Naeem ud din Khattak Human Cloning, in very simple words, is the asexual reproduction of the humans. Cloning is a routine phenomenon in some of the lower animals and plants. Many of us understand and might have practiced the asexual process of grafting, budding (like in potatoes) or the propagation of roses by planting their twigs and branches. Cloning produces an organism that is genetically identical to its parent, by vegetative reproduction or a laboratory technique, such an organism is an exact or near copy of its single parent. However, as we move towards the more advanced animals and plants such asexual methods of reproduction give way to the more dynamic processes of sexual reproduction. We observe greater specialization of cells resulting in division of labor among the cells and the consequent impossibility of asexual reproduction. What is the logic behind this? The answer is that nature intended a gradual switch over to the fantastic process of sexual reproduction so as to result in variations; variations, which provide the raw material for evolution. Manipulation of the reproductive processes in plants and animals never gave birth to any serious controversies; naturally due to our anthropocentric attitude towards other organisms, earth and its resources and in fact the whole of the universe. The controversies started when human begin to manipulate his own reproductive processes. In 1997, researchers at Scotland’s Roslin Institute sparked international debate when they announced the cloning of a sheep named Dolly. The event brought humankind to another crossroad of scientific research and ethical concerns. Few modern technologies have given rise to such dystopian visions as has cloning. From Adolus Huxley’s picture of human production lines in Brave New World to Micheal Marshall Smith’s description in his novel Spares of farms where rich people keep clones of themselves in a permanent childlike state so that their organs can be ‘harvested’ for transplants, cloning has been a metaphor for the creation of an immoral, inhuman world. The birth of Dolly in February 1977 transformed such visions from the realms of science fiction to that of scientific fact. It seemed only a matter of time before humans, too, could be similarly duplicated, a prospect that has been greeted with almost universally condemnation. News say that Italian and Israeli scientists are well on their way to clone the world’s first human baby. A few months after Dolly’s birth UNESCO declared cloning to be ‘contrary to human dignity’. President Clinton banned the use of federal funds to pursue any such research. In Britain successive government ministers and official commissions have ruled out any possibility of legalizing reproductive cloning. Even Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly, believes that we should ‘reject this proposed use of cloning’. There are three main ethical objections to cloning: that it undermines human dignity and personal identity; that it uses people as objects; and that it is unnatural. Opponents argue that it is immoral to create exact copies of people. According to the philosopher Leon Klass, ‘the cloned individual will be saddled with a genotype that has already lived. He will not be fully a surprise to the world.’ Others worry that unethical governments, or even private corporations, may institute a program to create people, Adolph Hitters. The American writer and management guru Jeremy Rifkin warns that they are striking a ‘Faustian' (hero of one of the most durable legends in Western folklore and literature, the story of a German necromancer or astrologer who sells his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge and power) which could pave the way to a ‘commercial eugenics civilization’. However, we must take a careful account of some popular misconceptions about what constitutes a clone. A human clone would be the genetic identical twin, a generation or more younger, of the donor (not the surrogate mother) who provided the nucleus. But because people are more than a product of their genes, a clone would have its own personality, character, intelligence, and talents exactly as identical twins do (who are natural clones stemming from the same egg). You cannot clone a person’s brain or mind, and chance factors, the environment, and a person’s experiences contribute to individual traits. This means that even if you wanted to, you cannot duplicate your identical self. Even if you were to clone yourself several times, you would not be able to create the same person each time because every human life, no matter how conceived, is unique. A cloned Hitler would not necessarily grow up to be a mass murderer nor would a twin of Mother Teresa become a humanitarian. It is also impossible to copy a deceased family member or a past historical figure through cloning the cells from their corpses. The same applies to dead persons that have been frozen, because you need live DNA to make a clone. It’s a fear generated from too much bad science fiction. Cloned soldiers would still have to be carried to maturity by an army of mothers, and raised by an army of nannies and teachers. It would still take about two decades to come up with the first batch of useful soldiers. Even the, getting the clones to all believe the same thing would be impossible. Knowledge can not be cloned, and knowledge heavily influences what type of person we become. To hear the way some people speak about an army of mindless clones with identical personalities, one would think that Hitler’s clones would all grow up speaking German, regardless of the language spoken by those around them. A dictator wanting to have a “superior soldier” would be best advised to use more traditional methods of reproduction and selective breeding, combined