See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241673541

Human and Molecular Cloning: Ethical Dilemmas in a Brave New World

Article  in  The Torah u-madda journal · January 2000

DOI: 10.2307/40914660

CITATIONS READS
0 350

1 author:

Feige Kaplan
McGill University
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,228 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Feige Kaplan on 24 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FEIGE KAPLAN

Human and Molecular

Cloning: Ethical Dilemmas
in a Brave New World

“Modern science has emerged victorious

from its encounter with nature because it
has sacrificed qualitative-metaphysical
speculation for the sake of functional
duplication of reality and substituted the
quantus for the qualis question. . . . He
[Adam The First, Man of Science] raises
not a metaphysical but a practical tech-
nical ‘how’ question.”

RABBI JOSEPH B. SOLOVEITCHIK 1

A s is the case with any scientific discovery that is perceived to be

revolutionary, the worldwide dialogue about the ethics of cloning,
stimulated by the recent report of the successful cloning of a sheep,2 has
included both rational and serious discussion as well as panic and
alarmist warnings of imminent disaster. I will not attempt here to draw
any halakhic conclusions on the subject, as I am not qualified to do so.
However, I will attempt to engage discussion of some serious ethical
issues posed by cloning. In so doing, I hope to encourage rabbinic lead-

FEIGE KAPLAN, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Human Genetics and Pediatrics at

McGill University. Dr. Kaplan is the Director of Population Screening Programs
for Tay-Sachs Disease and β-Thalassemia at the Montreal Children’s Hospital
and is responsible for Curriculum in Genetics at McGill University Medical
School.
225 The Torah u-Madda Journal (9/2000)
226 The Torah u-Madda Journal

ership to invest itself in the training of a generation of rabbis equipped

with the halakhic erudition, scientific expertise and ethical sensitivity
essential to dealing with novel issues (such as cloning) emerging in the
new era of “genetic medicine.”
In order to examine the ethics of cloning, we must distinguish
between two types of cloning which I will refer to as “human cloning”
and “molecular cloning.” The term cloning in its broadest sense refers to
the production of an exact genetic copy of a molecule (gene), cell, plant,
animal or human being.3 Nuclear transplantation cloning aims at pro-
ducing genetically identical organisms and involves the removal of the
nucleus from an egg and its replacement with the nucleus of a somatic
cell.4 Since the nucleus of a somatic cell contains two sets of genes,
unlike the egg and sperm, each of which contains only one set of genes,
nuclear transplantation cloning entails a single genetic parent. Potential
applications for nuclear transplantation cloning in humans (human
cloning) include: generation of genetically identical humans for research
purposes, propagation of “desirable” human clones, production of cells,
organs or tissues for therapeutic purposes,5 assisted reproduction for
infertile couples and the production of targeted genetic alterations in
humans (which combines molecular and human cloning). All but the
last of these applications of human cloning do not involve alterations of
the intact nuclear genome.
In contrast to human cloning, molecular or gene cloning (often
called recombinant DNA technology or genetic engineering), refers to
the copying and amplification in a host cell of DNA fragments contain-
ing single genes. Scientists use molecular cloning to generate large
quantities of gene products for therapeutic (or commercial) purposes,
to investigate how genes function and are regulated and, most germane
to our discussion, to develop directed gene therapies for human disease.
All of these applications of molecular cloning involve alterations of an
existing genome.

Rabbinic/Jewish Perspectives: Approval in Principle

The public debate about the ethical acceptability of molecular and/or

human cloning has often been presented as mirroring the classical con-
frontation of science and religion. Curiously, Jewish authorities have
tended toward the permissive on questions of human cloning, a proce-
dure generally perceived to be more radical and revolutionary than mol-
ecular cloning.6
 Feige Kaplan 227

