IN today’s life, one cannot run away from technology. It is so much part and parcel of our everyday life that we tend to take it for granted. Imagine how things would be if there were no computers or mobile phones.
No doubt technology is a manifestation of the advancement of knowledge. The techno-word of the last century was information and communication technology (ICT). This technology has taken modern civilisation into the aptly-called “information revolution”.
ICT has enabled barriers such as time, distance and location to be broken down by creating a virtual superhighway of information and communication.
Today, information can be transmitted instantaneously and communications conducted across geographical borders with ease.
In essence, within a span of a few years, ICT has acted as a catalyst for another revolutionary era, namely the era of biotechnology. The ease with which information is transmitted has allowed for the success of the Human Genome Project.
It was the first to be carried out on a global scale in various laboratories across continents that relied on speedy information exchange and huge amounts of data storage as well as efficient communication. Unsurprisingly, ICT provided for this. But the biotechnology era is not just about the Human Genome Project.
Words that once were used in tall tales of science fiction, such as cloning, genetically-modified food, artificial intelligence, bionic technology, artificial reproductive technology and biomimesis are now becoming familiar among the general public.
Most of them have negative connotations, mainly because of the negative press that they have had over the years. One word in particular is cloning a controversial process of asexual reproduction.
Many people became aware of cloning when Dolly came into being in February 1997, but in fact one of the earliest attempts to clone was made in the 1960s. One of the first recorded successes was around 1961 when Oxford zoologist John Gurdon cloned a frog. Since then, the prospect of cloning something more complex than a frog has been a subject of discussion, speculation as well as controversy.
In May 1971, James D. Watson wrote: “The notion that man might sometime soon be reproduced asexually upsets many people. The main public effect of the remarkable clonal frog produced some 10 years ago in Oxford by the zoologist John Gurdon has not been in awe of the elegant scientific implication of this frog’s existence, but fear that a similar experiment might someday be done with human cells”.
When embryologist Ian Wilmut succeeded in cloning a lamb at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, human cloning seemed closer than ever.
The world has now been introduced to a new possibility, when something once thought impossible is now feasible.
And with this new possibility comes greater anxiety among scientists, ethicists, policy-makers and the public at large. Is it possible to clone humans? More importantly, is it really what we want? Is cloning humans desirable and ethical? The paraphrased quotation from Hamlet is often used and overused in this instance � “To clone or not to clone.” No doubt both proponents and opponents have reasons to support their arguments. Nonetheless, before we reach any conclusions, it is perhaps best first to get a real understanding of cloning.
A definition often used is taken from the American Medical Association (AMA), where cloning is defined as “the production of genetically identical organisms via somatic cell nuclear transfer”.
The term “somatic cell nuclear transfer” is defined as “the process by which the nucleus of a somatic cell of an existing organism is transferred into an oocyte from which the nucleus has been removed”.
Putting it in simpler terms, cloning is the method of producing a baby that has the same genes as its parent. The ovum (egg) from a female is taken before removing its nucleus which contains the genetic material, better known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).
Then, DNA from an adult cell is taken and inserted into the egg, either by fusing the adult cell with the enucleated egg, or by a sophisticated nuclear transfer. The reconstructed egg can either be stimulated electrically or chemically in order to induce it to divide and become an embryo. This egg is then implanted into a surrogate mother so that the embryo can grow into maturity.
While the definition given by AMA is usually accepted, many quarters have used a broader definition of cloning, which includes the production of tissue and organs by growing cells or tissue in cultures.
This is done by using stem cells. When an egg is fertilised and begins to divide, the cells are all alike. As the cells divide, certain cells differentiate and become the stem cells that produce certain tissue and then organs. To clone a specific organ, a stem cell must be produced and then used to clone that specific organ.
It must be clear that cloning does not produce an exact carbon copy of the organism being cloned.
The organism has the same genetic codes of its parent, but its personality and appearance depend very much on the surroundings and environment in which it is brought up.
Advocates for cloning argue that this revolutionary technology has presented us with advancements in medical science. Among the potential benefits are replacing damaged cells, tissues or organs, creating cloned organ donors with the exact genetic make-up to tackle the problem of shortage of organs, and to enable sterile couples to have offspring with either parents’ genetic code.
The opponents argue passionately about the ethical problems. For one, cloning opens the door to compromising individuality and the diversity of the gene pool, which can lead to loss of genetic variation.
If clones are produced to provide a supply of organs, then there is a risk that clones will be treated as second class citizens, nothing more than sources for spare parts.
The greatest worry, however, is the rate of success.
To take an example, 277 eggs were used of which 30 began to divide, and from this number, nine induced pregnancy but in the end only one survived, creating Dolly.
What is Islam’s position on cloning? The National Fatwa Council recently released a fatwa that human cloning is not permissible in the eyes of Islam. This is based among others on the various verses in the Quran that state that reproduction involves both sperm and egg.
Taking a cue from this fatwa, perhaps it is best to have reproduction the old-fashioned way. We may no doubt rely heavily on technology in running our lives, but technology is but a tool. If used wisely and guided by the right values and norms, it can bring great benefits. But use this tool carelessly and irresponsibly, and we are risking the collapse of the very core of humankind.