Mary Shelley may have more to answer for than she could have imagined in 1830 when she was creating Frankenstein. Or maybe it was the subsequent flood of films derived from her novel which sowed some of the popular dread of artificial means of animation or reproduction of human or quasi-human species. Certainly, there has been a great deal of resistance during this century to the biotechnology which has been developed to assist or interfere with the reproduction of the human species. Some of that resistance has been rational, and much has not. Most of it has been overcome when the benefits of new reproductive technologies have become sufficiently apparent to dispel both real and imagined fears.
The issue of cloning is the latest ethical, philosophical, moral and scientific problem to confront everyone. About 20 countries have already banned, or are about to ban, further research or development in human cloning. An American opinion poll showed that almost 90 per cent of people there felt that cloning humans was morally unacceptable and 69 per cent were scared of the possibility of such cloning. The US Congress is likely to legislate shortly to prohibit the practice.
There is good reason to put cloning on hold, at least until there has been a much wider public debate on the issue. But, given that the first public indication of the scientific possibility of cloning really broke only when the scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland revealed early last year that they had successfully cloned Dolly, the sheep, there has been remarkably little public discussion of the subject.
Ironically, Dr Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute has already stated that human cloning would not be ethically acceptable. But not all scientists and not all ethicists are happy about banning research into the relevant technologies. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has found research into the technique of embryo-splitting (a different form of cloning from that used by Dr Wilmut to clone sheep) ethically acceptable because of its potential benefit for infertile couples.
There is still no certainty that it will prove scientifically possible to clone humans in the way that Dr Wilmut cloned sheep, despite the assertions of the eccentric physicist, Richard Seed, who has announced his intention of establishing cloning centres in the United States (or elsewhere if it proves illegal there). It has not, for instance, proved possible so far to clone mice. Yet certain animal cloning is likely to benefit humans in several ways. And, of course, cloning among humans is not exactly new: identical twins are effectively clones of each other as a result of the spontaneous splitting of human embryos.
It is a complex and troubling subject. There is great need for more information and more debate and, because it is certain that what can be done scientifically will be done, that debate is now urgent. The imminent report on the subject from the British Human Genetics Advisory Commission may well prove a useful trigger for the necessary public discussion.