A source often cited by those who support cloning draws from the
Tiferet Yisrael commentary on the Mishnah: “Anything for which there
is no reason to forbid is permissible with no need for justification, for
the Torah has not enumerated all permissible things, rather forbidden
ones.”7 Rabbi Pinchas Lipner states: “Jewish medical ethics is basically
Jewish Halakhah. What is ethical in Judaism is legal, and what is legal is
ethical. We don’t divide the two. Anything which is legal [e.g., cloning—
F. K.] is ethical.”8
Indeed, in large measure, the discussion among rabbis and Jewish
ethicists, including such prominent figures as Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler
and Dr. Fred Rosner, has focused on the technical, legal permissibility of
cloning according to Halakhah.9 Human cloning raises issues of status.
Who is the clone’s family? Is the “genetic” parent of a clone a sibling or a
parent? How do we address the apparent absence of paternity (when a
female cell is the genetic source)? What is the clone’s religious identity?
In a thorough discussion of the technical issues of human cloning,
Rabbi Michael Broyde concludes, “I am unaware of any substantive vio-
lation. . . . Thus, in those circumstances where the clonor is a man faced
with the obligation to be fruitful and multiply . . . and he cannot fulfill
the obligation otherwise, cloning can be classified as a good deed (miz.vah).
In those circumstances where the clonor is a woman . . . cloning can be
classified as religiously neutral.”10
The Jewish tradition emphasizes that God has given man a positive
commandment to “master the world” (Genesis 1:28). Human mastery
over nature entails improving nature to meet human needs, and this is
considered to be both “right” and obligatory. The Torah commands us
to heal. Molecular cloning offers new forms of healing. Human cloning
offers new avenues for assisted reproduction, allowing infertile couples
to fulfil the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.11
A more reserved approach articulated by Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits
zz.”l reminds us that “the Jewish Sabbath recalls not God as the creator,
but as He who knew when to cease creating.”12 And Israel’s Ashkenazic
Chief Rabbi Israel Lau has stated that human cloning is not permissi-
ble.13 Nevertheless, the emerging rabbinic consensus seems to be one of
cautious endorsement.
The rabbinic discussion outlined above views cloning as part of the
endeavor of Man as Creator (Adam the First in The Lonely Man of Faith)
fulfilling his mandate to “master the world.” The halakhic discussion
centers on how to ensure that in the exercise of this mandate, the
halakhic Jew does not violate specific prescriptives (questions of issur
228 The Torah u-Madda Journal

ve-heter, what is forbidden and what is permitted). I would like to sug-

gest that a halakhic discussion of cloning (and other questions arising
from the rapid evolution of biotechnology) needs as well to focus on
larger issues in Jewish medical /societal ethics. We might view this dis-
cussion as Man in his Adam the Second aspect, who retreats as protec-
tor and serves “to cultivate (the garden) and keep it.”

Human Cloning – Ethical Concerns

A centerpiece of Western ethics is the belief in the distinctiveness of

each individual. The Jewish vision conceives of the individual as “in the
image of God.” Many argue that the creation of a genetic “identical twin
separated by time” raises serious issues of identity and individuality.14
Would human cloning violate a moral right to unique genetic identity?
Scientists would argue that a “genetic” twin would have a unique identi-
ty, his/her individuality being determined by the continuing and com-
plex interaction of genes and environment throughout life.
A second concern focuses on the impact of human cloning on the
family.15 Would the knowledge that a child represents a unique copy of a
single “genetic parent” influence the child’s self-perception and/or the
parents’ expectations of that child? Every child represents a close replica
of his/her parents, and shares that condition with all siblings. However,
the “human clone” is a unique identical genetic replica of a single par-
ent, and stands alone in this condition. Thus, by virtue of age not hav-
ing had the opportunity to emulate his/her parent, the cloned child may
experience a very different self-perception and thereby be encumbered
by more demanding self-expectations.
A third concern relates to the effects of cloning on human diversity.
Global health and safety depends on a diverse “gene pool.” Human
cloning could lead to the shrinking of the gene pool. The consequences
of inbreeding are well known to the Ashkenazi Jewish community
which harbors a number of gene mutations associated with genetic dis-
ease at high frequency.16 Arguments that claim that cloning would only
be carried out in rare circumstances are short-sighted. When the “new-
ness” of the approach wears off in a world of increasing population den-
sity, one can hardly predict how popular the procedure might become.
A fourth issue involves the question of uses and abuses of eugenics.
Given the opportunity to choose the genetic “parent” of our offspring,
how would we make those choices?
The fifth and perhaps the single universal concern with respect to
 Feige Kaplan 229

