Human Reproductive Cloning: Possible Psychological Consequences

Abstract

The 1996 cloning of Dolly the lamb led to scientific and public debate over the ramifications of human reproductive cloning (HRC). Virtually all arguments focused on the possible negative consequences of this procedure—unfortunately, this reasoning was not based on empirical findings, but on speculation. In an effort to bring clarity to this conversation, the present paper references scientific findings based on the ideal human model, that is, monozygotic (MZ) twins who are clones by definition. Strangely, MZ twins have been curiously overlooked in discussions surrounding HRC, most notably in the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) Report, issued in 1997. As such, the objection that a cloned individual’s identity and individuality—that the NBAC and other HRC critics claim would be irreparably damaged—could not be effectively addressed. Other neglected human models include look-alike biological parent-child pairs and biological non-twin siblings sets. The theses of the present paper are that (1) arguments brought so far against the use of HRC for creating families can be questioned, and (2) HRC, if proven safe and cost-effective, could be a viable alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART) and adoption for childless individuals and couples wishing to create families. However, challenges to the arguments against HRC do not necessarily favor its implementation, given issues of health, safety, ethics, morality, and other concerns.