Timehost says, "Welcome everyone to tonight's Time Forum. Last year, news of the cloning of the sheep Dolly stunned the world. Well, last week, the claims of a scientist in Chicago that he could ... and would ... clone a human being stirred the debate once again.That's our topic tonight.And we're joined by a medical ethicist, Thomas Murray. Mr. Murray is a member of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, a presidential panel which has recommended that human cloning not take place, at least for the time being.He is also director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the School of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University, in Cleveland. Thank you very much for joining us this evening."
Thomas_murray says, "Hello and good evening."
Timehost says, "Before we take questions from people online, let me ask you, at what stage is science right now...could we clone a human being?"
Thomas_murray says, "It's extremely remote that we could clone a human being at this time.It's interesting that the most recent research reported by Dr. Ian Wilmut and his colleagues on cloning a sheep using a less radical procedure ‹ that is, the cells of early fetuses ‹ showed very high incidence of abnormalities.Nearly half of those lambs died shortly before or after birth. And not a single one of the ewes went into spontaneous labor. And it's still the case that there's only one Dolly. That is, one mammal cloned from the genetic material of another adult mammal."
Timehost says, "We have a question about how all this relates to international work on the mapping of genes."
Timehost presents question #911 from Tasselhoff:
Is this depending on the completion of the human genome project?
Thomas_murray says, "Not at all. As far as human cloning goes, there's really little relationship with the human genome project. The closer relationship is with infertility research and treatment. Wilmut and his colleagues are trying to develop transgenic sheep. That is, sheep with a human gene that will create valuable human proteins in their milk."
Timehost presents question #912 from Caregiver:
Mr Murray ..are the proponents of cloning claiming that this a viable medical procedure to replace the organs of an aging population?
Thomas_murray says, "I haven't heard anyone say that cloning whole persons would be a good way to do that. Cloned humans would be just that and we'd have no more right to take their organs than we would from anybody else."
Timehost presents question #913 from Caregiver:
Is it possible to clone human organs, then?
Thomas_murray says, "Not at this time. Although in fact one of the most intriguing possiblilies in cloning research is the hope that we might take the cells of any person, adult or child,and move them back to a more primitive state...Could we, for example, take a cell from scraping a person's cheek and move it back to a very early and undifferentiated state and then grow it back up as, say, a cell that makes insulin? Could we then transplant it into somebody's body to take the place of the insulin-making cells that had died? It's a dream right now."
Thomas_murray says, "Dolly let us know for the first time that we could move an adult cell backwards. Before then it was thought that an adult cell was committed to a special form, your heart or liver, that that was the end of the story and you could never return it to the primitive state, but we're finding that that's not true."
Timehost presents question #913 from Jim_com:
President Clinton is planning to sign a bill banning human cloning. What does that ban actually do anyway?
Thomas_murray says, "Well, there isn't actually a bill for the president to sign yet. The National Bioethics Commission recommended that Congress pass that bill and the president sign it. Although several bills were introduced, none were acted upon. It's likely that Dr. Richard Seed will reawaken interest in such a bill."
Timehost says, "We've seen an outpouring of sentiment against cloning in the last week or so...let's talk a bit about what's behind that..."
Timehost presents question #915 from Tasselhoff:
Are there many concerns that cloning will be used for the wrong reasons ?
Thomas_murray says, "Sure. Probably a better question would be "What are the right reasons for cloning a human?" A clarification is important here. "Cloning" is a term widely used in science which means making a copy of something. So a scientist who's making a copy of a strand of DNA would describe that as cloning, but there's nothing morally problematic about that. We don't have any moral objections to that.The kind of cloning that concerns people is the effort to make a human child through cloning."
Timehost says, "Let's turn to what some people are suggesting are the right reasons..."
Timehost presents question #917 from Jim_com:
Is there any practical benefit for cloning human beings? I mean if we were actually able to do it could we clone body parts for people who are amputees or could we only clone the entire body?