human cloning relates to the safety of attempting to clone human

beings. Several important questions remain unanswered about the feasi-
bility of human cloning.17
• Can the procedure used to create Dolly be carried out successfully
in other cases? We note that Dolly was the one success out of more than
two hundred failures.18
• Are there species differences in the ability to achieve nuclear trans-
fer? Such differences are known to occur in species with different sched-
ules of embryonic gene activation.
• Will “genetic imprinting” (the effects of parental origin, male or
female, on the expression of specific genes in the embryo) be repro-
grammed in the situation when all inherited genes derive from either a
maternal or paternal cell?
• Will the age of the adult cell from which the nucleus has been
transferred affect the development and aging of the cloned child? Cells
can sustain only a limited number of divisions before dying. Indeed,
recent studies based on “telomere models” (a measure of cell aging) pre-
dicted that nuclear-transfer derived animals would reach a critical
telomere length sooner than age-matched controls.19 And studies of
nuclear transplanted sheep have evidenced aberrant fetal growth leading
to major shifts in the pattern of organ and tissue development.20
• Will mutations accumulated in the transferred nucleus increase
the risk of the cloned child developing cancers and/or other diseases?
• Who will be the subjects for investigating these questions? And
who will be responsible for the “experiments” that do not work? Should
we consider the possibility that the experiment, currently fraught with
danger and so many unknowns, begs for moral and ethical justification
to proceed?
One might suggest that, except for the safety issue, all of these con-
cerns are but an extension of ethical questions commonly raised with
respect to other reproductive technologies and even with respect to atti-
tudes in all parent-child relationships. For example, questions about the
child’s sense of identity and about family dynamics (raised here with
respect to cloning) arise often in discussions of the impact of multiple
births in in vitro fertilization, yet IVF is certainly not rejected because of
these problems. As for concerns about parent/child expectations, raised
here with respect to cloning, do not parents often desire to see the best
of themselves immortalized in their children? And, save for extreme
cases, would anyone consider such sentiments inappropriate? I would
argue, however, that matters of degree are not irrelevant here; and that
230 The Torah u-Madda Journal

cloning represents a leap into a world of unknown, unanticipated, unin-

tended and very possibly unwanted consequences.

Molecular Cloning – Ethical Concerns

I will restrict the discussion of molecular cloning to issues involving

genetic therapies. Gene therapy refers to the insertion of DNA (genes)
into the cells of an individual in order to improve or cure a medical
condition. Originally conceived as an approach to treatment of inherit-
ed genetic defects (e.g.Tay-Sachs disease or cystic fibrosis), gene therapy
protocols have expanded to include strategies for therapeutic interven-
tion in genetically influenced diseases including infectious disease (e.g.
AIDS) and many forms in cancer.21
The most fundamental concerns regarding all forms of gene therapy
have to do with the evaluation of safety versus efficacy. New therapies are
generally evaluated by testing their effects on cells in the laboratory and
in animal models of human disease. Only after the successful outcome of
these investigations can procedures be approved for human clinical tri-
als. We have learned, however, that there are no good animal models for
many inherited human diseases. Thus, for example, a mouse bearing the
Tay-Sachs disease gene defect does not have Tay-Sachs disease22 and a
mouse bearing the cystic fibrosis defect does not have cystic fibrosis.23
This means that the real evaluation of clinical efficacy of gene therapies
for these diseases must take place in the context of a “human laboratory.”
A second and real concern involves the definition of what consti-
tutes disease.24 We may all agree that the prevention and amelioration of
disease, and not the improvement of the genome, forms the central goal
of clinical genetics, but can we apply any normative definition as to
what extent of abnormality creates a disease state for which genetic
manipulation interventions are appropriate?
A third consideration, elegantly put forward by Wolpe, goes as fol-
lows.25 In an effort to ameliorate the “genetic health” of our children,
what kinds of manipulation might we carry out that represent simply
the models of health of a single historical moment? What happens if
those very traits we choose to change (even with the very best of inten-
tions) are desirable to the society of the future? Do we risk imposing our
parochial social definitions of “normal” into the genetic legacy of future
generations?
A fourth issue more specifically addressed by the scientific commu-
nity has to do with “germline” gene manipulations. Do we, under any
 Feige Kaplan 231

