A clone by any other name

Jed

November 18, 2004

And now, some polemic on a topic that isn't on everyone's mind, 'cause I've been meaning to post something like this for a while. (In fact, I thought I had posted something like this at some point, but apparently not.)

I think the debate over cloning might suddenly get a lot more reasonable if people stopped using the word clone and started using a phrase like delayed twin.

'Cause when we talk about clones, that's basically what we're talking about: a being that's genetically identical to another being, but isn't necessarily identical in any other way; the two are subject to differences in environment (including prenatal environment); they may not even look identical (especially in the case of cats). Clones are, basically, just twins who aren't born at the same time.

Yes, yes, that terminology obscures certain important issues, such as the fact that we're not good enough at cloning yet, last I heard, for there to be a high chance of long-term survival of the clone. But that's an issue with an as-yet-immature technology, not an issue with the idea of cloning per se. I think if we were to make clearer that cloning isn't some magical or mystical thing, that in essence it's a variant on what happens when twins are conceived, that human reproductive cloning wouldn't be making a copy of a person but rather making a copy of a person's DNA just like nature does, then the idea might freak people out less.

But I could be wrong.

9 Responses to “A clone by any other name”

Niall

11-19-2004 4:34 AM

It would probably help, but I think you’d also need to demystify DNA itself somewhat. Give everyone mandatory eight-week structural biology and genetics courses, that’s what I say …
reply
Michael

11-19-2004 11:41 AM

Isn’t DNA just a theory? It’s part and parcel of that whole evolution scam.

Calling a clone a delayed twin denies the rightful role of God and Clomid in creating twins.
reply
Jed

11-19-2004 12:12 PM

Yeah, okay, good points. So leave out the DNA part of what I said.

A more general version of your channeled point, Michael, is that we shouldn’t be messing with nature at all; no in vitro fertilization, no fertility drugs, etc. And sure, that worldview isn’t going to find the “delayed twins” idea compelling.

But I think there are probably a lot of people in the middle ground who would be open to the idea of someone having a twin brother or sister who’s born years later, but who wouldn’t be open to the idea of trying to make an exact duplicate of someone’s soul and personality, which is what I think a lot of people think human reproductive cloning would be. Cf the explanations on the Genetic Savings and Clone website about how a cloned pet won’t bring the original back to life. There’s this mystique around the word.

So yeah, for people who have moral issues with what cloning really is, a change in nomenclature won’t help that. But I think there are a lot of people who have moral issues with what they think cloning is, issues that might be cleared up if it were called something less mysterious.
reply
Michael

11-19-2004 1:31 PM

I just question how large that middle ground is. Certainly you may change their attitudes by changing the nomenclature to be a mere variant on something already accepted.

“Delayed twin” is a very elegant term, and it should dispel a variety of misconceptions about cloning, including the idea that a clone would be created fully grown. But it is only clumsily applied to lab-grown human organs (including skin) which have the intended recipient’s DNA. To achieve public acceptance for that sort of medical advance, I’d prefer to see the word “clone” demystified.

Thinking it over, though, there may be important reasons to differentiate the terms for medical processes that result in actual people vs. ones that don’t.
reply
Vardibidian

11-20-2004 2:04 PM

I think Michael’s last point is important, and points out some interesting stuff with hifalutin’ ethical consequences. There is a big difference (I opine) between vat-grown replacement eyes and a baby, and the same technology could in theory be used for either. Some people would be against one but not the other; having easy terminology would make that discussion easier.
Now, then, there’s a new ethical question: for those who are against birth control, and for those who are against morning-after abortifacients on the grounds that there is potential for life there, a working clone technology would that there is a potential for life in the flap of skin after you scrape your knee, or possibly even in your fingernail clippings. Can these things simply be discarded?
(By the way, I’m aware that the potential-for-life thing is not the main reason people are against legal abortions, but there’s a pretty substantial body of ethical writing on that topic which should soon have to be revised).

Thanks,
-V.
reply
Ted

11-20-2004 6:38 PM

Here’s a related question: what is a good use for cloning, or delayed twinning? I don’t mean growing replacement organs or tissue. What is a good reason to make a delayed twin of a person?

I tend to lean against human cloning, simply because I think most scenarios for its use create expectations that would be psychologically unhealthy for the child. I don’t expect such considerations to be taken into account by lawmakers, though. There are already countless legal ways for parents to screw up a child, and cloning will likely become another.
reply
Shmuel

11-20-2004 6:45 PM

Not that I don’t agree that people ought to show consideration to fingernail clippings, but there’s an obvious distinction between them and a fertilized egg: the latter, if left to its own devices, will grow into a human infant; the former will not.

The issue is not whether we are morally obligated to create human life from every possible source whenever possible– not even the most die-hard pro-life activist would make such a claim. The issue is whether we’re morally allowed to stop a process that will naturally result in human life. A similar distinction might be made with regard to birth control: the issue is whether we ought to thwart natural processes. This obviously doesn’t apply here.

Knocking down an overly-broad straw man can be fun, but it’s kinda pointless.

(For my part, I don’t care whether you call it “cloning,” “delayed twinning,” or “shiny happy fun people making,” I’m still gonna be against it. But that’s just me.)
reply
Dan P

11-22-2004 12:43 PM

I think that most of the troublesome ethical packages around cloning, whether for tissue grafts or entire people, have already been openened with in vitro fertilization — and subsequently ignored, as far as I’ve heard.

The moral status of the spare zygotes from IVF lies somewhere in between a process that will naturally result in human life and one that would not. They clearly can’t develop in their current frozen state, yet the only thing that put them in the freezer is the original human intervention. There’s potential for a “you broke it, you own it” assignment of responsibility: “you fertilized it, you grow it.”

I’m sure that anti-abortion philosophers who oppose oral contraceptives on the grounds that it prevents implantation would also argue that IVF is an immoral approach to fertility treatment, but so far, the public debate hasn’t really made that connection. At some point, the stem cell issue is going to bring this up to the surface of soundbite politics, probably when someone finally makes it clear that stem cell lines do not derive from aborted fetuses (as the current debate implies) but from the spare zygotes of IVF.

It will be interesting to see if we see bills banning or restricting IVF being introduced in the next few years as a way to limit stem cell research. They wouldn’t have any practical effect since there are already multitudes of zygotes in storage around the country from which new cell lines could be derived, but such laws would strengthen the legal case for marking fertilization as the beginning of human life.
reply
Robotics Geek

04-22-2008 8:48 AM

I just did a research paper on cloning; you’re right. Cloning is just the hypothetically simple process of using SCNT to take the nucleus from a somatic body cell, implant it into a enucleated egg, stimulate it to divide into a blastocyte, and implant it into the uterus of a woman, who will conceive the child.
Simple, right?
I think so too.
reply