A Brave New Singapore: Cloning Humans in Animals

Is the recent attempt of creating cybrids a leap of progress or a technological trespass?

By now we already know that human cybrids are embryos fabricated with enucleated animal eggs and the nucleus of a human body cell. These embryos will be terminated when their harvest of embryonic stem cells are removed for the sole purpose of research on the said cells. We also know that Singapore scientists want to make human cybrids and that the Bioethics Advisory Commission (BAC) is seeking a response from the Singaporean public to know what is their opinion on this issue.

Two things strike me about this matter, the boldness of Singaporean scientists and the passivity of Singaporean people. The overwhelming response from the general public seems to be sheer ignorance on what is happening or condescending silence. So, what is the big deal?

Certainly, as Catholics, we do not have an official document of the church on this particular topic. The Pope himself cautioned that the church’s teaching “should not intervene on every scientific innovation” (Benedict XVI, Speech to the CDF, 31 Jan 2008). However we are not lost. We have some ethical landmarks that help us find our bearings in this uncharted ethical territory.

We know, from previous interventions of the teaching of the church on bioethical matters, that cloning is immoral (Notes on cloning, Pontifical Academy for Life, 1997) and that “organs which embody the characteristic uniqueness of the person, which medicine is bound to protect” may not be transplanted (The Charter for Health Care Workers, 1995, # 88).

Pope John Paul II spoke clearly about experimenting with human embryos: “I condemn, in the most explicit and formal way, experimental manipulations of the human embryo, since the human being, from conception to death, cannot be exploited for any purpose whatsoever” (AAS 75 (1983) 37). Finally, we also know that, “genetic enhancement and research on human subjects” are illicit, and only direct and safe therapeutic genetic intervention is acceptable (Sgreccia, 2006).

To summarize it, according to the teaching of the church, it is morally wrong

• to clone humans

• to experiment on human embryos

• to change the genetic make-up unless it is a direct form of therapy for the human individual

• to transfer human organs or tissues that are linked to the identity of the person to another recipient

Now, human cybrids are basically a kind of human embryos. In a recent controversy between the Catholic church and pro-cybrids UK scientists, the latter accused the church of misinterpreting the scientific status of human cybrids. They contended that cybrids are “devoid of an animal genetic identity”, said scientist Stephen Minger. “The resulting embryo contains only human genes,” scientists said. Well, if scientists themselves, who want to make cybrids say so, then cybrids are

• a kind of human cloning, because it clones a human into an animal egg

• a kind of experimentation in an embryo that is genetically human

• a kind of tampering with the genetic make-up of human beings with the sole purpose of research on the Embryonic Stem Cells and with no direct therapeutic effect

• a kind of transferring human material that is intimately linked to the genetic identity of the person into an animal egg

It then follows that the fabrication of human cybrids is incompatible with the teaching of the church on similar issues. It actually boils down to the absolute respect to the human person, who must be respected from conception to natural death.

But let us face it, scientists do not intend to create half-human half-animal creatures to be used as a cheap labour force or with any other crooked intention as may be depicted in Hollywood movies. They simply want to study the behaviour of embryonic human cells and for that they need a large amount of fertilized human embryos. Where can they find so many human embryos? The most practical solution seems to be to fabricate these embryos in animal eggs, which are more readily available.

So, should scientists pursue this endeavour in the name of science? Or are they attempting to play God?

The argument of “playing God” is a frequently used argument. In fact the BAC had already prepared some answers. They argue:

“The ‘playing God’ argument cuts both ways. If research involving human-animal combinations can save life, then to stop the research is to ‘play God’ with respect to those whose lives could be saved” (Ethical Considerations in Research with Human-Animal Combinations, # 38).

The ‘playing God’ argument needs to be understood more precisely before it can be honestly used. There is nothing wrong with using science and technology to have some control over nature and animals. We harness the power of rivers, breed cattle, cultivate deserts, transplant hearts, and attempt to master the global climate. Control over nature however must not be despotic and capricious. We are not absolute lords of the universe, only “stewards” of God’s creation. How to know when we have trespassed into forbidden territory?

Playing God is not creation husbandry; it simply is stepping where God alone can step in: dominion over the human person. The human person can never be used as a means to an end and must always be respected and considered an end in himself (Kant). This is not a religious conclusion but the most basic ethical concept without which civilization itself collapses. Because all humans are equal in dignity, when a person becomes the lord of the destiny of another human being, he breaches this fundamental ethical norm and erects himself as superior to his equals. He plays a forbidden game, not only because he usurps God’s prerogative, but also because he creates a divide of masters and slaves.

Hitler did not play God because he spent his life in a laboratory. He played God when he made himself god unto others by deciding to terminate people’s lives. If all humans deserve absolute respect, this means that no one has any right whatsoever to decide when a person should stop living. When someone does, we call it murder.

But it also means that no one has the right to decide when, how or for what purpose a person is created, which is why the church views IVF and human cloning as a ”technological dominion” over the human person. Not even parents should exert their dominion over their children –when they pro-create, they are only stewards of the marital embrace. Neither should parents decide over the destiny of their children even if, as part of their duties as parents, the decisions for their children’s welfare will affect their children’s future. They are called to be stewards of the human life that has been entrusted to them, not tyrants. In other words, no one, no parent, no ruler, no religious or political leader has the right to be superior in dignity to others by deciding their destiny.

When it comes to dealing with human beings (embryos or not), other humans (scientists or not) may not destroy them, experiment on them without informed consent, manipulate their genetic identity or transfer inside or outside them biological material that affects their identity.

Making cybrids is “playing God”, not because it is an artificial research project but because when scientists fabricate, use and dispose of human cybrids, they take a position of dominion, and not one of respect, over human life. The “playing God” argumen does not cut both ways when we understand that God has taken the human cause seriously. Even if the providence of God is not accepted, we must never justify the dominion of some individuals over others. We are supposed to be past the age of totalitarianisms.

Making cybrids is not wrong because it could start a dangerous slippery slope that ends up in creating human monsters. It is already wrong because it is one more step down the wrong path that has begun with the research on embryonic stem cells.

What is really at stake is the myopic vision or decision of considering the human embryo as “just” a bunch of cells, that therefore can be used and disposed of. Unless this fundamental error is challenged, the ethical consequences are going to move from bad to worse. What is at stake is not only the manipulated lives of thousands of human embryos, but the blurring of the most fundamental ethical boundary in the name of pragmatic scientific progress.

Pragmatism is, at the end of the day, the absence of ethics. For example, in Singapore, compensation for donating eggs was illegal becasue it was understood to be commodifying women and their bodies. Good reason. But now that more human eggs are needed, Singapore is deciding to allow compensation. Does it mean that it is not commodifying women anymore? Pragmatism is nothing else but the dictatorship of utility, just another version of totalitarianism.

What is the role of Catholics in the face of their cultures, societies and countries? The church in UK have issued a letter to be read in all parishes reacting against similar attempts of UK scientists to make human cybrids. They did not stop scientists from going ahead with their projects, but certainly made a point.

Illness is certainly an enemy we are called to conquer, but it is not an absolute evil. “You have the poor [and sick?] with you always” (Mt 26:11). Humans disposing of humans is certainly a worst enemy to conquer. What the church should announce today is not a sectarian private truth accessible only to believers but simply that we are all equal in dignity and that even scientific research should halt before the forbidden fruit of using human embryos, cybrids or otherwise.

LiveJournal Tags: cybrids,cloning humans,ethics,bioethics,religion,state