circumstances, have the moral right to tamper with the genes of future
generations? Even putting aside the fears of a recurrence of Nazi-style
eugenics, germline gene manipulations raise the specter of imposing
unanticipated risks or harm to future generations in a situation where
no informed consent is possible.26

Summation

New technologies often force us to make irrevocable decisions. It is

imperative, therefore, as Wolpe notes, that we bring to these decisions
the full weight of our wisdom and insight as it is informed by our reli-
gious and cultural heritage as well as by the scientific endeavor.27 It
would be folly to consider such decisions value-neutral. They are not.
Value-driven decisions in society are exemplified by a recent survey
(1994) of 2,903 geneticists in 37 countries as to their willingness to
honor requests for prenatal diagnosis for the sole purpose of sex selec-
tion. The percentage who would perform prenatal diagnosis under these
circumstances was highest in Israel—68%(!). When the same question
was raised in 1985, only 13%(!) of geneticists in Israel answered in the
affirmative. Moreover, individuals identifying themselves as Jews by reli-
gion were the second most willing group to express willingness to sup-
port sex selection.28
Accordingly, any discussion of ethical issues must go beyond ques-
tions of technical Halakhah as it pertains to individual cases, and include
a serious exploration of the consequences of decisions taken and the
implications they may have for future generations. Assistance to an infer-
tile couple will bring the joy of children into their lives and allow them to
fulfill the miz. vah of “peru u-revu,” and molecular/human cloning has the
potential to open a new world of possibilities in the development of ther-
apies for heretofore incurable disorders. Such outcomes are both exciting
and enticing. But responsible decision-making forces us to look at the
big picture. I would certainly not suggest that we must never clone, but I
do believe that with respect to cloning, the issues go beyond ironing out
the scientific details. The agenda for any discussion of cloning must take
into account the implications of cloning for individuals and families, for
the core of society, and for the future of global health. And even before
we get there, any discussion of cloning must take into account the road
taken—because there is a road we cannot take.
Limited clinical data support the efficacy of most cloning proce-
dures. Results of human gene therapy trials have been very disappoint-
232 The Torah u-Madda Journal

ing.29 Indeed, optimism with respect to the imminence of an era of gene

therapy has declined in the last two years. And a number of Gene
Therapy Centres have shut down.
How do we choose the patients for human trials? By what criteria
do we decide who will parent the first candidate human clones? For
gene therapies, absence of any other avenues for treatment in the case of
a life-threatening disease serves as a workable model for choosing candi-
dates for clinical trials. This having been said, I would argue that while
the potential of gene therapy to alleviate human suffering may be
unparalleled in its scope, the potential abuses of molecular cloning are
even more dangerous than those of human cloning. Human cloning
involves duplicating the genome with all its imperfections.30 Molecular
cloning offers the possibility of manipulating the genome. How will we
prevent the “blurring” of the definition of what constitutes “disease”
(for which gene therapy is desirable, perhaps obligatory) to include
genetic enhancement which ought not be accepted?
Enthusiasm for cloning expressed by rabbis and Jewish ethicists,
tempered by the warning that the “time is not yet ripe,” is predicated on
assumptions about the feasibility of perfecting human cloning without
violating ethical principles. However cogent discussions of technical
halakhah have been in this area, the discussion of larger issues has to my
mind been far from sufficient. We ought not avoid the challenges. And
we ought not focus on the extremes, such as Luddite fears of technology
or armies of Hitlers populating the earth. At the same time, adoption of
a technology that has the power to profoundly change the future of
mankind begs for a great deal of yishuv ha-da‘at. The challenge neither
to condemn “cloning” nor to hastily embrace it charges us to reflect on
how and whether we can assure that its practice will meet the ethical
and moral standards to which we are committed.
In closing, let us revisit the Rav’s statement that “Man reaching for
the distant stars is acting in harmony with his nature which was created,
willed and directed by His maker. It is a manifestation of obedience to
rather than rebellion against God.”31 Genesis 1:28 tells us that God com-
manded us to “replenish the earth and subdue it.” Nah.manides inter-
prets this phrase to mean that God gave man dominion over the world
to use animals and insects and all creeping things for the benefit of
humankind. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch interprets the phrase “to
subdue the earth” as calling on man to master, appropriate and trans-
form the earth for the benefit of humanity. Our “dominion” does not
extend to man. And our “mastery of the earth” must be for the benefit
 Feige Kaplan 233

