The future of this biomedical technology largely depends upon whether the government is persuaded by those who call for a total ban into the research and practice of human cloning or genetic engineering. Will it instead be guided by signs of changing social times and permits private and public companies limited investigation into the possibilities of these technologies. Would a total governmental ban on such research and practice violate a constitutional right to privacy? Are some limited regulations necessary in order to protect society from itself, even at the risk of a loss of one’s right to privacy?
The struggle to balance the protection of individual rights, social interests and technology against the founding principles and values declared in the Constitution may take on a whole new meaning in the face of this new biomedical technology. What may appear at first glance as a violation of our right to privacy, may in effect be a protection of those rights for individuals who are not among the rich and the powerful.
What is a citizen’s constitutional right to privacy as it relates to reproduction choices? Although not stated in the constitution as a fundamental guarantee, the Supreme Court has declared that two types of privacy are protected by the Constitution One type of privacy is interpreted to include the right to make personal decisions. The other covers the right to keep personal information private. It implies freedom to decide without government interference with that choice.
Human Cloning is a reproductive choice and a person has a legal right to choose it as such. If the current ban against human cloning continues it will directly affect the person who chooses cloning as a way of creating a family. That would be a direct interference from government. It would be a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth amendment
What are the past decisions handed down by the courts in privacy cases? Earlier Court rulings allowed women the right to choose abortion in Roe v. Wade. Would the same be extended in the choice to create a life The Court has had to acknowledge in vitro fertilization (IVF) as an alternative form of creating life. Would cloning fall into that same category? Yes, it should. It is an alternative form of reproduction, but it is different in that the cloned individual is a genetic duplicate of a previously existing genotype.
“Lori Andrews offers this differentiation.“ Cloning is sufficiently distinct from traditional reproduction or alternative reproduction. It is not a process of genetic mix, but of genetic duplication. It is not reproduction, but a sort of recycling, where a single individual’s genome is made into someone else.”(22) Will the wisdom of the Court and the logic of their reasoning rulings mentioned above serve as basis for allowing the practice of cloning? Will the idea of cloning require a broader interpretation of the Constitution?
If indeed, cloning is considered a form of reproduction, the Court has been clear on the matter of fundamental rights to privacy in Roe v. Wade (1973) and consequent rulings which followed. Will the Court now reverse itself by upholding a ban on human cloning practice? By doing so is the government violating an individuals’ right to choose if, when and how to beget a child?
By banning human cloning is government protecting privacy rights in that it stops human experimentation and protects the rights of those who wish not to be cloned? People have few legal rights to their body tissues and genes once they leave the bodies. Under current law, it would be easy for someone to get DNA from a hair follicle, or in a medical setting without permission and there is no legal recourse for reclaiming it or its resulting use.
The right to privacy, simply interpreted is a reasonable expectation to be able to choose. Do scientists expect government should interfere with their ability to make new discoveries and pass them on to the general public? Do infertile couples who wish to have themselves cloned expect government to decide that they should not be cloned?
Do pharmaceutical companies expect to be prohibited from developing new drugs to treat known diseases now that their new genome research has led to a better understanding of what causes the body to break down? If scientists have a better understanding of how genes can be manipulated to send different signal to the body, do they expect that government will deny them the right to do so because of a legal ban?
The government ‘s invasion into the privacy of individuals may be best illustrated in the area of genetic testing. “The genetic surveillance and tracking represented by the federally funded Human Genome Project poses enormous threats to our basic rights to privacy and self determination,”(23) If everyone is tested and categorized, the potential for misuse of that information is so great that it screams for legislation to prevent genetic discrimination.
This discrimination is very different from what many in this country already experience. What is different are the mechanisms through which it is applied. It is virtually impossible to escape your genetic profile in the workplace, in seeking health care or insurance coverage, in schools and through bills passed by legislators to test a variety of groups, namely prisoners, welfare recipients immigrants and others who are powerless to stop it.
“Genetic technologies reflect the power differentials in our society; they do not equally benefit all segments, nor are they meant to.”(24) Thus these technologies become social and political weapons in an already divided society.
Open -ended Lesson Idea Debate
To the teacher: An excellent guide for outlining and teaching debate skills is Jon Ericson and James Murphy’s The Debater’s Guide. (see “Materials” list)
Introduce the idea of formally debating the issues of cloning or genetic engineering by asking students what would make them defend either of the technologies? What ideas would they argue against most intensely?
Help students find their positions by engaging them in conversation about the following: What do we fear most about human cloning and genetic engineering? Our greatest worry seems to be that cloned individuals will lack souls. We are afraid that unscrupulous people will be cloned. We fear that super genius will be preferred over natural intellectual abilities. All of which are possibilities. All of which merit the apprehension felt in this country with regard to human cloning and genetic engineering.
Offer students an opportunity to help write statements that will used as propositions in the debate. When you feel that you have taken an adequate approach a number of ideas, the teacher and students should decide which will debated.
Consider these statements as starting points. Be sure to include the statement in the reverse when offering choices.
Resolved: Cloning research would be beneficial to humans.
Resolved: Cloning benefits could outweigh the risks.
Resolved: Cloning research should be completely banned.
Resolved: Genetic engineering could be dangerous.
Resolved: Genetic engineering threatens society.
Resolved: Studying the human genome will provide valuable information.