Thomas_murray says, "At this time, we're not capable of cloning even entire human beings, let alone selected body parts. Remember that there's still only one Dolly. We don't know whether another Dolly could be made again. I haven't heard anything about Dr. Wilmut and his colleagues working on that, though. Their goal is to make useful pharmaceutical and agricultural products, however. Not to make a human being."
Timehost presents question #918 from Caregiver:
The ban is a ban on federal research monies funding human cloning..correct? What about the private sector?
Timehost presents the speakers with question #918 from Caregiver:
The ban is a ban on federal research monies funding human cloning..correct? What about the private sector?
Thomas_murray says, "The president could, with an executive order, prohibit any federal support of research into cloning. But, that would not do anything to stop people who are using private money and want to clone a human being, such as Dr. Seed. Congress could pass a law, if it chose, to criminalize or otherwise make cloning illegal.But no law's perfect...We have laws against homicide and people still kill each other.However, that's not a good reason to overturn all laws against murder.The law is an imperfect and often clumsy instrument."
Timehost says, "And here's another question about what kind of laws against cloning we might have..."
Timehost presents question #909 from Highroad:
If we are passing laws against cloning, what are appropriate punishments?
Thomas_murray says, "Well, actually, I'd like to know what the participants in this chat think of that."
Timehost says, "Thanks...I encourage everyone in the TIME room and the auditorium to send me their thoughts on that.In the meantime, I'd like to ask a question about your thoughts on how the media has covered the topic of cloning and especially the claims of Mr. Seed."
Thomas_murray says, "I thought that overall the media had done a pretty good job. When the story of Dolly first broke, there was an immense misunderstanding of what cloning actually involved. And I thought the media was helpful in clarifying a lot of that. I'm more concerned about what's happened since Richard Seed broke into the news. He's been made into a celebrity overnight and it's very unclear that he has ever had theknowledge, the money, the special kinds of expertise, the assistance, women who would bear the children he would want to create... All those things are lacking, so I'm a little uncertain about whether we should have taken him as seriously as we have."
Timehost says, "I'd like to pick up on that again in a moment, but we do have two responses from people online to punishments..."
Timehost presents question #926 from Caregiver:
Perhaps a doctor convicted of cloning might face a half million dollar fine and suspension of his medical licence
Timehost says, "and..."
Timehost presents question #925 from Jim_com:
Let's not talk about the punishment. We haven't even talked enough to reason that this should be considered a crime at all.
Thomas_murray says, "Those are interesting comments. We've never got to the point of talking about punishment on the commission, so I don't think I can speak for any of my colleagues on that. I welcome your comments, however."
Timehost says, "Jim_com would like a little more elaboration, I think..."
Timehost presents question #930 from Jim_com:
I would like for you to clearly define why you think it is morally wrong to clone a human being. So far that has been totally unclear.
Thomas_murray says, "I think the reasons have been made abundantly clear in much of the conversation that has taken place since June. The immediate and most compelling reason is that cloning, from all the evidence, appears to be an extremely unsafe activity right now. The US, and other nations as well, have very strong traditions of protecting the human subjects of research. At this time, and for the foreseeable future, trying to clone a human being would be clearly unethical experimentation."
Thomas_murray says, "There is a second set of reasons, much more complex and probably more controversial. They have to do with things such as harmful effects on parents and children, making children into objects rather than creatures to be treasured and accepted as they are,giving into some of our worst traits like narcissism."
Timehost presents question #932 from Interested:
Is it your view, though, that cloning, or attempted cloning is only wrong now, but might be fine in the future?
Thomas_murray says, "It's clearly wrong now.I think we need to have a national conversation about whether these other longer term effects of cloning are as damaging as many people think they are. I myself am very skeptical that human cloning could ever be justified. But I know that many people are not convinced of that, including probably some other members of the commission."
Timehost says, "Was the debate to get to the position the commission reached contentious?"
