rearrange a subset of their genes. For example, immune cells rearrange some of their genes to make surface molecules.106 That rearrangement could cause a problem for the resulting clone. Moreover, human cloning research may not lead readily to treatments. In sheep embryos, the genes from the donor cell do not turn on until the egg has divided three or four times. In humans, by contrast, the genes turn on after two divisions. Although the difference may seem insignificant, Colin Stewart, from the National Cancer Institute, warns that the problem may lie in the fact that this rapid “turn-on time” may make it impossible to act quickly enough to catch the disease where its cancerous cells could be effectively and adequately quashed.107 Additionally, for cancers which appear to be inheritable, such as the BRCA-1 mutation, there is no reason to assume that the cells will not mutate into other cancers or that the manipulation of the cancerous cells by these techniques will not further irritate the cells and worsen the original condition.108 Also, because scientists do not fully understand the cellular aging process, scientists do not know what “age” or “genetic clock” Dolly inherited.109 On a cellular level, is she now a normal seven-month-old lamb, or is she six years old (the age of the mammary donor cell)?110 Colin Stewart believes that Dolly’s cells most likely are set to the genetic clock of the nucleus donor, and therefore are comparable to those of her six-year-old progenitor.111 One commentator stated that if the hypotheses of a cellular, self-regulating genetic clock are correct, clones would be cellularly programmed to have much shorter life spans than the “original,” which would seriously undermine many of the benefits which have been set forth in support of cloning— mostly agricultural justifications— and would psychologically lead people to view cloned animals and humans as short-lived, disposable copies.112 This concern for premature aging has lead Dr. Sherman Elias, geneticist and obstetrician at the Baylor College of Medicine, to call for further animal testing of nuclear transplantation as a safeguard against subjecting human clones to premature aging and the potential harms associated with aged cells.113 The hidden mutations that may be passed on by using an adult cell raise concerns as well. “[Mutations are] a problem with every cell, and you don’t even know where to check for them,” writes Ralph Brinster of the University of Pennsylvania.114 “If a brain cell is infected with a mutant skin cell, you would not know because it would not affect the way the cell develops because it is inactive. If you chose the wrong cell, then mutations would become apparent.”115 Moreover, even if cloning were successful, it could lead to physical harm to the individual created, such as when the latter individual is subjected to physically invasive procedures to supply organs for transplants. Father Richard McCormick has said that to use a clone as a bank of potential organs and blood for donation is wrong; and one writer, Kenneth L. Woodward, called the practice an “inherently evil, morally unjustifiable intrusion into the human life.”116 Many feel that the manner in which a clone comes into existence should not affect the dignity or the rights the clone is granted. Therefore, notes Leon Kass, the clone should be treated as other humans are, and the notion of setting up a reserve of organs would be akin to slavery.117
F-14