"Thoughts On Cloning."

Rev. Dr. Morris Hudgins.
September 30, 2001.

Introduction
As I sat down this week to write this sermon, I had to sit back and think. I wondered, "Do I really want to talk about cloning this Sunday?" My response, "It is time to get back to our normal routine. We can't talk about the events of September 11th forever." Yes, there is still healing to do. But there are other issues that need to be discussed. Cloning and Stem-cell research are two of them. To begin this sermon, allow me to take you back in time.

In March of 1996, Keith Campbell and his colleagues of the Roslin Institute, Roslin, Scotland, reported in Nature magazine that they had succeeded in cloning sheep in the laboratory. The science community celebrated the result which had been predicted for some time.

Before this revelation mice had been cloned in the laboratory but the same had not happened with livestock. The cloning method used, called "genetic transfer" replaces the nucleus of an immature egg with a nucleus from another cell. In the study mentioned the scientists grew embryo cells of Welsh mountain sheep in the laboratory. Then they transferred 244 of the nuclei to the stripped-down eggs of Scottish blackface ewes. Science News describes what they did next:

They didn't have to fertilize the eggs, because the new nuclei had a full set of chromosomes. By giving the eggs an electric shock, they also took over the sperm's job of initiating development.

Thirty-four of the eggs developed sufficiently for the scientists to insert them into Scottish blackface ewes. . . they removed them from the ewes, discarded the failures, and returned the 19 healthy ones to their surrogate mothers.

Their efforts resulted in five genetically identical Welsh mountain lambs. Two of the lambs died within 10 days of birth, probably from kidney trouble.

The reason for celebration is obvious. Scientists can now select cells from prize animals, then improve them further to produce more of whatever they want. The possibilities for the future are endless, though some are questioning what may become of these discoveries.

Following the cloning of Scottish ewes, many other experiments followed. In December of 1998 the first female mouse was cloned from the tip of an adult tail. Cumulina, was the mouse's name. Then in December OVI-1 arrived, the world's first calf to be cloned from an adult cow. This was the first male cloning. Then in June of 1999 we have the first reporting of a male mouse, Fibro, cloned from a male mouse's tail. Then in January of 2000 researchers in Oregon announced that they had grown a live monkey from one-quarter of a monkey embryo. This suggests that it is possible to create up to four identical monkey clones from a single embryo.

The Washington Post concluded at that time:

The work provides strong evidence that scientists could split human embryos to produce identical twins, triplets or quadruplets, a form of human mass production not precluded by federal restrictions on human cloning.

The Oregon researchers took young, eight-celled macaque monkey embryos and divided them into sub-embryos of two, three or four cells each. They transferred 13 of those partial embryos to the wombs of surrogate mother monkeys, and four of those became established pregnancies.

These developments have caused many changes in our way of thinking. Included in this process is the debate over stem-cell research. Fundamentalists continue to challenge this process, but many former anti-abortionists, are beginning to see things differently. The potential scientific progress from these experiments is endless and amazing.

Yes, there are some objectors, including the editorial writers from the "Cincinnati Enquirer." But most are beginning to see the tremendous benefits of these experiments. The reason President Bush allowed the continuation of stem-cell research is because many anti-abortion Republicans would like to see their relatives, like Ronald Reagan, have a chance to overcome their diseases. The reality is, this research will not help Ronald Reagan, but it will most likely help those like him in the future.

Scientists remind us that they still have a long way to go before perfecting these procedures. For instance, three of the four monkey embryos just mentioned ended in miscarriage. Also, for every success there have been many failures.

Cloning Humans
In this sermon today I want to do two things. First, I want to affirm the need for continued scientific research. Second, I conclude that we should never do all that we can do. I want to affirm the importance of personal relationships while I am encourage this continued research.

The big question that needs to be asked is: "Can we now do this with human beings?" I want to ask another question: "Even if we can should we?" Two scientists responding to the sheep-cloning information agreed that cloning of humans is possible but probably not feasible. I believe they under-estimate the potential of their own experiments. Wilmut then ads: "Besides, we don't think it's something you'd want to do." This "want to do" is the point I would like to make this morning. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. We should have learned this with the atomic bomb. We should have learned it again with the events in New York just three weeks ago.

