Introduction to the Concept of Human Cloning
Public Opinion on Cloning
The Legislative Reaction to the Prospect of Human Cloning
The Major Ethical Issues
The Moral Case for Human Cloning
The Eugenic Potential of Human Cloning
Who Should Decide?
How Should They Decide?
Implications of Human Cloning For Social Structure
Cloning Law

Introduction to the Concept of Human Cloning
Many of the same questions that confronted us in the debate over eugenics surface again in debate over human reproductive cloning. In terms of its ethical implications, cloning is mainly significant because of its potential as a eugenic technique. As we have seen, eugenics practices are commonplace and, as the result of  decisions that individuals make in their own lives, they occur in a number of forms. These forms include, but are not limited to: mate selection, the prevention and detection of fetal abnormalities and heritable defects, and the termination of  pregnancies due to the detection of a fetal abnormalities and heritable defects. As long as the power to make decisions in such cases is exercised by individuals rather than by governments, it is relatively uncontroversial. One thing that will make human reproductive cloning so potentially controversial, at least initially, is that due to the fact that cloning has implications for society which other reproductive techniques do not, it will require regulation by government. Provided that a suitable ethical framework is in place to insure that it operates in the public interest, cloning is destined to become just another case where science is used to enhance our quality of life and our survivability as a species. However, as the issue of reproductive cloning is now being dealt with in the legislative environment, its potential benefits are not likely to be realized in the near future.

Human reproductive cloning is a technological advance that can have a potentially profound impact on the future of humanity. Because legislators and the general public have some understanding of its implications, cloning is being approached in an extremely cautious if not a completely reasonable manner. On the other hand, cloning is also an issue that is surrounded by much emotional hype and misinformation. Public attitudes on human reproductive cloning are still very protean, unstable, and tend to be emotionally based. The public's idea of cloning is also distorted by its collective memory of eugenics practices which were put to their worst possible uses in the early 20th Century. In reaction to the public's fear and misunderstanding of the cloning issue, the US Congress has temporarily closed debate over the cloning issue by banning the practice (HR 534, 2003). Neither the public nor the Congress have fully grasped the potential of cloning as a eugenic technique, nor have they explored the full range of its ethical implications.

Mainly at the instigation of media organizations that are inclined to create and then capitalize on sensational news items, members of the press attempted to spin cloning into a sensational issue. Partly because cloning has been a popular theme in the science fiction genre, their attempt was largely successful. But the press could not have achieved its aims without the help of science. The precipitating event that triggered the contemporary controversy over human cloning was the first successful cloning of a higher mammal (i.e. dolly the sheep). The implication of this event was that human cloning would quickly follow. And, in fact, purely as a technical matter, this capability exists now. In reaction to the atmosphere of near hysteria created by the press in its quest to create a hot story that captures the public's imagination, the Congress mobilized to head off the issue. After a truncated debate, the US Congress simply deferred further consideration of the issues raised by cloning, and it banned the practice. Other nations issued similar bans in response to the ethical consensus, malformed as it was, that human cloning opens the door to too many frightening possibilities, and that it is simply a bad idea. As long as such attitudes remain, the legislative environment will likely remain hostile to the concept of human cloning for the foreseeable future. But, the atmosphere of fear that currently surrounds cloning must eventually give way to a more realistic appreciation its potentials and its risks. The attitude of fear that surrounds the issue is likely to subside when people learn more about it, once they realize that its potential for abuse has been greatly exaggerated, and especially when they realize its potential to contribute to the quality of human existence. Until such time as the public gains a better understanding of the issue and its implications, and until the issue has been more carefully debated, cloning will remain in stasis. This is as it should be.

The critics of human cloning say that it will be too open to misuse and that only the most radical elements of society (such as the Raelians) would ever propose it in the first place. In addition, there is the legitimate concern of medical ethicists that until cloning techniques are perfected, they will be more likely to produce deformities than normal means of reproduction. Until these technical problems can be resolved, the ban on cloning is justified on these grounds alone. More research and experimentation needs to be done to insure a high probability that cloning will work as advertised, and that it will actually be able to produce flawless replicas of the originals. But, once the few remaining technical problems that surround human reproductive cloning have been solved to the satisfaction of the scientific community, legislative debate over cloning should resume, if for no other reason than because of the inevitability of cloning.

Currently, cloning is still being discussed at its periphery, as a hypothetical issue, rather than something that is upon us here and now. But soon, and in spite of bans and stiff penalties for their violation, human cloning will be a reality that legislators and the general public will have to deal with. Human cloning is an inevitability. Now is the time to begin to shape legislation to deal with the ethical issues that surround cloning. At the point where human cloning actually occurs, legislators will be forced to deal with the ethical issues that surround cloning in earnest. Soon governments will be compelled to move from simply banning the practice to designing the legal framework in which cloning can legitimately take place.

Public Opinion on Human Cloning
The prospect of human cloning has only been able to command serious press attention in the last 10 years, or since the first successful cloning of a higher mammal (Dolly the sheep in 1997).  Prior to this point, human cloning was merely the stuff of science fiction, and its potential implications for humanity seemed distant and unthreatening.  Now that we have the ability to actually clone a human being, the public's attitude towards cloning has become more well defined. Unfortunately, this attitude has manifested itself in a uniform opposition to the idea of cloning. Even though the public's attitudes towards cloning tends to be based on emotion and misinformation, the public does seem to have an implicit understanding of some of the moral implications raised by cloning. However, neither the public nor the Congress will be able to adequately deal with the ethical issues that surround cloning until they gain a better appreciation of the science involved.

Due to their failure to understand the science behind cloning, the public's attitudes towards cloning are still protean and malformed.  Many object to the idea of creating genetic duplicates of other human beings at a visceral level. They give no thought to the fact that identical twins are, for all practical purposes, clones.  Most public fears about human cloning stem from ideas that it has absorbed by osmosis from the popular culture. For many, the idea of human cloning conjures up memories of bad science fiction movies in which clones set out to dominate or destroy the world. Invariably, science fiction will focus on the possibility of cloning of our worst elements, simply because this prospect is more sensational than the prospect of cloning our best elements. To the extent that the public gets its ideas about human cloning from science fiction, it will be misled into having unreasonable fears about cloning.

Even though the public has very little scientific knowledge of the process of cloning or its eugenic potential, it seems to recognize some of its more important implications. Most people recognize that cloning will enable us to make exact "biological" copies of human beings. By extension, most recognize that human reproductive cloning would allow us to replicate our best representatives, or those who have the most valued traits. This is the great eugenic potential of cloning. Conversely, most people also realize that, in the absence of stringent regulations, cloning would allow for the replication of some of our worst representatives. It is the potential that cloning could be put to its worst possible uses that appears to be the main source of the public's fear about cloning. Unfortunately, it is this negative potential of cloning that tends to capture the public's imagination rather than its potential as a eugenics technique. Realization of the consequences that could follow if cloning was put to its worst possible uses, along with science fiction, and knowledge of eugenics practices under the Nazi regime have all conspired to create unreasonable fears about cloning and about any eugenics program that would involve the state.

As a eugenics technique which has the potential to substantially alter the composition of the human gene pool, cloning should be a matter of intense public scrutiny. But, to serve the public interest, public opinion will have to grasp not only the eugenic potential of cloning, but the obligation to realize this potential in order to serve the public interest. Because the public's attitudes towards cloning are emotionally based, and because they are influenced more by fear of its worst implications than by appreciation of its best potential, these attitudes may exhibit considerable flux and temporal instability. Nonetheless, current  polls show that Americans reject the idea of human reproductive cloning by a fairly wide margin (80%). However, their attitudes moderate somewhat on the issue of cloning for medical research (cloning of stem cells, also called therapeutic cloning), or cloning of embryonic cells for the purpose of medical research.

In addition to its appreciation of the consequences that could follow from being put to it worst possible uses, the public's fears about cloning have been stoked by sensationalism in the media. The media have every incentive to sensationalize the cloning issue. First, they do not see the issue in light of its potential serve the public interest. Second, in their capacity as social engineers, members of the press want to spin news stories in a way that conforms with their view of the public interest. To them, not having fully explored how cloning could be of great benefit to society, it seems to have significant anti-egalitarian potential. Because this potential strongly conflicts with their own egalitarian values, members of the press consider it their sworn duty to oppose such measures and to depict them in an unfavorable light. Third, without having fully understood the issue and its likely impact upon society, members of the press have concluded (on behalf of the public) that the risks of cloning far outweigh any potential benefits. Fourth, sensational issues sell more copies of their work. Hence, the press has natural incentives to turn cloning into an emotional football. Consequently, we should not expect many ambassadors of good will for reproductive cloning to come from the press.

The press has every incentive to sensationalize cloning. Fueling controversies and creating heat rather than light is the bread and butter of the mainstream press. However, the fact that the press has treated the cloning issue unfairly does not mean that cloning does not raise serious ethical issues. Rather, due to the way the press covered the debate over cloning, many of these issues were not raised or fully explored. Largely in response to press coverage, the popular rejection of cloning and the legislative ban on cloning came about as a gut reaction, and without extensive deliberation. Neither the ethical implications nor the potential benefits of cloning were fully explored. The issue was simply deemed too hot to handle and it was banned. As a result of press coverage which was one sided and superficial, cloning came across as something threatening. The reality about cloning is quite different.

The truth is that the result of cloning (two individuals which are exact genetic copies) is not unnatural or even uncommon. Nature is cloning human beings all the time in the form of identical twins. Human reproductive cloning (which is even known by the term "artificial twinning") is merely doing by artificial means what occurs routinely in nature. Hence, cloning is the artificial duplication of a natural process. Many people who have the most meager knowledge of science already understand this. Their concerns are generated by the prospect of placing control over the practice in the hands of government. At points, these concerns are justified. At other points, they are entirely misplaced. Nonetheless, it is likely that public attitudes on cloning will moderate once the public learns more about it, once it understands its potential, and once it has adequate assurances that it will not be put to its worst possible use. Once the public begins to understand the potential of cloning, those who are now leading the charge against cloning will be forced to retreat, along with the emotionally based debate that currently surrounds cloning. As with many other aspects of our lives, science fiction will have once again become science fact. And those who are bearish on science and technology will be forced back into hibernation until some new fear stirs them from their intellectual slumber.

The Legislative Reaction to the Prospect of Human Cloning
Effectively, cloning is a reproductive technique. However, due to the unusual nature of this technique, due to its broader implications for society, and due to its potential to affect the genetic composition of the entire human gene pool, cloning is a legitimate target of both intense public scrutiny and stringent government regulation.  Despite its profound implications for humanity, cloning has only recently become the subject of legislation. After a brief but spirited debate, the US Congress effectively closed the door on the subject by issuing a ban on human cloning. At the present time, the ban on human cloning has passed the House (HR 534, 2003), but has not been taken up by the Senate.

