By Dr. Vera Madzarevic

  During the last three decades, since the handling of genetic material (molecular cloning) was made possible, hundreds of new questions arose regarding on how ethical it is, and how human it would be.

  Every new advancement in science and medicine is accompanied by heavy skepticism, however in this case is different. Cloning humans is a dream that statesmen and scientists had since a long time to create the "perfect human race" immune to every disease and strong to battle any enemy. Science fiction contributed to fuel the imagination creating omnipotent monsters of the universe.

  The truth is that molecular cloning is being developed as a tool to improve human health and to ease suffering. If that tool is in the wrong hands, everything can happen as a knife in the hands of a criminal.

  The ability of scientists to cure diseases by gene therapy is still experimental, and every day more and more advances are done to achieve that goal. Diseases like diabetes and cancer are at the top of the list. People must be aware that the replacement of a single gene will not always cure the underlying cause of the disease and much more has to be done in the study of molecular regulation of DNA.

  The step further in future medicine is the use of cells derived from human embryos for the treatment of human diseases, since animal embryos are not a viable option, and the last but not the least, cloning humans themselves from somatic cells. Here we have the bigger and stronger dilemma.

  Now let's analyze the ethics of these procedures. The use of engineered genes to be inserted in human cells to cure diseases is a project with an incredible potential, but the task is hard to achieve yet. In this process if human suffering is diminished and no harm is done to other people, it cannot be considered ethically unacceptable. However, it can be considered unacceptable from the religious perspective. The unacceptability comes from the fact that genetic material is the footprint of the human being itself and handling that material to alter the genetic structure of an individual regardless of the fact that a disease can be cured may be like trying to play God. Those same questions came into place when blood transfusions started almost a century ago. Christian religions may be deeply involved in this kind of debate, since changing the "status quo" can inflict harm to the basic principles in the religion itself and the holiness of the human body. Nevertheless surgery is widely accepted, as well as pharmacological therapy both changing the function or the structure of the human being.

  The leading concerns today are human cloning and handling of human embryos for experimentation and therapy. Regarding human cloning, we must revisit the possible purpose of the procedure as reproduction, or perpetuation of certain individuals. The concern raised on handling of human embryos relies on the ethical and biological consideration of when an embryo becomes a human being.

  Cloning procedures are very primitive themselves to be considered serious enough for true reproductive purpose. The use of fully differentiated cells to create a new individual is very dangerous since the genetic material is already "processed" and "aged" and do not have the true potential of expressing itself into a healthy human being. The telomeric length (size of the arm of a chromosome) is shortened by the natural ageing process generating copies of genetic material somehow defective. The problem in this case is that the human individual created by cloning, if born alive, does not have the potential of being a truly healthy one and the lifespan and aging process is very questionable creating unnecessary suffering; this is not ethical from any point of view, either religious or agnostic.

  The use of human embryos is also ethically challenged. As stated before, there will be several positions regarding when the embryo becomes a human being. From the medical point of view the use of human embryos to cure diseases once incurable is of immeasurable potential. Having a tool to generate cells that can become highly specialized in an individual to restore lost function is almost like "magical". Now if the question of when the embryo becomes a human is politically answered, then regulatory agencies worldwide will approve the technology and generate a regulation to standardize the procedure. However from the religious point of view, Christians consider a human being at conception (when the first single cell is formed - the egg cell). From the Christian point of view the use of human embryos for either experimental or medical purposes is at the same level as abortion.

  Banning human cloning or use of human embryos will not solve the dilemma but only cover the eyes of common people to the reality to come one day if science achieves its purpose.

  Regulating and enforcing the ethical use of human DNA for medical purposes only will not only curb unscrupulous plans but help humans be more humans.

  In this entire dilemma, ethicists, religious heads and politicians have to come to some level of compromise, since banning questionable ethical procedures may impair the possibility to advance in medicine allowing unethical groups to advance and profit from human misery.

  Another open question is how far from moral and ethical is the human behavior presently, and what is the church doing to teach Christian lectures and governments to enforce laws. Many infectious diseases and cancers are behavioral/environmental diseases that could be avoided and prevented with proper teaching and enforcing of laws and regulations already in place.

  At the end of these thoughts there is a philosophical question on the human being in this world. Creating diseases and then cures will only produce more diseases to be cured, endlessly. Allowing more knowledge will spare the humanity from unnecessary suffering.