with traditional methods of propaganda. Granted, this will produce some soldiers that are below norm, but it will produce others that are above norm that can be used to create the next generation of even better soldiers; a benefit that cloning does not allow. Here, cloning changes nothing. Slavery and spare parts objections hold that cloning should be prohibited on the grounds that clones will be treated as slaves or, worse, chopped up and sold as spare parts. Enslaving, and chopping up people for spare parts, are already prohibited. Granted, a clone would be a better match for a recipient than a person conceived from a sperm and egg. Still, traditional offspring are good enough for practical purposes. Cloning adds nothing to the equation. Thus, there is no reason to treat cloning any differently. None of this argues that we should begin cloning humans tomorrow. There is an established set of guidelines for testing new medical procedures, which restrict trials on humans pending the results of preliminary studies. Cloning should be subject to these guidelines. Holding the science of cloning to these restrictions requires no additional legislation; rules are already in place. Cloning is certainly unnatural. But then so is virtually every human activity. The whole point of any medical intervention, from taking an aspirin to heart surgery, is to ensure that humans are not at the mercy of ‘forces outside our control.’ If we were to look upon human conception as simply a ‘gift from God’, then contraception, abortion and IVF would all have to be ruled immoral. Cloning is no more and no less unnatural than IVF. If we are happy to accept the latter (as most people are), then why should we not accept the former too? HUMAN CLONING IN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVEFor guidance on such matter, Muslims turn first to the Quran. Allah gives us general guidelines to follow, which are constant and timeless. “Blessed be He in whose hands is the Dominion, and He has power over all things. He who created death and life that He may test which of you are best in deed, and He is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving.” (Quran 67: 1-2) While the West is debating the scientific values and ethical constrains of cloning, the Middle East remained relatively quiet, awaiting an end to the heating debate. Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the highest Shiite spiritual leader in Lebanon broke the silence, openly speaking about the sensitive matter. According to Fadlallah, human cloning is not immoral as long as it serves the interest of mankind. He stressed that as long as the cloned embryo was destroyed after 14 days – which according to his interpretation of Islam an embryo by that date is not considered a ‘life’ – then cloning is permissible. He affirmed: “Cloning does not contradict the concept of creation and does not turn humans into creators with the power of almighty God because they are using His laws of human creation.” In a position that meets the stance of other religious authorities around the world, Fadlallah insisted that there are conditions that would legitimize the concept of cloning; one is that cloning, like every other scientific discovery, should have more advantages than disadvantages. “It is too early to judge cloning; we have to wait and see its pros and cons. One of its profound benefits could be the cloning of organs”, he stressed. Diversity among Muslims makes an authoritative description of Islamic thought on cloning nearly impossible. Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina, University of Virginia professor and a leading U.S. scholars on Muslim thought regarding cloning, believes that most Muslims will eventually agree that scientists wouldn’t have discovered cloning if Allah hadn’t willed it. So cloning for the purpose of enhancing the chances of procreating within a solid family structure will be “regarded as an act of faith in the ultimate will of God as the Giver of all life.” But he’s hardly without opponents. Nasser Farid Wasel, Egypt’s Mufti, said in 1999 that cloning clearly contradicts Islam. Other muftis have gone further, saying scientists who clone are doing Satan’s work. Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed, director of the Islamic Research Foundation International and an outspoken cloning supporter, says such absolute statements from religious leaders only serve to complicate the conversation. “Anything new, just as a reaction, they oppose it” Syed said. “Our religious leaders have little knowledge of evolving technologies.” But the problem works both ways, he conceded. “The scientists don’t have thorough knowledge of religion.” And while Christian authorities in the Middle East are yet to finalize their stance on the controversial issue, Pope John Paul has already done so. In a ceremony last year, the Pope condemned the prospect of human embryo cloning as “morally unacceptable.” Meanwhile, the world is still debating the moral dilemma, some rejecting the concept of cloning altogether, others accepting it altogether; a third party remains undecided favoring a middle way. The fact that the debate is turning from a sheer ethical dilemma to a practice likely to ignite heated debate within the Muslim world. Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah’s comments are likely the start of the controversy among Muslim and Christian religious authorities in the Middle East. But how does Islam look upon this pioneering scientific development? How does one approach such extraordinary human achievements as a person of faith? Islam teaches that Allah, is supreme Creator of ALL – the Universe, the life of all beings, and every law governing creation. Humans, on the other hand, do not invent or create anything on their own – but they do discover. They discover what has already existed since the beginning of creation, and Islam encourages such scientific curiosity, considering it an integral part of the faith. Take cloning, as a controversial case in point. It is a process of humans discovering the What and How of the makeup of cells, and the previously undiscovered ability of these cells to reproduce themselves in ways other than the one with which we are all familiar. Thus, according to Islam cloning does fall within God’s natural laws and it has simply taken humans all these years to begin unlocking its mysteries. Cloning is indeed a major discovery – just like the discovery that we can make amazingly sophisticated microchips, from a lowly material called sand. The natural laws and properties inherent in sand, through God’s providence, made the human achievement of microchips possible, but it took until 1948 for scientists to discover this. Other examples include the discovery of how to split the atom, unleashing the enormous power and potential of nuclear energy. But fundamental questions remain. Have these discoveries enhanced our human well-being, physically, mentally and spiritually? Is the world now a more peaceful place than it was before nuclear fission, microchip technology and cloning? Haven’t we misused (or threatened to misuse) most of the major discoveries and scientific advancements we’ve achieved? Haven’t most of them gone to benefit only the rich and powerful? Thus, from an Islamic perspective cloning – like any other discovery – can be regarded as a positive or negative achievement. It all depends on how this new knowledge is applied and what safeguards can be established against its potential misuse. Therefore it is urgent, now, to develop effective moral and ethical guidelines before human cloning becomes a reality that can never be reversed. The debate over whether scientists are “playing God” has probably never been more real than now, as humans consider calling forth the spark of life, seemingly without divine intervention. However, a confused population looking for clear ethical wisdom on cloning might be disappointed; beyond issuing a general call for caution, the world’s spiritual leaders hardly speak with one voice on the cloning debate. Islam shows us the path of moderation in all walks of life. It forbids the crossing of certain limits. I think the human cloning is one of those limits and this needs to be dealt with extreme caution. Science as conceived by a modern materialist is based only on secular rationality; there is no room for emotions, mysticism and religion. He (a materialist) says that the universe is Godless and there is no greater cause of existence other than to eat drink and have sex. But such thinking produces a shallowness so hurting that nothing but doping can give him peace. They have depressions, manias and various types of psychosis. In my opinion the desire for immediate results makes such people blind to the fruits of mysticism and religion which in the long run will prove to be the ultimate reality and the absolute truth. My personal feelings are that the advancement of science alone can never resolve all the mysteries of the universe. Mystery is beauty and, a thing of beauty is a joy for ever”; that one day all the sciences will end up believing in religion because, He (God) is before every thing, and by Him all things exist. (The recent advancements on Cloning & Human Cloning can be known by visiting the websites given at page ____ of this issue.) REFERENCES- Elmasry, the handbook, “1,000 Questions on Islam” He is National President of the Canadian Islamic Congress.
- Annas G. (1984) Ethics Committees in Neo-Natal: Substantive Protection of Procedural Diversion? Am J Pub Health 74; 843.
- Arber, Werner, et a! Genetic Manipulation: Impact on Man and Society (Cambridge 1984).
- Bajaj. Y. P., ed., Plant. Protoplast and Genetic Engineering (Springer-Verlag 1989).
- Beauchamp T. and Childress J. (1994) The Principles of Biomedical Ethics (4ed) Oxford UP.
- Betzig, L. et.al. eds., Human Reproductive Behaviour (Cambridge. 1988).
- Bulletin of Medical Ethics. (1999a) Medical Research has its Downsides Bulletin of Medical Ethics, November 152: 7 (citing reports in The Times, 2 October 1999; The Guardian 8 November 1999; and 1999 Brit Med J 319274)
- The Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Bulletin
- ChaImers D. and Pettit P. (1998) Towards a Consensual Culture in the Ethical Review of Research Med J of Austt 168:79
- Clarke C. (1998) Should There Be n Accredited Ethics Committee System of Centralised Review of Multi-Centre Clinical Research Med J of Austt 169:283 (and Henman M. et al. Med J of Austt 169:283-4; E. O’Brien E. (1998) et al. Med J of Austt 169:284-5; S. Gandevia S. et al. Med J of Austt 169:285.
- Freedman B. and Glass K. (1990) Weiss v Solomon: A Case Study in Institutional Responsibility for Clinical Research Law, Medicine and Health Care 18:395.
- Gillespie R. (1988) Research and Human Subjects: an Historical Overview Conference Proceedings: Can Ethics Be Done by Committee? Monash University Centre for Bioethics Australia.
- Hull, R. ed., Ethical Issues in New Reproductive Technologies (Wadsworth PuW 2000)
- Kirby M. (1983) IVF – The Scope and Limitation of Law Conference on Bioethics and the Law of Human Conception IVF 29 – 30 September, London, UK.
- Old R. W., and S. B. Primrose, Principles of Gene Manipulation (Blackwell 1985)
- Rami A. Jawad, Muslim Scholar Says Cloning Is Permissible In Islam, Middle East News Online, Posted Friday August 24, 2001 – 05:16:06 PM EDT
- Scott R. (1984) Experimenting with Life: Must Law-Makers Experiment Too? 5th International Conference on Forensic Science, Sydney Australia.
Back to Table of Contents
|