I do recognize the good in genetic engineering. Let us not under-estimate the important role genetic engineering is playing in the modern world. I don't want to use the "humans playing God" argument. To control our future does not take God out of the equation. Even if God is the creator of life, doesn't mean humans don't play a role in the process of creating?

I would argue that the creator designed in the creation a role for us to play. Scientific discoveries are usually good for humans and life. We do learn something from the experiments with animals. What we learn may mean the saving of millions of human lives and can mean the improvement of animal life as well.

We should, however, not overlook the dangers of scientific discovery. There should be strict guidelines for the laboratory. Ian Wilmut, the co-author of the Nature article, writes of some of the dangers. In response to the question: "Why did two of the lambs die within 10 days?" He says: "The more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong."

Let's not be overly enamored with genetic engineering. We will probably learn that doing things the natural way is better most of the time. We are not ready to take the role of mother and father out of parenting. We should not overlook the importance of parenting in the process of giving birth. What our society needs is more not less parenting. In some cases the possibility of parenthood is the reason why we should continue experimentation. An example is in vetro fertilization. This procedure which is now commonly done has allowed many parents to have children when they otherwise could not.

There is another danger in genetic engineering: The manipulation of genes could be used to design the Hitler-like pure race. Some government officials may decide that certain kinds of children are not to be born, as well as which ones should be born. Again, we should be very careful. Just because we have the ability to do something doesn't mean we should.

Ethical Principles
The decisions we are going to have to make because of the possibility of scientific advances are not going to be easy. Most scientists agree that we should approach these decisions with some discussion of ethical principles. One possible principle with which I tend to agree is described by Harmon Smith, now retired, Professor of Ethics at Duke University Divinity School, and my advisor while at Duke. Smith writes in his book, Ethics and The New Medicine (which is now old medicine):

At the very least, I think it arguable that who one is most fundamentally is a person-in-relationships and that any action which destroys or denigrates the capacity for meaningful relationships is therefore destructive of selfhood. . .as we know it. This is a principle no less applicable to biological science and medical technology than it is to housing, education, employment, and all those other humanizing influences we regard as indispensable to personal development and maturation.

Let's apply this principle to the cloning procedure. On the one hand one could argue that cloning makes more relationships possible. The more clones the more relationships. On the other hand, cloning has the potential of creating human life completely in the laboratory without consideration of family relationships.

The point I want to make is that experimentation for experimentation's sake is not a valid reason for any medical procedure. Other questions should be asked:

1. Does it improve or destroy the possibility of meaningful relationships?

2. Does it improve the quality of human life? Animal lovers would also want us to expand our notion of what quality of life. It should not be limited to human life.

3. What effect does the experiment and the medical procedure have on animal and plant life? How do the hog, turkey, and chicken farms treat animals? These are questions that have sometimes been overlooked.

A pro-cloning argument would be: "The creation of life in the test tube in itself does not negate the possibility of humane treatment after birth." We could eliminate the possibility of cloning but continue to have children who are treated less than humanely in life. I would propose that we need to look at both the medical procedures and the way humans and animals are treated after birth. We cannot look at one without the other.

I would reiterate that there are dangers caused by what we can do in the laboratory. Yes, with cloning we have the possibility of eliminating certain medical conditions—like down-syndrome. If given the choice to eliminate that condition in utero, I suppose I would support the procedure as I do in vitro fertilization—the act of creating life in the test tube using the male sperm and the female egg. This procedure has allowed many women to have children, who would not otherwise be able to produce.

In this situation the guiding principle is the creation of life with the potential of relationship. I would affirm Smith's "person-in-relationships" argument. Down syndrome in itself, does not negate the potential for meaningful relationship. Therefore, it is not a reason alone for a medical decision to transfer or manipulate genes.

Another principle that I would like to advocate this morning is that of personal choice. The decision to give birth, or not to give birth should be with the individual not the state. I believe in personal choice. How does this apply to cloning? If there are medical procedures to be taken, like gene manipulation or transfer, then I would say that choice lies within the individual and not the state.