of “man.” Man reaching for the stars is in consonance with his nature.
In “reaching” we endeavor to subdue the earth. The “benefit of man”
forms the guiding principle. Transforming the earth for the benefit of
humankind requires that we take care not to “reach” beyond the grasp
of any given moment. In so doing, we “manifest our obedience to rather
than rebellion against God.”

Notes

I am indebted to David Shatz for fruitful discussions. Acknowledgement is also due to

Herbert Leventer for helpful comments.

1. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith (New York, 1992), 13.
Originally published in Tradition 7:2 (Summer 1965): 5-67.
2. See I. Wilmut, A.E. Schnicke, J. McWhir, A.J. Kind, K.H.S. Campbell,
“Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal Adult Mammalian Cells,” Nature 385
(1997): 810-813
3. A useful glossary of terms such as “molecular cloning” and “nuclear trans-
plantation cloning” is found in “Cloning Human Beings,” Report and
Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC),
Appendix A (June 1997), 77-80.
4. Ibid., 16.
5. Here I refer to the cloning of individuals for the sole purpose of generating
organs for donation. A third type of cloning, not discussed in this essay, is
cell, tissue or organ cloning, referring to copying of cells, tissues or organs
from the body in the laboratory.
6. See Peter Hirschberg “Be Fruitful and Multiply and Multiply and Multiply,”
The Jerusalem Report (April 16, 1998): 32-36.
7. R. Ephraim Lipschutz, Tiferet Yisrael, commentary to Yadayim 4:3. See
Hirschberg, 33.
8. From taped lecture of Rabbi Pinchas Lipner, “Human Cloning–Is it
Halachically Permissible?” at the Ninth Annual Conference on Jewish
Medical Ethics (San Francisco, February 13, 1998). Tapes of the conference
are made available through the Institute of Jewish Medical Ethics of the
Hebrew Academy of San Francisco.
9. See the comments of Dr. Fred Rosner and Rabbi Moshe Tendler in
Hirschberg, “Be Fruitful . . . .” See also the testimony of Rabbi Tendler to the
NBAC (n. 3). Cf. Fred Rosner in “Judaism, Genetic Screening and Genetic
Therapy,” articles online of the Institute of Jewish Medical Ethics of the
Hebrew Academy of San Francisco, http://www.ijme.org/content/tran-
scripts/Rosner/genetics, 9.
10. Broyde, “Cloning people: A Jewish Law Analysis of the Issues,” Connecticut
Law Review 30 (Winter, 1998): 533. See also Michael J. Broyde, “Cloning
People and Jewish Law: A Preliminary Analysis,” Journal of Halacha and
Contemporary Society no. 34(1997): 27-65.
11. See the references cited in note 9.
234 The Torah u-Madda Journal

