Comments on: Cloning and Mitochondrial Disease

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:32:14 +0000

Sorry, if I missed the fine print somewhere, but, no, I think the relevant points in the mitochondrial case are 1) it is being done with fetal/embryological tissue, and thus both does not have the same risks/drawbacks as cloning using adult cellular DNA and is much more likely to prove feasible in the nearer term, and 2) it is being done to prevent the occurrance of a genetic disease, even if it does so before rather than after the point of conception, so it does resemble the case of medicinal rather than strictly reproductive uses of cloning, which also involve nuclear DNA and thus short-curcuit the genetic exchange involved in all other forms of reproduction, which would be one of the core objections as to its degree of intrusion into the “naturalness” of the process and the risks and damages that could result. Part of what is at issue in your framing of the debate is whether mere personal preference should count as a sufficient reason for such an agressive, risky and expensive intrusion/manipulation into underlying biological processes, were it even to prove really possible, or whether other interests, or proxy-interests, such as respecting natural constraints, acknowledging human limits and considering social effects and consequences should be given stronger weight. As of now, human reproductive cloning is really a speculative issue, part of notional humanist/posthumanist debates, inspired by a kind of “technological fiction”, (since fiction = making.) But the mitochondrial case is much more clearly cut, from both a humanistic and a naturalistic point of view.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:41:56 +0000

John, but this would count as reproductive cloning under the definitions currently in play. After all, the result of cloning would be a healthy baby girl (or boy). The point here, I think, is that the boundary between reproductive cloning and cloning for research is fuzzier than is often acknowledged. (Actually this may be a point that anti-cloning forces agree with me about.)

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:09:16 +0000

Yes, that’s been the point all along. Cloning as a viable reproductive technique is doubtful and of dubious benefit, but, as a research tool in developing and maintaining cell lines and in developing treatments/cures for congenital or degenerative diseases or conditions such as paralysis, it has immense promise. Misfocusing the issue is misordering priorities.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:13:54 +0000

I would submit that viewing an emryo as a person (and therefore entitled to a person’s rights) may be ‘very much a minority position’ in some areas of the world, but that one should apply such broad claims to the world as a whole tentatively, if at all. If you are arguing for laws in a particular location (county, state, country, wherever), I’ll concede that the view of embryo=person in that location may very well fall into the ‘fringe’ category; otherwise, I would argue that the ‘minority’ to which you refer is much larger than you might imagine.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:18:43 +0000

This confirms what I’ve thought all along: That cloning, by it self, is quite boring. Won’t have much impact on society at all. It’s the key technology needed for germ line genetic engineering, though, and THAT is interesting.