There should also be limits on what the individual can do. I would also argue that the limitation of births has to have some regulation. We should not allow a procedure just because an individual has a problem with the kind of child that is going to be born. We see cultures in which the birth of men is more preferable than women. This is not reason enough for an abortion.

I want us to approach this "brave new world" with some fear and trembling. Let us turn to the reading by Robert T. Weston, humanist, and a mentor and predecessor in the ministry. In this reading he combines the mystery of life with the goal of love:

Out of the stars in their flight,
Out of the dust of eternity,
Here have we come.
Stardust and sunlight,
Mingling through time and through space.

Out of the stars have we come,
Up from time;
Out of the stars have we come.
Time out of time before time
In the vastness of space,
Earth spun to orbit the sun,
Earth with the thunder of mountains newborn,
The boiling of seas.
Earth warmed the sun,
Lit by sunlight:
This is our home;
Out of stars have we come.

Mystery hidden in mystery,
Back through all time;
Mystery rising from rocks
In the storm and the sea.
Out of the stars,
Rising from rocks and the sea,
Kindled by sunlight on earth, arose life.

Ponder this thing in your heart;
Ponder with awe:
Out of the sea to the land,
Out of the shallows came ferns.
Out of the sea to the land,
Up from darkness to light.
Rising to walk and to fly,
Out of the sea trembled life.
Ponder this thing in your heart,
Life up from sea:

Eyes to behold, throats to sing, mates to love.
Life from sea, warmed by sun, washed by rain,
Life from within, giving birth, rose to love.
This is the wonder of time; this is the marvel of space;
Out of the stars swung the earth; life upon earth rose to love.
This is the marvel of life, rising to see and to know;
Out of your heart, cry wonder: Sing that we live.

This reading says it all to me. On the one hand, it acknowledges the wonder and beauty of nature. On the other hand, within us lies the potential for human, animal and plant destruction. Hitler is a continual warning of the dangers of destruction within us. One of the most startling statements made to me in a discussion of the holocaust was this statement: "Morris, what is important to remember is the fact that all of us have the potential to commit similar atrocities." Yes, we all have the potential for good and for evil.

The role of government should be to encourage one and to deter the other. Science must be seen in terms of the purpose of creation. Relationship and love must be part of the formula. I return to the words of Harmon Smith:

. . .to deny or deprive a human being of the capacity and opportunity for meaningful relationships, both with himself and others, so far jeopardizes our understanding of words like "self" and "person" as to render them meaningless in common discourse. For to be a human person is not a matter of statically being a certain kind of substance, but a matter of becoming personal through temporal duration. . .Personal life is achieved not merely by becoming and living as an individual self but also by becoming and living interpersonal relationships, because personal maturity occurs only within the context of such personalizing relationships. (pp. 114-115)

Closing Words
It is in this context of relationships that I wish to acknowledge parenthood. I choose not to be overly sentimental but to acknowledge in gratitude the many hours of work and sacrifice that parents usually do. I close with the words of Richard Gilbert titled "For those who have reared us," a poem inspired by May Sarton:

We give thanks for those who have reared us,
Who have nourished us through sleepless nights an restless days,
Who have seen us through the good times and the bad,
Who have celebrated our triumphs
And suffered through our defeats.
We are grateful for their nurturing spirit,
Their gentle touch and their firm hand,
Their familiar laugh and their sympathetic tears.
We acknowledge the unpleasant times as well,
Our struggle to separate ourselves
As children who must make their own way in the world.
We realize our times of ingratitude and selfishness
And resolve to make amends.

We pay silent tribute to the loved ones no longer among us,
And speak soft thanksgiving to those who are.
May we who have been nurtured
Also be nurtures of those who follow;
May we be part of that current of humanity
That courses through time and space.

May we be "gardeners of the spirit"
Even as we have been tended by loving hearts and hands.
On this day may we commingle gratitude
For those who nourished us
And commitment for those
Who receive the gift of life and love from us.
May we be worthy. Amen.