Given the visceral nature of the public attitude towards human reproductive cloning, a ban on the practice may have been the right decision, at least over the short term. However, the fact that the ban was not preceded by a lengthy consideration of the ethical issues that surround cloning; or by a discussion of the eugenic potential of cloning, suggests that the issue must come up again for discussion at some point in the near future. Most probably the issue of cloning will come up again for discussion in legislative circles once the first human being has actually been cloned. More enlightened congressmen understand that the ban is just a temporary measure designed to placate irrational public opinion on the issue. The ban is also designed to discourage cloning in the United States, at least until the issue can be studied and deliberated more thoroughly. In fact, the major ethical issues that surround human cloning have not even been adequately formulated yet, much less debated.

When the United States Congress issued its ban on cloning after such a brief period of discussion, and without considering either the full range of its moral implications or its eugenic potential, it took the politically expedient way out. No congressmen are likely to lose their seats in the next election because they supported the ban on cloning. But, in taking the politically expedient way out, Congress has evaded an important moral responsibility to diligently consider both the risks and the potential benefits of cloning. Due to its novelty, the importance of its implications for humanity, and the absence of a suitable moral frame of reference with which to structure the debate, serious discussion of the cloning issue in legislative circles has been prematurely brought to a close. And, due to the current level of opposition to the idea, both in the general public and in the ethical community, it is likely that the cloning issue will be slow to rematerialize. At this stage, human reproductive cloning is simply viewed as an idea that is filled with so many unknowns and potential dangers to humanity that it is better left alone. Yet, this view is born more of emotion than reason. Nonetheless, the emotions that surround the issue are not totally without justification.

Both legislators and the general public recognize that cloning has important implications for society and is subject to misuse. And, until a suitable theoretical and ethical framework has been developed to deal with the issue, and until the cloning issue can be intelligently debated and considered in light of the full range of its ethical implications and its eugenic potential, it is probably best for the issue to remain dormant. However, it is likely that this dormancy will be rudely interrupted in the near future when some rogue scientists actually clone the first human being, if they have not done so already. Once this occurs, the United States and other nations that have issued bans on cloning will have missed an important opportunity and will have to play catch up.

Rather than having to react to cloning after the fact, legislators should make proactive attempts to get out in front of the issue by designing legislation which treats cloning as an inevitability. It would be better if cloning were kept as a front burner issue, so that a well structured debate on the ethics and eugenic potential of cloning is already under way once the inevitable occurs. By keeping the discourse on human cloning alive in the US Congress, legislators will be in position to craft meaningful legislation designed to regulate the practice of cloning before anyone else can seize the opportunity. In addition, because human reproductive cloning has such important implications for humanity, it would be better if legislation designed to regulate its practice first took shape in the United States and had the imprint of our own ethics and values.

Once human cloning becomes a reality, the moral inertia of legislation regulating its practice will have shifted from those nations which simply banned it to those nations that attempt to "regulate" it. The nations that draft legislation designed to regulate the practice will be in a position to take the lead and establish precedents for cloning legislation that we might wish to establish ourselves. Rather than having to play catch up with such legislation, it would be better to seize the moral high ground on the cloning issue while we have the clear opportunity. Once again, this will require a well structured debate to consider the full range of the ethical implications and eugenics potential of cloning. This debate need not logically reach the conclusion that the ban on cloning should be lifted, but it should clearly specify the ethical reasons why a total ban should remain in place. Simply banning cloning does not begin to address the manifold moral and functional issues that surround it. If a total ban on human cloning is in place, the ban must be justified on ethical grounds, and the important moral reasons for maintaining the ban must be clearly stated. Conversely, if the ban is to be lifted, legislation regulating cloning should should clearly specify the conditions under which cloning will be allowed.

The ethical and intellectual void that currently surrounds the cloning issue means that the United States has a rare opportunity to shape both the moral debate on human cloning, and the legislation designed to regulate the practice of cloning. This legislation can be used as a model the world over. Currently, the Congress has refused to avail itself of this opportunity. It has evaded its moral responsibility to deal with the cloning issue decisively, by failing to bring all reasonable arguments to bear on the issue pro and con. Accepting that human cloning is an inevitability, and that it is not an inherently dangerous practice are the first steps towards crafting legislation designed to regulate it.

If the Congress thinks that simply banning the practice is going to prevent cloning from occurring, this belief is illusory. The reality is than human cloning is possible right now, and that the successful cloning of a human being, if it hasn't occurred already, is, at most, 10 years away. In all probability, human cloning will first occur in Europe, for several reasons. First, the moral climate in Europe is more permissive and ambiguous, and Europeans are more likely to tolerate its occurrence. Secondly, the Europeans have the advanced medical technology than cloning requires. Unfortunately, if human cloning first occurs in Europe, it will allow the Europeans to take the lead in crafting legislation to regulate it. If legislation which regulates cloning first takes shape in Europe, it will have the distinctive imprint of the European normative environment and ethical ethos, which may not be altogether desirable. In order to promote our long term interests (and the interests of humanity at large), and in order for the eugenic promise and potential of cloning to have the best chance of realization, it would be better if legislation designed to regulate cloning first took shape in the United States, and had the imprint of American values.

If human cloning first occurs in Europe, and if the US Congress does not preemptively moved to head off the issue, legislation that is designed to regulate cloning will first appear in Europe. Where legislation regulating cloning is concerned, we don't want to be placed in a situation where the Europeans are leading and where we are forced to follow. Given the Europeans' track record where the determination of important moral decisions is concerned, having to follow the Europeans' lead on cloning legislation is probably not a good idea. It is probably not a good idea to leave the determination of an issue which has such important implications for the human race in the hands of people who have such a questionable moral compass.

Like the ethical environment in the United States, the ethical environment in Europe is tainted by the effects of ethical relativism. But, the ethical ethos of Europe is even more deeply affected by relativism than the ethical ethos of the United States. Such influences are more likely to distort the judgment of Europeans as they attempt to regulate cloning. The Europeans will be less likely to see human cloning as a eugenics and reproductive technique that needs to be subject to rather rigorous controls. Specifically, If legislation regulating its practice first takes shape in Europe, it is likely that this legislation will err on the more permissive side and that it will not include adequate safeguards. Conversely, if legislation regulating cloning first takes shape in the United States, it is more likely to err on the side of caution.

Even if a suitable legislative framework is in place to regulate cloning, we should not have any illusions that cloning will be a cure for all of our social ills. Our clones will still be human. They will only differ from us in that, on average, they will be more like our better representatives and less like our worse representatives. However, if only this modest effect is achieved, cloning will have great potential to ameliorate a host of social problems.

The Major Ethical Issues
Like any technology, cloning can be misused. The technology which gives us nuclear energy can be used to destroy us. And, who will be charged with making the decision of who can and should be cloned is going to be a sticky issue, no matter what. But, we cannot simply recoil from the moral challenges which making such decisions presents. One of the benefits of the moral debate over cloning is that it will force us to make some clear statements about what we value in mankind to serve as criteria for cloning. Perhaps the best way to begin to meet the moral challenges raised by cloning is by issuing a clear statement of what we know to be good qualities in men. There is also the need to clearly state the main ethical issues that surround human cloning. There are a number of major ethical issues that surround cloning, but they can be basically divided into seven categories. The ethical debate on cloning should be structured with these issues firmly in mind.

1)The potential impact of cloning on individuals; its potential to create a genetic underclass
2)The potential impact of cloning on the social structure and the division of labor
3)The implications of cloning for the composition of the gene pool and the future of human race
4)Who decides who is eligible to be cloned?
5)How will the decision to select and approve candidates for cloning be made, and what criteria will be used?
6)What will be the quality of life of the clones?
7)What are the implications of cloning for the survivability of the species; how will it enhance survivability?

Despite the difficulty of the moral judgments involved, the cloning issue must be addressed by the Congress in a more decisive manner than it has been thusfar. By virtue of the important implications it has for the future of humanity, cloning is an issue which deserves to be confronted rather than evaded with makeshift legislation which simply bans its practice. The ban is only suitable as an interim measure. The debate which preceded this measure failed to adequately address the full range of ethical issues raised by cloning, and it failed to consider the potential benefits of cloning. Consequently, this measure will not stand the test of time. Yet, by addressing the issue of cloning at all, Congress did not completely forsake its responsibilities. And, by reviving the debate over human reproductive cloning, and by structuring the moral framework in which the cloning debate takes place, the United States Congress can influence how regulations on cloning will take shape around the world. The potential benefits of cloning for humanity are too important for debate over the issue to be shelved indefinitely. A prohibition on cloning is simply a way of skirting the issue over the short term.

Outside of legislative circles, the current ethical debate about cloning is structured in such a way that it fails to define the key ethical issues that should properly be at the center of the cloning debate, namely, cloning's potential as a eugenic technique. The debate over cloning fails to acknowledge that cloning could be of great benefit to humanity, as long as safeguards are in place to insure that it is not put to its worst possible use. Currently, the ethical debate over cloning focusses only on the potential of cloning to do harm. Properly, we should be concerned with the potential of cloning to do harm. But, when considered in the context of both the full range of its risks and its potentials, debate should center around how to minimize its risks and how to maximize the probability that it will do good.

The main issues that should be driving the debate over cloning are the criteria that will be used to determine who can or should be cloned, and who will be charged with applying these criteria. By virtue of its greater potential to affect the composition of the human gene pool than reproductive decisions which are normally made by individuals, human cloning should be the object of intense ethical scrutiny. But, at some point this ethical scrutiny must yield a stable and rationally based consensus about cloning. In turn, this consensus must translate into policies that will insure that cloning takes place in a way that will benefit humanity.

At its simplest level, and as it pertains to any individual, approaching the ethical debate over cloning involves asking some basic questions: Based upon what is known of a person's qualities, is there a high probability that the clones of this person would be an asset to the community? should people be entitled to become candidates for cloning by virtue of their worth to the community? Does some special quality entitle a person to be cloned, or would this special quality prohibit their cloning because of its rare or an exceptional nature?, Are a person's demonstrated qualities simply the manifestation of average intelligence in combination with above average character and temperamental qualities? Based upon an assessment of their qualities, how many clones should a person be allowed? To whom will the clones be designated as sponsors (effectively, the  parents of the clone)? Can an institution rather than a couple be designated as the sponsor? Eventually these and many similar questions will need to be asked. And, more importantly, these questions will need to be answered in order to insure that cloning becomes a safe, routine and  ethically acceptable means of reproduction

The Moral Case for Cloning
Can a moral case be made for cloning? As a result of the sensationalist atmosphere that developed around the cloning issue, serious debate on human cloning in legislative circles was brought to a premature halt. The issue has been marginalized, for the time being. When the debate over cloning resurfaces, it will be accompanied by a higher level of urgency. The next phase of the debate over cloning will involve the reality of its occurrence, rather than its mere potentiality. This presumes of course that the few remaining technical problems of human cloning can be overcome and that cloning can deliver on its promise to produce genetic duplicates which are free from defects. There is some speculation that clones will tend to have a higher incidence of certain genetic defects than their originals, and that cloning should be prohibited on these grounds alone. Until this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of the scientific community, the other debates about the ethics of cloning will remain moot. However, it is likely that this technical problem can be overcome in a relatively short period of time and that it will soon be possible to produce clones that are as free from defects as the originals. Once this problem has been solved, we will need laws to regulate the practice of human cloning.

