Well. Good afternoon. The title my talk is cloning: arguments and against. Now, by way introduction, let me just explain different parts of the talk. , I'll try to explain in simple terms what cloning is. , we'll have a look at cloning of non-human animals. Thirdly, some aspects of the cloning human beings. Fourthly, I shall whether controls are needed on and if so of what , who should be controlled and on. And finally, I'll raise questions about science, technology and , of course with special reference cloning.

OK. So first , I'll try to explain what is. Now, we know how and plants reproduce in nature. have kittens. Many primary school watch hens' eggs, fertilised hens' hatching and see the chickens out of the eggs and on. Maybe we don't understand things quite well enough, given number of under-age girls in UK who seem to have babies. But generally, we are with the natural processes. However, science of genetics and the of genetic engineering have now it possible to reproduce organisms a laboratory. And so replace reproduction. Now genes of course the, as it were, the blocks, the blueprint, the plan living organisms. Here's a little of the double helix, discovered it were by Crick and . Now, the whole organism that's in cloning may be a animal such as a sheep a cow or it may be a human being that technology is available. Some of early experiments in fact were on frogs, the cloning of . But the target changed and and more complex animals, indeed , were cloned. The organism which copied in this way may have first been genetically modified be useful for a particular . So you get, first you an animal genetically and then cloning you could multiply it . You can have limitless copies the genetically identical creature.

. Secondly, now, let's look at cloning of non-human animals. First few remarks about its history. twenty years or more the of particular genes and cells been carried out. However, in , it was announced that a sheep had been cloned at Roslin Institute in Edinburgh. The was nicknamed Dolly. She was female and the purpose was use her milk to develop for serious human diseases, such cystic fibrosis, and haemophilia. Well, she is the famous Dolly, sheep. Looks just like an , very cheerful healthy sheep. She'd genetically modified for a particular purpose. The most famous sheep, , in the history of sheep. sheep and a vast amount publicity in the international media the announcement, carefully orchestrated, of particular, shall I call her invention or development, this particular . So here's Hello Dolly" and Dolly's clone. Here's Nature magazine, a flock of clones on front cover. OK. The benefit human beings it is claimed justify the whole procedure.

, let's look at some arguments the cloning of non-human animals. sort of arguments have been forward? Well, there are many. let's look at just one two, in fact four. First, 's a common religious objection, from different religious quarters. The general of this objection is that has created the different forms life on earth and that beings should not play god, it is called, by trying change these forms. Secondly, it be said that it is , unnatural, to change and then animals, and indeed plants too, though there may be some in medicine or in agriculture. , this talk of unnaturalness got impetus from the widespread publicity a curious mouse known as onco-mouse, which had developed, by , by human design, a human on its back. Many people that this was a rather thing to do. Here's the , here's the rather unfortunate onco-mouse its unusual hearing aid. Notice the word unnatural is very in English. It sounds empirical, sounds as though it describes matter of fact but of it has a tremendous evaluative , a negatives evaluative force. If say that something is unnatural, are attacking it as somehow repulsive. Nature has played a part in the history of , I mean the concept of has played a great part the history of ethics. And concept of unnaturalness is alive well, among some objectors to of non-human animals. Thirdly it be pointed out that man no right, human beings have right to exploit non-human animals their own benefit. For example, it was announced that the Institute had cloned a cow, was the next thing, Joyce D'Silva of the British group compassion world farming said on BBC that the scientists forget that animals are sentient, sentient. That to say the animals are and aware beings, just as think of ourselves as being and aware beings, sentient in sense. Even the language that scientists use reflects the scientists' to see the cloned animals the light of sentient beings. of those who do the refer to the animals as, quote, bioreactors, bioreactors. Now, this, rather unfortunate word of course, the animals seem more like than like beings with which have much in common. In I'm reminded of Jeremy Bentham, great late 18th, early 19th , English legal reformer and philosopher. said so long ago that question about animals is not they can speak or whether can reason but whether they suffer. And some people would that in a sense animals are cloned are, I suppose, made to suffer. Fourthly, there some fears that viruses in may, if introduced into human , mutate, that is naturally change. risks of new diseases in from this cause are unknown it's feared they may be .

OK. Let's look now some aspects of the cloning human beings. What about the for this? When it was in 1997 that Dolly the , the female sheep, had been , people at once asked whether techniques could not be used clone humans. Well, the answer , of course, yes. But scientists other commentators rushed to say, the media, that it would unthinkable and unethical to clone member of our own species. that nobody would want to it. Yet, within months, some were claiming not only that could be done but that should be done. Well, let's a look at some of arguments for the cloning of beings, there are very serious in favour of it. Now, arguments are based on respect human choice, human freedom, human . If I want to clone , is that not my own ? And why should anyone stop form doing it? Should women, instance, not have the right, they wish to do so, clone themselves and so avoid with men? This would have advantage of course, if it one, that they needn't go bed with men and beds be made unnecessary. Perhaps, men would be made redundant except a few kept in zoos the instruction and amusement of women. But, is this not a bit too much like fiction? Do we really have think about a world, or part, or parts of a with a population entirely of ? Well, it could be. However, other arguments in favour of cloning are a little less . Dr Ian Wilmot of the Institute, whose team cloned Dolly sheep, here he is, tells story of his being phoned by a distressed mother, a mother, whose infant child had died of a terminal illness. she wished, she said, that techniques of human cloning had been in place so that could have had a healthy for her dead infant. Now Wilmot admitted that he would been tempted to agree to request. He said he wouldn't , but he would have tempted agree. He wouldn't have agreed he would have been tempted. , this, of course, is a in to removing some of objections to human cloning. Again, are many potential medical applications cloning. For instance, some women genetic diseases, which they could their children having by accepting process of only very partial . This way, the children would their parents' normal genetic inheritance for the disease. Surely it be argued, that would be good thing. Dr Wilmot himself the American Association for the of Science in February 1998 he might be in favour such a technique. Let's return to the full scale cloning humans. I'll mention two more that have seriously been given making human clones. The first these is that clones could used for clinical trials of drugs. Such clones would be dead. That is to say would not be able to or think. It would be efficient, you see to, test drugs on them than on . The second is that human could be used as sources organs for transplanting into human . There's a great shortage of organs. The shortage gets greater more the rate of road reduces. One of the possibilities is to breed human clones, dead simply as organ farms, it were.