Thomas_murray says, "You put 18 highly intelligent and articulate people together, who come from a wide variety of different backgrounds, walks of life, and traditions, and I would have been very disappointed if it had not become very contentious at times. The commissioners remain on very good terms with one another nevertheless."
Timehost presents question #935 from Jim_com:
So, your viewpoint on this matter is from a strictly scientific standpoint if I understand you. Is there any moral ground for any disenchantment with human cloning? I think if it's allowed to be further developed then it could be used to benefit people who have lost body limbs. Do you think that is a plausible use of cloning? I'm talking here from a purely practical standpoint and I just didn't want that to get confused with any moral implications.
Thomas_murray says, "Well, first of all, I don't think I was approaching this from a stricly scientific standpoint. I'm looking at this from an ethical viewpoint. And, yes, it would be wonderful if we could use cloning technology to restore lost functions, including lost limbs for people.Unfortunately, that looks to be far, far away. If we could get there at all."
Timehost presents question #920 from Tasselhoff:
What are your views on the possibility of a "master race" possibly being created, where "perfect" children are bought and sold on the black markets around the world?
Thomas_murray says, "Well, probably the most fortunate thing about that scenario is that at this point it's really science fiction. I wish I could assure everybody that there's not some crazy person someplace who wouldn't find a scenario like that attractive."
Timehost presents question #939 from Highroad:
What about research being conducted in countries that don't ban it?
Thomas_murray says, "That's a possiblity, of course. On the other hand, every country which has taken a stand on human cloning has prohibited it. Although I haven't done a systematic survey, my guess is that that includes most or all of the countries with the capacity to actually do cloning."
Timehost says, "Is it possible, though, that the debate over the issue will be adversely affected by laws prohibiting reseach?"
Thomas_murray says, "I don't see why that should happen. Certainly the science that needs to be done right now should not be prohibited, as many scientists assured us. What research questions need to be answered right now could be answered in animals as well as they could in humans."
Timehost says, "Jim_com has provided us with another comment...that might help us towards summing up..."
Timehost presents question #940 from Jim_com:
I think the idea of someone concocting a master race and selling genetically hybrid children is really pure fantasy. There's more fear about the subject of human cloning than there is a rational discussion of this matter that could actually help people than be the seed for some unrealistic nightmare.
Thomas_murray says, "I think I agree with that. What we should be doing is talking about how to make as certain as possible that unethical research on human subjects doesn't take place. And in addition,we should be having conversations about what we regard as important in family relationships, parenting and raising humans and how cloning might undermine that or how cloning might support those values."
Timehost says, "In your view, just how do you think the discussion should proceed? and how do you think it will proceed?"
Thomas_murray says, "I think it should proceed by setting aside the nightmarish and unrealistic fantasies that some people have conjured up. We should focus on what cloning and research could do, for good or for ill, for us as a society. My worry is that as rapidly as Richard Seed flashed onto the American scene, he and much of the thoughtful discussion about cloning, would disappear just as rapidly."
Timehost says, "We've got to wrap it up. We have time for one more question. I think this gets to some of the issues that you've raised about parenting and family if cloning of humans were actually to take place..."
Timehost presents question #931 from Caregiver:
If this is a fertility treatment, what about custody? Wouldnt a parent that provided the DNA for the cloned child be predisposed to custody?
Thomas_murray , "Well, it would be a brand new problem for the law to decide. An easy way to dismiss cloning is to raise a variety of legal complexities that it would create. And it would create lots of them. I don't in the end think that's the most useful way to think about what's good and bad about cloning. I'm more concerned about the precise control over the characteristics of offspring that people think, almost certainly erroneously, that cloning might provide."
Timehost says, "Well, Thomas Murray, thank you very much for joining us this evening."
Thomas_murray says, "Great. Thank you very much for having me. Have a good evening."
Timehost says, "I imagine that it's a topic that we will return to...and I hope you'll be able to join us again. Thanks. And we hope you all in the TIME room will feel free to continue chatting on the subject. You can come back and take a look at the transcript tomorrow. Thanks, everyone, for joining us."