12. Remarks of Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits at the Symposium on Cloning at

the Ninth Annual Conference on Jewish Medical Ethics (San Francisco,
February 15, 1998) and in Hirschberg, 32.
13. Reported in Agence Free Press (March 1, 1977). Also mentioned by Rabbi
Moshe Tendler in his testimony to NBAC.
14. See Hans Jonas, “Ethics and Biogenetic Art,” Social Research 52(1983): 347-
50. See also NBAC (n. 3), 51.
15. See Leon Kass, “Cloning–Some Ethical Problems” in Toward a More Natural
Science (New York, 1985), 66-79. See also “Remarks on Human Cloning to
NBAC,” testimony presented March 13, 1997 by Gilbert Meilander and
March 14, 1997 by Leon Kass. See also Dr. Rachel Cohon’s “Remarks” in
Stanford Technology Law Review 2(1997): 6-8 (http://stlr.stanford.edu/
STLR/Symposia/Cloning).
16. See for example Genetic Diversity Among the Jews: Diseases and Markers at the
DNA Level, ed. Batsheva Bonne-Tamir (New York, 1992). See also OMIM.
The online database of Mendelian Inheritance in Man selects 20 entries
when searched for “diseases of Ashkenazi Jews” and 223 entries when
searched for “Jews/Jewish/Ashkenazi/Sephardi.”
17. See NBAC (n. 3), 23.
18. See Wilmut et. al., ”Viable offspring . . . .” (n. 2).
19. See P. G. Shiels, A. J. Kind, K. H. Campbell, D. Waddington, I. Wilmut I, A.
Colman, and A. E. Schnieke, “Analysis of Telomere Lengths in Cloned
Sheep,” Nature 399(1999): 316-17.
20. See K. D. Sinclair, Y. G. McEvoy, E. K. Maxfield, C. A. Maltin, l. E. Young, I.
Wilmut, P. J. Broadbent, J. J. Robinson, “Aberrant Fetal Growth and
Development After In Vitro Culture of Sheep Zygotes” Journal of
Reproduction & Fertility 116 (1999): 177-86. See also L.E. Young, K.D.
Sinclair and I. Wilmut, “Large Offspring Syndrome in Cattle and Sheep,”
Reviews of Reproduction 3(1998): 155-63.
21. As of May 2000, there are 425 ongoing gene therapy clinical trials including
3,476 patients (55 for genetic disease–306 patients; 279 for cancer–2459
patients; 33 for infectious disease–412 patients). Of these, only several
patients with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency have shown sustained
therapeutic benefit ( http://www.wiley.co.uk/genetherapy).
22. For a review see: Christine Chavany and Moncef Jendoubi, “Biology and
Potential Strategies for the Treatment of GM2 Gangliosidoses,” in Molecular
Medicine Today 4 (1998):158-166.
23. See for example B. R. Grubb and S. E. Gabriel, “Intestinal Physiology and
Pathology in Gene-targeted Mouse Models of Cystic Fibrosis,” American
Journal of Physiology 272 (1997): G258-266 or A. van Heeckeren et al.,
“Excessive Inflammatory Response of Cystic Fibrosis Mice to Bronchopul-
monary Infection with Pseudomonas Aeruginosa,” Journal of Clinical
Investigation 100(1997): 2810-2815.
24. See, for example, Arthur L. Caplan, “If Gene Therapy is the Cure, What is
the Disease?” in Gene Mapping: Using Law and Ethics as Guides, ed. George
Annas and Sherman Elias (Cary, North Carolina, 1992), 128-141.
25. Paul Root Wolpe, “If I Am Only My Genes, What am I? Genetic Essentialism
and a Jewish Response,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7 (1997): 213-230.
26. See Caplan “If Gene Therapy . . . .” (n. 24).
27. See Wolpe, “If I Am Only My Genes . . . .” (n. 25), 215.
 Feige Kaplan 235

28. D.C. Wertz and J. C. Fletcher, “Ethical and Social Issues in Prenatal Sex
Selection: A Survey of Geneticists in 37 Nations,” Social Science and Medicine
46 (1998): 255-273.
29. See above, n. 21.
30. See NBAC (n. 3), Testimony of John Robertson (March 14, 1997). See also
William Gardner, “Can Human Genetic Enhancement be Prohibited?,”
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20(1995): 65-84. See also Robert
Wachbroit, “Genetic Encores: The Ethics of Human Cloning,” Report from
the Institute for Philosophy and Public Inquiry 17 (Fall 1997): 1-9.
31. See Soloveitchik, Lonely Man of Faith, 16.

View publication stats