OK. We've a look at some arguments human cloning. Let's now review or two of the common that have been put against . First again the theological arguments. , the theological arguments against cloning are even stronger than those cloning non-human animals. Many religious are simply horrified by statements as Stuart Brand's, as long as 1968. I quote, "we're gods and we might as get used to it," unquote. , could clones have souls? Many people too feel that it be unnatural, for example, for to close themselves. So a argument and a related argument unnaturalness. Another argument against human is that, well it's been by Amnesty International, the pressure for human rights. How can rights be guaranteed, ask Amnesty, the very design of human is left to genetic engineers? this was at first sight odd argument, but perhaps you see the point, if human can be designed in a of ways, they could presumably designed to do what they're and to lack the capacity assert their rights as most us can do. Now, there obvious ethical objections to producing which will be developed as of organs for transplanting and killed. Well, you might think what these ethical objections might . I mean, would the killing the redundant used clones, so speak, itself be murder? What they're without brains? Would that a difference? Well these are to which there are no ethical answers, obviously, because they're questions and ethics hasn't developed response to such questions. How it? So we are, in way, in a world of fiction. But, it's not fiction, 's a practical possibility. Another objection be that if people clone dying children, the world would even more over-populated. I mean, do think we have to these arguments seriously. It sounds , but what if everybody wanted do it? We might be short of living space. Three a half billion, about 1955. seven billion now, the population the world and rising. Finally interests of the clones themselves be considered. Would it be for a clone to grow , knowing that is has to the part of its dead or sister? To live the , as it were, of its brother or sister. I'm referring course to the replacement of lost sibling. Some people would that the psychological pressure on a clone child would somehow too great. Well. I've just reviewing a variety of objections, , the sort of objections that in fact put and canvassed the Internet and so on Dolly the sheep was announced.

come now to the main part of this little . Are controls needed on cloning if so, of what sort? , Aldous Huxley's story, the Brave World, from the 1930s already of an imaginary all powerful which used advanced reproductive technology breed its different categories of . It was a strictly stratified and the breeding was controlled. also controlled, the state also , the people's total environment. It drugs, for instance, to keep happy and productive. What was , of course, and this is 's point, in this, it's not utopia, it's the opposite, it's sort of dystopia, it's a story. What was lost was dignity, human individuality, human autonomy, capacity to choose. Most people deprived in Huxley's sort of story of the capacity, in , to choose. Now, Huxley's story ever since been read as warning against state control of and technology. However, it seems , in connection with cloning, that chief dangers at present come from the state but from firms, small private groups, and . There is after all a multibillion-dollar business here, a huge . Some commentators say that the will, and perhaps should in case, control development, the market, and selling. Dr Lee Silver, example, in the United Sates, wrote a book on the , published in 1998, thinks that ethicists, as the Americans call , are not going to decide , nor are governments, he says. , I quote, "the market place ," the market place will. There then going to be people want to use the technology it will be available and people who want to use will find others who will their money. So much again Dr Silver. It would appear that, if Silver is right, the market place itself will in need of regulation, if regulation is appropriate. And if here is appropriate, it would regulation in a global market so world wide regulation will needed. Well, we don't have a mechanism at present, do ? But it is something that we ought to think about.

come finally, in this to science, technology and ethics relation to cloning. I've tried indicate what cloning is. I some of the arguments for against it, both in relation non-human animals and in relation human beings. I've gone out, 've gone on to indicate in general terms what sorts of may be necessary and of . But I've said nothing specific it. Finally I would like leave you with two questions. is the broadly ethical question whether the benefits of cloning the disbenefits. It's partly an question and partly a technological , scientific question, medical question. It's very big question, whether the of cloning outweigh the disbenefits. question may be raised with to cloning in general of or in relation to any its variants, whether or not cloning is involved. In the of the cloning of whole beings, there may be questions parallel ethical questions about the policies of the first half this century, questions about short to a better human race human races. It might be reminding you that eugenics, to considerable extent, is a British . They knew all about it University College in London in nineteenth century. OK. That's the question, whether the benefits are to outweigh the disbenefits. And 's a question with enormous ramifications. second question, I'd like to you with is this. Again, very big question. What should relationship be between science, technology ethics? Should we recognise, as Silver appears to do, what might call a technological imperative, is to say that what be done and paid for be done and that's all is to it. Or, and can see the way I'm , should ethical considerations guide public on what sorts of research development should be funded and ? Shall I just repeat that, ethical considerations should guide public on what sorts of research development should be funded and ? This question is, of course, acute where the future of beings is itself in the .

Thank you for your . Would you like to raise questions or comments on what 've said?