Because human cloning is a reproductive technique that multiplies the contributions that any one person can make to the gene pool, it has the potential to alter the composition of the human gene pool in ways that other reproductive techniques do not. Hence, the potential of cloning to alter the gene pool is one of the most important ethical issues that surrounds cloning. In fact, whether most recognize it or not, this is the central ethical issue that surrounds the cloning debate. The legislative reaction and blanket prohibition of cloning in the United States effectively bypassed discussion of this and a host of other ethical issues that relate to cloning. The fact that the legislative response to cloning was relatively swift and that it was not preceded by a more well developed and vigorous discourse suggests that legislators simply abdicated their moral responsibility to deal with the issue in a comprehensive fashion. They failed to conceptualize or explore either the full range of its ethical implications or its potentials.

One explanation for the legislative failure to deal with the cloning issue in a more thorough fashion is that legislators simply had no precedents to use as reference points. Without either suitable precedents or a well developed moral framework with which to shape the debate over cloning, legislators simply responded to pressure from interest groups and summarily dismissed cloning as a frightening and bad idea. From its beginning, the debate over human cloning has been dominated by the idea that cloning would inevitably be put to bad uses. So why not attempt to heavily regulate cloning to insure that it is only put to good uses? Did the legislators not trust their own judgment to craft legislation that could achieve this effect, or did they simply want to table the issue and avoid the controversy surrounding it? Of course, like any other technology, cloning can be abused. And, the possibility that it might be put to bad uses cannot be ignored. But, it is even more likely to be put to bad uses under a ban than under legislation which is designed to strictly regulate it.

There is no denying that cloning raises a number of challenging issues. But, difficult or not, the cloning issue must be taken up again at some point and considered in light of the full range of the issues which it raises. The ethical issues that surround cloning in particular are too important to be postponed into the indefinite future. There is a tendency to avoid dealing with issues that have difficult moral implications until circumstances make it absolutely necessary. This tendency is even more likely among legislators who must deal with novel issues, and when they do not have adequate precedents to rely on. Under such circumstances, debate tends to be highly unstructured, incoherent and takes place outside of a moral framework that is suitable for the purpose. But whether such a framework is in place or not, the cloning issue will soon resurface and legislators will again be forced to deal with it. And this time they will be forced to explore the full range of the ethical implications and potentials of cloning in order to answer the question: Should cloning take place among humans? If not why not. If yes why. First of all, cloning must be recognized as a reproductive and a eugenic technique. It is potentially a way to improve the quality of human life and to increase the survivability of the human species. Our ability to enjoy a high quality of life is largely a function of what we are born with in the way of natural abilities. It is specifically a function of genetic attributes that relate to our health, intelligence and temperament.

If cloning is categorically prohibited because of fears associated with its possible misuse, we might as well scrap all of our technical achievements and go back to the cave. We didn't come this far by recoiling from scientific progress and technical achievements. Conceivably, a host of ethical arguments could have been raised against space flight. The argument could have been made that, by venturing into space, we might be treading on someone's  territory. We are not naturally equipped to live in space and therefore, living in this environment by artificial and technologically dependent means is in some sense unnatural. So, along similarly specious lines it can be argued that cloning is an unnatural occurrence. Actually, there is more of a precedent for human cloning than there is for space flight. For nature is cloning humans all the time in the form of identical twins. What implications do identical twins have for society? This expresses the cloning issue in a nutshell.

If we do not  recognize the good possibilities of cloning for the human race at some point , we are failing to take advantage of our opportunities. The emergent technological capability to clone human beings represents a rare opportunity to improve the quality of life for human beings, and to enhance the survivability of the species. If we shrink from these opportunities, it will invalidate the standards that we routinely apply to judge such qualities as form, character and intelligence. It will say that we do not quite trust our own judgment where these qualities are concerned, or that no consensus can be reached as to a person's moral worth, their intellectual capacity, their health, fitness, or beauty. Alternatively, it will say that even if a consensus can be reached on the essential human qualities which would serve as criteria to determine eligibility for cloning, cloning would somehow be a subversion of nature's design to produce these qualities in a proportion that occurs naturally. But, this would be the same as saying that we should not use technology to enhance our quality of life or to enhance our survivability as species? Does this mean that we should not use technology to artificially extend our lives or to reduce infant mortality?

The ability to reason and to develop technology to enhance our lives and improve the genetic stock of our species carries its own moral mandate to be put to good use. As with other forms of technology, cloning carries the natural mandate we have to use technology for whatever constructive purpose we may find for it. As a result of cloning and other techniques, we now have the technological capability (as opposed to the simple ability of individual judgment that has led to improvements in the species over the eons) to vastly improve our species and our quality of life. Admittedly, we need to be very deliberate as well as careful in our approach. But because of the strong underlying consensus about what constitutes good qualities in human beings, there are no legitimate grounds for prevarication or indecision on the cloning issue. We simply need to apply what we already know. We know what traits are generally valuable in the human species. As individuals, we routinely make choices based on our understanding of these criteria. Yet, many people seem to recoil from the idea that we should apply these criteria to human cloning. This may be because we have an implicit understanding of the profound implications that cloning has for humanity. But even though the implications of cloning for humanity are profound, operating from the proper ethical base, these implications are uniformly positive.

Human cloning admittedly needs to be approached with caution. Even more importantly, it needs to be approached with a full appreciation of both its risks and its potentials. One or the other part of this equation standing alone is insufficient. It will not stand the test of time, and it will not result in the best moral judgment, or the one that will prove maximally conducive to human survivability. Evolution has endowed us with reason and intelligence to further our survival. Where cloning and certain other technical advances are concerned, we are failing to avail ourselves of the opportunities which our reason and our intelligence have afforded us. If we fail to do this, we violate the Prime Criterion. If we say that cloning should be prohibited, then we should make sure that the reasons for the prohibition are substantial and not just based on some irrational fears about the possibility that it could be put to its worst possible uses.

There is a troubling logical problem which surrounds the "ethical" decision to prohibit cloning. It casts doubt upon our ethics in general. It says that we are not fit judges of the moral, the intellectual, and the aesthetic good. If we prohibit cloning because we have no trust in our notion of the good then how can we be certain that our decision not to clone is good itself? As beings with both reason and a moral faculty, do we shrink from moral decision making because of the possibility that we might be wrong? If we approach the prospect of cloning ourselves with caution, and deliberative thinking, then this is as it should be. But, if we approach it with emotional argumentation and ready convictions one way or another, then our ability to make a reasonable determination on the issue is likely to be impaired.

There is nothing unnatural about the process of human cloning. To the extent that it routinely occurs in nature, it has nature's sanction. And, it is entirely appropriate to use reason and knowledge to incorporate cloning as a eugenic measure that is routinely used to improve the condition of the human species. We know what will constitute improvement. But, our knowledge of what constitutes improvement is tempered by our recognition that even in the course of improving the human race, it may result in unfairness for certain segments of the population. We know cloning has the potential to be unfair to a certain subset of humanity. We know it would seem to have the potential to relegate some to the status of an underclass. And, it is mainly the realization of this potential and our resulting concern with fairness that seems partly responsible for the public's reluctance to embrace cloning as a eugenic technique. In fact, it is not only the possibility that cloning could be put to bad uses that causes people concern, but also the possibility that it could be put to good uses. No one wants to relegate a subset of humanity to become a permanent underclass because they possess certain traits and do not posses others. Yet, as we will see, cloning is more likely to have an egalitarian effect.

When we are given the opportunity to improve the species and the human condition, we should take advantage of it. The technological capability to clone humans is one such window of opportunity. Again, the question is raised, what will constitute "improvement" of the race, and who will make this determination? As individuals, we already have criteria for making such decisions. We routinely employ the same criteria that should be used in determining eligibility for cloning in our evaluations of others. We have a eugenic sense and a common ability to recognize intelligence as well as good character and good form. These are the principal criteria that would be used to determine eligibility to be cloned. As long as the criteria and their administration are held to the highest standards, we can have some reasonably assurances that cloning will take place in a way that is both ethical and functional.

There is no reason why the quality of eugenics decisions which are made in the legislative or regulatory environment cannot exceed the quality of the eugenics decisions which individuals routinely make in their own lives. Obviously, the power to make such determinations should be assigned with great care. It should be carefully regulated and should not be left up to individuals of only average discernment. In other words, where the determination of eligibility for cloning is concerned, individuals should not be allowed to decide their own cases. But even individuals of average discernment have a general understanding of those qualities which are most valued among men. Anyone who poses questions about our ability to establish rational criteria for cloning would seem to presume that the average human being has no idea of what qualities are good in themselves or in others. This is an example of the same kind of moral relativism that has been winding its way through the social sciences and the legal profession for the last 30 years. It has finally surfaced again in the cloning debate.

There is no place for moral relativism in the cloning debate. Cloning is an opportunity to make a statement about those qualities that are valuable in human beings. There is nothing to prohibit us from seeking to reproduce these qualities in ourselves. There is no moral reason why we cannot attempt to "improve" the human race, or why we cannot attempt to insure that more of its representatives possess qualities that are generally recognized as being valuable to both the individuals who possess them and to the communities of which these individuals are a part. There is no reason why the improvement of the human race cannot be pursued through techniques such as cloning, provided that stringent guidelines are in place. We were given reason to make the difficult ethical decisions which cloning requires. Cloning represents an opportunity to improve the human race and to enhance our survivability as a species. Due to the nature of the risks and the potentials, cloning needs to be approached deliberately, but with caution. The full extent of our reason and our knowledge must be brought to bear on the cloning issue to ensure that the eugenic potential of cloning is completely realized and that its risks are completely avoided. If we fail to capitalize on the opportunities which cloning affords us, we are failing to use our reason to maximize our survivability as a species. And, if we fail to use our reason to maximize the survivability of our species, we are violating the Prime Criterion.

