We all know that we don’t want mass cloning of human beings.  And we all support the principle of research that might tell us more about disease, possibly even providing cures.  But when does research, however noble its intentions, cross the ethical divide and become unacceptable?

Input is available from the usual sources: politicians, scientists and religious leaders, but ultimately ethics should be determined by society.  Unfortunately, genetic engineering is beyond the grasp of most of us, and the politicians and religious leaders struggle to cope with the complexities of what happens in the laboratory.  This means that our input is skewed and society is unable to form balanced views that will lead to clear understanding of what is and is not acceptable.

Politicians in Europe and the USA seem to be drawing the line in different places, which gives us an opportunity to try to grasp some of the issues.  Cloning from adult stem cells seems no more unethical than grafting skin, but this technique offers limited possibilities.  Cloning from embryos is more controversial; whilst some might condone the use of discards from in-vitro fertilisation programmes, surely very few would encourage the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of cloning.  Therapeutic cloning, resulting in artificial ‘embryos’, could be seen as an acceptable compromise.   But wherever the lines are drawn, scientific research somewhere in the world will probably step over those lines.

The moral dilemma is often presented in simplistic terms.  Your religious belief might preclude you from taking advantage of a blood transfusion, which I accept and understand, but you have no right to prevent that choice being available for those who do not share your religious beliefs.  If a cure can be found for Alzheimer, cancer, AIDs, etc. what right have moralists to be squeamish about the methods?  And yet we think uneasily about the Nazi experiments.

Sometimes we look at fundamental questions without examining unspoken ‘givens’.  When we struggle to find answers it might be necessary to look at those ‘givens’.  In this case, the unspoken given seems to be that science should always move towards eliminating human suffering.  From that premise, it is difficult to stand in the way of progress, but if we first look at whether or not that is realistic we might see things differently.  Suffering seems to be part of the human condition.  Physical bodies are susceptible to disease, decay and death, and minds are susceptible to stress.  If we eliminate every disease on the planet there will still be suffering.  In which case, the search for any single cure is not in itself sufficient argument to justify what society deems to be unethical practice.

It was easy for Hamlet; he had only two options.  But if we choose ‘to be’ we really do need to understand how we want to be.