| Galton Institute Home Page | March 1998 Newsletter Contents | Newsletter Index |
The cloning of a sheep called Dolly in 1997 was greeted by the media as if it heralded, or threatened, the dawn of a new age in which the traditional way of producing offspring was about to be abandoned and replaced by a modified version of Huxley’s Brave New World. Inevitably the possibility of cloning humans was said to be some kind of eugenics leading to the production of a new Hitler. Just why anyone with any knowledge of eugenics, defined by its founder, Francis Galton, as "that science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race"(1) should wish to produce a clone of that, or any other, dictator was not made clear.
Just as predictably there were immediate demands for the banning of human cloning and the Council of Europe duly obliged. It added a protocol to its Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, which states "Any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead, is prohibited." (2). Of course governments have always loved to ban things and the Council of Europe represents 40 of them. However, as the Prohibition Era in the United States demonstrated a government ban can do more harm than good. Indeed, the record of such bans is poor. Many government-prohibited actions, murder, arson, etc continue even when there is almost universal public support for them to be banned.
With regard to human cloning there are two vital questions. Could a genetically identical human clone be produced now or in the not too distant future? If it could, would such a clone be an identical person? The answer to the first question is almost certainly yes. It would require a considerable investment of time, money, and scientific expertise, and an ample supply of surrogate mothers. What can be done with one animal can usually be achieved with another. However, to get a perfect clone the technique used to produce Dolly would need some refinement. In her case while the recipient ovum had its nucleus removed and replaced by that of the donor its mitochondria were not removed (3). Although the genetic material in the mitochondria is tiny compared with that in the nucleus a perfect clone needs both to come from the individual being cloned. This could prove to be technically difficult.
The answer to the second question is less clear. Studies of identical twins raised apart have shown that these natural clones are almost as similar in physical and behavioural traits as identical twins raised together (4). Almost, but not quite. The effect of their different environments is small but not zero. Separated identical twins are usually raised in the same country and always in the same historical period. Their macro-environments are very similar. A replicated Hitler produced now would find the social environment of Germany in 2030 very different from that of 1930 and unless he could again find millions to support him and his political programme history would not, even approximately, repeat itself.
Cloning may, or may not, have a future use in the production of farm animals. It seems unlikely to be applied to humans except in the rather silly science fiction scenario of the insane billionaire and his mad scientists. Brave New World is postponed yet again. However, the Council of Europe will no doubt pat itself on its collective back for having successfully stopped something unlikely to happen.
References:
1. Galton, F. Essays in Eugenics, Eugenics Education Society, London, 1909.
2. New Scientist, 18 October 1997.
3. Sunday Times, 19 October 1997.
4. Bouchard, T. The 1995 Galton Lecture, J. Biosoc. Sci. vol. 28, p. 527, 1996.
John Timson