The Eugenic Potential of Cloning
Eugenics is a principal way of improving human society in order to enhance the quality of life for individuals and in order to enhance the survivability of the human species. Cloning is a potentially valuable eugenics technique. But, to put cloning to its best and most ethical use, the aims of cloning must first be specified and acceptable. So, what are the aims of cloning? What would be the likely consequences of cloning for society? What is the potential of cloning to improve the lives of individuals and to enhance the survivability of the species? Why would any one want to be cloned? To deal with this last question first, motives for cloning can be narrow and selfish and can carry no particular guarantee of good results for society. Given the choice between cloning that it the result of bad motivations and more conventional forms of reproduction that are the result of good motivations, the latter is preferable.

Humans are most certainly vain, and no one should be a judge in his own case where determination of eligibility for cloning is concerned. Such determinations should be made by a committee and its decisions should be based on a variety of objective measures. They should also involve a careful assessment of the likely impact that each clone will have upon society and of the potential of each clone to make social contributions. And, these determinations should be based on the actual performance of the proto (the one to be cloned) in society. Determining the eligibility for cloning must take place as part of an overall eugenic vision for society. The basis for this vision is the consensus about genetic qualities which conduce to the intelligence, health and good character of individuals.

The great promise and potential of cloning is that is would allow us to greatly reduce the proportion of our worst representatives. Conversely, cloning would allow us to increase the proportions of both our average and our above average representatives, or those who rank average or above average on the principal dimensions that would serve as criteria for cloning. Using these criteria as the principal means to regulate cloning, our best representatives can become a larger proportion of the total population and our worst representatives can be made a progressively smaller proportion of the population. This result would seem to have important implications for the division of labor, among other things, which will be discussed elsewhere in this essay.

As most people currently seem to understand it, using technologically based means to alter the natural distribution of the gene pool (the distribution that naturally results from the reproductive choices that individuals make), even if it results in an improvement of the human condition, is a little bit like playing God. In fact, as a eugenics technique, cloning is no more like playing God than the current use of medical advances to unnaturally extend life or to save individuals who would normally die. It is simply the result of a logical progression in which technology is becoming available to enhance the survivability of the human species. But, as with all scientific applications, cloning must be accompanied by reason and knowledge.

Cloning does not allow us to play God. But, it does allow us to exert greater control over the future course of our species. To some extent at least, we have always had this power. Cloning just increases this power and allows us to exercise this power in a different way. In the past we have merely exercised this power in a less technically sophisticated way. We have always had the power to determine our breeding stock and our genetic makeup as a species. We have always practiced sexual selection to improve our species and to give our offspring the best possible chance of survival. It is only that these means seem somehow more natural when juxtaposed the science of cloning. In fact, cloning will simply enable us to do what we do naturally on a larger scale. Specifically, it will allow us to more extensively alter the composition of the gene pool. And, it is this potential that seems to cause people the most concern, as well as the need to place decision making power over such matters in the hands of government. From another standpoint, cloning merely represents taking the next step in rationalizing the decision making process by which we already exert control over the human gene pool.

Humans exert control over the gene pool and over their own genetics. Humans have been defining the composition of the human gene pool for as long as the species has existed. In this sense, humans play God every time they choose a mate. They make decisions that will affect the future composition of the human gene pool. Through the practice of sexual selection, they choose mates who posses certain traits and they exclude others because they do not have certain traits. Although their motivations may be more closely related to their own gratifications rather than to eugenics concerns per se, eugenics decisions are unavoidably made in the normal course of mate selection. But somehow, when eugenics decisions are practiced at a societal level rather than as the result of millions of decisions which individuals make in the normal course of their lives, they begin to take on an unnatural character. When technology is brought to bear on the reproductive process, as with cloning, it conjures up ideas of things that are unnatural. Somehow, cloning seems unnatural even when it is our natural destiny to exert increasing control over our genetic composition by means of technology. Cloning is a natural evolutionary step. As a practical matter it will only result in an increase in the number of identical twins.

The Potential Benefits of Cloning
What major benefits can be expected to accrue to humanity from human cloning? Why would we want to do it? Succinctly, cloning will allow us to improve human life. It will allow more individuals to live more rewarding lives. And, it will actually have the potential to increase the quality of life of those who do not rank as high on the principal valued dimensions as the clones themselves. In addition, it will give us prior knowledge of medical conditions of clones, so that these conditions can be addressed before they become life threatening. Longevity will also be increased by other means (chiefly gene therapy and anti-aging drugs). Thus, if the clones of a certain person have a normal life expectancy of 90 years, by the time they reach this life expectancy, in all probability, medical technology will have advanced to the point where another 30 or more years can be added to this. Hence, a clone's foreknowledge that their proto died at a certain age from natural causes will not be an automatic death sentence for them. Clones can expect to add years to their lives through environmental influences and medical advances, so the age of their natural death will remain uncertain.

There are many additional benefits from cloning to be considered. Cloning has great implications for the human species to the extent that candidates can be selected which are largely free from genetic defects. Correspondingly, the non cloned offspring of clones will be more likely to be free from genetic defects themselves, thereby improving the quality of the human gene pool. The fears associated with establishing a qualitative distance between clones and the rest of humanity have already been discussed at some length. But summarily, the tendency of cloning will be to push the entire species in the direction of greater functionality and survivability. Inevitably, clones will marry and propagate with non-clones that are not their equals. In effect, some clones will marry down. Correspondingly, some non-clones will marry up, resulting in a genetic improvement and uplifting of the entire human race. In short, cloning will allow us to accelerate our evolution beyond what would normally occur merely by means of the choices people make in the mate selection process.

Cloning as a Reproductive Choice
Conceivably, techniques such as cloning and in vitro fertilization will eventually allow couples to chose their offspring from a catalog. As far fetched as this sounds, there would be nothing inherently unethical about such practices. As long as reasonable precautions are in place to ensure that clones have qualities that will enable them to enjoy a high quality of life, and to be an asset to the societies in which they live, such practices are ethical. A few years ago such concepts would be more appropriate for a work of science fiction. But now, they are within easy reach of our current technological capabilities. And, later in this century, such practices will become commonplace. Selecting one's offspring from a catalogue will become an especially attractive option for couples that have battled infertility. There is nothing inherently wrong with such practices as long as the clones are naturally predisposed to be "normally" healthy, intelligent and of good temperament. These qualities are all conducive to a high quality of life.

Who Should Decide?
Once the ban on cloning has been lifted, and once cloning has become a safe, routine procedure, the people who will actually be charged with deciding who is eligible to be cloned will likely continue to be a matter of concern to the general public. Because cloning has important implications for the entire species which the normal reproductive decisions made by individuals do not, cloning must be heavily regulated by government. Left completely in the hands of individuals, cloning would pose far greater risks of being put to bad uses. The government agency that is charged with regulating cloning will have primary responsibility for ensuring that cloning occurs in a manner that will serve the public interest. The agency would be headed by a team of experts whose job it will be to interpret and administer cloning legislation, to establish standards and evaluation criteria, and to make appointments to the state or regional cloning boards. This agency, which for now we will call the Eugenics and Cloning Commission, will also be tasked with devising and enforcing regulations governing the practice of cloning as part of a broader eugenics program.

One of the most important tasks of the ECC will be to establish criteria for determining the eligibility of candidates to be cloned, and to establish quotas based on where individuals rank on the evaluation criteria. A quota is an established limit on the number of times an individual can be cloned. Another important task of the e ECC will be to make appointments to the state or regional cloning boards. In turn, the state or regional ECC boards will be tasked with making appointments to the local ECC boards. The local ECC boards will actually have the task of approving or denying permits for individuals to be cloned. The local boards, (as well as the state and regional boards and the ECC itself) would be staffed by experts from a number of fields which are well suited to make decisions on matters related to cloning. These would include mainly physiologists, psychiatrists, social psychologists, behavioral geneticists and sociobiologists. Individuals in these professions are uniquely qualified to determine which human qualities are likely to be assets and which are more likely to be liabilities. These individuals would also be uniquely qualified to evaluate the cognitive, affective and  behavioral capacities and propensities of the candidates.

Although the ECC will have both a popular and a congressional mandate, in its structure and operation, the agency should be top down. The day to day operations of the agency would be confined by relatively austere rule sets and procedural guidelines. Very little discretion would given to local boards, except when deciding eligibility of candidates. Even these decisions would conform to strict guidelines. This very restrictive delegation of authority should be maintained at least until such time as the full implications of cloning can be carefully evaluated. To facilitate the evaluation process, local boards would be authorized to conduct studies to determine the academic, social and professional progress of clones under their jurisdiction, and they would be charged with assessing the social impact of these clones. The boards would also be tasked with issuing reports to the ECC concerning the "good standing" of clones.  In sum, the local boards will have responsibility for issuing a clean bill of health for clones.

While a group of experts will have the overall authority to make cloning decisions, what role will the general public have in this process? As the decision to clone will have implications for the whole species, the public should have the final say as to whether or not human beings should be cloned. Consequently, the matter should be put to a referendum. The public should treat the cloning decision as a serious responsibility, but, as long as cloning would be subject to austere regulations, reaching the decision to approve cloning as a reproductive technique should not present either legislators or the public with an overwhelming moral burden. For, as a practical matter, cloning will merely result in an increase in the number of identical twins in society. The process should be approached in the spirit of optimism that reflects knowledge of cloning's potential benefits for humanity.

How Should They Decide?
Next in importance to who will decide which individuals are eligible to be cloned will be the standards that are actually applied in making this determination. The criteria used to make this determination will be one of the most sensitive aspects of the cloning debate. While value judgments will be inescapable, the natural consensus about what constitutes valuable traits will go far towards avoiding difficulties. Stated simply, most people tend to have a pretty good idea of what constitutes good form, intelligence and good character.

There tends to be a broad and rationally based consensus about those human qualities that are deemed to be good or desirable.  We already apply the criteria that would be used to evaluate candidates for cloning to evaluate our fellow human beings. We have standardized ways of evaluating cognitive ability. And even though exceptions occur in which people who score low on tests may have some rare talent which the test does not measure, where the establishment of criteria for cloning is concerned, we are less concerned with rare exceptions and are more concerned with general rules and tendencies. It is more important that clones have the general quality of intelligence than some specialized quality or a rare talent. For this reason, people who have at least demonstrated some minimal proficiency at cognitive tasks (to substantiate their potential to become a functioning member of society), would pass the criterion for cognitive ability.

We also have standards for assessing dimensions of temperament. These dimensions can be thought of as the precursors of good character. We know the difference between people who, as a matter of temperament, appear to have a natural predisposition to exhibit bad character traits or even criminal predispositions. And, it is obvious that one of the main objectives of a eugenics program will be to identify and exclude such individuals as candidates for cloning. In sum, we have means by which we can evaluate candidates for "temperamental predispositions" which convey a high probability for the development of criminal propensities or the exhibition of bad character traits.

