Cloning, children, and control: what are the limits to life?
An ethical reflection on new reproductive technologies. By Bernadette Rose.
A recent BBC article tells us that scientists have successfully generated human embryos using genetic material from a skin cell.
The article explains that this research might one day allow parents who lack the functional gametes, such as same-sex couples, elderly women, or former cancer patients, to have biological children.
This might raise a few eyebrows, either in surprise at how far science appears to have come, or in disbelief at the potential slippery slope humanity is embarking on.
But we need to be careful not to mix scientific facts with fantastical journalism. What remains true is that this research publication serves ‘at this stage [as] just a proof of concept’ while highlighting the intrinsic ethical dilemmas of reproductive technology.
A proof of concept study, in layman’s terms, is a study that demonstrates how theoretical science is hypothetically possible – that the concept invented could lead to a reality, but only through extensive research as the reality itself has not yet been proven.
These dilemmas are not only scientific but also moral.
The Catholic Church, for example, has long opposed assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), on the grounds that they commodify life and involve the destruction of embryos. The research discussed in this article is an initial demonstration of these warnings.
In the study, published in the journal Nature Communications, genetic material in the donor woman’s egg cells was replaced with that deriving from a skin cell, prior to fertilisation by donor sperm.
Although this process sounds relatively straight-forward, the key difficulty is that of halving the genetic material, or the necessary number of chromosomes, present in the egg prior to fertilisation.
Skin cells ordinarily contain a complete set of chromosomes while mature sperm and the egg would each contain half, so that when they meet at fertilisation, the embryonic baby would receive from both, thereby possessing in total a complete set.
This process was engineered so that the skin-derived chromosomes were also halved, allowing for fertilisation and generation of an embryo which contains the correct amount of genetic material but only from the sperm and skin. The scientists called this mitomeiosis.
The alteration of cell division in this way was the focus of the paper, not that of allowing more couples to biologically parent, although some media articles present it as such. Most importantly, although these articles mention the possibility of children for same-sex couples, this research would only allow that between two men and not two women, as ‘mitomeiosis’ would be very different, if even possible, to achieve in sperm.
Nonetheless, the media does state that the outcomes of this research could only begin to be considered for clinical application in a decade or more, although it may provide hope to aspiring parents in the present moment. There remain significant unknowns about the long-term implications for the future child, as well as unresolved technical difficulties which limit clinical readiness.
The main issue that is skirted in all articles is that of how the genetic material is initially moved into the donor egg, prior to mitomeiosis. This process, termed somatic-cell nuclear transfer, or more commonly known as cloning, is the same as what was carried out on Dolly the sheep – which is not allowed in human development due to the side-effects observed in animal studies.
Dolly for instance started to exhibit age-related health issues when she was still very young. This was likely due to age-related tags that become associated with genetic material, in the field of epigenetics, which still have not been fully and totally understood.
Furthermore, mitomeiosis is subtly never described as an engineering process in the initial publication either. This was a curious choice, as genetic engineering simply means the artificial manipulation of an organism’s genetic make-up brought about by the addition of editing enzymes to force the cloned/halved genetic material through cell division phases, even if this was not a targeted form of engineering. All this tinkering can certainly be viewed as artificial manipulation of the ordinary genetic processes!
Genetic engineering in human reproductive research is strictly monitored to prevent unforeseen side-effects from affecting human life, and has only been approved in a few therapies that address life-threatening conditions and only after birth of the child.
To be quite clear: the application of genetic engineering to human embryos is prohibited by legislation.
Additionally, in most countries it is illegal to culture human embryos beyond 14 days, unless a developmental process known as the appearance of the primitive streak occurs. Whichever comes first, the developing embryo must be discarded. This culture rule is an example of the tight guidelines which internationally regulate and govern research in reproductive biology, in an attempt to preserve an ethical approach.
Serious questions regarding embryonic experimentation are thus continually raised. The Catholic Church, for example, considers all forms of it to be wrong, as it considers an embryo to already be a human being. Human beings cannot be ethically experimented on without consent, or ‘discarded’ – as happens to embryos in such reproductive studies. Yet the discussed publication highlights something even more worrying.
Three actions going against core ethical principles of the biomedical field would need to be embarked on if research into these genetically cloned/halved embryos were to continue: that of ‘cloning’ humans (performing somatic cell nuclear transfer prior to fertilisation and subsequent embryonic development); genetically engineering heritable human genetics in an embryo; and abandoning the 14-day embryonic culture rule.
The study highlights the fundamental issues and the slippery slope that humanity is already on when it comes to reproduction. Children are not a commodity that can be purchased, ordered, or selected. They are a gift and an independent human life that deserves respect, and whose relationships require love and nurturing.
Viewing the biological conception of a child as a commodity that can be selected at whatever time-point might suit us has led us to this point in reproductive research.
Are our moral principles really so weak that a few journalistic articles dangling the prospect of more accessible baby-making could lead us to abandon them?
As Pope Leo XIV recently put it, pro-life is not a single issue but a commitment to protecting human dignity in every sphere — from abortion and immigration policies to the death penalty. Surely this also includes not taking liberties with embryos in reproductive research.
Like what you’ve read? Consider supporting the work of Adamah by making a donation and help us keep exploring life’s big (and not so big) issues!
Bernadette Rose
Bernadette Rose graduated with honours from her studies in London, where she developed a keen interest in bioethics during her Master's degree. She has contributed to academic and biotechnology research sectors while complementing her work with charitable initiatives.
