Scientific hazards of human reproductive ‘cloning˚s

Background: Extant surveys of people’s attitudes toward human reproductive cloning focus on moral judgments alone, not emotional reactions or sentiments. This is especially important given that some (esp. Leon Kass) have argued against such cloning on the grounds that it engenders widespread negative emotions, like disgust, that provide a moral guide. Objective: To provide some data on emotional reactions to human cloning, with a focus on repugnance, given its prominence in the literature. Methods: This brief mixed-method study measures the self-reported attitudes and emotions (positive or negative) toward cloning from a sample of participants in the United States. Results: Most participants condemned cloning as immoral and said it should be illegal. The most commonly reported positive sentiment was by far interest/curiosity. Negative emotions were much more varied, but anxiety was the most common. Only about a third of participants selected disgust or repugnance as something they felt and an even smaller portion had this emotion come to mind prior to seeing a list of options. Conclusions: Participants felt primarily interested and anxious about human reproductive cloning. They did not primarily feel disgust or repugnance. This provides initial empirical evidence that such a reaction is not appropriately widespread.

Download Full-text

Human Reproductive Cloning

Principles of Health Care Ethics ◽

10.1002/9780470510544.ch102 ◽

2007 ◽

pp. 759-765

Author(s):

D. Gareth Jones ◽

Kerry A. Galvin

Keyword(s):

Reproductive Cloning ◽

Human Reproductive

Download Full-text

Religion, Morality, and Public Policy

Public Bioethics ◽

10.1093/med/9780199798483.003.0006 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 101-126

Author(s):

James F. Childress

Keyword(s):

Embryonic Stem ◽

Historical Case Study ◽

Human Beings ◽

Historical Case ◽

Reproductive Cloning ◽

Religious Convictions ◽

Advisory Commission ◽

Human Reproductive ◽

Robert Audi

This chapter explores how religious convictions have functioned in the debate about whether human reproductive cloning should be banned, regulated, or permitted—a debate that erupted in 1997 following the belated announcement of “Dolly’s” birth. This historical case study examines and assesses the arguments that arose at the time, particularly in the context of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) report Cloning Human Beings. The NBAC hearings included testimony on religious views on human reproductive cloning, and its report examined and assessed those views. The chapter also considers NBAC’s deliberations about federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research that further illuminates the place of religious convictions in public bioethics. It concludes that in public bioethics the process of reaching a decision—or, in NBAC’s case, a recommendation—should attend to the widest possible range of positions and rationales, but that the outcome in substance and in public justification needs to involve, as Robert Audi argues, a sufficient or adequate secular reason.

Download Full-text