We also have standards for evaluating health, fitness and even beauty or sexual attractiveness. And although some may consider attractiveness to be subjective, even this quality can be measured objectively. Consequently, there is a natural basis for reaching a consensus on all the valued dimensions. And this consensus provides a rational basis for the establishment of certain widely accepted standards. Thus, for all the major criteria that would be needed to evaluate candidates for cloning, we have standards. These are the same standards that we already routinely apply to evaluate our fellow human beings. These criteria will enable us to make a general determination about whether someone would constitute an asset or a liability to the species.

There is already an ethical framework in place that is suitable for resolving most of the ethical issues that surround cloning. Most of these ethical issues relate to the criteria that would be used to evaluate candidates for cloning. For instance, there is general agreement as to what constitutes desirable qualities, or qualities which would prove to be assets to the human race, versus those qualities which are deemed to be less valuable, or even a threat. According to such criteria, a generally healthy person who is substantially free from defects in health, temperament, behavior and intelligence (about which there is an increasing body of objective evidence) would be a suitable candidate for cloning.

Incidentally, the behavioral sciences are moving us closer to having the ability to objectively evaluate individuals for certain temperamental propensities. These propensities are some of  the most important precursors or indicators of future moral development. Formerly, these potentials have been obscured and difficult to discern, which has helped to fuel the fires of relativism. Now that these potentials can be determined with far greater certainty, the relativists have less wiggle room. As for qualities such as fitness and beauty, while the latter may seem superficial, it is often related to the former. The ability to assess such characteristics does not generally require any special expertise.

We know what qualities we admire in ourselves and in others. There is no moral reason why we cannot use techniques such as cloning to make our best representatives a larger proportion of the population than they would be naturally. This is the ultimate end of cloning. It should be approached deliberately and with some caution, but it is no cause for fear. Of course individuals may have a variety of motives for wanting to clone  themselves, their offspring, or any number of other human beings, without due concern for how their decisions might impact the public interest. If such self interest motives were allowed to prevail in the cloning process, we might expect that cloning would not occur in a way that would maximize the public interest. For this reason principally,  the practice of cloning must be well regulated and standards which reference the species interest must be placed ahead of individual motives for wanting to be cloned.

Criteria for Cloning
There are three major categories of criteria for cloning. In no particular order of importance, these include cognitive ability, health and form, character and temperament. While the criteria of health and form can be distinguished from one another, in most cases they tend to be so closely related that one tends to be a function of the other. Beauty and physical fitness tend to be outward indicators of health. Although people who are neither physically fit nor beautiful can be reasonably healthy, the universal ideal of good form includes beauty and fitness. A similar case holds for character and temperament. Although a person of generally good character can have bad qualities of temperament, good character is more commonly associated with a certain evenness of temperament. Temperament can be thought of as the hereditary component of good character.

Where a person ranks on all three of the major dimensions will be the major considerations in determining their eligibility to be cloned. However, if an individual ranks high on any of the major dimensions it would not automatically guarantee an entitlement to be cloned. Conversely, if an individual ranks low on one of the major dimensions, it would not automatically prohibit them from being cloned. But, an exceptionally low rank on several dimensions would be more likely to catch the attention of the evaluators and would increase the probability that a cloning permit would be denied.

Cognitive Ability as a Criterion
As stated above, we have standardized tests to evaluate intelligence and cognitive ability. And even though some people who score low on standardized test may exhibit some rare or exceptional ability, for the purpose of determining eligibility for cloning, evaluators will be more concerned with the presence of general intelligence. Standardized intelligence tests are designed to capture several dimensions of intelligence. Some of the major dimensions include the following:

alertness/responsivness index
learning/memorization index
verbal index
abstract-mathematical index
spatial reasoning index

In addition, performance on standardized tests depends heavily on motivation. As a case in point, I cite my own performance on the GRE. Because I had to take a specialized GRE as an exit requirement, and because this particular GRE would have no bearing on my acceptance into graduate school, I had no incentive to perform well on the test. The test was an optical scan, so I randomly picked ovals to fill in. Many of the other examinees looked on with amazement as I quickly completed the exam and left the room.

Form as a Criterion for Cloning
This category includes those qualities more commonly known as beauty and fitness. Fitness is admittedly a result of environmental influences. In particular, it is a result of how we take care of what we are naturally endowed with. As such, at least an aspect of form is a function of values. Although seemingly superficial and inconsequential in comparison to the criteria of intelligence and character, form is a important consideration as a cloning criteria, if for no other reason than it tends to serve as an overall indicator of health and reproductive fitness.

While it has often been said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, real life experience as well as findings from the fields of sociobiology and ethology suggest that beauty tends to register at a very primal level and that there tends to be a certain uniformity in the standards of beauty across cultures. And even thought there may be some variations in the traits that individuals perceive to be attractive (which may be a function of their own genetic composition) consensus on the dimension of beauty is generally easy to reach.

When someone appears attractive, beautiful, or sexy to us, it basically means that we find them "reproductively stimulating". We have what is, in effect, an innate sense of beauty. This sense allows us to recognize genetic and reproductive fitness in prospective mates. This innate ability to recognize fitness in a mate (of which beauty is an outward sign) has an important bearing of the survivability of the species, and is not just some frivolous concern with appearances. This primal sense is critical to our reproductive capabilities. And although it appears that we have a far greater ability to reproduce than is necessary to maximize the survivability of the species (and, at this stage we need to artificially prevent conception in order to maximize the survivability of the species) we need this reserve reproductive drive to allow us to more rapidly recover from dramatic declines in our population that may result from either man made or natural disasters. Not only this but, at least where the male is concerned, there are important reasons to believe that sexual drive serves motivational functions. It has been said that behind every great man, there is a woman. More to the point, there is likely to be a sexually stimulating woman whose sexuality plays a role in motivating her man.

Character and Temperament
Temperamental propensities can be thought of as the precursors of good character. These predispositions make one either more or less inclined to exhibit moral behavior. For this major dimension of temperament there are a number of subdimensions. These would include measures of agressivity, ease of frustration, ease to anger, combativeness etc. In addition, there is a relationship between intelligence and character. The internalization of norms is contingent on the ability to conceptualize abstract moral principles.

Implications of Cloning for Social Structure
An increasing proportion of people who rank high on the valued dimensions that will serve as the main criteria for cloning has important implications for society. These dimensions are synonymous with traits that generally entitle one to enjoy a high quality of life. If individuals are severely deficient on any one of these dimensions, it will tend to adversely impact their quality of life. If we were to extend genetic rights to the unborn, then the unborn would have the right to be born with traits that would normally give them a better chance of attaining a high quality of life. In terms of hedonic consequences, individuals will naturally desire traits that enable them to enjoy a higher quality of life. As far as the species is concerned, the more intelligent, capable, moral and healthy the individual, the better able they are to react and make right decisions which affect the future of the species; and the more survivable the species. As one might expect, all traits that are valuable at the individual level have the potential to enhance the survivability of the species.

Despite its potential to improve the genetic stock of the species, and despite our moral obligations to make such improvements, insofar as the technical means are available, there is a general reluctance to embark on a systematic program of improving the human race through eugenic means such as cloning. This reluctance stems from a general fear of the consequences that would follow from increasing the proportion of people who rank high on the valued dimensions. The presumption is that an increase in the proportion of people who rank average or above average on the valued dimensions would relegate those who do not rank high on the dimensions to the status of an underclass. Alternatively, even for those who do not have such fears, there is the real concern that using eugenics techniques such as cloning to increase the proportion of people who rank high (above average) on one or more of the valued dimensions might generate inequalities, or place those who do not rank as highly on the valued dimensions at a competitive disadvantage. But, as discussed above, it is likely that as the number of people who rank high on the valued dimensions increases, it will tend to reduce distinctions based on these traits, and it will make average differentials on the valued dimensions less significant for society. This effect comes down to a basic law of economics, namely, supply and demand: The more of something there is, the less valuable it tends to be. On the basis of this logic, if there are more healthy, intelligent people of good character, it will not tend to place people who may not rank as high on one of these dimensions (or those who already rank high) at a disadvantage. Rather, it will tend to decrease the premium that society pays to those who rank high on these dimensions, and it will tend to increase the value of the work that is normally performed by people who rank lower on these dimensions. There will still be plenty of work left for those who cannot distinguish themselves because they only possess average or even below average traits or abilities.

Moreover, if someone is cloned because they are outstanding on one of the major dimensions, it would seem to have good implications for society. For presumably, society can always benefit from the addition of people who rank high on the dimensions of intelligence, health and good character traits. However, the aim of cloning is not to create more people who are outstanding on a single dimension, but to increase the relative proportions of people who are average or slightly above average on all three major dimensions. And, just because a person is outstanding one one of the major dimensions, should not automatically confer entitlement for cloning. Where a candidate for cloning ranks on one trait or one major dimension should be considered in the context of where the candidate ranks on the other dimensions as well. Candidates should rank at least average on all the valued dimensions in order to give some reasonable assurance that they will be an asset to the community.

Other concerns center around the potential of cloning to upset the division of labor. Some might argue that by upsetting the natural distribution of individuals with certain qualities we would be undermining the basis for the division of labor in society. This is a valid point. But, the argument is easily turned on its head. For while it is not possible for those with the least valued qualities to perform the more highly valued tasks, it is possible for those with the best qualities to perform the most menial tasks. The willingness of people with exceptional abilities to perform menial work, if called upon to do so, might present a problem.  But, presumably, conditioning people with greater talents to be willing to perform such menial tasks out of a sense of civic duty is a matter of socialization on the one hand, and a matter of breeding for moral temperament on the other. The resolution of such problems is within our means.

The Relationship Between Social Class and Attitudes Towards Cloning
There is an interesting relationship between the social class one belongs to and the attitudes one is likely to have toward human reproductive cloning. Specifically, opposition to human reproductive cloning tends to be inversely related to income and education. The upper class tends to have the most informed and objective attitude towards cloning. This attitude is a function of both its above average level of education and of its greater sense of security. The upper class does not see cloning as a competitive threat. Members of this class are more likely to have detailed knowledge of the science involved in cloning, and they are better able to see the issue objectively. They are also generally better able to grasp the eugenic potential of cloning and are more likely to understand its implications for society. Nonetheless, the debate on human cloning should take the concerns of all social classes into account. This is the only way that it will be possible to gain the level of public support that will be needed to pass legislation that "strictly regulates" rather than which simply bans the practice of human cloning.

