The debate of human cloning involves more than just scientific advances, but rather the attempt to define human, Sandra Johnson argued at a panel discussion Wednesday.

Johnson, a law professor at the Center for Health Law Studies of the St. Louis University School of Law, spoke to an audience of about 60 at the Law School Courtroom regarding the legal and ethical issues of human cloning.

It’s not a question of what a clone is, but rather the question of what a human is, she said. I don’t think we will ever be able to agree on that.

Advertisement

The process of cloning involves the removal of the 26 chromosomes that are contained in an unfertilized egg cell and replacing it with 46 chromosomes of the human that is to be cloned.

Creating a clone for research purposes would entail using a genetically altered cell with the potential of growing into a human. Instead of transferring the manipulated cell into the womb of a woman, the cell would be used for scientific research.

The debate against cloning for research follows that of abortion, Johnson said.

There are three bills in the House right now, she said. They all ban cloning for research purposes and issue severe penalties for doing so. But beyond those common factors, they are different.

Robert Schwartz, professor of bioethics and health law at the University of New Mexico, joined Johnson in the discussion. He also placed the issue of human cloning in the same category as abortion.

Science is changing, he said. Since Dolly (a sheep cloned by scientists last year), technology is more advanced and soon cloning a child will be safe. But you can’t talk politics without talking about abortion. Here it’s the same, and abortion is one center of debate.

However, cloning humans is used for more than just research. According to Schwartz, the most common reason for cloning is to treat cases of infertility.

Advertisement*

We don’t stop people from becoming parents, he said. If parents desperately want a genetically related child, they can obtain one through cloning.

It would also be beneficial under circumstances that involve single mothers who want a child but without the risk of someone else claiming the child.

But, according to Schwartz, another opposition to cloning is based on the dignity of the cloned human.

Some think that it puts at risk the dignity of the human cloned, he said. Every child is a unique creation. There’s a difference between manufacturing children and begetting them.

Erik Novak, a senior in chemistry from Chicago, attended the discussion but left with unanswered questions.

The Law School avoids points of royalties, he said. In terms of sperm you can get money, so would you be able to sell a clone?

Say a woman wanted a clone of Brad Pitt in her home for social amusement, would she be able to buy one?

These, among many others, are questions that go unanswered when dealing with such a fragile topic, said Johnson.

We live in a market place of ideas, she said, and until we can all agree on what a human is, the debate will continue.