two principles
and forcefully appeals for the prohibition of human cloning and for the value of the
dignity of the human person. Since 1983 the European Parliament and all the laws
passed to legalize artificial procreation, even the most permissive, have always
forbidden human cloning. It should be recalled that the Church's Magisterium has
condemned the possibility of human cloning, twin fission and parthenogenesis in
the 1987 Instruction Donum vitae. The basic reasons for the inhuman nature of
possible human cloning are not because it is an extreme form of artificial
procreation in comparison to other legally approved forms, such as in vitro
fertilization, etc. 
As we have said, the reason for its rejection is that it denies the dignity of the
person subjected to cloning and the dignity of human procreation. 
The most urgent need now seems to be that of re-establishing the harmony
between the demands of scientific research and indispensable human values. The
scientist cannot regard the moral rejection of human cloning as a humiliation; on
the contrary, this prohibition eliminates the demiurgic degeneration of research by
restoring its dignity. The dignity of scientific research consists in the fact that it is
one of the richest resources for humanity's welfare. 
Moreover, there is a place for research, including cloning, in the vegetable and
animal kingdoms, wherever it answers a need or provides a significant benefit for
man or for other living beings, provided that the rules for protecting the animal itself
and the obligation to respect the biodiversity of species are observed. 
When scientific research in man's interest aims to cure diseases, to relieve
suffering, to solve problems due to malnutrition, to make better use of the earth's
resources, it represents a hope for humanity, entrusted to the talent and efforts of
scientists. 
To enable biomedical science to maintain and strengthen its relationship with the
true welfare of man and society, it is necessary to foster, as the Holy Father recalls
in the Encyclical Evangelium vitae, a "contemplative outlook" on man himself and
the world, with a vision of reality as God's creation and in a context of solidarity
between science, the good of the person and of society. 
"It is the outlook of those who see life in its deeper meaning, who grasp its utter
gratuitousness, its beauty and its invitation to freedom and responsibility. It is the
outlook of those who do not presume to take possession of reality but instead
accept it as a gift, discovering in all things the reflection of the Creator and seeing
in every person his living image" (Evangelium vitae, n. 83). 
Prof. Juan de Dios Vial Correa 
President 
Mons. Elio Sgreccia 
Vice-President 
(Official Translation) 
ZE00040521 

http://www.zenit.org