Because it is more aware of the precariousness of its own position, the middleclass is, in many ways, the most insecure class. Many in this class fear falling back into the undifferentiated mass below it, and they fear the power of the class that is immediately above it. Such fears manifest themselves in a general view that cloning is a competitive threat. Yet, middleclass attitudes towards cloning are not monolithic or homogeneous. These attitudes are affected by a number of conflicting considerations. For instance, the entrepreneurial middleclass in particular would be less likely to view cloning in terms of its potential to increase competition. Members of this subclass would be more likely to view cloning as a way of reducing the tax burden, by increasing the number of people who are more likely to be productive members of society, and by decreasing the number that are likely to exert a drain on public resources. For this reason mainly, many in this subclass will tend to have more favorable attitudes towards human reproductive cloning, as long as the major ethical concerns are addressed.

Even after the major ethical concerns about cloning have been addressed, some members of the middleclass will still remain opposed to cloning for purely self interested reasons, and in spite of its potential benefits to human society. For instance, some in the middleclass may see the potential of cloning to decrease the number of people who rank low on the valued dimensions as a potential threat, rather than as a benefit for society. Specifically, some in the middleclass may have an interest in retaining a permanent underclass (those who who rank low on one or more of the valued dimensions). In their view, the existence of this underclass, or the existence of a group that is  "naturally better suited" to perform the menial work in society effectively affords them an exemption from having to perform such work themselves. Thus, some in the middleclass may want to prevent cloning, for if no one could be permanently consigned to a lower station in life by virtue of the fact that they rank low on one or more of the valued dimensions, then the tasks performed by these people would tend to fall to everyone equally. For those in the middleclass, this would mean that, at some point in their lives, either they or their offspring would be expected to perform the menial work that is now performed by what are effectively members of the genetic underclass. Actually, this is not too far from what happens already.

Many middleclass college students and adolescents already spend a significant portion of their young adulthood (age 18-25) performing menial work to help pay their way through college. Thus, an increase in the numbers of those who are genetically destined to become members of the middleclass would not represent a big change. If the permanent underclass (those who are destined by lack of ability to perform menial work for the greater part of their working lives) was to become a proportionately smaller part of the population, the division of labor would not be threatened.

In addition to wanting to maintain a permanent underclass to perform the kinds of work which they are unwilling to perform themselves, some elements of the middleclass may even want a permanent underclass to exist so that they can profit from this class. Many businesses are undoubtedly kept afloat by a class of consumers who are unsophisticated and unintelligent. If the proportion of people with average or above average intelligence were to suddenly increase, it could pose a threat to such businesses. Such irrational and self interested motives will undoubtedly influence some in the middleclass to oppose cloning, no matter what assurances are given that cloning will benefit the community. Even more vigorous assurances will have to be given to the lower classes.

At least initially, the lower classes (who are already among the most insecure in their competitive positions in society) will tend to fear that cloning will only reinforce their inferior status. They will specifically be inclined to believe that any increase in the number of people who have valued qualities which they may not have will subordinate them even further. Thus, many in the lower class are likely to reject the prospect of human cloning at a purely visceral level, at least until such time as they can be convinced that cloning will not pose a competitive threat. Once again, such fears are unwarranted. As the number of people who rank relatively low on the valued dimensions decreases, the kind of work that they are most likely to perform will tend to become more valuable.

Genetic Hierarchy and Social Structure
Human society is already deeply stratified along genetic lines. As a result of the uneven distribution of talents and abilities, human societies tend to be two tier societies. In the upper tier are those human beings who possess average or above average abilities, or those who rank high or above average on one or more of the valued dimensions. These individuals have traits that are universally more highly valued (traits which entitle their possessors to more valuable positions in the division of labor and to a greater share of economic rewards). In the lower tier are those who rank below average on one or more of the valued dimensions. By virtue of a lack of these traits, these individuals are destined to occupy lower rungs in the social and economic hierarchy. There is a common misperception that cloning people with more desirable qualities (the upper tier) would tend to exacerbate the problem of genetically based differentials. Actually, the reverse is true. If it is done properly and with its impact on social structure in mind, rather than increasing inequalities, cloning would tend to level the playing field.

Assuming individuals of average or even slightly above average ability are primarily selected as candidates for cloning, cloning will tend to spread the burden for performing society's least desirable work among all segments of the population. For, when few are naturally better suited to perform such work throughout their entire working life (by virtue of their lack of certain attributes), or when an increasingly proportion of the population has traits that would normally exempt them from performing such work, the burden for performing such work begins to fall on everyone equally. Under conditions in which nearly everyone has traits that would normally exempt them from such work, all incur a moral and societal obligation to perform this work for a portion of their working lives (such as during their college years, and even for a few years before or after.) Thus, the social structure that would emerge from systematic cloning would be built around age and seniority, as would entitlement to valued social and economic rewards, rather than being built around the uneven distribution of valued genetic qualities, as it is now. In short, cloning would lead to a leveling and an equalization of the social structure, and can be seen as a positive development from the standpoint of egalitarianism.

In addition, by restricting the genetic variability to the most functional genotypes, genetically based class distinctions and their attendant antagonisms (as well as the oppression or exploitation of the genetic underclass), could be greatly reduced or virtually eliminated. By restricting (as much as possible) genetic variability to the most functional genotypes, the playing field can be leveled. And, by cloning individuals who rank high on the valued dimensions, the quality of the gene pool can be improved dramatically through normal procreation. Admittedly, from time to time, parents who rank high on the valued dimensions may have relatively dysfunctional offspring. But, the chances of this happening are less than they would be if the parents ranked low on the valued dimensions. There is a greater probability that genotypically healthy individuals who rank high on the valued dimensions will have offspring which also rank high on the valued dimensions. Thus, the net effect of cloning will be to uplift the entire race. Strictly as a matter of natural law, it is a moral obligation to seek the improvement of the human race, insofar as improvement contributes to the maximization of the survivability of the species.

Dispelling the Myth of Clones as Replicas
The decision to allow cloning of humans should be taken lightly, but neither should it be the cause of fear or alarm. The consequences of cloning are manageable and are no more threatening to society than a sudden increase in the incidence of identical twins, which are, in effect, clones. We need not be paralyzed by fear of the consequences of cloning, for all cloning will be designed to do is increase the number of human beings who happen to possess those qualities that are universally admired "as they occur in synthesis".

A human being is not just a genetic quantum, but is a complex synthesis of genetic and environmental factors. We may be able to replicate unique genetic qualities, but we cannot hope to replicate the latter. In short, each clone will be substantially (if not fundamentally) different from every other clone, by virtue of differences in the environmental influences to which they are exposed. The clones might possess similar temperamental propensities (moral predispositions), they might possess similar appearance (health and aesthetics), and they might have similar mental capacities (intelligence). But how these traits are developed and expressed will largely be functions of environmental influences. Consequently, the clones would be no more likely to be identical as human beings than would identical twins.

The many diverse environments into which clones will be exposed will insure their diversity, which will make them like us. Indeed, they will be us. And, the suggestion that clones might not even be considered human, by virtue of the artificial processes which created them, is absolutely absurd. The essence of their humanity will be determined by their genetic essence. Genetically, they will be human. One's entitlement to be called human is based on one's genetic composition. Genetically, clones will be indistinguishable from anyone else. That is to say, the genetic variations that occur in clones will correspond to variations that occur naturally in the rest of the human gene pool. Anyone who suggests differently needs to go back to college and retake biology 101.

Implications for the Division of Labor
Even when people are not cloned to occupy a certain position in the division of labor, cloning will still have implications for the division of labor,  just on the basis of the general criteria that are employed. That is, the number of people who qualify as "above average" would tend to increase as a result of eugenic cloning. Some might argue that by upsetting the natural proportions of people with more valued traits we would be undermining the basis for the division of labor in society. This is a valid consideration. But, the argument is easily turned on its head. For while it is not possible for those with the least valued qualities to perform the more highly valued tasks, it is possible for those with the best qualities to perform the most menial tasks.

Conditioning people with above average abilities to be willing to perform menial tasks out of a sense of civic duty is mainly a task for socialization. It is the task of socialization to instill the norms which would lead individuals to accept the need to perform such work as a moral obligation. But, the willingness to perform such tasks also presumes certain qualities of character or temperament which are themselves criteria for cloning. In short, people would need a highly developed civic conscience to be willing to perform such tasks for a portion of their working lives. For people who rank high on one or more dimensions, but who believe that their rank should entitle them to an exemption from performing more menial work, their unwillingness to perform such work would stand out as a character flaw. Such flaws would themselves be suitable grounds to terminate, or reduce the quota of an existing cloning permit, or to disallow an application for a permit. The moral dimension of cloning is meant to address this potential deficiency. Candidates who ranked high on the moral dimension would see the need to perform such work for at least a small part of their working lives. They would regard the performance of such work as their civic duty. And if any clone should exhibit a reluctance to perform such work, it would register as a character deficiency that would jeopardize their chances of being cloned in the future.

The Issue of Predestination
Predestination would occur if someone were strongly predisposed to distinguish themselves in a certain field because they possessed certain natural talents or abilities. Predestination raises a number of ethical issues for both the clones, those who might hope to benefit from the clones financially, and those with whom the clones must compete. Consequently, where determining candidacy for cloning is concerned, candidates who have  distinguished themselves in uncommon ways will actually be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than  candidates who have not distinguished themselves in uncommon ways, as there would be a greater chance of "predestination" in such cases.

The concern over predestination is valid up to a point. But, there are a number of ways to begin to allay fears over predestination. To begin with, even though clones of certain individuals may have capacities that would enable them to distinguish themselves in uncommon ways, it is likely that environmental influences will steer most or all of them onto disparate developmental paths. Yet, if a particular ability was so strong that it predisposed clones to distinguish themselves in a certain field (regardless of substantial differences in environmental influences) this would have to be considered predestination.

For instance, if a cloning permit for Walter Chronkite were approved by the proposed Eugenics and Cloning Commission then, assuming Walter Chronkite came to occupy his place of prominence through no rare or exceptional abilities, but mainly by being at the right place and the right time (an environmental influence), then perhaps only a small percentage of his clones would choose careers in journalism or television broadcasting. Because of this pattern of development, his clones would not be "predestined". That is, they would not automatically gravitate to a particular profession because they possessed rare or exceptional abilities.

On the other hand, if Walter Chronkite's professional achievements proved to be the product of some rare and exceptional abilities, and if these abilities were not readily translatable into achievements in other fields, then such traits would seem to predestine his clones. For instance, if all of Walter Chronkite clones gravitated towards careers in journalism, despite substantial differences in their environments, it would be strong evidence of predestination. It would be evidence that the clones' position in the division of labor was attributable to some rare and unique talents or abilities. Not only would this seem to constrain the opportunities of the clones, but it would place others in the field in which the clones were likely to distinguish themselves at a competitive disadvantage. This becomes a serious ethical issue not only from the standpoint of fairness to the other genotypes which must compete with Walter's clones, but also from the standpoint of narrowing the life chances and opportunities of his clones.

Presumably, and in most cases, environmental influences will tend to override any tendency towards predestination. But, evidence of predestination would demand reevaluation of the quota or the number of clones that are permitted. In those cases where predestination is determined to be very likely, the local cloning board would have the options of revoking the cloning permit altogether, or of restricting the permit to the lowest category or class. The essential aim of preventing or minimizing predestination is to avoid cloning people to fill a specific position in the division of labor, even though they might be exceptionally well suited to fill this position by virtue of their natural talents and abilities. The public may decide that it wants or is willing to tolerate some level of predestination. Put it to a vote and let the people decide.

Cloning Law
In the not too distant future, the manifold issues raised by human reproductive cloning will give rise to a new field of law. Appropriately, this field of law will come to be known as "cloning law." The central aim of cloning law will be to regulate the practice of human cloning in a way that serves the public interest. This field of law will begin to take shape well before the ban on cloning has been lifted. Emergent realities, principally, the actual cloning of a human, will force legislators to take up the cloning issue again. The next time they have to deal with the cloning issue, legislators will be compelled to more carefully consider the ethical implications, risks and potentials of cloning. This reconsideration of the cloning issue will eventually lead legislators to rescind the ban on cloning in favor of legislation designed to strictly regulate the practice. Still, the current ban on cloning can serve a number of useful purposes.

Although the current legislative ban on cloning is only sufficient as an interim measure, it will give legislators the time they need to develop a moral framework to deal with the issues raised by cloning. It will also give them time to carefully consider the risks and the potential benefits of cloning. It will give them time to consider various  situations that will inevitably arise from cloning. And, it will give them time to carefully craft legislation to deal with these situations. In addition, the ban will give the public the time it needs to more carefully consider the implications, risks and potentials of cloning.

Legislators must begin to view human cloning as something that will inevitably occur and take preemptive steps to insure that it takes place in way that will best serve the public interest. To achieve this aim, cloning must be seen in the context of reproductive rights. Yet, it has greater implications for the entire race (by virtue of its capacity to alter the distribution of the genotypes of which the human race is composed) than other reproductive rights. This is the mandate for the federal government to have regulatory power over cloning. But just as cloning is a reproductive technique, it also has great potential as a eugenic tool. And, it is from this capacity that most of the moral and ethical issues concerning cloning arise.

Even though more conventional forms of reproduction have eugenic dimensions, this dimension is magnified with cloning. Hence, particular care must be observed when determining the criteria for cloning. And, at this stage, the public may not yet be scientifically savvy enough to effectively deal with the cloning issue.  Thus, the current state of the public's scientific and technical knowledge are themselves considerations in the debate and the legislative proceedings over cloning. To the extent that the public should have the ultimate say over whether or not cloning is allowed, but is not currently in a position to make an intelligent decision on the issue, legislators and the public are both content with the ban on the practice. But, events are likely to take both legislators and the public by surprise. The initial legislative reaction to the news of the first successfully cloned human being will be to circle the wagons, and to stand by the ban. The initial public reaction will likely range from curiosity and amazement to alarm. In any case, the legislative initiative will almost certainly have been lost to the Europeans, assuming that cloning first takes place in Europe.

Ultimately, the US Congress must take up the issue of cloning again, and preferably, before it is actually confronted with the reality of the first cloned human being. This time, it will be forced to consider the issue more thoroughly, and in light of its implications, risks and potentials. Hopefully, after considering the issue at some length, the Congress will be in a position to deliver meaningful legislation designed to carefully regulate the practice of human cloning, and to ensure that it takes place in a way that will serve the public interest. Once such legislation is passed, and once the regulatory environment has been clearly defined, it will mark the actual beginning of the field of cloning law.

The Aims of Legislation
The foremost aim of legislation designed to regulate human cloning will be to ensure that cloning takes place in a manner that will benefit the human race. In more clinical and scientific terms, the central aim of the legislation on cloning will be to ensure that cloning functions eugenically rather than dysgenically. Cloning law will be specifically designed to ensure that cloning results in an improvement of the gene pool, according to generally accepted and consensually agreed upon criteria. The quest  for such improvements does not mean that it is morally acceptable to consign some people to subservience, or to make them irrelevant or obsolete. Rather, it means expanding the genetic franchise that has heretofore been reserved for a small portion of humanity. It means giving more people entitlement to the qualities that are universally valued and desired. It means promoting our best representatives. It means excluding those with qualities that are universally held in low esteem, or qualities which are known to place the species at greater risk.

Obviously, all such aims are fraught with moral judgments. And, we are given reason to make such judgments in a way that will generally advance our survivability as a species. Having to make such judgments imposes a moral burden upon us (which we attempt to avoid at our peril). The greater the implications a particular technology has for our survivability, the greater the moral burden. Reaching the right decisions where human cloning is concerned places a great moral burden on us. And, it demands that we more fully exercise our moral faculties, and more completely realize our moral potential. Refusing to confront the issue of cloning in a moral context, or refusing to cite clear moral reasons why the practice should be banned (which is the current course) is an evasion of our moral responsibilities. It is a both a moral judgment and a moral failure. It is specifically an abdication of the moral responsibility we have to practice eugenics in a way that reason suggests is necessary to maximize the survivability of the species.

As radical as the idea may now sound, a field of law devoted exclusively to cloning, or cloning law, will not be a radical break with the legal tradition. This new field of law will borrow heavily from precedents established in other fields of law. In short, there will be a clear line of continuity between existing laws and cloning law. The following examples offer a preview of what some aspects of this legislation might look like in a summary form.

General Guidelines
1)The candidates shall be free from substantive genetic defects, or those which could prove life threatening or which would make them likely to become a public charge prior to age 75. (This number will be increased to 100 once gene therapy and other procedures extend the average lifespan to 120 or beyond.)

2)The candidates shall have demonstrated traits that will make them of substantial value to the community.

3) In order to promote the value of racial preservation, the candidates for levels 2 and 3 shall not be the product of a miscegenous union.

4)The candidates must be of sound mind, or, in cases where there is a mental infirmity, it must not be the result of a heritable condition.

5)The candidates must be of good moral character, or must have demonstrated temperamental propensities which are consistent with the development of good moral character. The candidates must not have demonstrated any serious condition which would substantially impair their normative development.

6)The candidates cannot be selected for talents or abilities which, due to their exceptional nature, would prevent them from distinguishing themselves in a variety of ways.

7)Candidates cannot be cloned without their consent, except under special circumstances, such as those involving the death or incapacity of the proto, in which case a legal representative can apply for a cloning permit on behalf of the proto.

8)The normal laws that apply to all candidates for cloning shall also extend to their clones.  For instance, a wife cannot raise or adopt the clone of her deceased husband, nor would a husband be permitted to raise or adopt the clone of his deceased wife. Conversely, because it is normal for parents to raise their offspring, it would be permitted for a parent to raise a clone of their deceased offspring.  In other words, relationships that would be "unnatural" and prohibited for the proto will also be considered unnatural and prohibited for the clones.

9)In the case of economic gains that result from cloning, the proto shall have all rights to any gains from cloning of the first generation. Thereafter, any benefits which result from cloning successive generations shall accrue to the prior generation (i.e. benefits of cloning second generation shall accrue equally to all members of the first generation, and so on.

10) The permit to clone shall be provisional, revocable and contingent upon the good behavior, viability and demonstration of social worth of all clones.

These general guidelines are broad enough so that they would entitle the vast majority to be cloned as a reproductive choice. They are specific enough to prevent cloning from being put to bad uses.

Hypotheticals
In addition to the above guidelines, we can begin to imagine a number of hypothetical situations that will arise as human cloning becomes a reality. And we can begin to imagine how the legal framework which is designed to regulate the practice of cloning will take shape. These hypotheticals can be determined largely on the basis of whether or not a relationship would be natural or unnatural for the proto, and on the basis of genetic similarities.  In other words, the genetic relationship should take precedence in relationships between family members, much as they do now. For instance, if A and B are brother and sister, clones A1 and B1 would be prohibited from marriage, etc. Still, cloning will raise many other interesting possibilities. Can one raise one's clone as ones own child? Why or why not. To begin with, the question needs to be reformulated.

Lets say that one's parents were killed in a car accident, and one's identical twin was severely injured. If one has attained majority status, one would be allowed to be guardian for one's identical twin. So seemingly, extending this right to clones, there would be nothing to prohibit one from raising one's clone as one's offspring. However, the age difference between one's self and one's clone would seem to make this an unnatural arrangement. This particular scenario could be decided either way to the extent that it might not be in contravention of the intent of cloning practices (to ensure that they operate in the public interest) for one to be able to raise one's clone as one's child. But, this is admittedly pressing the boundary of what would be acceptable. Most cases will be more clear cut by virtue of the above rule on genetic relatedness. This illustrates some of the potential difficulties that cloning law will have to deal with.

1)Can one raise the clone of a deceased child? There is nothing unnatural about this, based upon the genetic and familial relationship between parent and child.

2)Can one raise the clone of one's deceased parent as one's child? There is something unnatural about this, and it should be prohibited.

3)Can one raise the clone of one's deceased spouse as one's child?  Similarly, there is something unnatural about this, and it should be prohibited.

4)Can one raise the clone of one's sibling as one's child? There would be nothing unnatural about this, and it would be allowed under most circumstances.

5)Can one marry the clone of anyone that one has a familial relationship with, but to whom one is not genetically related. In general, one would be permitted to marry the clone of anyone that is not related to one genetically. In this respect, cloning law would basically be an extension of current incest laws.

6)A and D are first cousins. Would clones A1 and D1 be permitted to marry. No, they are closely genetically related.

7)A and B are biologically half brother and half sister. Clones A1 and B1 would be prohibited from marriage on grounds of genetic relatedness, as would clones A2 and B2, etc.

8)A and B are brother and sister, but are not genetically related. Clones A1 and B1 would not be prohibited from marriage on grounds of past familial relationship.

9)Protos J and A marry and beget Z. J, A and Z are all cloned. Clones J1 and A1 marry. Would they be permitted to adopt Z1? Yes. This is merely the duplication of a natural relationship.

10)If A marries B and begets  C, and if clone A2 marries B2 and begets child D, would C and D be permitted to marry? Because C and D are closely related genetically, they would be prohibited from marriage. Again, biological relatedness has priority in the determination of acceptable conjugal relationships.

11)If A and B marry, could they raise either one of their own clones (A1 or B1) as children? You decide this case. Send your answer, along with a clear statement of the principle involved to ava@cloninglaw.com

12) Is one's permit to be cloned transferable? Effectively, one's permit to be cloned is one's personal property, and would be generally subject to the rules governing personal property. That is, the cloning permit or license could be sold or otherwise transferred.  Such transfers would nonetheless be subject to the approval of the agency which has jurisdiction over all matters related to cloning, i.e. the ECC. The cloning permit would still be provisional, revocable, and subject to renewal at the end of the normal lifespan of the proto.

The decision of whether or not a human being should be allowed to clone themselves or whether third parties would be allowed to clone them rests with the person to be cloned, or with the proto, or candidate. Obviously, where third parties are concerned, no one can be cloned without their consent, except in rare instances in which the candidate is unable to give their consent. In such cases, the state can make a determination for them. The general rule to be applied is that a person's DNA is their property. Thus, we arrive at the rule that no one can be cloned without their consent, provided that they are able to give their consent. But suppose a parent wants to clone a child who, as a result of an accident or illness, is comatose, permanently paralyzed, or terminally ill. Even more problematically, suppose that a parent has lost a child due to an accident or illness and desires to clone this child. Obviously, as the legal guardian of the proto, the parent should have the right to make this determination.

Admittedly, the above scenarios only begin to address the situations that will eventually arise as a result of human cloning. But, from these scenarios one can start to picture how the legislative environment on cloning will take shape. As a general rule, if a relationship would be unnatural and unlawful for the proto, it would be unlawful for the clones. This is the general principle to be observed. An extensive body of legislation will obviously be required just to deal with the contingencies that are routinely encountered. This legislation will give rise to a new field of law which will appropriately come to be known as "cloning law."

Preventing Predestination
What constitutes predestination? As discussed earlier, cloning individuals with special talents or traits, with the intention that they should distinguish themselves in a similar manner as the proto, constitutes predestination. Even in the absence of this intention, predestination can occur. When it does occur, the cloning permit can be revoked or the class of the cloning permit can be reduced, at the discretion of the local cloning board. Basically, what the law concerning predestination is designed to prevent is cloning people who have distinguished themselves in a rare or exceptional way because they seem to possess some rare talent or ability. It will commonly be the case that many people who become outstanding in a certain field distinguish themselves because of environmental influences, and not because they possess some rare talent or ability. However, there will also be cases where people distinguish themselves precisely because they do have some rare talent or ability. Predestination will become a concern mainly in these cases.

The first ethical issue which predestination raises is the quality of life of the clones themselves. Many clones might not regard predestination as a handicap. They might be more inclined to regard it as a privilege. Even though it would seem to constrain their life chances, most people would not complain about having their life chances limited to outstanding success in a particular field. In any case, the clones themselves would be the best ones to make this determination.

The second and more important ethical issue raised by predestination deals with equity. By cloning people who have rare or exceptional talents that allow them to excel in a particular field, it would tend to place others in this field (who may not have such exceptional talents) at a competitive disadvantage. Alternatively, depending on the level of competitiveness in the field in which the clones were likely to distinguish themselves, this might not be a problem. Others in the field might like the idea of being surrounded by greatness, and they might consider it to be a great privilege to work with, if not compete against, people with such rare capabilities. In any event, the other people in the field should be the ones to make this determination.

A third important ethical issue raised by predestination concerns who might attempt to profit from the cloning of people with rare or exceptional talents. As stated previously, the proto would retain any right to benefit financially from the cloning of the first generation, and the second generation would retain any right to benefit financially from the cloning of the third generation, and so on. Yet, the problem of who might attempt to profit financially from cloning individuals with rare talents or abilities does not end here. The guardians or the sponsors of clones (effectively their parents) with rare talents or abilities would be the ones who would most likely want to capitalize on their children's rare talents or abilities. They would be the ones most likely to want their children to use their rare talents or abilities to distinguish themselves in uncommon ways, for whatever benefits might accrue to them. Properly, the choice of developmental paths should only be made by the clones, and without duress by the parents. A cloning law dealing with predestination would have to make this explicit.

One can also imagine other types of cases in which predestination might become an issue. For instance, if someone wanted to clone themselves with the intention of having their clones continue their life's work, this would obviously tend to greatly constrain the life chances of their clones. This would seem to be one of the more clear-cut cases of predestination. In such cases, the purpose of the law would be to clearly establish that the clone would have the choice of pursuing any kind of work it was capable of performing and was under no obligation to continue the work of the proto.

The whole issue of predestination illustrates that the object of cloning is not to produce people with rare or exceptional talents that would strongly predispose them to follow a narrow developmental path. Rather, the aim of cloning is to produce people with generalizeable abilities that will will enable the clones to follow a wide variety of developmental paths. Rare talents could actually be a constraining factor which could adversely affect, if not drastically limit,  the life chances of clones. Rare geniuses and star athletes are a case in point.

Among people who distinguish themselves in uncommon ways, some will have become outstanding in a particular field without possessing any exceptional abilities or talents. But, when their achievements can be attributed to the possession of rare or exceptional talents or traits, and, in the absence of other more generalizeable talents and traits which would lend themselves to achievement in other areas, then conceivably, this might constitute grounds for a determination of predestination. If the proto in such cases was not denied a permit to be cloned altogether, there would certainly be sufficient cause to assign the proto to the lowest level (class1). In this way, the number of clones that the proto would be allowed would be greatly limited, so as to have minimal impact on the competitive chances of others. This should adequately lay to rest any egalitarian concerns, or any concerns that cloning would only favor people with rare of exceptional abilities. To have its optimal eugenic effects, cloning would not favor ether rare mediocrity or rare excellence. Rather, it would be designed to favor people who rank generally average to above average on all valued dimensions.

Addressing the issue of predestination must be an important part of any comprehensive legislation designed to regulate the practice of cloning. The main issues to be confronted by this legislation would be the quality of life  of the clones themselves; the unfair competitive advantage of clones who have rare or exceptional talents or traits; the profit motive, and the restriction of the clones' life chances more generally. In order to allay concerns over predestination, as candidates for cloning, people with more generalizeable talents would tend to be favored over those with more narrow or exceptional talents.

At the same time that predestination is prohibited, clones should have the right to develop rare and exceptional talents if they happen to have them. But, ideally, the vast majority of clones will be derived from (and the candidate selection process will favor) protos which have varied, or simply "average" abilities. Average abilities are generally sufficient to allow people to distinguish themselves in a wide variety of vocations, given the proper motivation. In other terms, average abilities are often more flexible and translatable than rare talents.

One of the principal aims of cloning is to ensure that clones are able to enjoy a high quality of life and that clones are self-determining and are not under any compulsion to follow some narrow developmental course simply because their proto was able to distinguish himself/herself in an uncommon way, or because they are presumed to possess certain rare talents which are only conducive to achievement in one area. More commonly people possess talents or abilities that will allow them to be successful in many areas, and their success is a function of environmental influences. Some of the same qualities which make successful athletes also make successful doctors and engineers. Hence, in many cases, it will be difficult to make a case for predestination, especially if all of one's clones pursue diverse developmental paths. Conversely if all of one's clones were to become athletes or actors, this might raise the issue of predestination. This might be cause for subjecting  the cloning permit to reevaluation, either for the purpose of revocation or, more likely, for the purpose of a downgrade. For instance, for someone who has been issue a class 3 permit, if a finding of predestination was made, it might result in a downgrade to a class 1 or a class 2 permit, depending on the extent of the predestination that became evident. But just because people distinguish themselves in a rare or exceptional way should not automatically prevent them from being cloned, despite some risk of predestination.

Quotas
In the context of cloning law, a quota is basically a permit that entitles one to be cloned a certain number of times. The intent of quotas is to regulate the absolute numbers of a particular genotype in a society. Different quotas would be assigned to people depending on where they ranked on the primary criteria used to determine eligibility to be cloned. For instance, a person who ranks very high on all the valued dimensions might receive a Class 1 permit, or quota. This particular quota would entitle a person to be cloned the maximum number of 9 times in one generation, or a period of about 33 years. As a general rule, the higher one ranks on the valued dimensions, the greater one's entitlement or quota. The exceptions to this rule would involve the issue of predestination. That is, if someone's natural attributes were exceptionally narrow and constituted a predisposition to excel in only one area this might constitute predestination. If the cloning board reached the determination that the risk of predestination was extreme and irremediable, the candidate might be denied the permit altogether, notwithstanding that the candidate ranks exceptionally high on one of the valued dimensions.  As a general rule the predestination issue will not be so clear cut, and even the person whose clones are at risk of predestination would be entitled to be cloned at the lowest level (a Class 3 permit).

The basic rule in establishing quota is this: The number of clones allowed by a quota should be manageable and its impact on the composition of the gene pool should be limited.  In cases where a determination has been made that the clones of a particular proto are clearly an asset to the community, the quotas for such clones could be gradually increased to the maximum limit specified by their quota.. Basically, the limit for any individual should be placed well below the number that will not tend to skew the composition of the species. For preliminary purposes, a good maximum number might be 9 cubed. Substantially more than this number might have the effect of skewing the genetic composition of local populations unless the clones were geographically separated. And, as a condition for class 3 permits, the ECC might specify this requirement.

The right to be cloned which is established by the quota that one is assigned would be diluted by, or spread out over, three generations generations. For instance, if proto A received a Class 1 quota, he would only be allowed 3 clones. The remainder of his cloning entitlement would be conferred upon his clones and his clones clones. In other words, the remainder of his entitlement to be cloned would be spread out over two more generations, each separated by a period of not less than 33 years. This generational separation assumes a maximum lifespan of around 100 years. Once the human lifespan has been extended to 150 or beyond, then the generational provision in the quota will need to be adjusted accordingly. Thus, under normal circumstances, the right to be cloned will extend over a period of three generations. And, the total number of clones in three generations cannot exceed the quota.

Initially, and pending determination of their viability, classes one, two and three would be licensed only 3, 6 and 9 clones respectively. The second generation for classes 1,2, and 3 would be licensed 9, 26 and 81 clones respectively. The third generation for classes 1,2, and 3 would be licensed 27, 216, and 729 clones respectively. The second and third generation permits under the quota would be contingent upon the demonstrated viability and social worth of the clones. The permit for each generation would be contingent on the good standing of the generation before it. At the end of the third generation, the original cloning permit would expire and, assuming that the genotype is in good standing, it could be renewed under conditions of the original permit. However, members of every third generation of clones would forfeit their right to be cloned the number of times allowed by their classification. Beneficiaries of a renewed quota would be chosen by lottery in which members of the third generation were eligible to participate. For instance, if a class 1 permit was renewed for genotype xyz, assuming that there are 27 surviving members of the third generation of xyz, all 27 members would be eligible to participate in the lottery. Those who won the lottery would become the custodians of the xyz genome.
 

COPYRIGHT 2005 BY ALEX VAN ALLEN. A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN SYNTHESIS PARTY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED